Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 352

 1                           Monday, 3 November 2008

 2                           [Appeals Hearing]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The appellant entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 8.33 a.m.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Good morning, everybody.  Madam Registrar, may I

 7     ask you to call the case.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning

 9     everyone in and around are the courtroom.  This is case number

10     IT-00-39-A, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  May I ask Mr. Krajisnik if he can

12     hear me and follow the proceedings through the translation.

13             THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Judge, I can follow in my

14     language, and I can hear well.  Thank you.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.

16             Let me now call for appearances.  For Mr. Krajisnik's counsel on

17     the matter of JCE, please.

18             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

19             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Nathan Dershowitz, JCE counsel.

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  For the Prosecution.

21             MR. KREMER:  Peter Kremer, Mr. President and members of the

22     Court, appearing for the Prosecution.  Assisting me this morning are

23     Mr. Matteo Costi and Ms. Katharina Margetts and our case manager,

24     Alma Imamovic-Ivanov is also assisting.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Now for the amicus curiae.

Page 353

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

 2             MR. NICHOLLS:  Colin Nicholls acting as -- sorry.  Colin Nicholls

 3     acting as amicus.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.

 5             Now, this is an evidentiary hearing on appeal in the case of the

 6     Prosecutor against Krajisnik.  Today we will hear the testimony of

 7     Mr. George Mano and Mr. Stefan Karganovic who were summoned by the Appeal

 8     Chamber on October 2008 under Rules 98 and 107 of the Rules.

 9             Let me briefly summarise the evidence, which have ben admitted in

10     this appeal and it will detail the order in which we hear the witnesses'

11     testimonies today.

12             First, in its decision of 20 August 2008, the Appeals Chamber

13     admitted into evidence under Rule 115 statements by Mr. Mano and

14     Mr. Karganovic, both presented by the Defence.  Mr. Mano's statement is

15     Exhibit AD1 and that of Mr. Karganovic is Exhibit AD2.

16             In its decision of 8 October 2008, the Appeals Chamber admitted

17     seven document presented by the Prosecution as rebuttal evidence to these

18     statements its exhibits AP1 to AP7.

19             I would like to remind the parties that Exhibits AD1 and AD2 as

20     well as the rebuttal evidence are under seal.  Therefore if the parties

21     or amicus curiae wish to refer to these documents they should request

22     private session.

23             This morning we will first hear Witness George Mano.  He appears

24     as a witness of the Appeals Chamber.  The main examination will therefore

25     be conducted by the Bench.  Mr. Krajisnik will then have the opportunity

Page 354

 1     of questioning Mr. Mano for 45 minutes, after which the Prosecution and

 2     amicus curiae may pose questions to the witness for 45 minutes each.

 3             We will then break and after lunch the Bench will examine Witness

 4     Karganovic who is also a Chamber witness, and we will follow the same --

 5     the same schedule as for the testimony of Mr. Mano.

 6             We will rise, of course, for the usual breaks every one and a

 7     half hours during the morning and the afternoon, and as usual the time

 8     allotted to the parties is approximate and may with leave of the Chamber

 9     be varied where necessary.

10             That said, I wish to remind the parties that they are not oblige

11     to use ought time allocated, and as always, Judges may interrupt them at

12     any time to ask questions to the witnesses.

13             So having said that about the manner in which we will proceed

14     today, I would now like to call Witness George Mano.

15             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, may I address the Chamber for

16     one second with respect to the schedule?

17             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

18             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I had assumed on the basis of the orders of

19     the Court and the time schedule now that the amicus would be inquiring of

20     the witnesses on ineffective assistance of counsel and therefore would

21     include within their area of inquiry questions relating to JCE.  I was

22     advised last night and again this morning that amicus is probably not

23     going to cover that area because of a lack of clarity as to whether that

24     is within the ambit of their area of responsibility.

25             So under those circumstances, if they choose not to inquire into

Page 355

 1     the JCE area, I with like with the permission of Mr. Nicholls to be able

 2     to take ten minutes of the allocated time that they have to make some

 3     inquiries, if it's not covered by the Chamber before, with respect to

 4     ineffective assistance of counsel solely as it relates to the JCE issue.

 5     And of course if necessary I can request from Mr. Krajisnik that I take

 6     ten of his minutes instead of Mr. Nicholls' ten minutes.  Thank you.

 7                           [Appeals Chamber confers]

 8                           [The witness entered court]

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, I consulted my colleagues and this could be

10     appropriate.  You certainly can do that taking from the time either of

11     the -- of Mr. Krajisnik also or of the amicus.

12             MR. NICHOLLS:  Your Honours, may I make my position clear as

13     amicus?  I do not intend to cross-examine either of the witnesses for

14     reasons which I've already placed before the Chamber, and there is one

15     additional reason in the case of the witness Mr. Karganovic.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  I take note of that.

17                           WITNESS:  GEORGE MANO

18             JUDGE POCAR:  Now, good morning, Mr. Mano.

19             THE WITNESS:  Good morning.

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Can you hear me?

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  Could you please read the solemn declaration given

23     to you by the usher.

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

25     whole truth, and nothing but the truth


Page 356

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you, Mr. Mano.  You may now be seated.

 2             THE WITNESS:  Your Honours, may I refer to notes if I'm not sure

 3     about a date or a fact?

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Of course you may.

 5                           Questioned by the Appeals Chamber:

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Could you please tell the Court your full name and

 7     date of birth first?

 8        A.   George Mano, July 24, 1961.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  What is your address?

10        A.   The street address or city?

11             JUDGE POCAR:  Both.

12        A.   Okay.  I live at 202 Honmachi in Himeji Japan.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Could you now tell us what education

14     you have and give us a brief list of your previous and present

15     occupation.

16        A.   I teach English at a university in Japan.  I've been living in

17     Japan for 13 years.  For the past ten years, I've been teaching at the

18     university where I am currently employed.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Mr. Mano, the Court has asked you to

20     testify in the appeals proceeding in the case of the Prosecutor against

21     Momcilo Krajisnik.  As it is the Court itself that has requested your

22     attendance, you will first be asked questions by the Judges.  As I am the

23     Presiding Judge, I will begin the questioning myself, following questions

24     by the other Judges.  You may then be asked questions by Mr. Krajisnik,

25     the Prosecution, and the amicus curiae.

Page 357

 1             Specifically, we will be asking you questions as to what you know

 2     about the workings of Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team during trial and the

 3     conduct of former counsel Nicholas Stewart in relation thereto.

 4             Now, first, Mr. Mano, did you work for Mr. Krajisnik's Defence

 5     team during his trial?

 6        A.   Yes.  I was a volunteer intern in the summer of 2004.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  How long did you work in the Defence team?

 8        A.   Approximately three months.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  And that is from, to?

10        A.   I started on July 5th, and my last day was September 24th.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  Apart from this, have you had or do

12     you have any other working relationship with Mr. Krajisnik?

13        A.   I guess last year or maybe earlier this year Mr. Krajisnik, when

14     he took over his own defence, named me as one of his team for his appeal;

15     but I was not paid a salary.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  What were your duties within the Defence team?

17        A.   Are you referring to --

18             JUDGE POCAR:  During the trial.

19        A.   2004?

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

21        A.   Well, I had various duties.  I read documents that had been given

22     to the Defence from the Prosecution relating to facts that the

23     Prosecution and the Defence were asked to agree upon.  I prepared

24     cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses.  I wrote historical

25     background of the war for the Defence, and I also prepared a list or a

Page 358

 1     packet of information about expert witnesses for the Defence.

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  Why did you leave the Defence team?  Sorry.  I

 3     didn't have the microphone.  Why did you leave the Defence team?

 4        A.   Well, I had a full-time job in Japan.  I only agreed to work for

 5     three months.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  During the work -- your work with the

 7     Defence team, what was your professional relation to Defence counsel,

 8     Mr. Stewart?

 9        A.   Well, I was a volunteer, an intern, an unpaid clerk, if you will,

10     for the Defence team.  So he was my boss.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  And for how long did you interact with Mr. Stewart

12     in this capacity?

13        A.   For the entire time I was here.  From July 5th until September

14     24th.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  Now, moving to another question.  Have you worked

16     or are you currently working on other cases before this Tribunal or any

17     other international criminal tribunal?

18        A.   I assisted one other case briefly when I was here in the summer

19     of 2004.  And when I say briefly, one day.  I was asked by another

20     Defence team if I would help them review their final brief for the Court.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  Can you tell us which was the case?

22        A.   I don't remember the name of the case, but the lead attorney was

23     Michael Karnavas.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  I will now move to asking you

25     something about the exhibit unless there are other questions that my

Page 359

 1     colleagues want to put before I do that.

 2             We have to go into private session.  Thank you.  Because the

 3     exhibit is under seal.

 4             [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of  Chamber] 

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  So first since we are dealing with Exhibit AD1, can

 7     the witness be presented with the exhibit.

 8             So, Mr. Mano, this document is a letter of -- dated September 23,

 9     2004, addressed by you to Mr. Van de Vliet of the Tribunal's office of

10     legal aid and detention.  Could you please take a moment to familiarise

11     yourself with the document.  Can you confirm that you wrote this letter?

12        A.   Yes.  This looks like the letter I wrote.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  Does the letter represent the truth to the best of

14     your knowledge?

15        A.   Yes, to the best of my knowledge.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Mano, I would like to turn your attention

17     specifically to page 3 of the letter stating that there is convincing

18     evidence that Mr. Stewart should not be left to handle this case.

19             Am I correct to understand from your letter that you reach this

20     conclusion based on Mr. Stewart's statement before the Trial Chamber that

21     he did not know whether or not Mr. Krajisnik was innocent?

22        A.   Yeah.  Probably I should have said that this statement, along

23     with everything else, should be convincing to anyone that he should not

24     be left to handle this case.  But I did feel at the time that that

25     statement was completely out of line and would not be the statement made

Page 360

 1     by a competent attorney.

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, could you explain the circumstances under

 3     which Mr. Stewart made this statement?

 4        A.   Okay.  I believe I -- okay.  I did write that this was made

 5     during an oral argument.  I'm not really sure if it was during an oral

 6     argument.  It may have been during cross-examination of a witness.  I

 7     can't recall at the time, but he was talking to the Court, and I don't

 8     remember the exact circumstances, but this statement by Mr. Stewart came

 9     out.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Let me take another point of the letter.  At the

11     bottom of page 1, continuing on page 2 of your letter, you claim that

12     Mr. Stewart wanted to agree with the Prosecution to facts which in your

13     view are detrimental to Mr. Krajisnik's Defence.  You give one example

14     concerning what you call a Serbian gang leader.  Were there are other

15     examples of Mr. Stewart agreeing to facts that detrimental to

16     Mr. Krajisnik's Defence.

17        A.   Yeah.  Probably I should give you a little more information about

18     that.  It was the second day I was here at the Tribunal when I was given

19     a list of these statements of facts to review before Mr. Stewart and one

20     or two other members of the team met with the Prosecution team to discuss

21     these facts and to agree upon some of them or all of them; and we went to

22     that meeting that day - I believe it was in the afternoon - and it was

23     clear to me that Mr. Stewart was agreeing to a lot of things that could

24     not be confirm or should not be confirmed that were highly detrimental to

25     Mr. Krajisnik's defence.  So the next morning I sent an e-mail to

Page 361

 1     Mr. Stewart to meet with him because I wanted to tell him I was a little

 2     bit concerned about this and maybe he should spend a little more time or

 3     be a little bit more careful about the facts that he was agreeing to.

 4             So I met with him.  I believe it was late that morning on the --

 5     that would have been the 8th of July, and he basically told me that I

 6     didn't understand how the court worked and that it didn't matter what

 7     facts he agreed to because it wouldn't harm the case.  And that didn't

 8     seem a very convincing argument to me, but I was no position to do or say

 9     anything about it; but I thought he will certainly never invite me again

10     to one of these meetings.

11             However, later that day they had another meeting, and apparently

12     he didn't feel that the Defence team had enough members, so he grabbed me

13     from the Defence room and said could I join them.  So we went into the

14     meeting with the Prosecutors, and I believe there were three at that

15     meeting.  That would have been Mr. Harmon, Mr. Tieger, and Mr. Gaynor,

16     and there was one fact in there that really bothered me.  It said that

17     this man, this Serbian gang member -- or gang leader, excuse me, was a

18     member of the SDS.  So I asked Mr. Harmon how did you know he was a

19     member of the SDS.  Did you discover his SDS party membership card?  Did

20     he announce publicly that he was a member of the SDS, and Mr. Harmon

21     said, No but he worked hand in glove with members of the SDS.  And I

22     said, Well that isn't what it says here it says he's a member of the SDS.

23     And Mr. Harmon said, Okay I'll remove it and Mr. Stewart said, No, no.

24     Let's leave it in.  This was after Mr. Harmon say he would remove him.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  May I turn to another point.  On page

Page 362

 1     1 you state that Mr. Stewart admitted in court that at the time he took

 2     on the position of lead counsel he only had "an intelligent person's

 3     knowledge of the facts of the case."

 4        A.   Yeah.  I think he said an educated, layman's knowledge, isn't

 5     that what the said?  Or I'm sorry I misquoted it here.  I think what he

 6     said is, "I had an average educated layman's knowledge," something like

 7     that.  You can find that statement in his oral argument on July 16th.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  You then say that Mr. Stewart

 9     subsequently, that again I'm quoting your letter "added very little to

10     that storehouse of knowledge."

11             Apart from the examples mentioned in your letter, do you have any

12     other examples supporting this assertion?

13        A.   Well, it was -- besides those particular facts because there were

14     many other of these factual agreements between the Prosecution.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  Besides on these particular facts.

16        A.   You want a specific example?

17             JUDGE POCAR:  On the knowledge you have more facts supporting an

18     assertion that he add very little to that storehouse of knowledge.

19        A.   Okay.  Off the top of my head I don't think I can give you a

20     specific example, yeah.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  Okay.  On page 2 of your letter, I'm turning to

22     another issue, I think it's the last paragraph, yes, you say that

23     Mr. Stewart treated Mr. Krajisnik as his enemy.  On what basis did you

24     reach such a conclusion?

25        A.   Some of his comments to me privately.  He -- as I said, he made

Page 363

 1     that statement to me when we were riding in the car one day, that he said

 2     that in England they -- barristers say that the client is the enemy, and

 3     there were many occasions -- or I shouldn't say many.  There were several

 4     occasions where he said to me -- or where he complained about

 5     Mr. Krajisnik privately.  That was the basis of my statement.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  On page 2 of your letter you state again that

 7     Mr. Stewart took, and I quote "little personal interest in the outcome of

 8     the case."  And you exemplify this by stating that he spent time abroad

 9     for personal reasons instead of preparing for the case.  Can you

10     elaborate on this?

11        A.   Yeah.  I found it very ironic that on July 14th he filed a motion

12     for adjournment, and then there was oral argument on July 16th for

13     adjournment.  He was asking for three months to prepare for the case, and

14     then soon after the judgement came in that his motion was denied he went

15     on a vacation to Croatia for nine days, and he frequently was -- was

16     gone, you know, for one- or two-day periods during the time that I was

17     there.  He also made a trip to Spain in September, from September 18th he

18     was gone for ten days.  If he really was so short on time why was he

19     taking these personal vacations.  And then everything else was handled in

20     kind of haphazard disorganised way.  It didn't seem like there was a lot

21     of thought going into how he could best serve this defendant, and I -- I

22     don't know if that answers your question.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Mano, can you tell us if you ever raised the

24     issues you are raising in your letter directly with Mr. Stewart or with

25     the Trial Chamber before sending the letter?

Page 364

 1        A.   It was very tough to talk to Mr. Stewart.  As I mentioned in my

 2     letter, he had a very condescending tone with people that he thought were

 3     inferior to him.  To raise this kind of issue with him would have been

 4     very difficult.  There may have been one or two times where I gave

 5     suggestions where I thought his defence was going in the wrong direction,

 6     and he immediately dismissed them.  And as I mentioned in my letter, that

 7     everyone working around him after a while just gave up trying to give him

 8     advice because he wouldn't accept any outside advice from anyone.  Unless

 9     he came up with the idea on his own, he wasn't going to implement it.

10             And I should also meant that I believe Chrissa Loukas was having

11     some problems, and I know that she asked to be removed from the case

12     shortly after I left.  So I think she had some problems also.  Problems

13     with Mr. Stewart, I mean.

14             JUDGE POCAR:  You believe that or -- or did Ms. Loukas confide to

15     you what she thought of Mr. Stewart in the case?

16        A.   She expressed frustration on at least one or two occasions, and

17     there was one incident that I probably wasn't supposed to be privy to.  I

18     went into -- came into the Tribunal on the weekend to use the internet to

19     check my e-mail because I didn't have internet access in my apartment,

20     and in the fax machine was a letter, a private letter to Ms. Loukas that

21     said that she was asking the -- some legal body in Australia for -- to be

22     promoted as lead counsel for the Krajisnik case.  I believe that was the

23     content of it, but you'd have to ask her about that.  I think I'm the

24     only person outside of Ms. Loukas who knows about that.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Let me ask you, do you want to state anything else

Page 365

 1     regarding the issues raised in the letter?  Which I have not raised, I

 2     mean, with you today.

 3        A.   Just that I should also mention -- it wasn't mentioned in this

 4     letter, but it was mentioned in a later letter to Mr. Van de Vliet that

 5     the Defence was really disorganised.  There seemed to be no plan as to

 6     how the Defence was going to proceed.  Everything was a brush fire that

 7     had to be put out immediately.  So I -- that was another one of my

 8     concerns was the disorganisation.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Judge Meron, you want to put a question, please.

10             JUDGE MERON:  Mr. Mano, you mentioned several absences from the

11     trial --

12             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

13             JUDGE MERON:  I'm terribly sorry.  Mr. Mano, you mentioned

14     several absences of Mr. Stewart from the trial.  During those periods

15     what was happening?  Did Ms. Loukas proceed with the trial?  Was the

16     trial suspended or ...

17        A.   In the month of August, for example, there were no courtroom

18     debts -- courtroom dates set, so it was time that we could use for

19     research.  When Nicholas Stewart left most of us just continue doing the

20     research we were doing before he left.

21             JUDGE MERON:  So the trial was not continuing during his

22     absences.

23        A.   There were no trial dates during those absences; that's correct.

24             JUDGE MERON:  Thank you.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Mano, may I ask you whether you ever discussed

Page 366

 1     the contents of your letter with Mr. Karganovic or any other member of

 2     the Defence team?

 3        A.   This letter?

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

 5        A.   Yes, I have discussed it with Mr. Karganovic.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  When, before sending the letter?

 7        A.   No, no.  Not before sending it.  He was not a member of the team

 8     at that time.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  When did you discuss it with Mr. Karganovic?

10        A.   It might have been a year or so later.  I am not sure when he

11     took over the job of case manager for Mr. Krajisnik, but it was sometime

12     after that.  I don't know exactly.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  Are you aware that Mr. Karganovic wrote a statement

14     on 16 October 2007 containing certain allegations against Mr. Stewart?

15        A.   I didn't know the date.  I know that he was -- that he had in

16     mind the intent to write a letter.  I have never seen the letter.  I

17     don't know the contents of it.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  And you said he discussed with Mr. Karganovic the

19     content of your letter.  When you discussed that was before 16 October

20     2007 or after that date.

21        A.   It was probably before, and I believe he told me at the time that

22     he had seen my letter in a file when he took over the job as case

23     manager; but again I'm not sure about that.  You'd have to ask him that

24     question.  The first time I talked to him about it was much later anyway.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  What do you mean much later?

Page 367

 1        A.   Much later than I sent it to Mr. Van de Vliet and before the date

 2     you mentioned October 2007.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  So before the date.

 4        A.   Right sometime in between those two dates.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  So you discussed before Mr. Karganovic sent his

 6     letter on 16 October 2007.

 7        A.   That's right.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, I have no other questions at the moment

 9     unless my colleagues have questions.  Judge Shahabuddeen.

10             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Mr. Mano, when you discussed the contents of

11     your letter with Mr. Karganovic, did he at that time have any

12     professional connection with the case?

13        A.   Yeah.  He was the case manager at that time.

14             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Oh, he was.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Judge Vaz.

16             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.  Good

17     morning, Mr. Mano.

18        A.   Good morning.

19             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] I'd like to go back in time a bit.

20     Could you please be more specific in relation to something that has to do

21     with Ms. Loukas.  You said that one day you came to the Tribunal at --

22     and that you saw a letter for Ms. Loukas where she was asking to be

23     promoted to the lead counsel not Krajisnik case.  Is that what you said?

24        A.   I said a fax, yeah.  It was a fax letter.  That's correct.

25             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] And how come you were able to see

Page 368

 1     this fax?

 2        A.   It was sitting in the fax machine.

 3             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.  And you

 4     didn't speak to Ms. Loukas?

 5        A.   About the letter?

 6             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Yes.

 7        A.   No, I did not.

 8             JUDGE VAZ: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  This concludes the examination from the

10     Bench.  I will now turn to Mr. Krajisnik.  If he wants to question

11     Mr. Mano, he is allowed to do that.  Please, Mr. Krajisnik.

12                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krajisnik:

13        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Mano.

14        A.   Good morning.

15        Q.   In your letter, which was sent to the representative of OLAD, you

16     present a number of criticism in relation to the work of my attorney.  I

17     will present them briefly even though His Honour Judge Pocar has already

18     mentioned them in a way.

19             You said that Mr. Stewart was not familiar with the historical --

20     historic background the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  My question

21     to you is what is your speciality?  What is your occupation, actually?

22        A.   I teach at a university in Japan.  My main job is to teach

23     English to Japanese students at the university.  However, the first four

24     years I was there I also taught a course on modern Eastern Europe.  I

25     have a Masters Degree in history, specialising in the Balkans.

Page 369

 1        Q.   That means, if I can put it that way, that you are -- that you

 2     have an educational background in history and you are familiar with the

 3     events in the Balkans between 1980 and 1995 -- 1990 and 1995.

 4        A.   I'm somewhat familiar with them.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  In your letter you said that Mr. Stewart did not want

 6     to accept any advice relating to his insufficiently of his knowledge of

 7     the historic background in Balkans.  Did you try to suggest to him that

 8     you were somebody who knew more about those issues than he did?

 9        A.   I never said any such thing, but I did correct him on occasion,

10     and as I said, it wasn't only about the historical background of the

11     Balkans that Mr. Stewart did not want to hear about.  It was any subject.

12     He would not take advice or criticism from anyone that he deemed was

13     inferior to him.

14        Q.   In your letter, as far as I could understand, you say that he had

15     a condescending attitude towards his associates who would try to give him

16     advice.  Is that the feeling you had also whether it came to his attitude

17     toward you?

18        A.   Yes, it was.

19        Q.   You also said that he really wasn't very interested in the

20     Krajisnik case.  Is that true?

21        A.   That was my impression.

22        Q.   Now let me ask you this:  You said here that you know that he had

23     frequent or almost daily contact with the Prosecution.  Did he also have

24     contact with the Trial Chamber or officers of the Trial Chamber?  Do you

25     know whether he had meetings with them or had written communication with

Page 370

 1     them?

 2        A.   Well, first of all, I don't know if I said he had frequent or

 3     almost daily contact with the Prosecution.  Concerning the statements of

 4     facts, he did meet with them for several days, and I was aware that he

 5     was receiving e-mail from the Prosecution during that time period.

 6             As far as the Trial Chamber goes, I -- I couldn't say.  I don't

 7     know.

 8        Q.   Do you know whether he wrote to the Trial Chamber in relation to

 9     any problem he may have encountered during his defence work?

10        A.   You mean outside of the normal legal documents relating to

11     motions and objections and that kind of thing?

12        Q.   Well, let me be specific.  Did he write to the Trial Chamber in

13     order to warn them or to express concern about not having proper

14     conditions for work and that he needed adjournment for those reasons?

15        A.   Well, he filed a motion for adjournment on July 14th, and he

16     argued orally on July 16th for an adjournment.  In that oral argument, he

17     made a number of statements which everyone, of course, can read.  It's a

18     matter of public record.  That he needed more time, that his staff was

19     overworked, and he was overworked and so on.  As I said, it's a matter of

20     public record.  Everyone can see that.

21        Q.   All right.  With the permission of the Appeals Chamber and

22     everybody else, I would like to ask you to take a look at the documents

23     which have been prepared for you.  I would like to compare some of these

24     parts of the documents with your statement.  Therefore, would you

25     please --

Page 371

 1             MR. KREMER:  I was handed a package of documents this morning.

 2     I'm not sure if the Chamber has.  Perhaps it not be handed out yet.

 3             I gather from the preliminary remarks Mr. Krajisnik has just made

 4     relating to the question that he is about to introduce through Mr. -- or

 5     attempt to introduce through Mr. Mano documents of which he knows

 6     nothing.  His testimony already confirms that.  And as far as I know, the

 7     documents all are subsequent to Mr. Mano's employment with the Tribunal

 8     and employment with the Defence team.  So I'm just putting the Chamber on

 9     notice.

10             The Chamber has these documents by way of a supplementary 115

11     application by Mr. Krajisnik and has not yet ruled on them, and it

12     relates to the testimony potentially of Mr. Stewart and Ms. Loukas and

13     Alexander Zahar.  I would object to any questions relating to these

14     documents because the witness has no knowledge of them.

15             Thank you.

16                           [Appeals Chamber confers]

17             MR. NICHOLLS:  May I just intervene as amicus for a moment?

18     These --

19             JUDGE POCAR:  Micro.

20             MR. NICHOLLS:  I'm sorry.  I didn't press it clearly enough.

21     These documents obviously are of considerable importance.  The question

22     is of course in what way can they be introduced into evidence.  The only

23     issue that does occur to me that may be of relevance is that the

24     documents themselves may contain matters of historic value on which the

25     witness may be able to express a view or which the witness may be able to

Page 372

 1     confirm.  I merely say that because at some stage the Chamber may wish to

 2     consider whether these documents should be introduce into evidence and in

 3     particular who should introduce them.

 4             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, may I also address that question

 5     for one moment?  It would appear to me that if Mr. Stewart's own writings

 6     confirm the testimony of the witness, the witness should be able to

 7     review those documents and say, The writings of Mr. Stewart, the attitude

 8     reflected in those documents, the statements that he made are all

 9     consistent with my prior observations as reflected in my letter; and that

10     of course would be extremely important to the Tribunal.  If the Tribunal

11     sees that a witness in 2004 indicated concerns with Mr. Stewart's

12     attitude toward the case and subsequent documents written by Mr. Stewart

13     confirm that, whether this witness is the appropriate person or not, it

14     is clearly of extreme value to the Tribunal in deciding the question of

15     ineffective assistance of counsel.

16             Thank you.

17             MR. KREMER:  If I could -- Mr. President, with your permission.

18     I don't disagree with what my colleagues opposite have just said.  The

19     statements to the extent that they're relevant to the time-frame that

20     this witness was with the Tribunal can certainly be put.  My objection is

21     in relation to tendering these documents as exhibits and for Your Honours

22     giving them full weight without the proper person who prepared the

23     document being present to introduce it.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, on some of these documents there is a motion

25     pending on admissibility on which the Chamber has not pronounced yet.  I

Page 373

 1     believe these documents should not be brought today into evidence, and --

 2     but of course nothing prevents Mr. Krajisnik of putting questions to the

 3     witness without, without, documents being shown to the witness himself.

 4             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] I thank you very much, Your

 5     Honours.  I would now need to reduce the amount of my questions.

 6        Q.   Let me ask you had this, Mr. Mano:  When you came to Mr. Stewart,

 7     did you know Krajisnik at that time?

 8        A.   I'm not sure what you mean by the question.  Did I know who you

 9     were, or did I know you personally?

10        Q.   Did you know me personally?  Had you met me by that time?

11        A.   I've never met you.

12        Q.   Did you have any contacts with me during the trial while you were

13     a member of Defence team?

14        A.   No.  As a matter of fact, I asked Nicholas Stewart if I could go

15     to meet you during one of his regular meetings with you in the

16     penitentiary, and I always -- he always came up with some excuse why I

17     couldn't go.  I thought about going alone, but I was told I could not go

18     without permission of the lead counsel.  So I have never met you until

19     today.

20        Q.   Does that mean that before sending this letter you had no

21     contacts with me in order to consult me about the letter or in order to

22     receive a consent from me for sending the letter?

23        A.   That's correct.  My goal in sending the letter, as I stated, was

24     to inform you, Mr. Krajisnik, about a situation that I thought you might

25     not be aware of but that you needed to know about.

Page 374

 1        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now, if I understood this correctly, these

 2     exhibits will not be -- these documents will not be admitted into

 3     evidence; but it was my understanding that I could refer to certain

 4     quotations so that Mr. Mano can confirm whether what is in these

 5     documents corresponds with his statement.  May I ask for clarification

 6     from the Chamber?  Have I understood this correctly?

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Krajisnik, you can put -- state facts or

 8     statements to the witness and ask the witness if they correspond to

 9     his -- to his knowledge or not.

10             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge.

11        Q.   Now I would like to ask you, because you have some documents in

12     front of you, to find among these documents Exhibit number 3.

13             Since I do not speak the English language, I would like to ask

14     Mr. Mano to help me and the Trial Chamber.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Krajisnik, you can't refer to the documents as

16     such.  The witness does not have the documents.  So you may only refer to

17     statements or dispose facts and ask the witness to confirm or not confirm

18     what you are saying, but you are not allowed to refer to specific

19     documents.  You can't ask the witness to -- to look at an exhibit,

20     because the witness does not have the exhibit.

21             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.

22        Q.   There is an indication that the Trial Chamber at the time thought

23     that Mr. Stewart was arrogant, unpleasant, and that in a way acted to the

24     detriment of Krajisnik's defence.  Does this correspond to the

25     observation you made in your statement?

Page 375

 1        A.   I don't know if it corresponds to my statement, but I would

 2     certainly agree with it.

 3        Q.   Thank you very much.  Also, there is an indication that the Trial

 4     Chamber at a meeting -- or, rather, a representative of the Trial Chamber

 5     objected to Mr. Stewart to the effect that he uses adjournments in the

 6     trial to take care of his private problems, as it were, and also to deal

 7     with some cases in London.  Is this indication in a way identical to what

 8     it was that you observed when you were with Mr. Stewart?

 9        A.   He certainly had some private problems that he would sometimes

10     take time off for.  As far -- and he did go to London.  At least I know

11     of one situation on July 21st.  He went to London which -- and I believe

12     that was for taking care of business there.  So certainly that did

13     happen.

14        Q.   Thank you very much.  If I put it to you that it is indicated in

15     a particular document that the Trial Chamber is of the position that

16     Mr. Stewart is not using his time for preparation but that, rather, in

17     fact he is shifting the burden to the shoulders of his co-counsel, which

18     is one the reasons why this co-counsel left the trial and the Defence

19     team.

20             Is that your impression?  Is that the impression you gain at the

21     time when you were involved in the trial and in contact with Ms. Loukas?

22        A.   Yeah.  I don't know exactly Chrissa Loukas wanted to leave.  She

23     never told me her exact reasons.  But it wouldn't surprise me if that was

24     one of the reasons why she left.

25        Q.   Let me ask you something.  If I put it to you hypothetically that

Page 376

 1     in the contacts between Mr. Stewart and the representatives of the Trial

 2     Chamber he received an answer that he noted down in his own notes that

 3     the Trial Chamber, but not only the Trial Chamber but also the Registry

 4     was unsatisfied with his work because they said that he was not a

 5     successful manager and that he didn't know how to organise the work of

 6     the Defence.

 7        A.   I would -- I would believe that completely.

 8        Q.   At the time when you were on the Defence team, did you see that

 9     Mr. Stewart had a plan as how to conduct the Krajisnik defence?

10        A.   I saw no such plan.

11        Q.   But can you give your own judgement on the basis of the

12     experience you have that Mr. Stewart, as he was taking certain steps like

13     the example that you refer to, accepting facts that were not facts, that

14     that was a strategic decision or a different kind of decision?  If it's a

15     different kind of decision, could you please explain what would be the

16     consequence of that kind of decision of his?

17        A.   I thought his defence was chaotic.  I don't think he had a well

18     thought out plan.  As I said earlier he seemed to rush from one brush

19     fire to another.  There were one or two occasions where we would get an

20     e-mail and he'd say -- or sometimes an e-mail, sometimes a phone call

21     where he would say, "I need research on this topic right away.  I have to

22     do something tomorrow on it."  That didn't sound like he had thought

23     about this until that moment.

24        Q.   In your letter you say that he did have respect for -- I beg your

25     pardon for this comparison, that he had respect for big fish but not for

Page 377

 1     small fry.  He considered some members of the Prosecution team not to be

 2     his equals.  Does that show what Mr. Stewart's attitude was vis-a-vis the

 3     other side?

 4        A.   Yes.  I gave an example of that in my letter.  I certainly

 5     thought Mr. Harmon and Mr. Tieger were his equals, but he didn't think

 6     that about Mr. Gaynor and probably some of the other people on the

 7     Prosecution team.  And I gave the example of one occasion where

 8     Mr. Gaynor took over the Prosecution's case that day, and Mr. Stewart

 9     left this room that we're in -- well, it might not have been this room

10     but one of these rooms and left the trial to Ms. Loukas that day; and he

11     said to me outside that he wasn't going to stay there because there were

12     only minnows was the word he used.  I believe that he said that there

13     were only minnows in the room, something like that.

14        Q.   You said that you worked on preparing witness statements.  How

15     did you carry out this work?  If my understanding of your work is

16     correct, what is exactly the kind of work you did for Mr. Stewart in this

17     respect?

18        A.   The witnesses were deposed before they were brought to court to

19     testify, and we were given copies of their depositions, and if it was my

20     duty for that particular witness to examine the deposition and look for

21     contradictions or statements that were obviously false, I would read --

22     well, I would read through the deposition and make little notes, and then

23     I would type up my type findings and hand those to Ms. Loukas.

24        Q.   You are talking about Prosecution witnesses, if I understand you

25     correctly?

Page 378

 1        A.   That's correct.  At the time the Prosecution was presenting its

 2     case.

 3        Q.   As for experts, you referred to experts, in contact with

 4     Mr. Stewart did you get any response as to whether he would call any

 5     expert witnesses?  If so, who and how many experts, and also for what

 6     facts he wanted to call expert witnesses?

 7        A.   Well, one of my -- one of the other members of the team,

 8     Brett Taxin made a list of expert witnesses from other cases that had

 9     already taken place in the Tribunal; and I was preparing a document that

10     included some of those witnesses but additional witnesses that I thought

11     we might call.  I prepared a booklet that included the names of these

12     potential witnesses and the content of their potential testimony as well

13     as copies of any publications I could find on the internet, and I handed

14     this entire package to Chrissa Loukas, as far as I know.  Well, as far as

15     I know.  I don't know if Mr. Stewart even looked at it.  I don't know

16     what he did with it.  The only thing I receive from him regarding expert

17     witnesses what is an e-mail.  I can look up the date.  If I can take a

18     moment to find it I can tell you what date that was.  Would that be all

19     right?

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Sure.

21             MR. KREMER:  Just while the witness is looking at the documents,

22     in the jurisdiction where I practised law if the witness comes to court

23     with the documents that the parties haven't seen the parties are entitled

24     to see those documents, and if I ask during the break if the witness

25     would allow me to review his notes.

Page 379

 1             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  If I may.  In the jurisdiction where I

 2     practice, it is a question as to whether the witness uses the

 3     information, not whether he --

 4             MR. KREMER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Mr. Dershowitz.

 5             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Yes.  I think the document he looks at to

 6     refresh his recollection should be made available, but I don't think the

 7     other materials that he happens to carry into court should be turned over

 8     simply for that reason, that he carried it into court.  Thank you.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Of course we agree.  We are referring to the

10     documents that he makes use of, I believe.

11             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I'm saying only the ones he makes use of.

12     Mr. Kremer says anything he brought into court.  That's the distinction,

13     I think, we're making.

14             JUDGE POCAR:  I would believe that the documents that are

15     actually used and consulted should be -- should be disclosed to the

16     parties, but other documents, of course, that remain in the -- in the

17     briefcase or suitcase of the witness remain there and -- and will not

18     have to be disclose.

19             Well, could you refresh your memory on that date?

20             THE WITNESS:  Yes I received an e-mail message on Sunday, July

21     18th, in reference to expert testimony because I had asked to take the

22     day -- or to not come to the Tribunal the following day, which was

23     Monday, because I wanted to go to the library at this University of

24     Leiden.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Mr. Krajisnik, you can continue with

Page 380

 1     your questions.

 2             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

 3        Q.   You prepared some documentation on the basis of which Mr. Stewart

 4     was supposed to decide which experts to call.  My question is the

 5     following:  In your assessment, was it hard for Mr. Stewart to select

 6     experts and to call them?  Was there a technical problem involved?

 7        A.   Actually, I can't answer that question, but I can tell you what

 8     he said in this e-mail if that's permissible.  Should I read what he said

 9     about expert testimony?

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes, you may.

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  He said:

12             "We have to approach it as follows:  One, prioritise our needs

13     for experts in particular areas.  Two, identify suitable experts in the

14     priority areas.  And three, prepare a rigorous and compelling case for

15     funding from the Registry."

16             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   Thank you very much.  Your answer is just fine.  Now I would like

18     to put a few more questions only.

19             Did Mr. Stewart tell you that he had a plan as to exactly what

20     type of expert he would like to call?

21        A.   No, he did not.

22        Q.   Next question:  Did you ever talk to Mr. Stewart and caution him

23     to the effect that it was very important for him to be aware of the

24     historical background of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25        A.   I mentioned that at least on at least one occasion, yes.

Page 381

 1        Q.   In your view was he prepared or, rather, did he have a

 2     satisfactory knowledge of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, especially

 3     the war that is the subject of this trial?

 4        A.   No, he did not, and that's one of the reasons I spent several

 5     weeks putting together a document which was a short summary of the

 6     background information, the historical background for the conflict.

 7        Q.   If I understand you correctly, your actual line of work is that

 8     of an historian.

 9        A.   That's one of my lines of work, yes.

10        Q.   In your view, although perhaps this is not a proper question, are

11     you qualified to give suggestions to him in or to help him learn about

12     what he didn't know concerning the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

13        A.   I don't have a document which says that I'm an expert, by think

14     that I have sufficient knowledge to inform someone about the background

15     of the conflict, yes.

16        Q.   And may I state, if I understood you correctly, that Mr. Stewart

17     did not accept your proposals or the proposals of other associates when

18     these questions were being discussed?

19        A.   When any question was being discussed.  He didn't like to have

20     advice from subordinates.

21        Q.   Specifically in terms of historical context, could you just give

22     an answer to that question?  As far as the historical background is

23     concerned, he was not prepared to take any advice from anyone?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   As far as I can see on the basis of your CV, you are a lawyer as

Page 382

 1     well.

 2        A.   I have a JD, but I'm not a member of the bar.

 3        Q.   But you have a degree in law; right?  That is your education?

 4        A.   That is correct.

 5        Q.   Do you consider yourself to be qualified to assess the quality of

 6     the work of a lawyer in proceedings such as mine?

 7        A.   It would depend, but in this case I think you would not need to

 8     have a JD to see that Mr. Stewart was not managing the defence very

 9     effectively.

10        Q.   I would like to go back to this question nevertheless.  As a

11     person who has a degree in law, you could assess the strategy of the

12     defence.  Do you think that you were meritorious in terms of assessing

13     the strategy that he had or didn't have?  If he did have one it was a

14     poor one, as you said.  And then there is this other statement that

15     indicates that there was some strain and -- well, could you as a lawyer

16     assess that?

17        A.   I would -- my assessment would be based on my short experience

18     working for a law firm in the United States, and the way that law firm

19     was run was a lot different than the way Mr. Stewart was running the

20     defence for -- for you, Mr. Krajisnik.

21        Q.   Does this now correspond to a particular indication that we have

22     in some documents that we are not going to tender today but that we did

23     provide to the Appeals Chamber in which we see that the representative of

24     the Trial Chamber concludes that Mr. Stewart was not a good organiser,

25     was not a good manager of the case?

Page 383

 1        A.   He was disorganised, and he wasted time.

 2        Q.   All right.  Now let me ask you whether Mr. Stewart ever raised a

 3     question pertaining to joint criminal enterprise with the Defence team.

 4        A.   One of the -- one of my colleagues, I believe it was

 5     Thomas Derrington, I'd have to check my notes, prepared a document about

 6     it at my suggestion, because when I arrived I asked if there was a memo

 7     stating the general background of the laws that were relevant to this

 8     case; and he said there was no such memo, and then he began to prepare

 9     one.  Besides that document, I didn't see anything about joint criminal

10     enterprise; and I don't think I ever heard it mention by Mr. Stewart.

11        Q.   Finally, Mr. Mano, I would just like to put a question to you.

12     Could you explain to the Trial Chamber in a bit more detail what your

13     motive was to write a letter concerning a man you did not know, to write

14     about irregular conduct of a man who worked with you or, rather, who you

15     volunteered to work with?  And what was the reason for you to insist with

16     the Registry to have that letter presented to me as well, because at

17     first the Registry did not send that letter to me and did not make me

18     aware of it; you did not send that letter to me.  You sent it to the

19     Registry, and it was supposed to reach me through the Registry.  I would

20     just like you to describe this for me.  What was your reason?  Was it a

21     personal reason perhaps?  Did it have to do with the credibility of your

22     testimony?

23        A.   Well, that's a number of questions.  I'll try to answer all of

24     them.

25             First of all, I have no personal grudge against Mr. Stewart, and

Page 384

 1     that was not a motivation.  I have no strong feelings about him in any

 2     kind of way.  My motivation was to merely right what I thought was a

 3     terrible injustice going on.  I realised that although some of my

 4     colleagues had expressed their doubts about the quality of defence to me

 5     privately, that no one was going to do anything about it publicly.  This

 6     was partly due to the fact that a lot of them depended on letters of

 7     recommendation from Mr. Stewart for their future careers.

 8             Since I do not work in law and I basically have a secure job at a

 9     university, I didn't need a letter of recommendation from Mr. Stewart.  I

10     thought I was in a position to do something, and that if I didn't do

11     something about it, if I didn't at least make the Registry and the

12     Tribunal aware of what was going on; and you specifically, if I didn't

13     let you know specifically what was going on with your defence, that I

14     would be allowing a terrible injustice to continue.  It's kind of like if

15     you know a building is going to burn down you should do something about

16     it.  You should call the fire department.  You should not just let it

17     burn.  And that's how I felt.

18             So I -- before I left, I contacted Mr. Van de Vliet, made an

19     appointment with him, and I typed up the letter that you see and I handed

20     it to him because I wasn't sure how long I would have to talk to him.  I

21     thought I better put something down on paper to get it on the record.

22     And in my discussion I said, "My main goal in giving this to you is for

23     you to have it translated and put in the hands of Mr. Krajisnik," and he

24     gave me his assurance that that would happen.  He say, "I give you my

25     word."  And as we know he broke his word, because he didn't put it in

Page 385

 1     your hands.  The first thing he did was hand it over to Mr. Stewart.

 2     Mr. Stewart, I don't know what he told him because I've never seen

 3     Mr. Stewart's reply, and I -- I don't know if I can ask the Tribunal to

 4     provide that to me, but I would -- I'd be interested to see what his

 5     reply was.  But in any case, he did not translate it and hand it to you.

 6     He said he was not going to do that.  So I had to find another means of

 7     getting that letter into your hands, and I asked the translator from

 8     another case to translate it for me and to fax it to you, and that's how

 9     it finally got into your hands several weeks later.

10             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, it's 10.00.  Judge Guney, you have a question

12     to put, please.

13             JUDGE GUNEY: [Interpretation] I have a question for you,

14     Mr. Mano, a question of general nature.  You have said that you worked

15     with the former counsel Mr. Stewart for three months and that you did so

16     without pay.  You were a volunteer.  Given the practical difficulties

17     that you came across during those three months, what was your main reason

18     for accepting to work as a volunteer, and what was your main reason for

19     continuing with this work?

20             THE WITNESS:  That's a good question, because I think everyone

21     who works here has different motivations.  Some people are probably doing

22     it to advance their careers.  Some people are probably doing it for the

23     money.  In my case, it was neither one of those because my career is

24     entirely unrelated to my work in the Tribunal, and I wasn't paid for it.

25             Obviously from my background in history and from my background in

Page 386

 1     law, I saw this as an opportunity to work in both of those areas and

 2     still keep my job in Japan.  I realised I couldn't give up my job in

 3     Japan and come here permanently, and I don't know if I could even work

 4     here permanently; but I saw the option of coming here for the summer as

 5     an intern as a wonderful chance not only to improve my knowledge of the

 6     events in the Balkans and also get a little bit of law experience in as

 7     well, but also to use my background in law and history to hopefully do

 8     something good.  So that's kind of how I came to this situation or to

 9     this job.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Judge Shahabuddeen, please.

11             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Mr. Mano, may I respectfully congratulate

12     you on your knowledge of history and of law, and may I put to you this

13     principle which I believe is to be found in the law, that is to say that

14     a court is not a historical institute.  Do you know of that proposition?

15             THE WITNESS:  I've never heard that expression before.

16             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Well, perhaps you could do some research on

17     it and find what are the limitations which are promised by that

18     proposition.

19             Now, could I ask you this:  Do I gather that your dissatisfaction

20     with Mr. Stewart is that he appeared to be to you reluctant to accept

21     advice and that he was unpleasant, arrogant, and condescending?  Would

22     that sum up the ground of your dissatisfaction?

23             THE WITNESS:  I think you should add disorganised to that.

24             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Disorganised.  Very well, I will dutifully

25     add that concept.

Page 387

 1             Now, last question.  Is this -- do you have any awareness of

 2     where Mr. Stewart is at this time?

 3             THE WITNESS:  I have no idea.

 4             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, if there are no other questions from the

 6     Bench, I believe it's the right time to break now.  It is now time to

 7     break.  I believe we should go into open session and just break

 8     immediately afterwards.

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  So now we break until 10.30.  We

12     resume the hearing at 10.30.

13                           --- Recess taken at 10.05 a.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 10.34 a.m.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  The hearing is resumed, and I will turn to the

16     Prosecutor to question the witness.

17                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kremer:

18        Q.   Mr. Mano, you commented during -- perhaps we could go to private

19     session immediately, Your Honour?

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.  Let's go to private session then.

21             [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of  Chamber] 

22             MR. KREMER:

23        Q.   Mr. Mano, you commented --

24             THE REGISTRAR:  I apologise, Your Honour.  Your Honours, we're in

25     private session.

Page 388

 1             MR. KREMER:

 2        Q.   Mr. Mano, during the course of your testimony this morning you

 3     mentioned that at some point you had your letter translated into Serbian

 4     and you faxed the letter to Mr. Krajisnik.  Do you have a date on which

 5     you faxed the letter to Mr. Krajisnik?

 6        A.   Yes.  October 19th.

 7        Q.   2004?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   And to your knowledge did he receive that letter personally?

10        A.   I don't know if he received it that day, but I know he did

11     receive it.

12        Q.   All right.  And so you know that Mr. Krajisnik was aware of your

13     concerns relating to the conduct of his -- of Mr. Stewart in particular?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   And I'm just going to bring to your attention the words of

16     Mr. Krajisnik in a hearing on February the 28th, 2005, at page 9603,

17     where Mr. Krajisnik says:

18             "I have to say that whatever both my counsel stated here today I

19     endorse.  I do not have anything to comment, to raise in relation to the

20     services provided by my counsel.  They are very good lawyers."

21             So I suggest to you, sir, that Mr. Krajisnik did not accept your

22     advice about the competence of his lawyers, because not four months later

23     he said they were very good lawyers in court before the Court.  Do you

24     agree with that statement?

25        A.   Are you asking me if I agree that Mr. Accepted my accept my

Page 389

 1     advice?  Is that the question?

 2        Q.   I suggest to you he rejected your advice.

 3        A.   It would appear so that on that day he rejected my advice, but

 4     from what I understand from his daughter, I'm in e-mail contact with

 5     Mr. Krajisnik's daughter, that his attitude was that there was nothing he

 6     could do about it; so we'll just keep going along with it as it is.  It

 7     was kind of an attitude that it was a hopeless situation, so I'll just

 8     continue with it.

 9        Q.   How long have you been in communication with his daughter?

10        A.   I think the first time I contacted her was maybe December of

11     2004.

12        Q.   And you've been in e-mail communication ever since?

13        A.   Yeah.  It's not like I receive a message from her every week.  I

14     get two or three a year from her, let's say.

15        Q.   And do those communications relate to the trial and the appeal of

16     his case?

17        A.   Sometimes.

18        Q.   And is she providing you with information as to what his strategy

19     is in terms of his appeal and was during the course of the trial?

20        A.   No.  She has -- she does not get involved in the details of it.

21        Q.   Now, we know from your evidence that Mr. Krajisnik was aware of

22     the contents of your letter.  Did you send your letter to anyone else at

23     the Tribunal?

24        A.   In the Tribunal?  What time period are you talking about?

25        Q.   Let's say -- let's start in 2004.  We might go past there.

Page 390

 1        A.   Okay.  As I said, I had a translator from another case translate

 2     my letter, so, yeah, there was definitely someone else from the Tribunal.

 3        Q.   All right.  Did you have occasion to send your letter or any

 4     other document to the Trial Chamber?

 5        A.   Yes.  As a matter of fact, I sent a letter to the Judges of the

 6     case.

 7        Q.   When?

 8        A.   November 26th.

 9        Q.   What -- what was in your letter?

10        A.   I believe I sent a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Van de Vliet,

11     his reply, my reply to him, and then a brief letter to the Judges saying

12     that I was very concerned about the situation and that he wanted them to

13     be aware of it.

14        Q.   And did you ever get a response from the Trial Chamber?

15        A.   I got a response saying that the Judges would not review what I

16     sent them because I was not working at the Tribunal, and they were not

17     allowed or permitted to receive information from people outside the

18     Tribunal.

19        Q.   And what provoked you to send a letter to the Trial Chamber

20     Judges about your impressions?

21        A.   It was suggested to me that because of the response I had

22     received from Mr. Van de Vliet that maybe someone else at the Tribunal

23     should know about it, particularly the Judges.

24        Q.   Who suggested that to you?

25        A.   It was another Defence attorney.

Page 391

 1        Q.   Who?

 2        A.   Michael Karnavas.

 3        Q.   Is it fair to say, Mr. Mano, that you have no professional

 4     expertise in order to comment on the management or preparation of a major

 5     criminal defence case?

 6        A.   I would say it's not fair.

 7        Q.   So you say you have experience in dealing with a major criminal

 8     defence case, and you had that experience in 2004?

 9        A.   If you're asking if I have experience actually participating in

10     the preparation of a major criminal case, the answer is no, I do not have

11     that kind of experience.

12        Q.   And you've never practice law; correct?

13        A.   I work for a law firm in America for a short period of time.

14        Q.   How long?

15        A.   Three months?

16        Q.   Intern?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   I will ask the question again you have never practice law in your

19     life, have you?

20        A.   As lawyer, no.

21        Q.   You've never practice criminal law in your life, have you?

22        A.   No.

23        Q.   You've never taken a witness in court, have you?

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   You've never made closing or opening argument in court have you?

Page 392

 1        A.   No, I have not.

 2        Q.   You've never prepared an expert for testimony, have you?

 3        A.   No, I have not.

 4        Q.   So when you joined the Defence team of Mr. Krajisnik on July the

 5     5th, 2006, you had --

 6        A.   No, I joined on July 6th, 2004.

 7        Q.   July 6th 2004.  You had three months of internship at a law firm

 8     in the United States under your belt; correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   And you described during the course of your testimony a number of

11     particular assignments that you had to do during the course of your

12     internship.  Perhaps you could sort of go through them one by one in the

13     order that you remember them.

14        A.   Okay.  Well, the first one, as I said, was the agreement on facts

15     between the Prosecution and the Defence.  There were, I believe, two

16     maybe three sets of facts that I was shown in the first week.  After

17     that, what would be the next thing?  Maybe the next thing was preparation

18     for cross-examination of the witness, and then I believe I started

19     working on the expert witness testimony, and that lasted for probably

20     several weeks, and then maybe there was another cross-examination of a

21     witness I had to prepare for.  I can't remember.  And then I worked on

22     the historical background document for several weeks, and then I believe

23     the last thing I worked on maybe was also preparation of a witness for

24     cross-examination.

25        Q.   So it sounds to me that you were given specific tasks with

Page 393

 1     specific goals; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   And how large was the team while you were on it in the summer of

 4     2004?

 5        A.   Yeah, it varied.

 6             THE INTERPRETER:  Speakers please not overlap.

 7             THE WITNESS:  I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.

 8             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters ask speakers not to overlap but to

 9     make pauses between questions and answers for the sake of interpretation.

10     Thank you.

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Okay.  The team varied because some of the

12     interns came and went.  Some had been there before I was there.  Some --

13     and then left before I left.  Others came sometime before I left and then

14     left after I left.

15             I think when I first came there, besides Nicholas Stewart,

16     Chrissa Loukas and Tatjana Cmeric, the case manager, there was also

17     Andrej Jonovic, and Mika Dixon, and there was the other intern

18     Thomas Derrington.  There was someone named Karen Brackman [phoen] that I

19     didn't know very well.  I think I only met her on one occasion.  So that

20     was the team probably until the end of July.

21        Q.   And to your knowledge was there also investigators working in the

22     region?

23        A.   I believe there was an investigator, yes.

24        Q.   And there were also consultants and advisors that were available

25     to Mr. Stewart and the other -- and Chrissa Loukas?

Page 394

 1        A.   What do you mean by consultants or advisors?

 2        Q.   Mr. Neskovic, for example?

 3        A.   If you look at the oral argument on July 16th, the Prosecution

 4     raised Mr. Neskovic at that time; and Nicholas Stewart said that he

 5     had -- if you -- I don't want to misquote him, but it was something to

 6     the effect that he had very little contact with Mr. Neskovic and that --

 7     because Mr. Neskovic if it's the person I'm thinking of only spoke

 8     Serbia, and Mr. Stewart did not speak Serbian that his contact with him

 9     when it did occur was through a translator and was written down.

10        Q.   But he still was advising the team; correct?

11        A.   Yes, but to a very limit extent, yes.

12        Q.   And did these other interns and other people working on the file

13     have specific tasks like you did?

14        A.   Yeah, of course.

15        Q.   And they were clear tasks to them?

16        A.   Well, in order to do a task I assume it has to be clear.  I don't

17     know how you would do a task that's not clear.

18        Q.   Okay.  Now, your letter is dated the 23rd of September, 2004.

19     When did you prepare the letter?

20        A.   I -- I couldn't tell you exactly, but probably over the course of

21     maybe one or two days before that.

22        Q.   Did you refer to any materials, notes, transcripts, documents in

23     the preparation of your letter?

24        A.   At this point in time I don't remember, but -- yeah, I can't say.

25     I don't know.

Page 395

 1        Q.   Did anyone assist you in the preparation of the letter?

 2        A.   No.

 3        Q.   Did you discuss the contents of the letter before you signed it

 4     and gave it to Mr. Van de Vliet?

 5        A.   Discuss it with whom?

 6        Q.   Anyone.

 7        A.   No.  Not that I'm aware of, no.

 8        Q.   Now, when you wrote your letter the first two words in your

 9     letter are the words, "I believe."

10        A.   Okay.  Just a second.  Can I grab a copy of the letter, because I

11     don't have one in front of me.

12        Q.   Certainly.

13        A.   Thank you.  Okay.  I have a copy now.

14        Q.   I'm just -- you can correct me if I'm wrong.  I'm suggesting to

15     you that this letter is nothing but your layman's opinion as to the

16     quality of Nicholas Stewart's management of the Defence team at the time

17     that you were there for three months in September -- or July through

18     September of 2004.

19        A.   Was that a question?

20        Q.   Yes.  Do you agree with that statement or not?

21        A.   No.

22        Q.   Now, when you in the first big paragraph say "...'average

23     intelligent person's knowledge of the facts,'" I suppose from your

24     testimony this morning that you've realised that that quote suggesting

25     that those are the precise words of Mr. Stewart was inaccurate; is that

Page 396

 1     correct?

 2        A.   Yeah, you just asked me a while ago if I had any notes or

 3     documents with me.  I think I did not have any notes or documents with

 4     me, so I was going by my memory of what he said in the room.  I have

 5     since then reviewed the oral argument of July 16th and this is maybe

 6     slightly off, one or two words off.

 7        Q.   The Chamber can check to see how many words it's off, but why did

 8     you put it in quotes when you hadn't verified that those were his precise

 9     words?

10        A.   Yeah.  I shouldn't it put it in quotes.

11        Q.   But you agree it's inaccurate?

12        A.   Yeah.

13        Q.   All right.

14        A.   It's not an accurate quote.

15        Q.   And you use quotes elsewhere.  At the bottom of the second page.

16     You say about Mr. Stewart, "...stated in court, in front of the Judges,

17     that he 'didn't know whether he,'" and then you have Krajisnik in

18     parentheses "'was innocent or not.'"  Did you look for that quote in the

19     transcript before testifying today?

20        A.   No, I didn't have time.

21        Q.   And I -- I can tell you that I have --

22        A.   Mm-hmm.

23        Q.   -- and I can't find it.

24        A.   Okay.

25        Q.   I suggest to you, sir, that that quote is equally inaccurate.

Page 397

 1        A.   Okay.  Well, I don't know.  I was doing this from memory, so I

 2     have to look for it myself.  If I find it, can I provide you with that

 3     information at a later date?

 4        Q.   You have nothing with you today to show that that quote

 5     attributed to Mr. Stewart in court is accurate, do you?

 6        A.   I have nothing with me today, no.

 7        Q.   And at the time that you prepared this, knowing that you were

 8     going to be handing it to the Registry and attacking Mr. Stewart, you did

 9     not take the time to verify that that quote was accurate, did you?

10        A.   First of all, I was not attacking Mr. Stewart; and secondly, it

11     wasn't a question of taking the time.  I didn't have the time.

12        Q.   And I suggest to you that all of the other quotes that you refer

13     to could be similarly inaccurate; correct?

14        A.   You can suggest that.  I don't know if -- which quotes are you

15     referring to.

16        Q.   The minnows quote for example.  You say:  "I was not going to

17     stay there.  There is nothing but minnows there."  Could you be mistaken

18     about that quote?

19        A.   He did use the word minnows.

20        Q.   But did he use it in the context you presented, sir?

21        A.   He did use it in this context.

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers please make pauses between

23     questions and answers for the sake of interpretation and the record.

24             MR. KREMER:  Thank you.  I'm sorry.

25        Q.   Now, you're suggesting from the minnows quote that Mr. Stewart

Page 398

 1     had a condescending attitude towards Mr. Gaynor and all of the other

 2     junior Prosecutors working on the case; is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  Or at least towards Mr. Gaynor.  I can't speak for all of

 4     the other junior Prosecutors.

 5        Q.   Would it surprise you, sir, that Mr. Stewart was in court with

 6     Mr. Gaynor on several occasions and did the cross-examination of the

 7     witnesses that Mr. Gaynor, in fact, presented?

 8        A.   Why would that surprise me?

 9        Q.   You suggested that it was beneath him to go in court with junior

10     people?

11        A.   He may have had no other option of appearing in court with

12     Mr. Gaynor.

13        Q.   And you say on this particular day he was expressing his

14     condescending attitude by not being in court with Ms. Loukas when

15     Mr. Gaynor was taking a witness?

16        A.   There is no question about that.

17        Q.   I suggest to you, sir, that Mr. Stewart was in court the next

18     four days after Mr. Gaynor took this witness on the 26th of July, 1994 --

19     or 2004, I'm sorry, and that Mr. Stewart was in court the next four days

20     cross-examining -- hearing the evidence and cross-examining a big witness

21     put on by another junior counsel, Stephen Margetts.  Are you suggesting

22     that his time was better spent in court on a witness taken by Mr. Gaynor

23     or Ms. Loukas instead of preparing for a more significant witness?

24        A.   I'm not suggesting anything like that.  I'm just telling you what

25     he said to me when he left the courtroom.

Page 399

 1        Q.   And based on a passing comment which may have been a joke, you've

 2     decided to suggest that he had a condescending attitude towards all

 3     junior Prosecutors.  Is that fair?

 4        A.   I didn't interpret it as a joke.

 5        Q.   Now, you gave your letter to Mr. Van de Vliet.  Did he respond to

 6     you?

 7        A.   When?

 8        Q.   After you gave him the letter.

 9        A.   Well, we had a conversation in his office at that time, yeah.

10        Q.   And did he ever send you something in writing explaining what he

11     had done with your letter, if anything?

12        A.   Yes.  On October 4th I received a fax from him.

13        Q.   All right.  And what did that fax say?

14        A.   Just a second.  Would you like me to read this or would you like

15     a summary of it?  How would you like me to --

16        Q.   Maybe you could just tell us the bottom line.

17        A.   Basically he's saying that after hearing Mr. Stewart's

18     explanation that he thought that I did not have enough time spent with

19     Mr. Stewart to give the kind of evaluation on his performance that I had

20     suggested and that he was not prepared at that time to deliver the letter

21     to Mr. Krajisnik.

22        Q.   Right.  And you felt that it was necessary for you to pass your

23     letter to Mr. Krajisnik.  Is it at that point that you decided to have

24     the letter translated and faxed to Mr. Krajisnik?

25        A.   That's correct, yeah.

Page 400

 1        Q.   Okay.

 2        A.   My goal was never to -- my goal was not just to put the document

 3     in the hands of Mr. Van de Vliet.  My goal was to get the letter into the

 4     hands of Mr. Krajisnik.

 5        Q.   And if that was the goal, why didn't you use the procedure that

 6     you ultimately succeeded in, and that is providing the information to

 7     Mr. Krajisnik in Serbian?

 8        A.   By myself or what are you suggesting?

 9        Q.   You were able to have the letter translated.

10        A.   Yeah, but if I had thought of that at that time I would have done

11     that.

12        Q.   Now, you mentioned that you had booked a meeting with Mr. Van de

13     Vliet and you prepared the letter for the purposes of ensuring that you

14     had something to bring to the meeting; correct?

15        A.   Yeah, because as I said, I didn't know if I was going to be able

16     to have a long conversation with him or not.  So I thought I should have

17     something prepared in writing just in case he said, "I only have a minute

18     with you.  What do you want to say?"  And I could say, "Here's the

19     letter.  Read it and get back to me."

20        Q.   And did you ever before preparing the letter ask Mr. Stewart for

21     a discussion about your views relating to specific problems that had

22     arisen, at least in your mind, during the course of your internship?

23        A.   I think we covered this earlier this morning.  I had raised

24     objections several times, but after, you know, several attempts at making

25     suggestions that were knocked down I, along with my co-workers, just gave

Page 401

 1     up trying to give advice to Mr. Stewart.

 2        Q.   Did you give Mr. Stewart a copy of your letter before you sent it

 3     or gave it to Mr. Van de Vliet?

 4        A.   No, I did not.

 5        Q.   And it's at least implicit from the e-mail from Mr. Van de Vliet

 6     to you that he had shared at least some of the information in your letter

 7     with Mr. Stewart?

 8        A.   That's right.  He showed him the letter, yes.

 9        Q.   All right.  And Mr. Stewart gave his reaction?

10        A.   That's correct.

11        Q.   I'm going to read you from a transcript page from hearing

12     transcript imagine 9599, February 28, 2005, Mr. Stewart talking on the

13     record:

14             "I have personally been subjected to the scurrilous attack from a

15     former member of my team with untruthful allegations about how I spend my

16     time, when there's an adjournment, how much work I do other than this

17     case of which I do practically none, Your Honour."  Let's adjust stop

18     there.  I suggest to you, sir, that this is a response by Mr. Stewart to

19     your letter; is that correct?

20        A.   I don't know if it's correct, but it could possibly be, yes.

21        Q.   And in respect of his statement about what he does other than

22     work on the Krajisnik case, he says he does practically none.  Aside from

23     the one example of his going to London for one day, you have no other

24     evidence to provide or facts to provide to suggest that he was working on

25     other cases during the time that you were an intern?

Page 402

 1        A.   He actually stated in the oral argument on the 16th of July,

 2     2004, that he kept a working practice in London and that the Krajisnik

 3     case was not the only thing he was working on.

 4        Q.   Did you understand that he just been put on the case less than a

 5     year before, and he was extricating himself from the practice that he had

 6     when he took over the Krajisnik case and was keeping the Trial Chamber

 7     informed of how he was using his time in that regard?

 8        A.   Actually, he was put on the Krajisnik case more than a year

 9     before, and I was aware that he was trying to extricate himself from his

10     law practice in London, yes.

11        Q.   But getting back to my question, you know of only one example,

12     the trip to London for one day, that was business related?

13        A.   He made another trip to London in September when he went to

14     Spain, he went to Spain on September 8th, and according to the e-mail I

15     have, he was planning on spending the last day in London before returning

16     to The Hague.  I don't know exactly how long he spent in London.

17        Q.   You don't know did in London either, do you, sir?

18        A.   That's right.

19        Q.   Okay.  Now, how was it in September of 2007 that you came to send

20     a fax to Mr. Krajisnik at the penitentiary enclosing your letter?

21        A.   2007?

22        Q.   Yes.  September 13, 2007 you sent him a copy of the -- of your

23     letter.

24        A.   Oh, I was asked -- apparently he had lost my earlier copy, so I

25     was asked to send it again.

Page 403

 1        Q.   By whom?

 2        A.   I think by Mr. Krajisnik himself.

 3        Q.   Did you -- you also mentioned that you'd had some conversation

 4     with Mr. Karganovic?

 5        A.   That's right.

 6        Q.   How many times did you talk to Mr. Karganovic before September

 7     2007 when you sent the letter to Mr. Krajisnik?

 8        A.   I don't know.  Steve and I are friends.  I don't know.

 9        Q.   How long have you been friends?

10        A.   Since I started working at the ICTY.

11        Q.   And did you stay in regular contact with him over the years?

12        A.   Yeah.  We lost contact for a little -- sorry for the

13     interpreters.  We'd lost contact for a while but I've been more or less

14     in contact with him.

15        Q.   When do you recall first discussing with Mr. Karganovic your

16     letter of September 23rd, 2004?

17        A.   It was sometime after he became case manager for Mr. Krajisnik,

18     but I don't think I could pinpoint a date for you.

19        Q.   And what was the nature of his inquiry about the letter?

20        A.   I think he was expressing concern about Mr. Stewart's defence,

21     and I had mentioned my letter in that regard.

22        Q.   And did you help him prepare his letter of October 2007?

23        A.   I did not.

24        Q.   Did he speak to you about his intention to prepare this letter?

25        A.   I think I stated earlier today that I knew he was going to write

Page 404

 1     a letter, but I have never seen it; and I don't know the contents of it.

 2     I don't know anything about it.

 3        Q.   I suggest to you that the accused and the appellant in these

 4     proceedings, Mr. Krajisnik, has a first-hand and probably expert

 5     knowledge of the historical background of the events in

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995?  Do you agree with that statement?

 7        A.   I agree with that.

 8        Q.   And you have no doubt that Mr. Stewart and Mr. Krajisnik were

 9     talking on a regular basis about the case and the preparations of the

10     case?

11        A.   I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the regularity of their

12     meeting, but I assume they did talk about the case.

13        Q.   Right.  And Mr. Stewart had Mr. Krajisnik to rely on for advice

14     as to the historical aspects of the case to the extent that he may not

15     understand them himself, did he not?

16        A.   I guess you're assuming he would listen to his advice.

17        Q.   He had Mr. Krajisnik available to give him advice.  That was my

18     question.

19        A.   Oh, yeah.  He was available for that reason, certainly.

20        Q.   Right.  And he also had Mr. Neskovic available?

21        A.   Yes, he was available.

22        Q.   And before making your criticism of Mr. Stewart and his lack of

23     knowledge of the historical and political matters relating to

24     Mr. Krajisnik's case or the case against Mr. Krajisnik, did you have

25     occasion to review Mr. Stewart's cross-examination of the political

Page 405

 1     insider witnesses like Krajisnik Witness 623 on -- who testified on the

 2     20th through the 23rd of September, 2004?

 3        A.   Who was -- I'm sorry, who was the witness?

 4        Q.   I can't give you the name.

 5        A.   Okay.  I might have actually been involved in reviewing the

 6     depositions of those witnesses.

 7        Q.   All right.  And so you would have been giving advice to

 8     Mr. Stewart on areas for cross-examination; correct?

 9        A.   Generally I would type up my comments and hand them to

10     Ms. Loukas.

11        Q.   All right.  And she would pass them along to the counsel who was

12     going to be doing the cross-examination if it wasn't her?

13        A.   I assume.

14        Q.   Right.  And so she was managing that part of the exercise, the

15     preparation for cross-examination?

16        A.   I don't know if I would use the word managing, but it was our --

17     it was my regular procedure to type up my comments and then hand them to

18     Ms. Stewart -- or Ms. Loukas, excuse me.

19        Q.   Right.  And in terms of other political overview witnesses that

20     testified, Patrick Treanor the expert and his cross-examination in April

21     2004 by Mr. Stewart, did you have occasion to review that before you made

22     your comments?

23        A.   Not before I made my comments, but since then I have.

24        Q.   And why were you doing that, sir?

25        A.   I was interested in the testimony of Mr. Treanor because I had

Page 406

 1     asked Chrissa Loukas -- Chrissa Loukas on one occasion what was the

 2     foundation for allowing all of these witnesses.  Mr. Krajisnik -- there

 3     was no evidence that Mr. Krajisnik had ever committed a crime, that he

 4     order someone to kill someone, for example, or that he was even present

 5     in a lot of the municipalities and locations that the Prosecution was

 6     mentioning.  So I asked just a standard question any American would,

 7     American attorney would ask is what's the foundation for bringing in

 8     these witnesses.  And then I asked was it Mr. Treanor, was it his

 9     testimony, and Ms. Loukas said it was not but she did not tell me what

10     the foundation was.

11        Q.   So notwithstanding that she said it was not, you took a look at

12     his cross-examination by Mr. Stewart, did you?

13        A.   Yeah.  I had already read Mr. Treanor's documents that he gave as

14     an expert witness because I was preparing the expert witness for our

15     client as well.

16        Q.   All right.  And you weren't privy to any of the discussions that

17     took place in the Defence team relating to the calling of expert

18     witnesses during the course of Mr. Krajisnik's case, were you?

19        A.   You mean before or after I was there?

20        Q.   After you left.

21        A.   No, certainly not.

22        Q.   So the only thing you can testify to is that Defence was

23     examining the possibility of expert witnesses on certain areas of the

24     case and that you participated in part of that exercise; correct?

25        A.   That's correct.

Page 407

 1        Q.   Now, you talked about the statement of admitted facts exercise.

 2     It's my understanding that the statement of facts exercise was ongoing

 3     when you join the team on July the 5th, 2004.

 4        A.   That's correct.

 5        Q.   And from your testimony I understand that you -- you were present

 6     at least a couple of meetings where the statement of admitted facts were

 7     discussed?

 8        A.   Two meetings.

 9        Q.   Two meetings.  And you had occasion to review the proposed

10     statement of admitted facts and to comment on the accuracy or otherwise

11     of the statements proposed; correct?

12        A.   That's correct.

13        Q.   And my understanding of the process is that for each fact the

14     Prosecution tendered for Defence review one or more statements of

15     witnesses who would testify as to that fact; is that correct?

16        A.   I wouldn't say that's correct, because sometimes there were

17     general statements without a statement from a -- excuse me.  There were

18     general statements that the Prosecution had written that may have come

19     from several witnesses or from -- or one line of one -- from testimony

20     may have provided several statements from the Prosecution.  It wasn't a

21     one-to one correspondence, if that's what you're asking.

22        Q.   But there may be two or three witnesses testifying as to a fact

23     or one witness testifying to as to several facts?

24        A.   And there may be one sentence that produce three or four

25     different facts.

Page 408

 1        Q.   Which -- each individual fact, and that was broken down so that

 2     each individual fact in the statement could be looked at and either

 3     accept or rejected; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.  And there were also statements that were not attributed

 5     to -- you know, there were additional phrases or sentences along with

 6     those.  Those were the real problems, not the statements from the

 7     witnesses but the additional things that the Prosecutors put in.

 8        Q.   And the Defence could reject any statement; correct?

 9        A.   Certainly, yes.

10        Q.   And in fact, is it not so that sometime after the meeting on July

11     the 9th, over that weekend a determination was made by Nick Stewart and

12     others on the Defence team not to pursue the statement of admitted facts

13     project any longer and require the Prosecution to call of these

14     witnesses, is that not so?

15        A.   I'm glad you raised that because that's an interesting

16     circumstance.  As I said, Mr. Stewart seemed to reject my advice, but on

17     that Friday, the 9th of July, we had one of our rather lengthy meetings

18     at his apartment regarding the case, and the other intern -- one the

19     other interns, Thomas Derrington, who had participated in one of the

20     discussions with the Prosecution regarding the statements of facts said

21     kind of off-hand that the Prosecution seemed very happy about the

22     agreements they made, and that seemed to have a strong effect on

23     Nicholas Stewart more than my objections that the Prosecution was

24     possibly taking advantage of him, that he was -- that they were happy

25     with the results; and I think that's what led him to conclude on Monday

Page 409

 1     that he no longer wanted to participate in the statements of fact

 2     process.

 3        Q.   I'll spare you the Prosecution's perspective, sir.

 4        A.   Okay.  I'd like to hear it some other time though.

 5        Q.   But you do agree that on the morning of the 12th of July, 2004,

 6     Nick Stewart officially informed the Court that all discussions relating

 7     to the admitted facts for the two municipalities that had been used as

 8     the experimental ones had been discontinued and the Prosecution would be

 9     requested to prove all of the facts that it had sought to have proven by

10     way of admitted facts; correct?

11        A.   That's correct.

12        Q.   Thank you.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Kremer, I don't want to press you if you have

14     more questions, but you have been examining the witness for more than 45

15     minutes.

16             MR. KREMER:  I apologise for that.  I am almost finished.  Thank

17     you.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  I wanted to draw your attention to that.

19             MR. KREMER:

20        Q.   Now, you talked about a plan.  I guess nobody shared with you

21     what the Defence plan was.  Is that your complaint?

22        A.   My complaint is that no one -- is not that no one shared it with

23     me but that I wasn't aware of any plan existing, and the other interns

24     had the same -- at least the ones I talked to, had the same feeling.

25        Q.   But one interpretation is that it was never shared with the

Page 410

 1     interns.  Correct?

 2        A.   Yeah.

 3        Q.   And that the plan was clearly in the -- known to Mr. Krajisnik

 4     and his Defence team of Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart?

 5        A.   You'll have to ask them.  I don't know.

 6        Q.   You don't know.  Yes.

 7             MR. KREMER:  Those are my questions.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.

 9             Judge Meron wants to put an additional question.  Please.

10             JUDGE MERON:  Mr. Mano, did you share your views concerning the

11     quality of Mr. Stewart's representation with other members of the Defence

12     team except Mr. Karganovic and, if so, how did they react?

13             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  I certainly shared it with

14     Thomas Derrington, and with Andrej Jonovic and possibly with

15     Chrissa Loukas as well.  I know sometimes Chrissa Loukas was very

16     stressed, so I may have shared it with her as well.

17             JUDGE MERON:  Regarding Ms. Loukas which was my next question,

18     could you try to tell us the most specific discussion you had with her if

19     you can remember on this matter?

20             THE WITNESS:  I can't --

21             JUDGE MERON:  You said today on a number occasions you said that

22     you had the impression that she was aware of that, and she was worried

23     about the quality of the representation.  Could I hear your specific

24     recollection of that?

25             THE WITNESS:  I wish I had one for you, but four years have

Page 411

 1     passed.  If I had written them down at the time probably I could share

 2     them too, but I can't think of any specifically right now.

 3             JUDGE MERON:  Thank you, President.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Well, let me turn now to the Defence of

 5     Mr. Dershowitz.  I understand that the amicus curiae doesn't want to take

 6     the floor, but --

 7             MR. NICHOLLS:  That is correct.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  So, Mr. Dershowitz, you may be

 9     allowed to take some questions, to give some questions.

10             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.  I must

11     admit I find it quite awkward to be in all of these wires, pushing the

12     microphone and at the same time trying to stand up and delivering in this

13     manner, but I will try my best under, for me, unique circumstances.

14                           Cross-examination by Mr. N. Dershowitz:

15        Q.   Mr. Mano, when you first joined the team, did Mr. Stewart ever

16     sit down with you and discuss the strategy or goal of the Defence?

17        A.   No, did he not.

18        Q.   And in your presence was there ever a discussion of the strategy

19     and goal of the Defence by Mr. Stewart?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   And am I correct that you never heard a discussion as to what the

22     Prosecutor's burden was with respect to JCE, nor a discussion of what the

23     Defence should challenge with respect to JCE?  Is that correct?

24        A.   That's correct.

25        Q.   And am I further correct that aside from the one documents --

Page 412

 1             MR. KREMER:  Your Honours, I just -- I'm sorry to interrupt

 2     Mr. Dershowitz.  I'm just wondering about the propriety of the questions

 3     given the fact that Mr. Mano is a friendly witness to the accused.

 4     Basically we now have Mr. Dershowitz giving evidence and the witness

 5     saying yes and no, and I just object to the form of the question.

 6     Perhaps the questions could be formed a little less leading.  Thank you.

 7             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, I believe the witness is a Court

 8     witness and not a Defence witness, and I think that's the criteria that

 9     is --

10             JUDGE POCAR:  But in any event, can you put your questions in a

11     less leading way.

12             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I will try, Your Honour.

13        Q.   You indicated that you had prepared a report on experts.

14        A.   It was more than a report.  It was a folder full of documents.

15        Q.   And did Mr. Stewart request that of you?

16        A.   I believe I suggested it.

17        Q.   Well, is the same thing true with respect to the historic

18     background that you prepared?

19        A.   I suggested that to Chrissa Loukas.

20        Q.   But you never had a discussion -- did you have a discussion with

21     Mr. Stewart before you undertook that work?

22        A.   No.  You mean about whether I should undertake it or not?

23        Q.   Yes.

24        A.   No.

25        Q.   In the country where I practice, it's sometimes said that one

Page 413

 1     person's history is another person's current events.  When you prepared

 2     the document of the history, did that cover the period from 1990 through

 3     1992?

 4        A.   Absolutely.

 5        Q.   And was that the period the indictment?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   So by historic events, you were also including events that were

 8     relevant and material to the indictment; is that correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And I may have asked you this, but to your knowledge the only

11     document that you had seen with respect to the legal requirements with

12     respect to JCE was prepared solely at your request; is that correct?

13        A.   That's correct.

14        Q.   You seem to be suggesting that most of the work, and I'll and

15     we'll get to the question of preparing the cross-examination, but that

16     most of the work that you did, you did as a self-starter, not at the

17     behest of Mr. Stewart or anyone else in the Defence team; is that

18     correct?

19        A.   I don't know if I would say the word "most," but certainly a lot

20     of the work I did was self-started.

21        Q.   Well, aside from preparing cross-examination material, the two

22     other items you worked on most of the time was the -- what you call the

23     historic background, what I call the facts relating to the case, and the

24     preparation of the listing of persons who could be expert witnesses; is

25     that correct?

Page 414

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   And nobody suggested to you an approach to who should be

 3     considered as expert witnesses and how it would fit into the Defence; is

 4     that correct?

 5        A.   That's correct.

 6        Q.   And do you have any personal knowledge as to whether the document

 7     that you call the historic record and whether the document that you

 8     prepared for purposes of listing expert witnesses and whether the

 9     document that was prepared of law with respect to JCE, whether any of

10     those documents were ever thoroughly reviewed by Mr. Stewart?

11        A.   I have no knowledge of that.

12        Q.   And you never received any feedback from Mr. Stewart as to the

13     substance of any of those documents; is that correct?

14        A.   That's correct.

15        Q.   Do you have any knowledge as to whether you or anyone else on the

16     Defence team was ever requested to prepare a historic or a document from

17     a Defence point of view of Mr. Krajisnik's involvement for the period

18     1990 to 1992?

19        A.   It did not come up while I was there.

20        Q.   And with respect to your preparing witnesses for

21     cross-examination, you mentioned that the raw data you use was

22     depositions; is that correct?

23        A.   That's correct.

24        Q.   Who had taken those depositions?

25        A.   They have investigators who took those in most cases, in the

Page 415

 1     cases that I saw.

 2        Q.   And those investigators, were they investigators for the Defence

 3     or were they investigators for the Prosecutor?

 4        A.   They were, I think, either investigators for the Prosecutor or

 5     some kind of Tribunal investigators, perhaps.

 6        Q.   So you know of no raw data that you examined for purposes of

 7     preparing witnesses for cross-examination which reflected materials from

 8     a Defence point of view; is that correct?

 9        A.   That's correct.

10        Q.   And you have no knowledge -- when you did this preparation, as

11     far as you could tell, there was no materials that were provided to you

12     which would indicate that it came from Mr. Krajisnik directly or anyone

13     on behalf of Mr. Krajisnik; is that correct?

14        A.   There was one occasion where, I think, Mr. Krajisnik was asked to

15     provide a list of questions for a witness.  I did not actually see the

16     list of questions, but I know he was asked to provide a list of

17     questions.

18        Q.   But you didn't use that list for the purpose of preparing the

19     materials that you would prepare for cross-examination; is that correct?

20        A.   That's correct.

21        Q.   So if I understand you correctly, the guidelines for your

22     preparing materials for cross-examination was solely to see whether there

23     was any material in the depositions or other items that had been secured

24     by the Prosecutor or the Tribunal which would reflect an inconsistency

25     between that and what the witness was going to testify to?

Page 416

 1        A.   That's correct.

 2        Q.   And no idea and no materials were included which would counter

 3     the witness's testimony from a Defence point of view or a document from a

 4     Defence point of view which would aid the defendant or the Defence in

 5     questioning this witness to show that the whole level of testimony was

 6     inaccurate; is that correct?

 7        A.   Nothing that I didn't bring myself.

 8        Q.   And what you brought yourself was knowledge that you had, not

 9     knowledge that you secured from Mr. Krajisnik --

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Dershowitz, may I ask you to be less leading,

11     because I see you are going back to very much leading when putting

12     questions.

13             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I apologise.  I will try not to.

14        Q.   In response to a question from the Court with, I think -- are we

15     in private session?  You were asked to examine a last sentence-the last

16     full sentence on page 3 which says:  "That statement alone should be

17     convincing evidence to anyone that Mr. Stewart should not be left to

18     handle the case," and in response to an inquiry from the Tribunal you

19     said you should have said "that and everything else."  Could you please

20     explain what you meant by "everything else"?

21        A.   Well, the concerns that I expressed in this letter, his lack of

22     knowledge, his refusal to take advice from anyone, his lack of personal

23     interest in the outcome, the combination of things.

24        Q.   Also when you were asked a question by the Tribunal about that he

25     took little personal interest in the outcome, I think you indicated you

Page 417

 1     didn't have specific things in mind, but you seem to have had some

 2     general impressions in mind.  Can you explain what you had in mind when

 3     you made that statement?

 4        A.   Yeah.  He had said things to me either when I was riding in his

 5     car or when I had time to talk to him alone that suggested to me that it

 6     really wasn't important whether he won or lost -- whether he would win or

 7     lose the case.

 8        Q.   Were there any other comments that he made that fit into that

 9     general category?

10        A.   I'm sure there were.  That wasn't an exact quote.  I don't

11     remember his words exactly.  It was a long time ago.

12        Q.   Well, putting aside his exact words, are you sure of the

13     impression that he conveyed to you and your reaction to his questions?

14        A.   Oh, yeah, absolutely.

15        Q.   You had been asked by Mr. Kremer whether you were aware of a

16     comment made by Mr. Krajisnik -- let me strike that.  You were asked by

17     Mr. Kremer that if Mr. Krajisnik indicated in February of 2005 that he

18     was satisfied with the Defence, that would indicate that he rejected your

19     advice.  If you also understood that Mr. Krajisnik had suggested that he

20     want to be self-represented and that if he was self-represented it would

21     not make things any worse, would that indicate to you that he did

22     recognise what you were saying as having validity?

23        A.   It would seem to indicate that, yes.

24        Q.   You were asked a number of questions with respect to the

25     substance -- the accuracy of your exact quotations, and you indicated

Page 418

 1     they may not have been accurate, but can you tell us in substance whether

 2     each of the items that's contained in that --

 3             MR. KREMER:  I'm sorry to interrupt again, Mr. Dershowitz.  I'm

 4     sorry to interrupt, Mr. Dershowitz.  I rise to object simply because I

 5     don't understand what, if any, connection this has with JCE.

 6     Mr. Dershowitz has a very specific function, and he asked two questions

 7     about JCE and everything else is -- are questions that should have been

 8     asked by Mr. Dershowitz, and he knows this; and I just stand to object on

 9     that basis.

10             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I would love the opportunity to respond on

11     that, Your Honour, and that is the conviction here was solely on the

12     basis of JCE.  To the extent that counsel did not prepare, did not

13     prepare in general, and as I think this witness has indicated certainly

14     did not prepare at all with an understanding that JCE could be the

15     subject of the conviction; and it was the subject of the conviction, the

16     lack of preparation, the lack of doing any work with respect to JCE is,

17     in my view, indispensable to a determination of ineffectiveness of

18     counsel.  Ineffectiveness of counsel is not in the abstract.  It ties

19     into the specific charges and more so to the specific charges for which a

20     defendant was convicted.  So to prepare for A when a defendant is

21     convicted of B is in my mind irrelevant.  You must prepare for what the

22     defendant could be convicted of, and here the evidence seems to suggest

23     no preparation for purposes of JCE.  So it's all relevant with respect to

24     JCE.  And I only have about three more questions.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  All right.  Put the three more questions but try to

Page 419

 1     be more focused.

 2             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:

 3        Q.   Again my question is you were asked whether or not the quotations

 4     you made reference to were specifically accurate and whether the

 5     quotation marks should have been around that, and I ask you whether those

 6     quotations are in substance accurate.

 7        A.   In substance they are accurate.

 8        Q.   And you did it from memory; is that correct?

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   You were asked two other questions by Mr. Kremer.  One is whether

11     Mr. Stewart had access to Mr. Krajisnik for securing factual materials.

12     Do you have any knowledge as to whether Mr. Stewart ever secured factual

13     information from Mr. Krajisnik, except for the one example that you gave

14     where he was asked to provide questions for cross-examination?  Were you

15     aware whether or not in any of the conversations he ever had with

16     Mr. Krajisnik whether he ever asked him facts responsive to allegations

17     that were made by the Prosecutor?

18        A.   I have no personal knowledge of that, no.

19        Q.   The same thing with respect to Mr. Neskovic.

20        A.   Neskovic.

21        Q.   Neskovic, where there was an indication that he was available.

22     Do you have any personal knowledge as to whether Mr. Stewart ever secured

23     information from him and ever use that information?

24        A.   No.  Actually, the -- quite the contrary.  If you look at

25     Mr. Stewart's oral argument from July 16, 2004, when the Prosecution

Page 420

 1     raised Mr. Neskovic's name saying that he had billed the Tribunal for

 2     some incredibly high number of hours, Mr. Stewart said, "I wasn't aware

 3     of that."  And then he went on to say that Mr. Neskovic is in Bosnia,

 4     that he only speaks Serbian, that Mr. Stewart is in The Hague, and he

 5     only speaks English, and that the few times he had contact with him were

 6     via a translator and written material.

 7        Q.   And the final subject is Mr. Kremer asked you questions about the

 8     proposed statement of facts and said that the normal procedure is to have

 9     certain witness -- testimony from witnesses indicating that they would

10     support the statement.  Do you have any idea whether simply because there

11     is an allegation that a witness will testify to something means, one,

12     that that witness is credible; two, that that testimony is admissible,

13     and I can go on.

14        A.   Yeah, that's a good question.  And also as I said, the

15     Prosecution elaborated on what the witnesses said.  So there were a lot

16     of things that were objectionable about the material.

17        Q.   So it wasn't just the substance but also the procedure by which

18     they were going to support it may have been able to have been challenged;

19     is that correct?

20        A.   That's correct.

21             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I have no further questions.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Before we conclude -- well, Judge Meron

23     first, and then I may have a couple of questions myself, but please.

24             JUDGE MERON:  Just one question to Mr. Dershowitz.  We know that

25     the witness worked for three months in the Tribunal as an intern.  Now,

Page 421

 1     it may very well be that the question of joint criminal enterprise was

 2     elaborated after that.

 3             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, Your Honour, please.

 4             JUDGE MERON:  What is in fact the significance that we should

 5     draw from the fact that --

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Your microphone.

 7             JUDGE MERON:  I'm so sorry.  What is the significance of the fact

 8     that Mr. Mano cannot testify to anything he remembers about joint

 9     criminal enterprise studies having being prepared in that span of time.

10             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, the answer I think if you take

11     that coupled with a number of other things, it raises a question.  It

12     certainly doesn't solve the question.  But if you have a period of time

13     where the only one who had prepared materials was a member of the team

14     requested by Mr. Mano, if you add to that a statement that was made by

15     Ms. Loukas at one point in time which said that the priorities of the

16     Defence was not to do certain types of technical legal research, and then

17     depending upon what Mr. -- what the next case manager says, it may simply

18     be sufficient to raise a question as to whether there was ever -- that

19     Mr. Stewart ever engaged in preparing for joint criminal enterprise.  And

20     the only way you'll ever have an answer to that question probably with

21     any degree of definity is whether Mr. Stewart testifies.  When you take

22     those three pieces and put it together there is a strong inference that

23     that work had never been done.

24             Thank you.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Following on this question, Mr. Dershowitz, would

Page 422

 1     you in light of the limited time spent by the witness with the Defence

 2     team and of the fact that he has been assigned specific tasks as he has

 3     stated before, with a limited goal, would you allow for the possibility

 4     that the witness was not given more substantive tasks, was not associated

 5     in the preparation of the defence simply because perhaps the lead counsel

 6     did not trust him enough in light of his lack of expertise, legal

 7     expertise and legal practice, and didn't want to associate him, not

 8     withstanding his wish to be associated?

 9             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, without a doubt that may be the

10     case, but when you allow for two witnesses to testify on the narrow

11     question, you have to control whatever information you can from those two

12     witnesses.  There are other witnesses who I believe may be necessary to

13     get a full picture.  I completely agree you will not get a full picture

14     from these two witnesses, but there are Mr. Stewart, Ms. Loukas, other

15     people, and you know -- but that's not -- that's not within my -- my

16     realm.  I agree with you completely that you can draw certain

17     conclusions, certain limited conclusions, but you cannot draw conclusions

18     as to everything from witnesses who were not there for the full period of

19     time.  But again, I think the reason for the hearing is because there is

20     enough within these documents to suggest some problem, and exploring them

21     increases the fact that there is a problem.  It didn't fully answer the

22     problem, and that's -- that's my view on it.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  Judge Shahabuddeen, please.

24             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Mr. Mano, would you kindly correct my

25     impression in case it's wrong, as well as it may be, that is I gained the

Page 423

 1     impression from your evidence that the briefing notes on historical

 2     matters which you prepared were limited really to a narration of current

 3     events over one or two years, that they did not go into prior matters.

 4     Is that correct?

 5             THE WITNESS:  No, that's not correct.  I provided the background

 6     for the conflict going back to before World War II.

 7             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  How far did that background note extend into

 8     the past?  Would you say ten years or hundreds of years?

 9             THE WITNESS:  No.  As I said, I started with the background that

10     led up to World War II, so that would have encompassed a period of time

11     probably of 60 or 70 years.

12             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Thank you.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  One more question just to -- Mr. Mano, to clarify

14     one issue which perhaps was not clear through the debate we had now.

15             You were saying you were given task of preparing witnesses for

16     cross-examination, but from some of the intervention I got you preparing

17     materials to be used for cross-examination.

18             What exactly was the task you assigned in the preparation for

19     cross-examination?

20             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  As I said, I was usually given depositions

21     or something like depositions, statements by witnesses; and I was asked

22     to review the statements and try to find contradictions or obvious things

23     that could not be correct within those statements, and then I would type

24     out my own observations, and I would hand those to Ms. Loukas.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  Well, this concludes

Page 424

 1     the examination of Witness Mano.  Mr. Mano, you may be excused and

 2     accompanied out of the courtroom.

 3             We go back to public hearing now.

 4                           [Open session]

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

 6                           [The witness withdrew]

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  So before closing this morning's session, may I

 8     raise one issue.  The Appeals Chamber received this morning a request by

 9     Mr. Krajisnik to file, in relation to the hearing on Wednesday, next

10     Wednesday, to file Radovan Karadzic statement pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

11     Of course the Appeals Chamber will have to decide on this, but may I ask

12     the Prosecution if they have any comment on this now.

13             MR. KREMER:  Yes, Mr. President.  We have people meeting,

14     discussing it.  I will meet with them during the recess and hopefully

15     will be in the position to file something today.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  So we defer this to the afternoon in

17     order to enable the Appeals Chamber to make a decision later on.

18             The hearing is now adjourned.  We reconvene at 2.00 for the

19     examination of the Witness Karganovic.  The hearing is adjourn.

20                           --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.49 a.m.

21                           --- On resuming at 2.04 p.m.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  Good afternoon everybody.  We resume our hearing.

23             At the outset let me thank the Prosecution for the response we

24     received on the request of Mr. Krajisnik to -- leave to file a document

25     under Rule 92 ter.  The Appeals Chamber will consider the issue and will

Page 425

 1     give an answer, announce its decision before the end of the afternoon,

 2     before the end of the hearing.

 3             Now we can perhaps proceed -- Mr. Krajisnik?

 4             THE APPELLANT: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your

 5     permission perhaps it would be a good idea before you reach your decision

 6     with respect to the Prosecution's response that in my own name and

 7     Mr. Dershowitz's name he present additional reasons which would be useful

 8     to you in making your decision.

 9                           [Appeals Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, I consulted my colleagues.  Yes, of course

11     this can be done, but I wouldn't like to open a long debate now; and it

12     should be understood it's the expense of the Defence time if they want to

13     add some reasoning.

14             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you, Your Honour.  Just Mr. Krajisnik

15     asked me to explain and to address one paragraph in the response which

16     says that Mr. Krajisnik provides no reason as to why it would be, you

17     know, compatible with the interest of justice.  And the reason he had

18     wanted to have this done by a document is because he is pro se, and he

19     was concerned about his capacity and ability to be able to ask the

20     questions in an area that he thinks is significant as well as it could be

21     done by a document, and he thought that since Mr. Kremer can

22     cross-examine, Mr. Nicholls intends to cross-examine, and I have been

23     given permission to examine, that between those three the Court will have

24     enough of a face-to-face of Mr. Karadzic to be able to make the judgement

25     as to his credibility.

Page 426

 1             I just wanted to explain -- he wanted me to explain that in legal

 2     terms, that's all.  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Any reaction on this just by the

 4     Prosecution just to --

 5             MR. KREMER:  Our concern is the unfairness of the document going

 6     in as a 92 ter statement solely without eliciting what Mr. Krajisnik

 7     thinks are important aspects of the statement.  We're on notice that he

 8     may testify as to all of those points.  Some of them are not very

 9     detailed or elaborate and basically deal with all of the testimony, and

10     for us to be effective in our cross-examination we need to know through

11     the mouth of the witness what he's saying, why he's saying it, and how

12     he's saying it in order to be able to properly challenge both his

13     credibility in terms of making those statements and also the content of

14     them.  So that would be my response.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  Well, the Appeals Chamber will

16     take --

17                           [Appeals Chamber confers]

18             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.  My attention is drawn on the one point made

19     by Mr. Dershowitz when you said a moment ago that you have given

20     permission to examine.  You mean re-examine after the cross-examination.

21             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Yes.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  Correct.  I want to make sure the procedure is

23     clear to everyone.

24             Well, we will take into account -- the Appeals Chamber will take

25     into account the consideration just made by the parties.

Page 427

 1             I don't know whether the amicus wants to say something on this

 2     specific point made by the parties.

 3             MR. NICHOLLS:  No, I have nothing really to add.  The document

 4     obviously has a value from the Chamber's view and indeed from counsel's

 5     view, but it can't be evidence other than -- insofar as it is given from

 6     the witness box.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Sorry, what do you mean by that, Mr. Nicholls?  If

 8     the document is admitted as evidence under 92 ter, it's evidence.

 9             MR. NICHOLLS:  No, I'm not saying that it should be admit as

10     evidence.  I'm saying that it's useful from our point of view in that we

11     have it or counsel have it, but obviously he have must be given from the

12     witness box.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  I'm sorry, Mr. Nicholls, I have to explain the

14     procedure then.  If a statement is admitted under 92 ter of the Rules of

15     Procedure and Evidence, that document is evidence.  Of course, it will be

16     taken into account together with the cross-examination.  It takes

17     place -- it is in lieu of examination-in-chief, but it has the same value

18     of examination-in-chief, and of course we have to consider in light of

19     the cross-examination, the re-examination, but it's part of the evidence.

20             MR. NICHOLLS:  Then in my capacity as amicus, I have no

21     submissions to make.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.

23             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  I just wanted to clarify.  Under 93 ter,

24     there is no indication of interest of justice.  Under 89(F) there is an

25     indication of an interests of justice.  They are two different Rules.  I

Page 428

 1     just wanted to highlight that.

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  We know the Rules, Mr. Dershowitz.

 3             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Better than I do, I'm sure, Your Honour.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  So I believe now we can reserve in the decision on

 5     the request.  We can proceed to examining Witness Karganovic.  Can --

 6             MR. KREMER:  Just before we start, Mr. President, I just have one

 7     question that arises out of our examination and cross-examination of the

 8     witness this morning; and I would raise the question as to whether or not

 9     Mr. Dershowitz, to the extent that he has any JCE questions, should not

10     go after the Bench, and I be given the last opportunity to ask questions

11     of Mr. Karganovic subject to the Chamber asking questions.  I just say

12     from my experience this morning I think the process is entirely unfair to

13     have Mr. Dershowitz asking questions of a friendly witness -- of a

14     witness friendly to Mr. Krajisnik who Mr. Krajisnik who is proposing, who

15     the Chamber has chosen to call to be asked to basically rehabilitate or

16     attempt to rehabilitate the witness through leading questions after

17     cross-examination.  That's my submission.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, I see my colleagues have also this view.

19     Probably it's -- we should proceed this way.  So have Mr. Dershowitz

20     taking the floor before the Prosecutor.  And of course understanding that

21     Mr. Dershowitz will limit himself to JCE issues.

22             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, I have no objection.  I just

23     wanted to make sure that I'm using Mr. Nicholls' time, not --

24             JUDGE POCAR:  That's true.

25             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you.

Page 429

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  So can we have the witness brought in.

 2                           [The witness entered court]

 3                           WITNESS:  STEFAN KARGANOVIC

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Good afternoon --

 5             THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  -- Mr. Karganovic.  Can you please read the solemn

 7     declaration that the usher will show you.

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

 9     whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you, Mr. Karganovic.  You may now be seat.

11             THE WITNESS:  Thank you.

12                           Questioned by the Appeals Chamber:

13             JUDGE POCAR:  So could you please tell the Court your full name

14     and date of birth.

15        A.   Yes, my name is Stefan Karganovic.  I was born on June 16, 1950.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Which is your address?

17        A.   My address in Holland is Usselinexstraat 60, Den Haag.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Could you now tell us what education

19     you have and give us a brief list of your previous occupation and your

20     current occupation.

21        A.   Yes.  My education is I went to the University of Chicago in the

22     United States.  I have a degree in philosophy.  I went to Indiana

23     University Law school and graduated there.  I worked in some legal

24     capacities and also had a private businesses in the 1980s.  I also worked

25     as an interpreter and a translator.

Page 430

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  So, Mr. Karganovic, the Court has ask

 2     you to testify in the appeal proceedings in the case of the Prosecutor

 3     against Krajisnik.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  As it is the Court itself that has requested your

 6     attendance, you will be first asked questions by the Judges.

 7        A.   Thank you.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  And as I am presiding here, I will begin the

 9     questioning myself, following questions by other Judges.  You may then be

10     asked questions by Mr. Krajisnik, the Defence Mr. Dershowitz, and the

11     Prosecution, and the amicus curiae if he wants to do so.

12             Specifically, we will be asking you questions as to what you know

13     about the workings of Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team during the trial and

14     about the conduct of former counsel, Nicholas Stewart, in relation to

15     that trial.

16        A.   Very well, Your Honour.  May I just note that on the screen I do

17     not see anything.  It would perhaps be helpful if I could also follow the

18     questions and the answers there.  Ah, yes.  Okay.  Thank you.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  Before I put you questions, one small thing.  I

20     asked you your address.

21        A.   Yes.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  Do you want the address to remain in the record, or

23     you want to have it redacted.

24        A.   Well, for the time being I suppose that is my official address,

25     although when I go to Belgrade I -- I can live at my aunt's house.  I

Page 431

 1     could give you the address there.  If there is a point to it I would be

 2     happy to do it.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  No, the problem is that since the hearing is public

 4     if you want to have it public or not, the address.  You don't mind.

 5        A.   No.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Okay.  That's fine.  Thank you.

 7             So now I would ask the -- the usher to present the witness with

 8     Exhibit AD2, which is a confidential exhibit; and so before putting

 9     questions that would relate to that exhibit, I will ask the registrar to

10     go into private session.

11             [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of  Chamber] 

12             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're in private session.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.

14             So, Mr. Karganovic, this document, as you see the statement of

15     October 16, 2007.

16        A.   Correct.

17             JUDGE POCAR:  You want a moment to familiarise yourself with the

18     document or you don't need that?

19        A.   Well, since I wrote it, I think I'm familiar.

20             JUDGE POCAR:  You're familiar with it.

21        A.   There's only one correction I would like to make.  In paragraph

22     one, the years should be moved one forward.  There was a typographical

23     mistake, I suppose.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Paragraph one.

25        A.   Yes.  So it's from April of 2005 to May of 2006.

Page 432

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Okay.  I thank you.

 2        A.   Sure.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  So first can you confirm that you wrote this

 4     statement in.

 5        A.   Yes, I can.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  I note that at paragraph three, four lines from the

 7     end, the word "Stewart" has been cross out by hand and replace by Loukas.

 8     Could you enlighten us as to which one of these names is correct, to

 9     replace?

10        A.   Loukas.  I again made a typographical error, and I corrected it

11     by hand, and I initialled the correction.

12             JUDGE POCAR:  So with that change --

13        A.   Yes.

14             JUDGE POCAR:  -- can you confirm that the statement represents

15     the truth to the best of your knowledge?

16        A.   Yes.  The statement in B/C/S certainly does.  As far as the

17     translation is concerned, I can only trust that it is correct.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  That's well enough.  Can you enlighten us now as to

19     whether you submitted the facts and your concerns contained in the

20     statement to the Trial Chamber?

21        A.   I -- to be quite proper, I submitted it to Mr. Krajisnik, and I

22     believe that it was Mr. Krajisnik who then submitted it to the Chamber.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  So if you don't -- so you did not submit it to the

24     Chamber.

25        A.   I did not directly send it to the Chamber, no.

Page 433

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  So can you explain to us why you chose not to

 2     present this -- these facts during the trial?

 3        A.   Well, that is a fair question.  It never occurred to me, to be

 4     quite honest with you, Your Honour.  I suppose when it is all over then

 5     your impressions come together and you form a more coherent picture.

 6     During the trial you're very busy.  You don't have so much time for

 7     thinking.

 8             It just never occurred to me to do that during the trial.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  So you thought of submitting these facts only after

10     the trial had ended.

11        A.   Yes.  Yes.

12             JUDGE POCAR:  And you don't think at any moment before the end of

13     the trial to -- to submit facts of this kind to the Chamber?

14        A.   No.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.  Now, I note that according to your

16     statement, you worked in Mr. Krajisnik's Defence team from April 2005 to

17     May 2006.

18        A.   Yes.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  According to the correction you made to the dates.

20        A.   Yes.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  In paragraph six, however, you state you were going

22     with Mr. Stewart to see Mr. Krajisnik in UN Detention Unit in autumn

23     2005.  Can you explain the dates?  Has that date to be corrected as well

24     or -- was it autumn 2006 or does it remain autumn 2005?

25        A.   That is in which paragraph, Your Honour?

Page 434

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Six.

 2        A.   Six.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  At the end of paragraph six.

 4        A.   I'm a little bit confused.  It should have been 2000 -- now I'm

 5     completely confused.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  Because if you move the dates in paragraph one.

 7        A.   Yes, yes, yes.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  What we do for the same dates for the rest of the

 9     statement.

10        A.   No, I do not think this has to be moved forward.  This is

11     probably -- okay.  If we're talking about the autumn, it should be 2005.

12             JUDGE POCAR:  So this date would stand?

13        A.   I think so.  Yes.  Yes, because I left the team in March or April

14     of 2006, two or three months before the trial was over.  That was in

15     2006.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  You say you left the team now in March or April

17     2006.

18        A.   Yes, yes.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  But in paragraph one it would be until May 2006.

20     Which is the correct date?

21        A.   Let me take another look.  May.  All right.  Probably May.  I'm

22     not entirely certain of the date.  It was before Mr. Krajisnik began to

23     testify.  So it may have been May.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  There are several other paragraphs with dates.

25        A.   Okay.

Page 435

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Can we go through them and try to see whether the

 2     dates are correct or have to be --

 3        A.   Sure.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  -- or have to be considered in light of what you

 5     said in paragraph one.  In paragraph two you speak about April 2004.  It

 6     should be April 2005.

 7        A.   Yes, mm-hmm.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  That's correct.  That should be easy to correct.

 9     What about paragraph five where you're speaking about autumn 2005.

10        A.   I think that's correct.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  That's correct.

12        A.   That's the year when I started working.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  In that same paragraph it says May 2005.

14        A.   In paragraph seven you mean, Your Honour?

15             JUDGE POCAR:  No, paragraph five.  Fifth line.  Third line on

16     page two.  "It is only May 2005 that the --"

17        A.   Mm-hmm.  "It is only May --" I think that is correct, yes.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  That is correct.

19        A.   Mm-hmm.

20             JUDGE POCAR:  The same would apply, I guess, two lines below, to

21     the late autumn 2005.

22        A.   Yes, yes.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  That's correct.

24        A.   Mm-hmm.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Then in paragraph six you have a date summer 2005.

Page 436

 1        A.   Which I again --

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  Again correct.

 3        A.   -- would say is correct.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  Beginning of paragraph seven, first line, you say

 5     May 2005.

 6        A.   Again I think is correct.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  It's correct.

 8        A.   Mm-hmm.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  And I think that's all.

10        A.   Okay.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  That's all.  So at least we have tried to clarify

12     the dates in the document.

13             Now, one issue related to dates again.  Amicus curiae has argued

14     that Ms. Loukas resigned in July 2005.  Do you agree?

15        A.   I certainly would agree that she left the team in July of 2005.

16     I -- I'm not sure when she technically tendered her resignation or when

17     her resignation is dated, but I do know that she remained for a couple of

18     weeks and to break in Mr. Josse who had been appointed to replace her as

19     co-counsel.  So I'm not quite sure during those couple of overlapping

20     weeks that she was still technically still co-counsel or not.  I just

21     didn't see any documents that would confirm that one way or another, but

22     she remain physically until the break that year, which began in late

23     May -- late July 2005.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Indeed the correction in the dates explains some of

25     the contradictions that I noticed in your statement, so I don't have to

Page 437

 1     go to that.

 2             Let me ask you another question now.

 3        A.   Please.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  If you go to paragraph three, you describe the

 5     Defence team's work as an improvisation.

 6        A.   Yes.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Can you exemplify the basis on which you reached

 8     this conclusion.

 9        A.   Yes.  From the time at least that I joined the team, we did not

10     have any clear plan according to which we were working or at that time

11     when I joined reacting to the Prosecution's evidence, and later of course

12     our task became organising our own defence on Mr. Krajisnik's behalf.  So

13     it seemed that we were lurching from one crisis to another, from one

14     emergency to another, and we often had to ask for extensions of time

15     because we did not really have a clear idea of what we wanted to do next,

16     and we were not sure if we were prepared for whatever was coming next.

17             In terms of the Defence case, I think the improvisation element

18     became particularly prominent because there was no clear pattern that I

19     could see in calling witnesses or specific criteria by which we would

20     select Defence witnesses to rebut a specific contention of the

21     Prosecution or to help establish some thesis by the Defence.

22             So there was no consistent, well-thought-out plan underlying what

23     we were doing and that's my definition of an improvisation.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  What were exactly the tasks to which you were

25     assigned within the Defence team.

Page 438

 1        A.   I had a dual task so to speak because I'm a B/C/S speaker.  So a

 2     large portion of my duties had to do with interpretation and translation.

 3     Interpretation, obviously accompanying Mr. Stewart or Ms. Loukas or

 4     Mr. Josse to the Detention Unit to talk to Mr. Krajisnik or talk to him

 5     here, or translation.  There was a lot of material that was generated by

 6     Mr. Krajisnik in B/C/S which needed to be translated into English for the

 7     benefit of his counsel.  There was also quite a bit of documentation that

 8     was coming in from the investigators in the field in Bosnian which needed

 9     to be turned into English for the benefit of counsel.  So that was one

10     significant part of it.

11             Related to that was my presence in the courtroom to serve as

12     liaison between the defendant and counsel.

13             Beyond that I had the task of organising documents as they were

14     needed, bringing them to counsel.  We had an office rented on the

15     premises of the Dutch Bar Association where the bulk of our files were

16     located.  There was also a closet here where some of the most frequently

17     used ones were being kept, but I tried to keep track of where things were

18     and to locate them and bring them to the attention of -- of counsel as

19     needed, assemble dossiers, so to speak, of documents that were pertinent

20     to a particular witness or subject and so on and so forth.

21             Also, I had the task of liaising with potential witnesses in the

22     former Yugoslavia for a while.  Then that job was taken over by another

23     person.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  So it means that you say you were in the position

25     to follow everything that happen within the Defence team?

Page 439

 1        A.   Yes.  Yes.  You could say that, but perhaps "everything" is -- is

 2     a very broad concept.  We had staff meetings generally once a week where

 3     we would all assemble, or most of us would assemble, and we would talk

 4     about pending tasks and things of that nature; but there were some

 5     elements of should I call it confidentiality or of private interaction

 6     between Mr. Stewart and Ms. Loukas while she was on the team, and later

 7     on the same pattern continue with Mr. Josse, which I thought was

 8     perfectly normal.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Let me come to some specific questions.  In

10     paragraph five you speak of disagreements within the Defence team as to

11     which witnesses should be called.

12             Now, between who did these disagreements exist and for what

13     reason?

14        A.   Mm-hmm.  The disagreements existed fundamentally between

15     Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart.  Mr. Krajisnik had practically all times

16     his agenda, which witnesses would be the most suitable at any given time

17     to be called.  Mr. Stewart had his ideas, and harmonising these divergent

18     approaches was not always easy.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  On a related note, in the same paragraph, paragraph

20     five, you say that the Defence called only 20 witnesses as opposed to the

21     200 called by the Prosecution.  Could you explain how, if at all, this

22     relates to the conduct of Mr. Stewart?  Was his decision.

23        A.   Well, the obvious answer to Your Honour's question is that he was

24     lead counsel and in overall in charge of planning and conducting the

25     defence.  So in the final analysis it was choices that he made in that

Page 440

 1     capacity that resulted in so many witnesses being called.  It's a

 2     separate question whether these decisions were wise or unwise, practical

 3     or not; but that's a value judgement, but in his capacity he's the one

 4     who call the shots.

 5             Of course the fact that Mr. Krajisnik testified and took up a

 6     couple of weeks of Defence time also reduced the number of Defence

 7     witnesses who could be called.  So that had an influence over it too.

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  Let me move on to paragraph six.

 9        A.   Okay.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  There you allege that Mr. Stewart admitted that,

11     I'm quoting: "... had no idea about how to mount the defence."  In

12     paragraph nine you say more broadly the Defence team did not have a plan

13     for the defence.  Is it your claim that none of the members of the team,

14     so no the team, not only Mr. Stewart, had a plan for the defence?

15        A.   That is a very good question.  If I can focus on paragraph six

16     first.

17             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

18        A.   Is Your Honour referring to the interlude in the Defence unit --

19     I mean in the Detention Unit?

20             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

21        A.   Okay.  Okay.  Well, there I'm simply quoting what Mr. Stewart

22     said.  It was said in the presence of Mr. Josse.  One may take it for

23     whatever it's worth.

24             As far as paragraph nine is concerned, you're correct.  I put it

25     more broadly there.  I speak of the Defence team.

Page 441

 1             Perhaps in my mind the Defence is identified, personified by

 2     Mr. Stewart only in the sense that he was the person who was making

 3     overall and final decisions, and also in his interactions with

 4     Mr. Krajisnik insisted very adamantly that he had to be ultimately in

 5     charge.  So perhaps I could have been more precise in -- in that

 6     paragraph, but now that I look at this again I would say that I meant

 7     basically the person who was running the show, Mr. Stewart.

 8             That doesn't mean that other members of the Defence team did not

 9     have their own ideas, but number one, they were not nearly as qualified

10     to venture ideas of this nature as an experienced barrister and Queen's

11     counsel as Mr. Stewart.  Of course it would not have hurt, perhaps, for

12     lead counsel to talk to the members of his team and hear some suggestions

13     and ideas; but for one reason or another we never really had any team

14     discussions on strategic issues, what is to be done.  Insofar as we had

15     discussions, it was how to accomplish something that was already decided

16     that needed to be done.  Tactical rather than strategic, if I may put it

17     that way.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  Let know now turn your attention to the issue of

19     expert witnesses that you mentioned in paragraph nine of your statement.

20        A.   Yes.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  You stated Mr. Stewart did not think expert

22     witnesses would clarify the issues of the case.

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Can you tell us specifically why Mr. Krajisnik --

25     if and why Mr. Krajisnik disagreed with Mr. Stewart in this regard?

Page 442

 1        A.   Mm-hmm.  Mr. Krajisnik very strongly disagreed with Mr. Stewart

 2     on this point.  He disagreed in the first place, and I can only try to

 3     convey to you what I heard from him verbally.  Mr. Krajisnik would

 4     ultimately be the best person to answer your question, but from what he

 5     said, he complained that the Prosecution --

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  But I understand you were translating and bringing

 7     to Mr. Stewart, so --

 8        A.   Exactly, but I --

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Exactly what I want to know you heard --

10        A.   [Overlapping speakers] ... certainly, certainly.  That's what I'm

11     going to focus on because I don't want to try to read anybody's thoughts,

12     especially a person who is available to answer questions.  But

13     Mr. Krajisnik would point out over and over again that the Prosecution

14     brought so many expert witnesses, I think five or six or something like

15     that; and he thought from his intelligent layman's point of view that it

16     was very odd that in a case of this high profile and complexity the

17     Defence would not respond in the same manner, bring one expert witness to

18     deal with the findings and allegations of each of the Prosecution's

19     expert witnesses.  He simply could not grasp why that would not be done.

20     And it was even more difficult for him to understand that given the fact

21     that after the number of years that he has spent here, he saw the way

22     other trials were being conducted, and he noticed the obvious, namely

23     that in the vast majority of the cases it was standard practice for the

24     Defence to bring expert witnesses depending on whatever they wanted to

25     prove or refute, but it was standard practice.

Page 443

 1             So he simply could not understand why that was not being done in

 2     his case.

 3             So his starting position was that we should -- it should be

 4     one-on-one.  The Prosecution had -- they had a military expert, a media

 5     expert, a demographic expert, an expert on the destruction of cultural

 6     monuments.  I don't recall them all, but there were about five or six,

 7     and he wanted us to respond tit for tat.

 8             When Mr. Stewart did not agree to that, Mr. Krajisnik reduced his

 9     demands to two.  He said:

10             "Okay.  Let's have a demographic expert because population

11     movement is a very important issue in my case.  And also, let us at least

12     have a legal expert or constitutional expert who could look at the

13     government structure of the Republika Srpska and inform the Chamber about

14     what my position was within those structures and what I could and could

15     not do in terms of what I was being charged with in the indictment."

16             That didn't fly either, so Mr. Krajisnik, in his bargaining

17     style, dropped the legal expert and he said, "Okay.  We must have the

18     demographic expert because that is absolutely a key issue in the case."

19             JUDGE POCAR:  I understand that a demographic expert was

20     identified.

21        A.   Yes.

22             JUDGE POCAR:  In the person of Dr. Radovanovic.

23        A.   Yes.  Correct.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  And was contact as a potential, but was not called

25     in.

Page 444

 1        A.   No, she was not.

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  Now was it a decision of Mr. Stewart not to call

 3     her in and if it is so, for what reasons did Mr. Stewart not call her in?

 4        A.   Well, I was essentially in charge of their interaction because

 5     Professor Radovanovic I guess doesn't speak enough English to communicate

 6     directly; so I have that e-mail correspondence.  They exchanged about

 7     five or six letters about her possible appearance, and Mr. Stewart, I --

 8     I really hate to use emotionally charged words because it's not very

 9     objective, but I have to use the word, grudgingly went along with the

10     idea of looking into the possibility of engaging Professor Radovanovic.

11             So he sent her a letter through me asking her what she thinks

12     that she could do.  She responded, and I remember that the first letter

13     or two were rather frosty, because Mr. Stewart's inquiry, not that he

14     meant it that way.  I think having grown up in the United States, it's

15     not Great Britain but it's close enough, I have a much better idea of the

16     British mentality than somebody in Serbia.  So he didn't mean it that way

17     but it came across that way, that he was being supercilious, just snotty

18     and not really respecting her work and her contribution sufficiently.

19             Unfortunately it came across that way.  It wasn't meant that way.

20     So she responded in a frosty way.  So this whole correspondence really

21     did not get off the ground the right way.  And then it went on for a few

22     more letters and then it died down.  Mr. Stewart simply decided not to

23     call her or to do anything more in relation to the subject of expert

24     witnesses.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  I understand.  Let me come to another set of

Page 445

 1     questions.

 2             Before writing your statement, did you at any point discuss the

 3     content of this statement with anybody?

 4        A.   No.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  In particular, did you discuss the -- you did not

 6     discuss it with Mr. Mano.

 7        A.   No, absolutely not.  Absolutely.  I might add that I was aware

 8     that Mr. Mano also had misgivings about the conduct of the trial, but I

 9     did not discuss my specific misgivings or the content of my statement

10     with him, nor did he discuss it with me, his own with me.

11             JUDGE POCAR:  I have some more issues to deal with you concerning

12     the trial.

13             Were you aware that Mr. Stewart negotiated a set of agreed facts

14     with the Prosecution during the pre-trial stage.

15        A.   No.

16             JUDGE POCAR:  In July 2004.

17        A.   I was not involved in that.  That was before I joined the team.

18             JUDGE POCAR:  And you were not aware that it had happen?

19        A.   I am aware that agreed facts is a procedure that exists here, and

20     I might have assumed that that was done in this case as well, but I had

21     nothing to do with the process by which that was accomplished in this

22     particular case; and I have no knowledge about what these agreed facts

23     were ultimately.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Another question I would like to put to you.  You

25     personally know Mr. Mano.

Page 446

 1        A.   Well, I know him virtually.  I think that would be a better way

 2     of putting it than personally, because just as I arrived here and joined

 3     Mr. Krajisnik's team, he was leaving.  So we overlapped for a couple of

 4     days.  And I do remember that before he left to go to Japan he invited

 5     all the team members, including me, to a Japanese restaurant.  So that

 6     was the only significant social contact that I with him there at that

 7     time.  After --

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  So you mean Mr. Mano left the Tribunal in April

 9     2005?

10        A.   He -- he left shortly after I arrived.  I -- we did not overlap

11     for very long.  I met him in the Defence room.  We were introduced.  We

12     were both from the United States; and we chatted, and we exchanged

13     pleasantries when we ran into each other, but we did not really socialise

14     to any great extent while here.  We did go out to this Japanese

15     restaurant, after which we exchanged e-mail addresses and we occasionally

16     corresponded, and he would occasionally call me from Japan, which I took

17     as an expression of perhaps his loneliness in a foreign culture.

18             And he would, you know, talk to me about his job there, which was

19     teaching English, some issues that he had with his family, with his

20     brother in the United States, and so on and so forth.  And after that the

21     first time that I saw him was today.  As I was leaving for lunch, he was

22     leaving as well, so we just said hello to each other and that was it.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  You said Mr. Mano invited all the team members to a

24     Japanese restaurant.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 447

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  Did Mr. Stewart participate in the dinner?

 2        A.   No, no.  He did not participate.  It was the support staff that

 3     he invited.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  In the limited time you overlapped with Mr. Mano,

 5     could you get any impression at least on how Mr. Mano and Mr. Stewart

 6     interacted between them?

 7        A.   While I was there I did not see anything wrong.  No signs of

 8     friction between them, so I have nothing special to report in that

 9     regard.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Can I ask you if you and Mr. Mano ever discussed

11     Mr. Stewart's conduct as counsel?

12        A.   Yes, we did.

13             JUDGE POCAR:  When was that?

14        A.   Over the time since we last saw each other here after he left and

15     I arrived, by telephone.  He would call me.  I know that he was close,

16     again by telephone, with Mr. Krajisnik's daughter Milica, and that he

17     would often call her and chat with her.  So he did inquire about how the

18     trial was going.  In his questions and inquiries there was a great deal

19     of concern that was evident about Mr. Krajisnik and how he would fare in

20     the end.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  So you discussed Mr. Stewart's conduct after he had

22     left.

23        A.   Yes.

24             JUDGE POCAR:  Not when you were together here.

25        A.   No, we had no reason to.

Page 448

 1             JUDGE POCAR:  And I understand it was Mr. Mano who took the

 2     initiative to contact you.  Is that correct?

 3        A.   Yes.  He would always call me from Japan.  I never called him.

 4     But I enjoyed talking to him.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  And did you discuss to take any action when

 6     discussing on the phone or by mail you had concern about the conduct of

 7     Mr. Stewart?  Did you discuss the need to take action in that respect?

 8        A.   Mr. Mano had told me that he already taken some action.  He told

 9     me that while he was here before I arrived, he had noticed some things

10     that had concerned him in the conduct of Mr. Stewart and that he had

11     written a letter.  I don't know now whether that letter was written to

12     Mr. Krajisnik or to the Registry detailing these concerns.  And he also

13     told me that this letter was accompanied with a request, I believe, that

14     it be shown to Mr. Krajisnik, translated into B/C/S, first of all,

15     because he is American born, and I don't believe that he really speaks

16     B/C/S.

17             So he wrote it in English.  So -- and he requested that it be

18     translated into B/C/S and passed on to Mr. Krajisnik as an expression of

19     his concern, but that -- while that was ultimately done, I think, the

20     Registry showed the letter to Mr. Stewart and gave him an opportunity to

21     write a letter of rebuttal.

22             So that's what I know about his concerns in this area.  I also

23     know that Mr. Krajisnik, from what he told me, that Mr. Krajisnik would

24     call him occasionally for the holidays and so on and so forth, and

25     Mr. Mano, I think, does have a limited knowledge of Serbian.  And also

Page 449

 1     Mr. Krajisnik's daughter is very fluent in English, so he was able to, I

 2     think, communicate.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  [Overlapping speakers] ... all this information

 4     you're giving now comes from Mr. Mano or you have this information from

 5     other sources as well?

 6        A.   It comes from Mr. Mano.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Exclusively?

 8        A.   Yes.  I had no other source.

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  When did you exactly learn of Mr. Mano's letter?

10     When was that?

11        A.   I'm sorry, but I cannot give you an exact time, but it was during

12     the period after his departure or his return to Japan and now.  So

13     talking about --

14             JUDGE POCAR:  But how long could have been, because you are

15     saying -- you said earlier he left a few -- short time after you joined.

16        A.   Yes.

17             JUDGE POCAR:  You joined in April 2005.

18        A.   Yes.

19             JUDGE POCAR:  So how late did you learn of this letter?

20        A.   I really --

21             JUDGE POCAR:  One week?  One month?

22        A.   No, much more than that.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  Three months?  One year?

24        A.   A couple of months, I think, but not one week.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  So it could have been in the fall of --

Page 450

 1        A.   Possibly, possibly.

 2             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, during the summer of 2005.

 3        A.   Yes, yes, yes, possibly.

 4             JUDGE POCAR:  I thank you.

 5             Well, I see Judge Meron has a question for you.  I pass him the

 6     floor.

 7             JUDGE MERON:  Mr. Karganovic, thank you for your statement today.

 8     You are involved in this case as an assistant to Mr. Krajisnik; right.

 9        A.   Yes.

10             JUDGE MERON:  Today you are a witness --

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE MERON:  -- for Mr. Krajisnik.

13        A.   I think for the Chamber.

14             JUDGE MERON:  For the Chamber.

15        A.   Yes.

16             JUDGE MERON:  So we are today in sort of a dual capacity witness

17     for us and assistant.  Now, this statement, your written statement, I

18     would like to understand a little bit better whose idea was it to right

19     it?  Was --

20        A.   It was my idea.

21             JUDGE MERON:  It was your idea.  Not Mr. Krajisnik?

22        A.   No.

23             JUDGE MERON:  Not Mr. Mano's.

24        A.   No, certainly not Mr. Mano's.

25             JUDGE MERON:  But the information which you include in this

Page 451

 1     statement in response to the President you pointed to -- did I understand

 2     you correctly that the information itself came from Mr. Mano?

 3        A.   No.

 4             JUDGE MERON:  No, that's not correct.

 5        A.   No, I did not say that.  The information that I -- that I put in

 6     my statement?

 7             JUDGE MERON:  Right.

 8        A.   No.  It contains my observations.

 9             JUDGE MERON:  It's your -- so what was the information which you

10     obtain from Mr. Mano in reply?

11        A.   About Mr. Mano's concerns and the letter that Mano had written

12     before I even arrived back in The Hague about Mr. Krajisnik.

13             JUDGE MERON:  But the information in the statement is your

14     information.

15        A.   Yes.  Time wise, it covers the period of my tenure as case

16     manager and has nothing to do with Mr. Mano or his presence.

17             JUDGE MERON:  You were a case manager from April of 2004 to May

18     2005.

19        A.   We corrected the years.  Move one year forward.

20             JUDGE MERON:  Five and six.

21        A.   Yes.

22             JUDGE MERON:  Now, these concerns which you expressed in the

23     statement, Mr. Karganovic, are of course very serious concerns.

24        A.   Mm-hmm.

25             JUDGE MERON:  During the time when you were a member of the

Page 452

 1     Defence team did you express them to anyone or just sat on them for a

 2     long period of time?

 3        A.   Well, I did discuss some of these concerns, and they were shared,

 4     actually --

 5             JUDGE MERON:  With whom?

 6        A.   With Kelly Pitcher a young lady who was an assistant on our team,

 7     and she was in fact in charge of that office that we had on the premises

 8     of the Dutch Bar Association.  So we had discussions about the direction

 9     in which the defence was going, how things were handled, and so on and so

10     forth.

11             I also had conversations about this with Ms. Loukas, because she

12     was very concerned throughout the period when my tenure coincided with

13     the last period of her role as co-counsel, and she expressed quite a few

14     concerns.

15             JUDGE MERON:  Did you ever share these concerns with Mr. Stewart

16     himself?

17        A.   No.  No, I did not.

18             JUDGE MERON:  Why not?

19        A.   Because with all due respect for the gentleman there, I -- I

20     think that there was a barrier, let me put it that way, that Mr. Stewart

21     constructed a filter.  Let me use a gentler word.  There was a filter.

22     And while we could talk about many, many things both case related and

23     non-case relate, there was a preserve, if you will, that he kept to

24     himself as his exclusive precinct whereas lead counsel he alone had

25     complete control, and he would not brook any contradiction.  That goes

Page 453

 1     without saying, but he would not even encourage or -- or allow anybody

 2     intruding with suggestions.

 3             So that may be characteristic of another legal system, namely in

 4     Great Britain, that is not so familiar to me.  In America people discuss

 5     everything in an office, and even people in leadership positions

 6     encourage their -- their staff to come up with ideas and to talk about

 7     things and kick ideas around, try to come -- come up with a better

 8     solution.  But in -- here we are talking about a different tradition, and

 9     I'm not going to judge it.  That's just the way I found it.  And I did

10     not feel comfortable approaching Mr. Stewart even on a one to one basis,

11     having coffee with him and saying, "Hey, Nicholas, what do you think

12     about this?  Is this the right way to go?"  He created an atmosphere that

13     you did not feel comfortable doing that.

14             On the other hand, we had a very good, amicable relationship

15     going beyond the office and office issues.  So if that sounds like that a

16     paradox to you, maybe this, but that's the way it was.

17             JUDGE MERON:  So the most senior person with whom you say -- with

18     whom you share your concern about the quality of representation which

19     Mr. Krajisnik received was Ms. Loukas.

20        A.   Yes, and it was reciprocal.  It was a two-way street.  She also

21     shared her concerns with me.

22             JUDGE MERON:  Does your statement state clearly that you stated

23     these concerns to Ms. Loukas, because you do mention her a number of

24     times.  I was not quite clear that you did it.

25        A.   Maybe I did not say that.  I'm not quite sure.  I don't think I

Page 454

 1     did, but I'm saying it now.

 2             JUDGE MERON:  Thank you.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Judge Guney.

 4             JUDGE GUNEY:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 5             Mr. Karganovic, I have two questions --

 6        A.   Okay.

 7             JUDGE GUNEY:  -- to ask.  The first one is you left the Defence

 8     team before the end of the work.  What did you do in the meantime?  Did

 9     you stay in contact with the member of the Defence team?  This is the

10     first question.

11        A.   Yes.

12             JUDGE GUNEY:  The second point is the Prosecution contend that

13     you were not really involved in putting false allegation to a key

14     Prosecution witness, Milorad Davidovic, during the cross-examination at

15     the trial.

16        A.   Yes.

17             JUDGE GUNEY:  Would you please enlighten us more on this point?

18     Thank you.

19        A.   Okay.  As to your first question, you mean what did I do after

20     that, after I left.

21             JUDGE GUNEY:  Yes.

22        A.   Is that the question?  After I left the Defence team, my mother,

23     my cousin, and I went to Serbia, and we spent the summer there.

24             As for the second question, Mr. Davidovic was a Prosecution

25     witness who was built as a very important Prosecution witness because he

Page 455

 1     may some very serious allegations about Mr. Krajisnik.  He was a former

 2     functionary of the Federal Yugoslav Interior Ministry, meaning the

 3     police, and then he was a functionary of the Republika Srpska Interior

 4     Ministry, I believe, in Bijeljina.

 5             Mr. Krajisnik's investigators in Bosnia came up with some

 6     derogatory information about Mr. Davidovic.  There was an allegation that

 7     Mr. Davidovic, while he occupied a position of power in Bijeljina during

 8     the war, extorted money and goods from a person there, an individual.  I

 9     believe she was a doctor.  I -- I think so.  I'm not quite sure.  I will

10     have to refresh my memory.

11             So the investigators who were working for Mr. Krajisnik suggested

12     that we look into that and find out if there was any truth to those

13     allegations, and Ms. Loukas told me to call this individual in -- at that

14     time I think in Sarajevo or around Sarajevo, and to inquire if there was

15     any truth in those allegations.

16             I did so.  We had a friendly conversation, and I passed on to the

17     doctor the suggestion that he [sic] and his family may have been abused

18     by Mr. Davidovic during the conflict, and that was the night.  And I

19     accepted the answer that I received, passed on the results of the

20     conversation to Ms. Loukas and that was it.

21             The following day or a few days later the Prosecution said in

22     court that, which was perfectly true, this doctor received a call from me

23     making these inquiries.

24             I only acted pursuant to direction from Mrs. Loukas, Ms. Loukas.

25     I did not make that call on my own, of course, and it was strictly to

Page 456

 1     elicit information that co-counsel thought would be valuable in the case.

 2     It was conducted in a polite, professional way and that was it.

 3             I nothing to do with the merits of the allegations.  I did not

 4     have -- I did not generate this information.  It was passed on to us.

 5     And my task on behalf the Defence team was only to verify it.

 6             JUDGE GUNEY: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  It is the case that no more questions from the

 9     Bench.  I wonder whether it would be appropriate to break now because

10     otherwise we have to break in 15 minutes, and perhaps we may have the

11     time to discuss the other issue in between during the break.  So perhaps

12     we break now, and we -- we reconvene in, say, 25 minutes.  So 20 to 4.00.

13                           --- Recess taken at 3.13 p.m.

14                           --- On resuming at 3.48 p.m.

15             JUDGE POCAR:  We will resume the hearing, and -- I'm sorry.  I

16     remind the parties we are private session dealing with document AD2, and

17     I will give the floor to Mr. Krajisnik to cross-examine the -- the

18     witness for a total of 45 minutes, but then of course we have Mr. --

19     well, you can divide the time if Mr. Dershowitz wishes, but there will be

20     10 additional minutes for Mr. Dershowitz on JCE as agreed.

21             So please, Mr. Krajisnik, you have the floor.

22                           Cross-examination by Mr. Krajisnik:

23        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Karganovic.

24        A.   How do you do, Mr. Krajisnik.

25        Q.   In your statement you make a number of observations with respect

Page 457

 1     to Mr. Stewart's work; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   I think the Trial Chamber dealt with that portion of your

 4     knowledge and information and -- or, rather, dealt with your observations

 5     in that statement; but I'd like to ask you about the part that you heard

 6     from Ms. Loukas, what you heard from her.  You say that in that

 7     conversation you had with her, you saw that there were sharp differences

 8     between Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart.  Can you tell the Court briefly what

 9     these sharp differences were?

10        A.   Yes.  The fundamental sharp difference between them was that

11     Ms. Loukas was bothered by what she perceived as a lack of Defence theory

12     or Defence strategy, a regulating principle that would help the Defence

13     team to set its priorities, determine its short-term and long-term goals,

14     and so on and so forth.  She felt frustrated, that was my perception, in

15     the way somebody feels frustrated when they are unable to do what they

16     feel is the right thing under the circumstances or the -- I would add the

17     professionally right thing.  She felt professionally frustrated.  I think

18     that would be the most succinct way of putting it and the most accurate.

19     That is my perception, of course.

20        Q.   You said that she said that she did not wish to share the blame

21     for the catastrophic results that would ensue.  Now, my question to you

22     is this:  Do you remember what she said to the Trial Chamber?  Do you

23     remember what she said then?  Did she say something similar when she

24     handed in her resignation to the Trial Chamber?

25        A.   As for the first part of your question, I quote her literally.

Page 458

 1     She used the word "catastrophe."  This is not a paraphrase.  This is the

 2     word Ms. Loukas used in her conversation with me.

 3             As for the second part of your question, I probably was there,

 4     but I do not recall what you're referring to.  I simply don't recall it.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  Now, if I say to you that in a certain number of

 6     documents and notes made by Mr. Stewart from the meetings with

 7     representatives of the Trial Chamber that Mr. Stewart himself made --

 8     said the following:  "If I don't get the necessary resources faced with a

 9     situation of this kind, I can expect catastrophic results."  So did you

10     feel a measure of concern on Mr. Stewart's part as well?

11        A.   At the risk of -- I hesitate to say at the risk of disappointing

12     you, but I just have to be absolutely frank and tell the Chamber what I

13     know or what I reliably perceived; and I cannot read Mr. Stewart's mind,

14     I don't know inside how worried or not worried he may have been, but I

15     cannot really say that in any conversation with me that he expressed a

16     sense of foreboding about the possible result of the trial.  I cannot

17     recall that at all.

18             He had -- and again I hate to talk this way with respect I have

19     for Mr. Nicholls.  It's a different culture, different mentality, and I

20     think we all understand that.  But the English do have a certain attitude

21     that they can put on, a care-free attitude.  Oh, well, we'll -- you know,

22     we'll manage, that sort of thing.  How they actually feel inside, who

23     knows.  I'm not English, so it's hard for me to say.

24             So Mr. Stewart may very well have felt concern about the possible

25     outcome of the trial, but he did not really ever express it to me in

Page 459

 1     quite those terms.

 2        Q.   So your answer is that he did not show concern.

 3        A.   Not to me.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  Now, did Mr. Stewart, when you talked to

 5     him, intimate what type of -- what area of the law he dealt with in

 6     England as Defence counsel?  Was it criminal law, commercial law?  What

 7     area of the law did he deal with as counsel in England?

 8        A.   What he was mostly dealing with in England, from conversation

 9     with him, comments that he made, actually also on the internet you can

10     find out, he did, I think, a lot of commercial law, sports law, thing

11     like that.  And also, I find this admirable, I believe that he was

12     involved in international organisations promoting human rights in -- in

13     the Middle East.  I believe it was Kurdistan or something like that.

14        Q.   Thank you.  Can you now answer hypothetically?  Was not

15     Mr. Stewart perhaps concerned about the outcome -- was he not concerned

16     about the outcome because he didn't understand the case fully?  Might

17     that have been the case?

18        A.   Well, your alternative question, whether he understood it, I

19     think I dealt with that issue in my statement, and it is not really

20     subject to my speculation.  I heard him say, and so did Mr. Josse, in the

21     Detention Unit that he did not feel that he understood the case and that

22     he was at a loss to figure out what to do about it, how to conduct it.

23        Q.   If I say to you now that in Mr. Stewart's notes we can read that

24     there is a statement by a representative of the Trial Chamber that --

25     that he -- that he was criticised for putting the burden on Ms. Loukas

Page 460

 1     whereas he was engaged in some private problems and dealt with cases in

 2     London, would that be your experience as well and your knowledge?

 3        A.   Yes.  I'm not familiar with the document you're referring to, but

 4     certainty the issue is familiar to me.  From my own observation, while

 5     Ms. Loukas was here it did seem to me that whatever may have been the

 6     allocation of duties between them that she ended up with more than her

 7     fair share, with the proviso that I don't know when they made their deal

 8     at the beginning of the trial whether it was 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, or

 9     whatever.  I have no idea what private arrangement they had, but it

10     certainly seem to me that she was being overworked; and she expressed to

11     me very grave concerns and frustration about that.  She felt abused, to

12     be quite frank about it.  So definitely that is true.

13             As far as his other professional activities are concern, I do

14     know that on a couple of occasions, not just while Ms. Loukas was here

15     but throughout the period of my tenure, he did spend a few days in London

16     to, as he put it, wrap up some pending cases that he was involved in.

17             I don't know whether that practice went back to the period before

18     I joined the team, but on a couple of occasions he did that while I was

19     here; correct.

20        Q.   Another question:  You told us that Mr. Stewart was not

21     au courant in the case, but did he try to learn about the case, to

22     familiarise himself, or was he in fact in favour of makeshift solutions,

23     and was he not really interested in the case at all?

24        A.   If I may take a minute or two to give a bit more elaborate answer

25     to your question.  I learned something later on from Mr. Josse that I

Page 461

 1     think is relevant to -- to this question, and it has to do with the way

 2     things operate in -- in Great Britain.  They have a system which we don't

 3     have in America, barristers and solicitors.  The solicitor and his staff

 4     do most of the preparatory work, serve it on a silver platter to the

 5     barrister.  The barrister goes to court and presents the results to -- to

 6     the Judge.

 7             I -- I think that Mr. Stewart was very much a product of that

 8     system.  He saw himself as a barrister, and he, in the light of the

 9     explanation that I later obtain from Mr. Josse of how the British system

10     worked, which was something that I was really not familiar with, not in

11     that detail, I always wondered what a solicitor was and how it differed

12     from being a barrister, then retrospectively I can use that explanatory

13     model to make a lot of his conduct more clear.  It is as if he expected

14     the members of his team, including co-counsel, to in effect act as a

15     solicitor, co-counsel as solicitor in some sense and the other members of

16     his team as his assistants, preparing everything, he picks it up, takes

17     it to court and does his part.

18             To return directly to your question, I never had the impression

19     that he tried to do any serious academic work, to learn about the

20     background of the Yugoslav crisis or about the nature of the conflict

21     there.  That may be an erroneous impression, but that is the impression

22     that I have.

23             In his home, for example, I -- I just saw two or three books,

24     journalistic work, basically, nothing serious.  And in conversation with

25     him, I never had the sense that he had an in-depth knowledge about the

Page 462

 1     background and the underlying issues.

 2        Q.   Now I have a question regarding the documents.  When I received

 3     the decision from the Appeals Chamber, I received a huge archive.  It was

 4     delivered to me in the Detention Unit.  Now I would like to know about

 5     this archive.

 6             I don't know.  Do you know maybe what the sources of all those

 7     documents?

 8             Let me be quite specific.  Do you know that Mr. Brashich was

 9     appointed as my counsel before Mr. Stewart?

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note the witness is kindly asked

11     to wait for the interpretation to complete.

12             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

13        Q.   Now I would like to --

14        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... files from the trial period.

15     Yes, I am familiar indirectly by hearsay so to speak with this issue.

16             Apparently when Mr. Stewart took over the case, he asked

17     Mr. Brashich to send him his work product, and he ended up receiving a

18     couple of boxes of files, discovery material and other case-related

19     files, and many of those boxes were unopened, and obvious conclusion

20     could be drawn from that, yes.

21        Q.   Now a specific question.  Did your Defence team ever study those

22     documents?  Did Mr. Stewart, himself, study it?

23        A.   Well, I have to remind you that I arrived in April of 2005, and a

24     lot went on before my joining the team.  So I cannot speak about what

25     happen before, but while I was there, the only contact I had with the

Page 463

 1     material in our office at the Dutch Bar Association building was a task

 2     that Mr. Stewart gave me over the Christmas holidays in 2005 to spend

 3     some time there, a couple of days, sift through a lot of paperwork that

 4     was basically strewn all over, lying on the floor, see what I thought was

 5     important and preserve it, and I'm trying to think the word he used, but

 6     basically it means throw out the rest.  So that is the only contact I had

 7     with possibly some of that material.

 8        Q.   Did any members of the Defence team ever tell you that the

 9     documents had been studied, the documents that they had received from

10     Mr. Brashich and from the Prosecution?

11        A.   No.  No, nobody told me that.  Which doesn't mean that it wasn't

12     but nobody told me that.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  The witness is kindly asked for the

14     interpretation to end before providing his answer.

15             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

16        Q.   You stated here, and this is something that other persons said in

17     their statements, that many of the boxes full of documents were in actual

18     fact out in the -- were actually un-opened, that nobody went through them

19     at all?

20        A.   What I can testify about is what I heard from Mr. Stewart for

21     one, that Mr. Brashich sent a number of boxes with documents and that

22     many of those boxes came from Mr. Brashich, from America, unopened, in

23     the same condition presumably that they were when they were sent to

24     Mr. Brashich.  That much I know.  I cannot really talk about anything

25     else in that regard.

Page 464

 1        Q.   You mentioned Mr. Josse, the other co-counsel, and you mentioned

 2     that Mr. Stewart sent him to Bosnia and that this was the first time that

 3     he actually went there to that area.

 4             Could you tell the Trial Chamber whether you received from

 5     Mr. Josse any information as to what he was able to do, anything useful

 6     that he was able to do given his meager knowledge of Bosnian at the time

 7     when he went there?

 8        A.   Well, you can hardly expect someone --

 9             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Karganovic, may I interrupt you a moment.  I

10     understand that you listen in the language of Mr. Krajisnik, so it's easy

11     for you to answer easily so you should wait a while to let the

12     interpretation to finish before you answer otherwise the interpreters

13     cannot pick up the answer correctly.  So please keep that in mind.

14             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Okay.  Where were we?  Ah ha, whether

15     Mr. Josse accomplished anything useful in Bosnia.  Well, you can hardly

16     expect somebody in Mr. Josse's position to say, "I went there.  I didn't

17     accomplish anything."  He didn't say that in so many words, but prior to

18     his going there, in the period before the decision was even made to seen

19     him there, in conversation with Mr. Josse he made it clear that while

20     he -- he and his wife enjoyed travelling, they had never been very much

21     anywhere outside of England except maybe to France, that he had never

22     been to the Balkans, and that frankly he knew nothing or next to nothing

23     about the local affairs there.  So he was a tabular rasa by his own

24     admission when he went there and the Chamber can figure out for

25     themselves when he joined the case and when he first went to Bosnia, I

Page 465

 1     don't know, two or three months later, how much can you master of this

 2     huge material in the meantime.

 3             So he went there.  May I give my own thoughts here, speculate a

 4     little bit, Your Honour?

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, yes, you can.

 6             THE WITNESS:  Okay.  Thank you.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Depending on what you say.

 8             THE WITNESS:  I'm not going so say anything terrible, just

 9     something that I think makes common sense.  For instance, Mr. Stewart had

10     a B/C/S speaker on the team, Mr. Jolovic at the time, who was fluent in

11     both English and B/C/S; and I believe he was born in Belgrade, was

12     studying in London, in England, and had extensive familiarity with local

13     issues.  So it struck me as very odd when he decided to send Josse to

14     Bosnian.  He asked me if I knew anybody who could -- who spoke English

15     who could act as Josse's interpreter there.  Well, eventually I found a

16     friend and that worked out, but I thought that it was very odd that he

17     wouldn't send a team member who already had presumably some familiarity

18     with the issues.

19             The friend that I recommended in Bosnia was fine, but he was

20     studying something completely unrelated to anything that we were doing,

21     and he just happen to speak both languages, and to that extent he was

22     useful.

23             So it struck me as a very odd choice on his part.

24             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   Mr. Karganovic, you mentioned and you told the Trial Chamber that

Page 466

 1     there were 20 witnesses who were called.  Could you please tell the Trial

 2     Chamber, if you recall, how many statements had been taken from the

 3     witnesses, from potential witnesses?  Could you give us a ball-park

 4     figure?

 5        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.  There were at least

 6     200, and I still have them all in my computer.

 7        Q.   And now let me ask you this:  How did the Defence teamwork out

 8     the plan to call the 20 witnesses?

 9             I apologise, but they tell me that this figure that you just gave

10     us, 200 witnesses, was not recorded in the transcript.  Could you please

11     clarify?

12        A.   Yes.  My answer was that there were about 200 witness statements

13     that were obtained by investigators in the field in Bosnia,

14     Mr. Krajisnik's investigators, that we had to work with, and I have them

15     all in my computer.

16             How -- how did --

17        Q.   How did you call the witnesses?  Could you please explain that to

18     the Trial Chamber?  How did you decide to call those witnesses?

19        A.   Initially it was a subject of intense negotiation between

20     Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart, and frequent disagreements.  It was hit

21     and miss.  Obviously some of the people on -- on -- in -- under the best

22     of circumstances, they were sick or had some family issues, some would

23     not have been able to come anyway, or they would be able to come but

24     later.  So you always encounter these bumps in the road.  But when you

25     used the word "plan," there really was no plan that I was aware of.  It

Page 467

 1     was haphazard.  And an illustration of how haphazard this process was is

 2     the following:  Around January of 2006, the Defence team became pretty

 3     desperate because we didn't know how -- on what basis to call witnesses,

 4     and so Nicholas said to the person who was in charge of witnesses, "Just

 5     take the list and go down the list alphabetically and see whom you could

 6     catch."

 7        Q.   Mr. Karganovic, could you please tell to the Trial Chamber

 8     whether Krajisnik gave his proposal to Mr. Stewart as to the witnesses

 9     that should be called and that you made summaries of?

10        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... my answer is yes.

11        Q.   And were those witnesses called without Krajisnik's knowledge so

12     to speak I was advised only at a later stage how the witnesses were

13     called.

14        A.   There were often surprises in it for Mr. Krajisnik.  Everything

15     was haphazard.  Sometimes he would consult with Mr. Krajisnik, consult in

16     the sense of tell him who would be called, and times somebody would be

17     called and would pop up here.  Mr. Krajisnik would be surprise.  Or

18     Mr. Krajisnik would be under the impression that another person would be

19     called, and somebody that Mr. Stewart thought was more appropriate was in

20     fact called.

21        Q.   Mr. Karganovic, let me remind you now.  Did Krajisnik ask

22     Mr. Stewart to provide him with a list of witnesses that he intends to

23     call?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Please respond.  And did he get it?

Page 468

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   No.  What I mean is did Krajisnik receive from Mr. Stewart a list

 3     of witnesses that Mr. Stewart intended to call?

 4        A.   I'm really not sure.  We were making and changing witness lists,

 5     and again I have all that in my computer.

 6             The witness list was in a constant state of flux, so it is very

 7     difficult for me to give a precise answer to your question.

 8        Q.   Fair enough.  Let me ask you now did Krajisnik ask Mr. Stewart to

 9     explain to him what was necessary -- what we needed to prepare in order

10     to challenge the indictment?

11        A.   Yes, of course.

12        Q.   Was it done more than once?

13        A.   [Previous translation continues] ... few times.

14        Q.   How did Mr. Stewart respond to that?  Did he provide an answer?

15        A.   I'm sorry, my previous answer is not complete.  I think it's very

16     important.  I said, "Quite a few times."

17             I was never present when Mr. Stewart may have provided a complete

18     answer to that question.

19        Q.   I hope that we agree that you were the only person interpreting

20     the conversations between me and Mr. Stewart.  Do you agree?

21        A.   I do, conditionally.  Don't forget that other B/C/S speakers

22     joined our team later on, including Mr. Sladojevic and another person.

23     So later on into 2006 we would sometimes take turn going -- turns going

24     to the Detention Unit.  So I can only speak about what went on in my

25     presence.

Page 469

 1        Q.   So your response is that in your presence while you were there

 2     Mr. Stewart did not give Krajisnik an answer to this demand of Krajisnik

 3     as to what needed to be done to challenge the indictment and to mount a

 4     defence?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   Could you explain to the Trial Chamber what was the difference in

 7     the views held by Mr. Krajisnik and Mr. Stewart?

 8        A.   One fundamental difference in their approaches was that

 9     Mr. Krajisnik, perhaps in a business-like fashion, kept insisting on

10     creating a defence plan, conducting a thorough analysis of the -- of the

11     Prosecution case in relation to the indictment and then devising

12     effective counter-measures, so to speak, which we would implement through

13     our case, the Defence case.  And as I point out in my statement, which

14     would be in one of the paragraphs where I say that after the July break

15     in 2006 we had about two months before the resumption of the trial, and

16     during that period, until September, I believe in September I took about

17     ten days and -- off and went to Turkey with my cousin, but between then

18     and sometime in September, Mr. -- Mr. Stewart and I visited Mr. Krajisnik

19     quite often at the Detention Unit, and there were two major -- well,

20     three major topics that were discussed.

21             One that was put on the table by Mr. Krajisnik was devising a

22     defence plan.

23             Two, that where promoted by Mr. Stewart budget, the financial

24     issues, and not allowing the practice of Mr. Krajisnik asking witnesses

25     questions to be continued into the Defence case.

Page 470

 1             So it was a dialogue of the deaf with me in between.  Neither

 2     side really heard the other or paid much attention to what the other was

 3     saying.  It was two agonising months.

 4        Q.   Let me ask you this now:  You said before the Trial Chamber that

 5     you did not made your views public - I'm referring to the things that you

 6     put in your statement - simply because you did not want your relationship

 7     with Mr. Stewart to be changed, so to speak, to be disturbed in any way.

 8             An unusual question:  As a professional, did you feel that your

 9     loyalty towards Mr. Stewart is something that is binding and prevents you

10     from going public with those things?

11        A.   Well, I -- I don't know how you want to define loyalty, but I do

12     feel a sense of personal sympathy with Nicholas because he's an

13     exceptionally nice and sympathetic person.  And if you mean that my not

14     wanting to cause him hurt or harm had something to do with it, it

15     probably did; but as well, I don't think that I really had enough time to

16     reflect on all these things while it was going on, while the trial was

17     going on, to -- to put everything together and to say, well, the -- in

18     the interests of justice I need to do this or something like that,

19     putting personal feelings and loyalties aside.  It was later on that it

20     struck me that perhaps writing a statement on Mr. Krajisnik's behalf

21     listing my observations would be a good idea and -- and the right thing

22     to do.

23        Q.   You attended the trial, the hearings.  Did you -- were you at the

24     trial when Krajisnik presented his -- this agreement with Mr. Stewart out

25     in public and addressed the Trial Chamber to that effect?

Page 471

 1        A.   When you asked that Nicholas be dismissed?

 2        Q.   Yes.  Yes, that's correct.

 3        A.   Yes, I was there.

 4        Q.   Could we say that I disagreed with what Mr. Stewart was doing?

 5        A.   I think that is the only possible conclusion.

 6        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now since we have very little time left, I

 7     would like to ask you this:  When you joined Mr. Stewart's team, on whose

 8     recommendation, on whose orders -- let me put it this way:  It is quite

 9     usual here for the lead counsel to appoint his or her associates.  Did

10     Mr. Stewart do that while you were here?  Did he hire you?

11        A.   Of course he hired me.  That's the procedure.  But --

12        Q.   Yes, yes.  Yeah.

13        A.   I can --

14        Q.   Please go ahead.

15        A.   I can go on.  I think your question was how did he get a hold of

16     me.  Well, he knew me from before.  We had run into each other around the

17     time when he took over the case.  As a freelance interpreter for the

18     Tribunal, I went with him to see Mr. Krajisnik at the Detention Unit on a

19     couple of occasions while the issue of whether or not he would take up

20     the case was being debated.  So he knew me.  And apparently there was a

21     falling out with my predecessor, and he called me and asked me.  He said,

22     "I'm looking into possible candidates, so I'm talking to one right now

23     but I'm not so sure whether he would be able to do it.  Would you be

24     available?"  And that's how it happened.

25        Q.   In your statement you say that you're not in any kind of conflict

Page 472

 1     and that Mr. Stewart indeed is not angry with you.  Is that correct?

 2        A.   I hope he is not angry at me.  In fact, I see no reason why he

 3     should be.

 4        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.  I'm just repeating what you said in your

 5     statement.

 6             Now let me ask you this, but I'd like to make a short

 7     introduction first, and it is linked to the statement that you gave to

 8     the Judges with respect to expert witnesses.  What you said is this:  You

 9     said that on several occasions I insisted on calling a larger number of

10     expert witnesses because I considered that if we looked at it logically,

11     if the Prosecution called not five or six but nine expert witnesses, then

12     I thought that we should bring in nine too, and then I reduced the

13     number.

14             Now, there's a story that we like to recount in my part of the

15     world and it is this:  Somebody who didn't know what something good is

16     knows what it's expensive.

17             Now, what would be your answer?  If Stewart saw that the

18     Prosecution has distinguished lawyers and that if they saw fit to call

19     nine expert witnesses, what prompted him not to call a single expert

20     witness, especially as we have papers here saying that Judge Orie was

21     wondering why expert witnesses were not called?  So what do you think

22     prompted Mr. Stewart to decide not to call expert witnesses?

23        A.   I would prefer to keep to the level of reporting as empirically

24     as possible, and I have already said what Mr. Stewart's explanation was

25     in so many words, said to me for his decision not to call expert

Page 473

 1     witnesses.  I think that is the best answer that I can give, because if I

 2     went beyond that it would be my personal speculation and that would not

 3     be good.

 4        Q.   Can you repeat his answer, please -- or, rather, repeat your

 5     answer.  Why would he would not call expert witnesses if the example had

 6     been set by the Prosecution in calling expert witnesses?  Was he just not

 7     interested in doing that?  Was he disinterested?  Did he consider this to

 8     be part of his strategy or who knows what else?  So could you look at

 9     those alternatives and tell us what you think?

10        A.   I certainly did not have the impression that the decision not to

11     call expert witnesses was the result of a sophisticated strategic

12     decision.  The way he motivated it was simply by saying that in his view

13     they would not have anything substantial to contribute to the Defence

14     case, and Mr. Josse was present on several occasion when these views were

15     stated by -- by Nicholas, and that's as far as I can go really.  That's

16     the only -- the only statement that he ever made that comes to the level

17     of an explanation for all its worth.

18        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.  And I think I concluded one minute ahead of

19     time.

20             MR. KRAJISNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you, Mr. Krajisnik.

22             I will now -- Judge Shahabuddeen, you have a question now.

23     Please.

24             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Mr. Karganovic, if you are in charge of the

25     case would you have called all 200 of the witnesses whom you mentioned,

Page 474

 1     or would you have pruned the list a little?

 2             THE WITNESS:  First of all, I have to say that I feel

 3     exceptionally honoured that even hypothetically you put me in the

 4     position of being in charge of the case.  Thank you very much.  I am -- I

 5     would not be up to it, but it's nice to think about something like that.

 6     But specifically in response to your question, I definitely would not

 7     have called all 200 witnesses, and I definitely would have pruned the

 8     list.  I don't think that to do a good job you -- you have to call one

 9     witness for each Prosecution witness.  Quality is much more important

10     than quantity.

11             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Now, a follow-up question is this:  I was

12     struck by your statement to the effect that Mr. Stewart simply said,

13     "Follow the list in alphabetical order and there you have it."

14             Now, later on you said that the list was constantly in a state of

15     making and changing.  It was also constantly in a state of flux.  Does

16     that mean that he did not apply to the decision of the order in which

17     witnesses should be called, a simple mechanical rule of thumb in terms of

18     statement of you should call them in alphabetical order but that he

19     applied some other criterion?  What is your observation on that?

20        A.   Mm-hmm.  I did not have the impression that he had a criterion.

21     In fact, I took his instruction to go alphabetically as a cry of

22     desperation which indicated in pretty clear terms that there was no

23     criterion and that he perhaps was at a loss how to devise one.  That was

24     my reaction to that instruction.

25             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Now, first of all may I say that I opened up

Page 475

 1     by asking you to consider the matter on the basis that if you were in

 2     charge of the case.  So I recognise very fully that you were not, in

 3     fact, in charge of the case.

 4             Now, may I ask your attention to this:  You referred to

 5     Ms. Loukas, and you recalled her statement to the effect that something

 6     would be a catastrophe.  May I just clarify my own thoughts to the effect

 7     that you were not saying that she said that to Mr. Stewart or to the

 8     Trial Chamber, but she said that to you.

 9             THE WITNESS:  She very definitely said that to me.  She said, to

10     expand a little bit on her statement, that she felt that the outcome of

11     the trial would be a catastrophe and that professionally she did not want

12     to be associate with it and that this was one of the major reasons for

13     her decision to leave the team.

14             As far as the other dimension of your question, I think it refers

15     back to something that Mr. Krajisnik asked.  I'm sure I was there when

16     she made her statement, announced her intention to -- to leave the team.

17     I don't know what terminology she used, but personally I do not remember

18     her using the word "catastrophe," but it's very simple.  One can check

19     the record.  But if she didn't use the word "catastrophe," I'm sure she

20     used something dramatic.

21             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  She didn't use that word to Mr. Stewart or

22     to the Trial Chamber.  That was my question.

23             THE WITNESS:  As far as the Trial Chamber is concerned,

24     assuming -- and I believe that I was there when she addressed the Chamber

25     on that issue.  I do not recall her using that word.  As far as her

Page 476

 1     interaction with Mr. Stewart is concerned, she did not use that

 2     particular word in my presence.  Privately, I don't know.

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.

 4             I will now turn to Mr. Dershowitz for questioning briefly the

 5     witness on JCE-related matters.

 6             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 7                           Cross-examination by Mr. N. Dershowitz:

 8        Q.   Mr. Karganovic, I'd like to start with the end then work a little

 9     bit backwards.

10             Assuming again that you were elevated to the position of running

11     the operation, do you believe that the witnesses who were actually called

12     were the most qualified, and you believe that they were chosen because of

13     strategic decisions that they would be the most helpful to accomplish the

14     goals and objectives of the Defence?

15        A.   My answer to your question is no.  Many of the witnesses we

16     called may have been qualified to talk about micro-issues and something

17     that may have happened in some municipality that nobody had ever heard

18     of, but as far as the larger and determinative issues in the case, they

19     had very little, if anything, to say about them or to have an impact on

20     them by means of their testimony.

21             I can tell you that at some point we discussed, I mean the

22     Defence team, we discussed the notion of maybe inviting a few

23     high-profile witnesses who were involved in the political negotiating

24     process before and during the conflict to show that Mr. Krajisnik was

25     oriented towards finding peaceful solutions to -- to these issues that

Page 477

 1     were tearing Bosnia apart, and the names that were mentioned think I were

 2     quite logical.  Cutileiro was very important.  Stoltenberg, also very

 3     important.  And Mitsotakis, the former Prime Minister of Greece.  And it

 4     just so happens that my cousin is married to a Greek, lives on the island

 5     of Crete in the town of Kanji [phoen] and is a neighbour and friend of

 6     Mr. Mitsotakis.  So while all this was being talked about, I contacted my

 7     cousin and she say, "Sure.  I will talk to him, and I'm sure he'll be

 8     happy to accept an invitation to testify."  So at least we could have had

 9     him.  I'm confident also that Cutileiro and Stoltenberg probably would

10     have responded favourably.

11             However, as happened on quite a few occasions when ideas were

12     floated, they were discussed for a while and then simply dropped, and

13     this was dropped as well.  So we had people from nondescript

14     municipalities, but we didn't have Cutileiro.

15        Q.   Are you then saying there were no strategic judgements that

16     you're aware of not to call those witnesses that you've just listed, that

17     you're aware of?

18        A.   Not that I'm aware of.

19        Q.   With respect to experts, and I assume there you would have done

20     some pruning of the experts, do you know if the decision not to call

21     experts was made for solely strategic reasons?

22        A.   I cannot think of any sensible strategic reason, but then I'm

23     committed not to reading other people's minds.

24        Q.   Well, do you know whether these expert witnesses were interviewed

25     and whether the substance of what they would testify to is available

Page 478

 1     before the decision was made not to call them?

 2        A.   I'm not aware of any prospective expert witness being contacted,

 3     much less interviewed, other than Mrs. Radovanovic.  So the decision not

 4     to call these other hypothetical expert witnesses was made sight unseen,

 5     not because it was felt that they were unqualified or that they would not

 6     be able to do a good report or anything like that.  An attempt was never

 7     made to locate them, let alone interview them.

 8        Q.   You have testified with respect to the fact that you didn't know

 9     of a strategy or a goal.  I'd like to focus specifically on the question

10     of JCE.

11        A.   Okay.

12        Q.   Did Mr. Stewart, in your presence, ever address the question as

13     to what the Prosecutors would have to prove in order to establish a JCE

14     and what defences could be available to prevent them from carrying their

15     burden of proof with respect to JCE?

16        A.   No.  The closest that I heard Nicholas come to a serious

17     discussion of how we might save Mr. Krajisnik from destruction was when

18     he commented on one occasion, it was in the Detention Unit, that what we

19     should do is to try to put as much distance between Mr. Krajisnik and

20     Dr. Karadzic.  In other words, that they were as separate in their

21     activities, their lines of work, and in their personal lives as possible,

22     and that this would be an important element in relieving Mr. Krajisnik of

23     excessive liability or guilt that might come his way as a result of his

24     perceived association with Dr. Karadzic.

25             That's the only discussion of that nature that I've heard.

Page 479

 1        Q.   Was that discussion specifically keyed into JCE, or was it a more

 2     generalised conversation?

 3        A.   It was part of a generalised conversation.  In fact, I heard

 4     Nicholas refer to JCE very few times.  I -- it was not a topic that was

 5     in the forefront of attention.  In fact -- well, it's like in a war.  You

 6     don't know where the enemy will attack, but in fact the Defence was more

 7     wary of the expanded Presidency issue as a mechanism of liability than

 8     JCE.  So I think we spent more time talking about whether or not there

 9     was an expanded Presidency and whether Mr. Krajisnik had anything to do

10     with it than JCE.

11        Q.   You testified that Mr. Krajisnik was asking for detailed

12     information about a defence.  Did he ever raise the question in your

13     presence while you were acting as a translator as to what the elements or

14     ingredients or aspects were of JCE and ask for an explanation from

15     counsel as what that was?

16        A.   Yes, he did.

17        Q.   And did he ever get an answer to that question in your presence?

18        A.   No.  I do not recall his ever getting a coherent answer.

19        Q.   And did he ask that question more than once?

20        A.   Definitely.

21        Q.   Are you aware of any assignments that were given during the year

22     and one-month period that you were the case manager to anyone on the

23     Defence team to specifically address JCE as a legal concept and/or to

24     then do a factual analysis of JCE in terms of the defence?

25        A.   It did not come to my attention.

Page 480

 1        Q.   Now again you had meetings both with Mr. Stewart but also at

 2     least once a week there were meetings to discuss steps that had to be

 3     taken; is that correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And at no time during your meetings with Mr. Stewart or during

 6     the weekly meetings did the question of JCE ever come up or the legal

 7     work discussed or the factual work that had to be done in order to

 8     address JCE; is that correct?

 9        A.   Especially the latter part of your question.  I mean the concept

10     may have been fleetingly mentioned, but I think really your question is

11     was any serious consideration given to it both theoretically and

12     practically.  Not to my knowledge.  Not in my presence.

13        Q.   And just the final question and that is did Mr. Stewart ever try

14     to secure from you any information about your knowledge of the period

15     from 1990 to 1992, and were you ever asked to pull together materials

16     that would be a Defence statement of fact or a Defence view or Defence

17     approach with respect to that period?

18        A.   No.

19        Q.   And do you know of anyone else who was asked to do that during

20     the year and one month that you were case manager?

21        A.   I do not.

22             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you.  I have no further questions.

23             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  I understand there are no questions

24     from the Bench, so I will turn to the Prosecutor, Mr. Kremer, for his

25     cross-examination.

Page 481

 1                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kremer:

 2        Q.   Mr. Karganovic, is it fair to say that in response to the

 3     Prosecution case the Defence approach was prove everything?

 4        A.   Could you clarify the question, please?

 5        Q.   There were no admissions made and the Prosecution was put to the

 6     challenge of proving every fact that it alleged in the indictment against

 7     Mr. Krajisnik?  Correct?

 8        A.   I think I understand your question now, and it may go back to --

 9     to the issue of agreed upon facts where I was not involved.  So I came

10     into the case, I think, too late to be able to give a competent answer to

11     your question.

12        Q.   Just accept my statement that there were no agreed facts, and in

13     the absence of agreed facts is it fair to say that the Defence, at least

14     when you saw it, was, "Prove everything, Prosecution"?

15        A.   That is a possible conclusion and probably a fair one.

16        Q.   All right.  And in terms of the defence, you raised the question

17     of expanded Presidency.  That was certainly an issue that was under

18     active discussion during the course of not only the Prosecution case but

19     also in preparation for the Defence case, yes?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And also you mentioned the distance between Mr. Krajisnik and

22     Mr. Karadzic.  I assume that the Defence saw Mr. Karadzic's role in this

23     much more serious than they saw Mr. Krajisnik's role; correct?

24        A.   I think that it would be fairer to say that the Defence, not

25     having had such a clear picture of Mr. Krajisnik's role, who knows -- and

Page 482

 1     by "Defence," I basically mean Mr. Stewart, who knows what picture they

 2     had of the role of Dr. Karadzic?  I think that his thought was that as

 3     long as Mr. Krajisnik was portrayed in his official capacity as president

 4     of parliament, without any executive responsibility, he would be in a

 5     better position.

 6        Q.   Correct.  And during the Prosecution case and during the Defence

 7     case that is, in fact, how they attempted to portray Mr. Krajisnik.  Is

 8     that not so?

 9        A.   That is just president of parliament without any other

10     responsibilities of any importance, yes.

11        Q.   Right.  And that is Mr. Krajisnik's essential defence on appeal.

12     That's his ground of appeal.  "The Trial Chamber got it wrong.  I had no

13     authority."  Is that is not right?

14             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, I don't know if I have standing

15     to object, but I don't think Mr. Kremer is the one to described what the

16     main point on the appeal is, nor do I think Mr. Krajisnik -- I mean

17     Mr. Karganovic is.  I think that's really for the Chamber to make a

18     determination on.

19             THE WITNESS:  If I may chime in, I believe that I'm here to

20     testify along the lines of my statement about my observations during the

21     trial.  Of course I'm familiar with Mr. Krajisnik's appeal, but I would

22     not feel that it is my role here to comment on that.

23             MR. KREMER:

24        Q.   Did you or did you not assist Mr. Krajisnik in filing his appeal?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 483

 1        Q.   And in fact, your statement that you're testifying to today

 2     suggests that it is an addendum to Mr. Krajisnik's appeal; is that

 3     correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And I suggest to you that the statement that you prepared was

 6     prepared after discussions with Mr. Krajisnik and all of the specific

 7     grounds that he had put in his notice of appeal with your assistance.

 8        A.   No.  No, not at all.  I wrote my statement myself without any

 9     reference to his appeal or his grounds of appeal.  It is based on my

10     observations while I was case manager during the trial.

11        Q.   But you put it in these terms:

12             "I will describe in my experience and impressions gained while I

13     was a member of his Defence team during trial proceedings which refer to

14     the specific claims that Mr. Krajisnik made in his appeal."

15        A.   Mm-hmm.

16        Q.   I suggest to you, sir, that your statement is designed and

17     written particularly to blend in to the specific claims that

18     Mr. Krajisnik has made in his notice of appeal prepared with your

19     assistance.  Do you agree with that or not?

20        A.   I would not agree with that.  There may be points of

21     compatibility between my statement and Mr. Krajisnik's appeal, but my

22     statement was not generated as adjunct to his appeal.

23        Q.   When you prepare the statement did you had before you or had you

24     read Mr. Mano's statement that was prepared September 23rd, 2004?

25        A.   I don't recall having had his statement.  And his statement had

Page 484

 1     no influence whatsoever on my impressions.

 2        Q.   You did not take from Mr. Mano's statement the suggestion that

 3     Mr. Stewart was fairly uninterested in historical and factual background

 4     of the case?

 5        A.   No.

 6        Q.   You did not take from Mr. Mano's statement that Stewart was

 7     paying visits to European cities and working in his practice in London?

 8        A.   I did not need the assistance of Mr. Mano or to read his

 9     statement to point those things out because it was a matter of simple

10     observation and other members of the Defence team observed exactly same

11     things.

12        Q.   Now, with respect to Ms. Loukas, you indicated on the Davidovic

13     issue that you communicated to her the results of your conversation with

14     the doctor who was the husband of the other doctor whose equipment

15     allegedly went missing.

16        A.   Mm-hmm.  Yes.

17        Q.   What specifically did you tell Ms. Loukas about your telephone

18     conversation?

19        A.   I told Ms. Loukas that the doctor said that the extortion that

20     was alleged on the part of Mr. Davidovic did not take place.  The doctor

21     denied the allegation that was made by Mr. Krajisnik's investigators.

22        Q.   All right.  And you were present in court when the allegation was

23     put to Davidovic about this fact; is that correct?

24        A.   I'm sure I was.

25        Q.   Yes.  And when Ms. Loukas put the allegation to him knowing it to

Page 485

 1     be false, did you stand up and correct the record?

 2        A.   I don't think that it is my role to intervene during a trial

 3     in -- in such a manner.  Ms. Loukas was conducting the examination, I

 4     wasn't.

 5        Q.   All right.  So you're saying that you were -- you were privy to

 6     some unethical conduct and Ms. Loukas' behalf?  Did you report this to

 7     Mr. Stewart?

 8             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, I object to that question.  It

 9     presupposes that Ms. Loukas knew it was false solely because the victim

10     denied it.  That may or may not have been the case.  It's a question what

11     she knew, and I think it's unfair to ask this witness that question.

12             MR. KREMER:  I'll ask it differently.

13        Q.   Did you tell Mr. Stewart that you were concerned about the

14     cross-examination that was being actively objected to by the Prosecution,

15     continuing when you had told her that the witness did not stand by the

16     investigator's statement?

17        A.   The Defence, meaning both Ms. Loukas and Mr. Stewart, were both

18     aware of the outcome of my telephone call, and the speculation was that

19     Mr. Davidovic was such a powerful and intimidating figure that even

20     though these people may have been hurt by him, they did not dare to talk

21     about it.  So that was their view of it.

22        Q.   And you're aware of the fact, because you were in court, that at

23     some point after the 27th of June, 2005, Mr. Stewart withdrew those

24     specific questions on the basis that they had no -- they had no

25     substantiation; correct?

Page 486

 1        A.   I have no specific recollection, but I believe if you say so it's

 2     a matter of record, but I just want to emphasise that I have nothing to

 3     do with it because I was not in charge of the case.

 4        Q.   You have never been a practising lawyer; is that correct?

 5        A.   Correct.

 6        Q.   And in your CV when you refer to yourself as having been a public

 7     defender, that's inaccurate; is that correct?

 8        A.   What is accurate is that I worked for the office of the public

 9     defender in Oceanside, California for a private firm, which did contract

10     work for the public defender; and I performed the duties that I indicated

11     in my CV.

12        Q.   So then your CV is inaccurate in that it refers to the office of

13     the public defender in San Diego County because that is not who you

14     worked for; is that right?

15        A.   I'm not so sure you're correct in that, because all of us in that

16     office, insofar as we dealt with public defenders' work, were paid by the

17     office of the public defender, i.e., the State of California.

18        Q.   You refer to the San Diego County, and I'm informed by the letter

19     that is AP2 that the department of the public defender in its present

20     form was only established in 1988.  So you could not have worked for them

21     in 1991 to 1994.  How do you explain that.

22        A.   I have no need to explain it because it was very definitely a

23     department of the public defender in California in San Diego County and

24     it contracted the office that I worked for in Oceanside and referred work

25     to it.

Page 487

 1        Q.   All right.  Now, you also in your CV refer to the fact that

 2     you're in private practice but you weren't in private practice as a

 3     lawyer, were you?

 4        A.   Where is that.

 5        Q.   In 1992 to 2001.

 6        A.   That was Seattle.

 7        Q.   In Washington?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   Now, you also refer to the fact that you were a legal assistant

10     on the Dragan Obrenovic Defence team.  You were not a legal assistant for

11     the Dragan Obrenovic Defence team, were you?

12        A.   Yes, I was.

13        Q.   I'm going to refer you to a letter written by Eugene Wilson.

14     David Eugene Wilson.  Do you know him?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And I believe you've seen this letter.

17        A.   Okay.

18        Q.   I'll just read something that he says.  Did you ever -- before I

19     do that, did you ever represent to him that you'd practised law?

20        A.   No.

21        Q.   In a letter that Mr. Wilson wrote to Mr. Petrov in the Popovic

22     case, he says:

23             "In his interview with me, Mr. Karganovic told me that he was a

24     licensed attorney having graduated from law school in either Illinois or

25     Indiana," and then he has, "which I cannot remember now, and that he had

Page 488

 1     served as a public defender in California.  He stated that he no longer

 2     practiced law since he had decided that he did not enjoy being a lawyer

 3     but preferred being an interpreter in the Serbian and Spanish languages."

 4     And he said, "I made no attempt to verify his status credentials as a law

 5     school graduate and a licensed attorney," because he hired you as a

 6     translator interpreter at that time?

 7        A.   That's correct he initially hired me as a translator and

 8     interpreter then I became case manager and legal assistant in the case.

 9        Q.   And so you're saying that Mr. Wilson, who is a partner in a law

10     firm and describes himself as being a senior prosecutor in the State of

11     Washington for the federal government, a magistrate for eight years and

12     is now a senior partner in one of the large law firms in Seattle, he's

13     got to wrong?

14        A.   Partially, yes.

15        Q.   Partially.  Now, when you left the Obrenovic team, where did you

16     get employment?

17        A.   With the Stanisic team.

18        Q.   And how long did you work for the Stanisic team?

19        A.   That was for about a year and a half.

20        Q.   And why was your employment terminated?

21        A.   Because after Mr. Stanisic returned to Belgrade he decided that

22     he did not wish to employ me any more, or, rather, there was a problem

23     with the funding in the case, and Stanisic did not feel that he could

24     privately fund my services.

25        Q.   Mr. Wilson in his letter suggests otherwise.  I'll read what he

Page 489

 1     says:

 2             "I do -- I do not know the exact date, but around 2005

 3     Mr. Karganovic telephone me and told me he had been fired, discharged,

 4     from the Stanisic team in a dispute with the client."

 5             Did you have a dispute with the client that led to your

 6     termination?

 7        A.   No, I did not have a dispute with the client and I resigned.  I

 8     was not fired.  I have my letter of resignation which I sent to

 9     Mr. Knoops and he can confirm that.

10        Q.   Now, the reason Mr. Wilson sent his letter to Mr. Petrov was

11     because you had offered a proffer to testify in the Popovic case; is that

12     correct?

13        A.   Correct.

14        Q.   And he was sending the letter because he felt that you were about

15     to disclose confidential information or had already disclosed

16     confidential information to the Popovic Defence team concerning

17     solicitor-client privileged information that took place in the Obrenovic

18     case; correct?

19        A.   That was his perception, yes.

20        Q.   Yes.  And prior to -- when was the first time you met with the

21     Defence of the Beara team?

22        A.   I had known them for a number of years.

23        Q.   Yes.  But in terms of this proffer, when -- I know that it was

24     written in 2008, but in one of the correspondences that you have filed

25     you suggest it was about a year before that you had spoken to them about

Page 490

 1     making a proffer.  Is that fair?

 2        A.   I'm not sure, but a year or less.

 3        Q.   So sometime in the fall of 2007?

 4        A.   Could be, yes.

 5        Q.   And I suggest to you, sir, that in 2006 you had spoken to

 6     Mr. Wilson about working for the Beara team and he had said, you cannot

 7     do it.  The client doesn't agree.  Is that correct?

 8        A.   Correct.

 9        Q.   And the Beara team actually made an application to the Registry

10     to speak permission, Mr. Wilson and his client objected, the Prosecution

11     objected, and you were told no; yes?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   And not withstanding knowing that confidentiality of the

14     relationship with Mr. Obrenovic was an issue, a year later you went and

15     spoke to the Beara team and revealed some confidences, did you not?

16        A.   No.  The idea was not for me to reveal confidences, but to

17     impress those aspects of the bargaining process where Mr. Obrenovic may

18     have been exposed to undue pressure by the Prosecutor.  In other words,

19     my proffer was essentially to testify about what the Prosecutor did or

20     said in relation to the accused and not to talk about confidential

21     conversations or case planning between the accused and his lead counsel.

22        Q.   You -- you know that when Mr. Wilson sent this letter he had

23     already seen your proffer, did he not?

24        A.   Yes, yes.

25        Q.   Yes.  And I'll just read to you what he says in his letter:

Page 491

 1             "Those proofing notes clearly set forth that Mr. Karganovic

 2     intends to violate his duty as a member of the Obrenovic Defence team to

 3     maintain the confidentiality of all communications within that team.  He

 4     has indicated that he will do so by testifying as to his supposed

 5     recollections of such communications, including supposes statements by

 6     the accused Obrenovic to his Defence team."  He was concerned enough to

 7     write this letter to stop you from violating those confidences; is that

 8     correct?

 9        A.   Yes that's correct.  He was concerned --

10        Q.   And --

11        A.   May I finish my answer, please.  And his concern -- and it was

12     precisely when I reconsidered the whole issue that I decided that I would

13     be treading too close to a dangerous area and that it may not be possible

14     to isolate those aspects that would not infringe on the client-attorney

15     relationship that I decided to ask to be withdrawn as a witness and I did

16     not go ahead and testify in that case.  So I think that I should be given

17     credit for acting with prudence rather than criticised for acting

18     improperly because I did not in the end act improperly or run the danger

19     of so acting?

20        Q.   Let me put this to you:  In Wilson's letter describes your

21     proffer in the following terms:

22             "Mr. Karganovic's description of the debriefing session --

23     debriefing process is inaccurate, greatly misleading, and filled with

24     innuendo.  It is not -- it is insulting not only to Mr. McCloskey but to

25     ourselves, Mr. Obrenovic's attorneys.  Both Mr. Slijepcevic and myself

Page 492

 1     have been attorneys for many years, more than 40 in my own case.  I was

 2     the chief federal Prosecutor in my federal district in the United States,

 3     a Judge for eight years, a US Army lawyer and a military Judge, and have

 4     been a Defence lawyer in the private practice of law for more than eight

 5     years.  Mr. Slijeptovic --"

 6        A.   Slijepcevic.

 7        Q.   "-- has been an attorney for more than 34 years and was a Judge

 8     in Belgrade before being fired by Mr. Milosevic's regime for refusing to

 9     adhere to the party line."

10             Those are his comments about your proffer and I suggest to you,

11     sir, that you're prepared to say anything for Mr. Krajisnik, as you were

12     prepared to say anything to support the Beara defence?

13        A.   I appreciate these are Mr. Wilson's comments.  I know Mr. Wilson.

14     He is a honest person and I respect him.  However, he has a stake in

15     making sure that I do not discuss some of those things even in the very

16     limited way that that discussion was projected, because it would

17     adversely effect a plea bargain which in the capacity of lead counsel he

18     was closely involved.  So he has a motive in portraying what I had

19     proposed to do but did not in the most negative possible light.

20        Q.   All right.  Let's talk about motive.  What is the Stichting

21     Srebrenica Historical Project?

22        A.   It is a non-governmental organisation which was founded here in

23     The Hague with myself as its president which has the purpose of

24     investigating crimes and victims on both sides of the conflict in the

25     area of Srebrenica.

Page 493

 1        Q.   And who funds it?

 2        A.   It is funded by contributions.  We receive logistical support

 3     from the government of the Republika Srpska.

 4        Q.   And did you hold a conference in Banja Luka on the 4th of

 5     October, 2008?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And the reportage for that conference suggests that again you

 8     were holding yourself out to be an American lawyer.  Perhaps we can --

 9     I'll just read you from a clip that attributes some comments to you.  And

10     I can bring it up if need be.

11        A.   Fine.

12        Q.   Here it is.  There's a quote in -- in Politika web site,

13 about this conference.  You organised this international

14     symposium?

15        A.   Yes.

16        Q.   And you are attributed to have said the following:

17             "It is correct that a major number of captured Bosniaks had been

18     executed in Srebrenica and that constitutes a major war crime.  However,

19     there is not a single piece of evidence that the crime had been committed

20     pursuant to an order by the civil or military leadership of Republika

21     Srpska.  Moreover, there is no evidence that over 8.000 Bosniaks had been

22     killed in Srebrenica as much as the number of Bosniak victims has been

23     increased so have the Serb victims in this territory been reduced not to

24     say underestimated."  Stated the American lawyer Stefan Karganovic,

25     president of the historical Serb project Srebrenica.  Are those your

Page 494

 1     words?

 2             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, I object.  The introduction to

 3     this whole statement was saying you are quoted as saying you are an

 4     American lawyer, and the quote has nothing no there to say that the

 5     witness said he is an American lawyer.  So the whole premise of the

 6     question is invalid and I move that it be stricken.

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Mr. Dershowitz, I have started having some problems

 8     with your inventions because you're supposed to be a JCE counsel, and you

 9     are taking -- intervening on everything.  A line of questions will go to

10     the credibility of the witness, so I don't think it's appropriate you're

11     doing that.

12             MR. KREMER:  Just two --

13        Q.   Are those your words?

14        A.   The words that you quoted for the most part are my words.

15        Q.   Yes.

16        A.   And they express my sentiments whether I quite put it that way or

17     not.

18        Q.   Okay.

19        A.   As far as the other part of it is concern, I would just like to

20     point out that a graduate of the school of the geology is a geologist.  A

21     graduate of the school of accounting is an accountant.  I should think

22     that a graduate of a school of law would be a lawyer.

23        Q.   Now let's just deal with your -- your current relationship with

24     Mr. Krajisnik.

25        A.   Yes.

Page 495

 1        Q.   You're currently helping him with his appeal in various

 2     capacities as interpreter, translator, as legal researcher, fact-finder,

 3     et cetera.  And are you being remunerated for that assistance?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And how long have you been working with him on his appeal?

 6        A.   I have been assisting him virtually since shortly after the

 7     judgement.

 8        Q.   All right.  And how would you describe this in terms of

 9     occupation of time, full time, part time?

10        A.   I think that it varies from one period of time to another, but

11     there were times when it was pretty much full time as, for example, when

12     Mr. Nicholls was involved for a couple of months.  It was a great deal of

13     work.  And of course I also had to translate and summarise large portions

14     of the judgement before he actually received it late in 2007, and that

15     took an enormous amount of time and effort.

16        Q.   All right.  Now, you perform some services for Mr. Nicholls, is

17     that fair?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   And you were retained to -- or part of the Colin Nicholls Defence

20     team from the 15th of December, 2006, I believe, to the 24th of April,

21     2006?

22        A.   I was [Overlapping speakers] a member of Mr. Nicholls team.  I

23     worked with Mr. Nicholls, it being understood that I was assisting

24     Mr. Krajisnik, and I was working with Mr. Nicholls with Mr. Krajisnik's

25     knowledge and approval.

Page 496

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters note would the witness kindly be

 2     asked to speak into the microphone.

 3             MR. KREMER:

 4        Q.   Karganovic, could you speak into the microphone.  The

 5     interpreters are having some difficulties.

 6        A.   I work with -- well, my answer appears here, so I think we're all

 7     right.

 8        Q.   So when you were working, and I'll use are words, I'll get to it

 9     later, when you were working with Mr. Nicholls, you were also working

10     with Mr. Krajisnik?

11        A.   Correct.

12        Q.   And Mr. Nicholls was aware of that?

13        A.   Very much so.

14        Q.   And when you became part of -- or when you started to assist

15     Mr. Nicholls, Mr. Nicholls expressly advised you, did he not, that the

16     only confidential communication that would take place between he -- or

17     that is written or otherwise between he and the client would be material

18     coming from him and not from anyone else who is working for

19     Mr. Krajisnik, is that not so?

20        A.   Correct.

21        Q.   And -- and it's my understanding that during the course of your

22     working with Mr. Nicholls that you put into the confidential envelopes

23     that he was sending to Mr. Krajisnik material other than he had seen or

24     authorised, is that fair?

25        A.   That is fair and I would like to explain that if I may.

Page 497

 1        Q.   Just answer the questions.

 2        A.   Yes, that's correct.

 3        Q.   You did that; correct?

 4        A.   Yes, that is correct.

 5        Q.   And when Mr. Nicholls found out about your actions he terminated

 6     your services immediately, did he not?

 7        A.   In relation to him, yes.

 8        Q.   Yes.  And you continued to work for Mr. Krajisnik.

 9        A.   Correct.

10        Q.   And at some point when explaining this to the Registry, you said

11     that your -- you felt that even though you were working with Mr. Nicholls

12     and you were being paid by the Registry to work with Mr. Nicholls, your

13     accountability and your loyalty was to Mr. Krajisnik first; correct?

14        A.   Certainly I regarded myself as an assistant to Mr. Krajisnik.

15     Mr. Krajisnik, during that period, with all due respect for Mr. Nicholls,

16     emphasised every single time that we went to see him, Mr. Nicholls and I,

17     that he wanted to represent himself, that he did not want Mr. Nicholls to

18     represent him or to write his appeal, and that he was unhappy with the

19     situation that he perceived of Mr. Nicholls being imposed.

20             My role in that interaction between the two of them was as an

21     interpreter.  It was mostly confined to going to the Detention Unit with

22     Mr. Nicholls.  The other part of what I was doing was to translate for

23     Mr. Nicholls and for the benefit of Mr. Krajisnik some materials that

24     Mr. Nicholls had sent me.  So it was both translating and interpreting;

25     and I was paid by the Registry, you are correct there, but not as a

Page 498

 1     member of Mr. Nicholls' team because I was never formally appointed a

 2     member of his team.  I was paid simply in my capacity as an interpreter

 3     and translator.

 4             I did the same kind of work in other cases without being a member

 5     of that team.

 6        Q.   All right.  Certainly Mr. Nicholls thought you were part of the

 7     team because he terminated your services.

 8        A.   Well, it struck me as very odd that he -- that it should occur to

 9     me -- to him to terminate me when I was not aware and I had no reason to

10     think that he considered me his employee.  And if you read the letter

11     that I sent to him on that occasion, I think that you will clearly see

12     that.  You will see my perception of it.

13        Q.   In any event you were suspended on the 24th of April 2007.  On

14     the 25th of April did you have communication with Mr. Nicholls on behalf

15     of Mr. Krajisnik, telling Mr. Nicholls that Mr. Krajisnik no longer

16     wanted to receive any communication from him?

17        A.   It's possible that I sent him an e-mail to that effect, and it

18     would have been at the request of Mr. Krajisnik.

19        Q.   Yes.  Now, you'll agree with me that in the September 3rd, 2007

20     letter that Mr. Petrov sent to you that Mr. Petrov disagrees with your

21     interpretation that you were not part of the Colin Nicholls Defence team;

22     is that correct?

23        A.   I don't see the letter in front of me, but I certainly recall it

24     and I certainly do recall that Mr. Petrov did not share my view on that

25     particular point, but I want to re-emphasise that in this institution, to

Page 499

 1     the best of my knowledge; and I've been here for about five or six years,

 2     when someone is a member of a team, when one is -- when one becomes a

 3     member of a team a letter of appointment is issued to that effect.  I

 4     never received one in relation to Mr. Nicholls and his team.

 5        Q.   And in any event, Mr. Petrov in his letter said, "Your statement

 6     that you were never a member of Mr. Nicholls' Defence team is inaccurate

 7     regardless of the fact that Mr. Nicholls may have only used your services

 8     on an ad hoc basis," correct?  That's his position?

 9        A.   That's his position.  I respect Mr. Petrov, but I disagree.

10        Q.   In your letter of the 29th of June 2007 which is attached to a

11     filing by Mr. Krajisnik, it's a letter in respect of the allegations

12     about misuse of the improper procedure, you make some suggestions that

13     Mr. Nicholls did not give you proper instructions about the use of the

14     confidential envelope.  I gather from your answer this afternoon that you

15     agree that you did received instructions on the use of the confidential

16     envelope and that your placing additional materials into the confidential

17     envelope was never approved by Mr. Nicholls?

18        A.   I think that it would be helpful if these materials that you

19     refer to were introduced into the evidence so that the Chamber could read

20     them and draw their own conclusions instead of just reading excerpts,

21     because in my response to Mr. Petrov, I point out that even though

22     technically that procedure may have been for the purpose of material to

23     be passed from counsel to client, everything that I passed on to

24     Mr. Krajisnik using that procedure was case related.  It was material of

25     the type that we have discussed a little bit earlier while I was

Page 500

 1     translating for Mr. Krajisnik sections of the judgement and doing

 2     transcript research.  So there was no private communication there

 3     whatsoever.  That's point number one.

 4             And point number two, on several occasions when Mr. Nicholls and

 5     I went to see Mr. Krajisnik at the Detention Unit, I had passed similar

 6     material by hand to Mr. Krajisnik in Mr. Nicholls' presence, and

 7     Mr. Nicholls did not object.  So my interpretation of his failure to

 8     object was that it was a functional endorsement.  He did not ask to

 9     review the material to see what it was.  He took it on faith as in fact

10     was the case that it was all case related.

11             I realise --

12        Q.   Just --

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   I'm going to invite the Chamber to look at the material that

15     Mr. Petrov forwarded to me.  This witness is using considerable amounts

16     of time rambling on.

17        A.   I'm sorry.

18        Q.   And Mr. Petrov has decided in his letter quite clearly after a

19     diligent investigation what he thinks the position is, and I'll leave it

20     to the Chamber to decide on this question.

21        A.   I think that is best, but I -- I object to your calling my answer

22     rambling because I'm not rambling.

23        Q.   All right.  We will disagree over how we describe it.

24        A.   Fine I can also disagree with some of the positions or

25     interpretation that Mr. Petrov has taken.

Page 501

 1        Q.   Let's go to your letter of October 16, 2007.

 2        A.   Okay.

 3        Q.   Paragraph 9, and that's the only one I'm going to deal with and

 4     then I'm done:

 5             "It seems the Defence team did not have a plan according to which

 6     it operated particularly in the phase when the Defence started to present

 7     its evidence and no longer just reacted to some moves of the Prosecution.

 8     The approach was more often than not experimental rather than

 9     functionally directed," and then you give one example.

10             "For instance, for some time we discussed about whether or not to

11     open the issue of Muslim armament for which the accused had collected a

12     lot of evidence in order to prove that the Serbian side was not an

13     unprovoked aggressor in BH and, rather, reacted to other threats and

14     provocations.  Without any particular reason or explanation simply

15     Stewart put this project ad acta and there was no presentation on

16     evidence on this matter."

17             Do you under oath accept that statement that there was no

18     statement of Muslim army in the Krajisnik case?

19        A.   No.  I think that you're reading into that passage perhaps what

20     you prefer to read into it.  This is very specific.  We are talking about

21     a very specific project within the Defence team at this time to create a

22     dossier on Muslim arming that would target that issue in a -- in an

23     elaborate way, not just a few questions being put to this or that witness

24     but something that would deal with the issue in a systematic way.  That's

25     what I'm referring to here.  And under oath I can state that's exactly

Page 502

 1     the way it happened.

 2        Q.   So you won't disagree with me when I suggest to you that there

 3     was considerable cross-examination on the Muslim armament issue of

 4     Prosecution witnesses?  I refer to the witness Deronjic, Ramic,

 5     Hasanovic.  Correct?

 6        A.   Of course I won't disagree with you, but that is a completely

 7     different kind of approach than the one that I'm talking about here.

 8     Haphazard rather than systematic in the course of the presentation of

 9     defence evidence.

10        Q.   And during the course of defence evidence there was evidence led

11     of Muslim disarmament -- or armament is that not right through the

12     witness of Savkic, through the evidence of Bjelica; correct?

13        A.   Correct, but here we're talking about a systematic presentation

14     of that topic, not a few unrelated haphazard questions.

15        Q.   And in respect to the witnesses, let's just talk about the

16     numbers.  You mentioned that several witnesses were unable to travel and

17     couldn't testify.  A number were unwilling to testify.  Is that not so?

18        A.   Some were afraid, yes.

19        Q.   Some witnesses perhaps didn't give you sort of the detail that

20     was required to mount the kind of sophisticated defence that was perhaps

21     being -- was under consideration?

22        A.   I was not the judge of the adequacy of that detail.

23        Q.   That was for the lawyer, was it not, or the lawyers?

24        A.   That was for Mr. Stewart to decide on the final analysis.

25        Q.   With Mr. Josse?

Page 503

 1        A.   Or Ms. Loukas.

 2        Q.   At the time, yes.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4             MR. KREMER:  I'm not sure when the Court wants to take a break.

 5     I think I'm close to my limit of time.

 6             JUDGE POCAR:  You have around five minutes.

 7             MR. KREMER:  I wondered if --

 8             JUDGE POCAR:  And we won't take a break if you finish in five

 9     minutes.

10             MR. KREMER:  I wonder if I just consult with my colleagues if

11     there's anything they can think of.  If I could just have a minute.

12             JUDGE POCAR:  Sure.

13                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

14             MR. KREMER:

15        Q.   Just -- just a couple of questions to conclude.  I'm looking at

16     a -- a list of Defence witnesses that were called, and you will agree

17     with me that the Trial Chamber gave the Defence a limited number of hours

18     in which it could produce its defence; is that correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   And decisions had to be made in regard to who to call and for how

21     long.

22        A.   Clearly.

23        Q.   And Mr. Krajisnik had formed the opinion from before the Defence

24     case even started that he was going to testify; is that correct?

25        A.   No, it is not.

Page 504

 1        Q.   No?  Okay.  Mr. Krajisnik did decide to testify at some point?

 2        A.   Yes, he did.

 3        Q.   Yes.  And his testimony lasted about 40 court days.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And that consumed a large part of the time that was allocated to

 6     the Defence; correct?

 7        A.   That is correct.  And in my earlier testimony I said exactly what

 8     you're saying now.

 9        Q.   All right.  And from reviewing just generally what the witnesses

10     are talking about, there's a wide range of witnesses that talk about the

11     politics before the war and even during the war.  There are witnesses

12     that talk about the political negotiations involved -- involving

13     Mr. Krajisnik and others of the RS government; correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   There are representative witnesses from municipalities, from the

16     SDS Main Board, et cetera.

17        A.   Correct.

18        Q.   All commenting on various issues that have been identified as

19     important to Mr. Krajisnik's defence; right?

20        A.   Yes.  Comments may have been made on most of the important

21     issues, but arguably what was absent was systematic and concerted

22     treatment of many of them.

23        Q.   So you disagreed with, I guess -- the number of witnesses called

24     could have been greater, is that what you're saying?

25        A.   I'm not arguing with the number.  I would be more inclined to

Page 505

 1     argue with the nature of the quality of some of the witnesses.  And

 2     again, if I may unworthily elevate myself to the hypothetical position to

 3     which the distinguished Judge placed me, I probably would have excluded

 4     some of the witnesses and included some of -- some that I felt were more

 5     important or more pertinent to key issues, but that is a subjective

 6     judgement of course.

 7        Q.   But you will agree with me that you weren't there for the whole

 8     defence?

 9        A.   Of course, but I'm talking about the period when I was there,

10     which was when most of the witnesses if not -- well, most of them

11     testified while I was there.  I was not there while Mr. Krajisnik was

12     testifying.

13        Q.   And you were not there when most of the Prosecution witnesses

14     were testifying?

15        A.   Correct.

16        Q.   And so that there is a large part of the case that you're

17     missing, and that influences your ability to offer any opinion on what

18     should have been done by the counsel who had been there from the

19     beginning and finished the trial to its conclusion, is that -- or saw it

20     to its conclusion?

21        A.   Oh, please, give me a break.  I'm a literate person.  I know how

22     to look things up.  Just because I missed a part of some event it doesn't

23     mean that I cannot catch up.

24             I -- of course, being personally there is a huge advantage.  That

25     doesn't mean that I cannot find out what went on in my absence.

Page 506

 1        Q.   How did you find out by asking other people?

 2        A.   Well you can do that.  You can go to the internet page and look

 3     up testimony that you thought might be interesting.  There are many ways,

 4     very simple ways to find out and catch up.

 5        Q.   But you were in court as a case manager, you were in court for

 6     the full period?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   And you weren't able to do any trolling through the record as it

 9     were?

10        A.   Well, I don't want to use a negative word about your question,

11     but it is a bit tendentious because court is five hours.  You have duties

12     outside of court, and then you still have some time over the weekend and

13     in the evening that you can use anyway you want.  I'm not saying that I

14     was perusing previous witness testimony.  The only point that I'm making

15     is that there are various ways of becoming informed about what went on

16     before.

17        Q.   Yeah.  But when you were working for the approximately 13 months

18     as the case manager, interpreter, translator for the Krajisnik team, you

19     had a full-time job.

20        A.   I had a full-time job.

21        Q.   Yes.  Thank you.

22        A.   That doesn't exclude doing other things when the job is over.

23        Q.   Thank you.

24        A.   Thank you very much.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.  Judge Shahabuddeen, you want --

Page 507

 1                           Questioned by the Appeals Chamber

 2             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Just one -- just one question,

 3     Mr. Karganovic.

 4             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for His Honour.

 5             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  Sorry.  It concerns the testimony which

 6     Mr. Krajisnik gave over 40 days.  Now, who examined Mr. Krajisnik for

 7     those 40 days?

 8        A.   I believe it was both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Josse.

 9             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  And then the time would come when

10     Mr. Krajisnik would be re-examined.  Who would have re-examined him?

11        A.   On any specific occasion --

12             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  During those 40 days of testimony --

13        A.   Yes.

14             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  -- a time would have come when he would have

15     been re-examined by counsel.  Which counsel?

16        A.   Mm-hmm.  Your Honour, if the purpose of your question was -- is

17     to find out whether I was keeping up with Mr. Krajisnik's testimony after

18     I left the team, as I mentioned, shortly thereafter my mother, my cousin

19     and I went to Serbia.  So I was not --

20             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  So you are not in a position to answer that

21     question.

22        A.   No, I'm not.  No I'm not.

23             JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:  All right.

24        A.   I was not following it that closely.

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, this concludes the testimony of

Page 508

 1     Mr. Karganovic.  We thank you.  You can -- you may be excused, and the

 2     usher would lead you out of the courtroom.

 3             THE WITNESS:  Thank you very much.

 4                           [The witness withdrew]

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  Before we adjourn, I would like to -- sorry, we can

 6     certainly move into open session now.

 7             Are we in open session?

 8                           [Open session]

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, we're back in open session.

10             JUDGE POCAR:  Thank you.

11             Now, before we adjourn, I was saying, I will have announce the

12     decision of the Appeals Chamber as concerns the request filed by

13     Mr. Krajisnik as concerns the statement of Radovan Karadzic.

14             The Appeals Chamber has decided that under Rule 92 ter, the

15     statement as annexed to the request should be admitted into evidence at

16     the proceedings to be held on November 5, 2008, provided, of course, that

17     the requirements set forth in Rule 92 ter are met, that is that

18     Mr. Karadzic is present and is available for cross-examination and other

19     questioning and will attest that the written statement reflects his

20     declaration.

21             There is a partial modification of the Scheduling Order of

22     October 21.  The hearing will start at 9.00 and not at 8.30.  This being

23     said, I think we --

24             MR. KREMER:  I just --

25             JUDGE POCAR:  Please.

Page 509

 1             MR. KREMER:  I'm sorry to interrupt, but I just have a question

 2     in terms of the schedule for Wednesday.  How much time will the

 3     Prosecution have to cross-examine?  When will we start to cross-examine?

 4     I think it's important to know whether we have three hours, six hours, or

 5     nine hours.

 6             The other --

 7             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

 8             MR. KREMER:  The other question I have and relates to today's

 9     hearing, I note that the Scheduling Order has an impact summary required

10     for the 14th of November on the Karadzic testimony, but there was no

11     order allowing impact submissions on the testimony today, and I'm just

12     inquiring whether that was an oversight or wasn't intended to have

13     submissions made regarding the testimony today.  And then there's also a

14     word limit.  There's none prescribed in the order, and perhaps some

15     direction as to how long the submissions should be.

16                           [Appeals Chamber and legal officer confer]

17             JUDGE POCAR:  Well, on the last question we have to go back to

18     private session, but on the -- on the scheduling for Wednesday, the

19     hearing will be like follows:  There will be -- of course we will have to

20     ascertain of course the conditions of 92 ter, and that would be the

21     beginning the hearing.  Then as of when this is done, the Appeals Chamber

22     decided that the cross-examination by the Prosecution should take one

23     hour and a half, and thereafter there should be a re-examination.  That

24     would be half of that time, so 45 minutes.  This is what we have agreed.

25             May we go back to private session now.

Page 510

 1             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Your Honour, can I just -- the 45 minutes is

 2     with reference to me; is that correct?

 3             JUDGE POCAR:  Yes.

 4             MR. N. DERSHOWITZ:  Thank you.

 5             JUDGE POCAR:  May we go back to private session now?

 6                           [Private session]

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 511

 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   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.51 p.m.,

21                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day

22                           of November, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.