1. 1 Monday, 17th August 1998

    2 (Open session)

    3 (The accused entered court)

    4 --- Upon commencing at 9.45 a.m.

    5 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-16-T, the

    6 Prosecutor against Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic,

    7 Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic, Dragan Papic,

    8 Vladimir Santic.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I have the

    10 appearances, please, for the Prosecution?

    11 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone,

    12 Mr. President, please.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: I've got to get used to all

    14 this new equipment. Sorry. Appearances for the

    15 Prosecution, please?

    16 MR. TERRIER: Good morning, dear Judges. My

    17 name is Franck Terrier, I shall speak French, and I am

    18 appearing on behalf of the Prosecution together with

    19 Mr. Moskowitz who will speak English.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you very much. For the

    21 Defence?

    22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please,

    23 microphone.

    24 MR. RADOVIC: Ranko Radovic, attorney from

    25 Zagreb, appearing on behalf of Zoran Kupreskic, and I

  2. 1will speak Croatian.

    2 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Good morning, Your

    3 Honours, I am Jadranka Slokovic-Glumac, attorney from

    4 Zagreb, appearing on behalf of Mirjan and Zoran

    5 Kupreskic.

    6 MR. KRAJINA: Your Honours, my name is

    7 Borislav Krajina, attorney from Sarajevo, appearing on

    8 behalf of Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic.

    9 MR. PAR: Good morning, Your Honours, my name

    10 is Zelimir Par, attorney from Zagreb, appearing on

    11 behalf of the accused Vlatko Kupreskic.

    12 MR. SUSAK: Good morning, I am Luko Susak,

    13 appearing on behalf of Mr. Drago Josipovic.

    14 MR. PAVKOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. I

    15 am attorney Petar Pavkovic, defence council for

    16 Vladimir Santic.

    17 MR. PULISELIC: Good morning, Your Honours.

    18 I am attorney Petar Puliselic, attorney from Zagreb,

    19 appearing on behalf of the accused Dragan Papic. On my

    20 right, my assistant, Nika Grospic.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: I hope that all the accused

    22 can hear me in a language that is accessible to them.

    23 Can you hear me?

    24 Now, first of all, I would like to apologise

    25 for being late, for the late beginning of our hearing.

  3. 1It's not our fault, but I will ask now the registrar to

    2 ask the Dutch police to try to be on time in bringing

    3 here all the accused so that every morning we can start

    4 at 9.30 sharp.

    5 I would like now, first of all, to go through

    6 a few outstanding procedural matters. Afterwards, we

    7 will hear arguments on some of these matters, and then

    8 we intend to break for 30 or 40 minutes to decide on

    9 those questions, if any, and before we start the trial

    10 proper, we will then go through a few sort of legal

    11 housekeeping matters which must be dealt with before we

    12 start with the trial proper.

    13 Now, let me list what I regard, after reading

    14 all these documents, as outstanding matters to be

    15 disposed of before we start with our trial. I will

    16 list four items, and I will then ask both parties to

    17 tell me whether they feel that there are other items

    18 which I have probably neglected.

    19 The first item which I think we have to

    20 discuss is whether or not any brief has been filed by

    21 Defence to respond to the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief

    22 pursuant to an order signed by Judge Mumba on the 11th

    23 of August, so this morning we have received only a

    24 document from Mrs. Glumac. I wonder whether the other

    25 Defence counsel have also filed any documents.

  4. 1Remember the deadline was last Friday at 1.00 p.m.

    2 This is will be the first item.

    3 The second item is the motion filed by

    4 counsel for Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic on the 13th of

    5 August, and relating to the production of witness

    6 statements by the Prosecution.

    7 Third item is the consideration of some of

    8 the outstanding issues raised in the motion by counsel

    9 for Vlatko Kupreskic. This was the motion requesting

    10 the withdrawal of indictment. You may remember that

    11 Judge Mumba issued an order on this motion dismissing

    12 the motion but reserving for this morning any

    13 outstanding matters.

    14 The last, fourth and last item, is the

    15 possible consideration in ex parte proceedings of two

    16 ex parte motions filed by the Prosecution. I will ask

    17 the Prosecution whether they want to present oral

    18 argument on both motions, or on one of them. Of

    19 course, this will be ex parte proceedings. After that,

    20 we will be ruling.

    21 So on all these issues, as I say, we intend

    22 to hear -- on most of them to hear arguments from the

    23 parties, and then, in our recess this morning, to

    24 decide on the matter. After that, we will then resume

    25 our deliberations, our hearing, and after dealing with

  5. 1the housekeeping matters, we will then move on to our

    2 trial proper, we will commence our trial proper.

    3 Now, may I ask the parties whether they feel

    4 that there are other matters which I have probably

    5 neglected or forgotten to mention here which, in their

    6 view, should be dealt with at the outset, before we

    7 start with the trial proper?

    8 Let me, first of all, turn to the

    9 Prosecution.

    10 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, regarding the

    11 legal points and issues you mentioned, I can't think of

    12 any other issues to deal with.

    13 As to housekeeping matters, it may be too

    14 soon, too early, to mention them, but I think it might

    15 be useful to mention the issue of protective measures

    16 to be attributed to some witnesses, and also we should

    17 speak about the way the Court believes we should deal

    18 with these issues in order to waste as little time as

    19 possible.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: May I ask the Defence counsel

    21 whether they feel there are other matters which should

    22 be discussed? No matters? Yes, please. I apologise,

    23 but since we still can't remember your name, could you,

    24 when you take the floor, first of all mention your name

    25 so that -- gradually in a few days we will of course

  6. 1remember very well all your names.

    2 MR. KRAJINA: Attorney Borislav Krajina

    3 appearing on behalf of Borislav Kupreskic.

    4 We would say, first of all, that we agree

    5 with what you have said, Your Honour, Mr. President,

    6 but within the framework of the points you have

    7 mentioned, referring to the motion of the Defence of

    8 Vlatko Kupreskic, that we also examine and finally deal

    9 with the problem of the restoration of the property and

    10 documents of the accused Kupreskic, a matter that we

    11 have still not managed to resolve, and the Defence

    12 considers this to be important.

    13 Secondly, we would like our motion and

    14 requests for specialist examinations of the accused

    15 Kupreskic to be carried out because he's 100 per cent

    16 invalid and he has a heart problem as well, a heart

    17 condition.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Thank you. Yes,

    19 we will add these two points to our list of outstanding

    20 matters. I will therefore start with the first

    21 question; namely, whether the other Defence counsel

    22 other than Mrs. Glumac intend to file any response to

    23 the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief.

    24 We have, in reading Mrs. Glumac's brief, we

    25 have seen that, according to her, it is too early now

  7. 1for the Defence counsel to file a detailed brief

    2 setting out the various points they admit and the

    3 points they challenge. I wonder whether the other

    4 Defence counsel agree with Mrs. Glumac, and in this

    5 case, we would wait for two or three weeks because this

    6 is what Mrs. Glumac suggested, that probably, in a few

    7 weeks' time, Defence counsel would be in a better

    8 position to file detailed briefs.

    9 Do all counsel agree with the position taken

    10 by Mrs. Glumac? In this case we would later on rule on

    11 this matter, but I for one think it is quite

    12 appropriate for all of them to get some more time.

    13 Yes, Mr. Krajina? Yes, please.

    14 MR. KRAJINA: I should like to repeat, Your

    15 Honour, that we did, in due time, that is seven days

    16 after we received the pre-trial brief of the

    17 Prosecution, that we did file a reply and respond in

    18 detail to that brief.

    19 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, may I

    20 just say that this letter does not have the value of a

    21 pre-trial brief. It is just a letter addressed by the

    22 Defence team. My intention was to write this on behalf

    23 of all because we are all in the same position, and I

    24 believe that we would all benefit from some additional

    25 time, especially with respect to the legal issues

  8. 1raised in the pre-trial brief of the Prosecution.

    2 As for the facts of the matter, may I add a

    3 point which is common to all the Defence attorneys?

    4 There are some facts that we agree with; therefore, we

    5 admit certain facts. But they have been interpreted in

    6 such a way and placed in such a context that if we were

    7 to elaborate on all the circumstances which, in our

    8 view, the Prosecutor has misinterpreted, that would

    9 already be a defence proper. So that if we were to

    10 start to do this, we would have to comment on each

    11 individual point, and this would, in effect, constitute

    12 our whole defence, and that is why I think we need to

    13 clear up how much of this the Trial Chamber expects us

    14 to do in assisting you before the actual trial.

    15 So that is our question. To what extent can

    16 we enter into some of those counts, because I think the

    17 burden of proof is on the Prosecution, and they are the

    18 ones that have to present the evidence, and we feel at

    19 a disadvantage because we still haven't received all

    20 the documents and all the statements, and we already

    21 have to start with our defence, so I would like to ask

    22 for your assistance.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Before I give the

    24 floor to other Defence counsel, let me point out that

    25 we had in mind, of course, the possibility of the

  9. 1Defence counsel and the Prosecution to come to some

    2 sort of agreement on points of fact and law on which

    3 they would agree, as we did in Dokmanovic. You may

    4 remember in Dokmanovic, after a few weeks, probably

    5 three or four weeks, the Prosecution and the Defence

    6 were able to come together and prepare a list of facts,

    7 not allegations, about the accused, because I realise

    8 from your documents that, of course, you contest

    9 whatever the Prosecution has stated with regard to all

    10 of the accused.

    11 But we thought of issues such as whether or

    12 not an armed conflict was underway on that particular

    13 day, what sort of armed conflict, and other legal

    14 issues on legal matters. So I wonder whether, at some

    15 stage, you could come together and try to reach a sort

    16 of agreement so that we don't need to go into those

    17 particular items at great depth. Of course, it depends

    18 on you. We don't want to press you. This is only a

    19 means of speeding up -- we thought this could be a good

    20 way of speeding up the whole trial so that we would

    21 concentrate on the major bones of contention on the

    22 issues of fact and law and we would, in a way,

    23 disregard those particular matters on which both

    24 parties fully agree.

    25 Let us see whether, in a few weeks' time, you

  10. 1are in a position, after maybe talking with the

    2 Prosecution, to come to this sort of agreement, and

    3 then you could put on paper, on a document, the various

    4 items which are not in dispute between the two parties.

    5 Yes, please.

    6 MR. RADOVIC: My name is Ranko Radovic. In

    7 principle, we have nothing against meeting with the

    8 Prosecutor, but I think it will be very difficult for

    9 us to come to any kind of legal or factual agreement.

    10 The only agreement between us and the Prosecution can

    11 be over the fact that there was a conflict on the 16th

    12 of April in Ahmici. Everything else will be contested.

    13 Furthermore, as far as legal issues are

    14 concerned, again we have a completely opposite position

    15 to the Prosecution. The Prosecution, in its pre-trial

    16 brief, refers to precedents from the Tadic case.

    17 However, the Tadic case cannot be a precedent for this

    18 case since the Tadic case applies to a system of camps

    19 or prisons, whereas this case refers to a completely

    20 different factual situation.

    21 Furthermore, the Prosecutor refers to certain

    22 points from the Nuremberg trials, but he forgets that

    23 at that trial the leaders of the Nazi system were on

    24 trial, whereas in this case persons from the area of

    25 Vitez were on trial who were, in fact, defending their

  11. 1homes. In Nuremberg, it was the leaders who were on

    2 trial, and here we have people who are at the tail end

    3 of events who are on trial, so there is nothing in

    4 common between the two.

    5 When the time comes, we will elaborate on

    6 this point in legal terms but I think the precedents

    7 referred to by the Prosecutor cannot be acceptable to

    8 us under any conditions.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Let me again -- thank

    10 you so much for your comments. Now, I see that two

    11 more Defence counsel would like to address this

    12 particular issue. Let me make an appeal to you to be

    13 as short as possible because, of course, you may

    14 remember that at the outset, when we presented to both

    15 parties our guidelines, to which I will come back later

    16 on, guidelines for the conduct of proceedings, we

    17 insisted that Defence counsel should try not to repeat

    18 statements that normally there should be a coordinating

    19 Defence counsel who would address issues on behalf of

    20 all Defence counsel so as to shorten the time devoted

    21 to discussion of particular procedural matters.

    22 For the time being, I think it is quite

    23 proper for the two Defence counsel to address the

    24 particular issue.

    25 Yes? Who was first?

  12. 1MR. PULISELIC: My name is Petar Puliselic.

    2 I should like to be very brief, but I would inform the

    3 Court that I too have submitted a separate motion in

    4 addition to the joint one by Mrs. Glumac. I have

    5 submitted a separate motion in which I refer briefly to

    6 the Prosecutor's pre-trial brief. That's all I wanted

    7 to say.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Puliselic.

    9 It's a bit difficult, I apologise, but gradually I will

    10 learn to pronounce your name.

    11 MR. PAVKOVIC: My name is Petar Pavkovic

    12 appearing on behalf of Vladimir Santic. There is no

    13 doubt, Mr. President, the points that you have put on

    14 the agenda now merit our special attention, but may I

    15 be allowed to refer to the obligation of the Defence so

    16 as to avoid the impression that I have now that the

    17 Defence has omitted to do something in due course.

    18 According to the ruling of the Court on the

    19 28th of July, it had to submit a joint reply to the

    20 pre-trial brief and to the indictment. I and my

    21 colleagues have fulfilled our obligation and have

    22 supplied our responses in relation to the indictment in

    23 which we present our positions, so the only thing that

    24 remains undisputed between us is that this fact

    25 occurred. Everything else is disputed in the position

  13. 1of the Defence.

    2 As for our reply to the pre-trial brief of

    3 the Prosecution, that brief was received by us very

    4 late. Because of the Prosecutor, who did try to

    5 explain the delay, but that is the reason why we were

    6 unable to meet our obligation in this particular case.

    7 Therefore, I agree that we should today

    8 establish certain procedural matters so that the

    9 Defence may be able to assist the Trial Chamber in

    10 understanding its position regarding the indictment.

    11 As regards legal matters, I think that we

    12 first have to clear up the fact that from Roman times,

    13 we know that when we know the facts, only then can we

    14 talk about the law. Thank you.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. To wind up the

    16 discussion of this matter, I would say that it is

    17 right, as quite a few -- I mean, all Defence counsel

    18 have pointed out that -- all of them had already

    19 submitted a short response to the request made by the

    20 Trial Chamber that they should try to address the

    21 points raised in the Prosecution's pre-trial brief.

    22 However, since we felt -- and this was also the views

    23 of the Prosecution -- that those responses were a bit

    24 too concise, we, Judge Mumba, on behalf of the Trial

    25 Chamber, in order requested Defence counsel to, and I

  14. 1read out the order, relevant part: "To set out those

    2 points, if any, of the indictment in brief which are

    3 admitted, those which are denied, and the grounds for

    4 so doing and setting out in general terms, setting out

    5 in general terms the defence to the indictment."

    6 We do appreciate that it is probably too

    7 early for the Defence to comply with the order issued

    8 by the Trial Chamber, and we hope that, in due time,

    9 maybe three, four weeks' time, all Defence counsel, or

    10 at least some of them, will be able to produce such

    11 documents. It is not a binding request. If you feel

    12 that you are not able, as I say, to set out in detail

    13 all the points of fact and law which you agree on and

    14 those which you contest, so much the better. If you

    15 feel that you are not in a position to do so, then we

    16 will have to wait until maybe the end of the

    17 Prosecution case.

    18 By the same token, I would also appeal to you

    19 to try see whether you can come to some sort of

    20 understanding or agreement with the Prosecution on

    21 points of agreement and disagreement. This is again a

    22 sort of appeal. Again, if you -- and, of course, you

    23 have already understood the rationale behind this

    24 appeal from the Court, namely, to try to narrow down

    25 the main issues of disagreement. If we are not in a

  15. 1position to do so, we will wait and see what happens

    2 later on.

    3 I think we should now move on to our next

    4 item which is more complex and more serious, but before

    5 doing so, I see that Mr. Terrier would like to take the

    6 floor. I saw that -- did you intend to address the

    7 Court on this particular point?

    8 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour, if you allow

    9 me to, just two brief remarks.

    10 Needless to say, the Prosecution sees no

    11 problem in granting an additional time for the Defence

    12 to submit to the Public Prosecutor and to the Court

    13 their respective briefs. I just point out that by

    14 doing so, the whole operation becomes less relevant.

    15 Indeed, if the facts advanced by the accusation had

    16 been admitted by the Defence during the Prosecution

    17 case, we would have been in a position to change the

    18 way in which the witnesses will appear in order to

    19 avoid wasting time. Still, in three weeks' time, such

    20 briefs may be of interest, but I do regret this

    21 additional delay.

    22 The second observation. Of course, I apprise

    23 myself of all the briefs that were filed so far, and I

    24 have the feeling it may be wrong, but I have the

    25 feeling that the Defence counsel in the main have

  16. 1already their own views and positions as to what they

    2 admit in the pre-trial brief and what they reject. I

    3 mentioned the brief that was filed on behalf of all the

    4 Defence counsel. In that brief, whilst there is a

    5 request for additional time, it is also mentioned that

    6 the only fact admitted by the Defence, is the fact that

    7 Bosnia and Herzegovina had proclaimed its independence

    8 on the 3rd of March, 1992, and it was recognised as an

    9 independent State.

    10 As to all the allegations, whether of fact or

    11 of law, included in the Prosecution's pre-trial brief

    12 seem to be squarely denied or rejected, so even if this

    13 delay is granted, I do not think that it would be very

    14 useful for the further trial proceedings.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you very much,

    16 Prosecutor. I had another reading of the brief filed

    17 by Mrs. Glumac. If I am not wrong, she states towards

    18 the end of her brief that the Defence admits the fact

    19 that there was an armed conflict on the 16th of April,

    20 1993, so there is another element that is agreed by the

    21 Defence. The Defence admits the fact of independence

    22 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina but also

    23 admit that there was an armed conflict. This is, of

    24 course, one of the main issues raised in this trial.

    25 But it admits that there was a conflict, an armed

  17. 1conflict, on the 16th of April.

    2 MR. TERRIER: Indeed, Your Honour, but I note

    3 that the concept of armed conflict is a legal issue, a

    4 legal concept, but also a military fact or a fact, and

    5 as to the facts, the Prosecution does not believe that

    6 on the 16th of April, 1993, there was a conflict

    7 between two military units or two military camps. This

    8 is not a fact that we agree to.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: May I suggest then we move on

    10 to our next issue; namely, the -- all the questions

    11 raised by Mrs. Glumac in her motion filed on the 13th

    12 of August, and on this particular matter, I would

    13 like -- I apologise for mispronouncing your name. On

    14 this issue, I suggest that you, Mrs. Glumac, should

    15 briefly comment on the main points of your motion, and

    16 then we will ask the Prosecution to respond so that we

    17 can hear oral arguments on this particular problem

    18 which, as I say, is of crucial importance, and after

    19 that we will, in our recess, try to make a ruling on

    20 this matter.

    21 Please.

    22 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Your Honours, this

    23 motion was submitted for the reason that we feel that

    24 the Prosecution did not abide by the provisions of Rule

    25 66 of the Rules of Procedure. Namely, according to

  18. 1those Rules, the Prosecutor was obliged to submit all

    2 the witness statements of the witnesses he intends to

    3 call, within a time limit of 60 days prior to the

    4 beginning of trial. This has not happened.

    5 We admit that the first batch came with a

    6 four-day delay, and that was acceptable because it was

    7 agreed on, but all the statements that reached us

    8 later, and they reached us successfully, they kept

    9 coming until the 12th of August when the last two

    10 statements reached us, and one of them was a statement

    11 of a protected witness. That is all right. But before

    12 that, a couple of days earlier, the statements of

    13 several additional witnesses arrived.

    14 Also, there was a whole batch -- I

    15 apologise. There was a batch of witness statements

    16 that the Defence received around the 21st of July this

    17 year which means that this was already late, it was a

    18 month late, actually.

    19 May I also add that as far as I am aware, the

    20 statements of ten witnesses appearing on the

    21 Prosecutor's list have not been disclosed, have not

    22 been produced. So that we still do not have the

    23 complete documents, and we feel that the Defence's

    24 right to prepare their defence has thereby been

    25 impaired, because we kept receiving these statements

  19. 1one after another. That is why we would appeal to the

    2 Court to rule that all those witnesses whose statements

    3 reached us after the 60-day time limit, and are not

    4 witnesses who enjoy protection granted by the Court,

    5 that they should not be called before 60 days has

    6 passed from the day when their statements reached us.

    7 In this way, our rights would be protected, the Defence

    8 would have time to prepare its defence, and I think we

    9 would be sanctioning this omission.

    10 I know that the material is extensive and

    11 that the Prosecution has difficulties, but precisely

    12 for those reasons, it has been difficult for the

    13 Defence to study those materials and to prepare

    14 properly.

    15 Rule 67 guarantees the right to a fair trial,

    16 and that includes the right to have sufficient time to

    17 prepare the Defence case, and we would like to ask, in

    18 view of this behaviour by the Prosecutor with regard to

    19 the disclosure of documents, that the Court rule along

    20 these lines so as to sanction such behaviour.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. If I understood

    22 you correctly, so you have slightly modified the

    23 request you put in your motion because, in your motion,

    24 you asked that an order be issued forbidding the

    25 Prosecutor to call any witness whose statement has not

  20. 1been made available to the Defence for at least 60 days

    2 before the witness is scheduled to testify.

    3 I understand now you are requesting that

    4 witnesses may be called; however, they should not be

    5 called right away or next week, or this week or next

    6 week, but only 60 days after their statements have been

    7 disclosed to the Defence. Am I correct or did I

    8 misunderstand your ...

    9 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: I think you

    10 misunderstood, Your Honour. Perhaps it was my problem

    11 with my English. I was trying to say that the

    12 Prosecutor should not be allowed to call a witness

    13 whose statement was not submitted to the Defence 60

    14 days ahead of time; that is, that there should be a

    15 60-day period between the time the statement is

    16 disclosed and the appearance of the witness. So the

    17 request is the same, that a 60-day period should pass

    18 between the time the statement was disclosed to the

    19 Defence and the time the witness appears to testify in

    20 court.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Of course, you

    22 are aware that this would entail a delay in the calling

    23 of the witnesses because that means that we would have

    24 to wait until, say, probably one month or even more,

    25 probably six weeks, before those particular witnesses

  21. 1are called by the Prosecution. If this is so, as I

    2 say, this will slow down the trial proceedings. But

    3 this is your position?

    4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, we have

    5 a problem because we have about 34 statements submitted

    6 to us with delays, so this is a large number of

    7 witnesses. We have to prepare for them. Then there

    8 are another ten witnesses whose statements have not

    9 been disclosed, so we have to see whose interest is

    10 greater. Because what could occur is for witnesses to

    11 appear and testify about something we have no idea, and

    12 this is a very important issue. There is the

    13 possibility of a life sentence for our clients, and I

    14 think that we cannot take a leisurely attitude toward

    15 the Defence preparations, and I feel that the problem

    16 is that the Prosecution has taken a rather leisurely

    17 attitude towards this.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I will now turn

    19 to the Prosecution and ask them to clarify their

    20 position and to explain why there was such delay in the

    21 submission of witness statements and how this squares

    22 with the relevant Rules of Procedure; in particular,

    23 Rule 66(A)(ii), in its old version, because I feel that

    24 Mrs. Glumac is right in saying that we should apply the

    25 old version of our Rules because otherwise the new Rule

  22. 1would affect the rights of the Defence.

    2 Mr. Terrier?

    3 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, at the outset,

    4 the Prosecution is of the opinion that it fully

    5 complied with its obligation of disclosure of all the

    6 exculpatory evidence it had in its possession, in

    7 keeping with your rules and Rules of Procedure and

    8 Evidence. Of course, we were bound by your decision

    9 issued on the 20th of May, 1998, and we are equally

    10 bound by Rule 66 of the Rules which, at the time when

    11 we had the pre-trial Status Conference, held that there

    12 had to be a 60-day time limit between the disclosure

    13 and the beginning of the hearing.

    14 Another part of the Rules is that copies of

    15 other Defence witness statements should be disclosed as

    16 soon as a decision to call them to testify is made.

    17 This (a) of Rule 66 is tantamount to saying that nobody

    18 wanted that the trial procedures should be made rigid

    19 before the trial proceedings were completed. The

    20 Prosecution, during the time reserved to it for the

    21 Prosecution's case, has the obligation of keeping -- of

    22 keeping working at finding elements which may be of use

    23 to the Tribunal, keep investigating on such matters.

    24 There is a first decision on the production

    25 of documents of the 16th of June, 1998 -- that was no

  23. 1problem because it was a date decided by your Trial

    2 Chamber. We made a choice which you may regret as

    3 Judges, but I would like to elucidate. We wanted to

    4 have a great number of testimonies under Rule 66, but

    5 also under Rule 68 of the Rules. It seemed to be of no

    6 problem to us to provide more witness statements to the

    7 Defence. That maybe was necessary due to the more

    8 limited number of witnesses we were going to call, so

    9 as to provide the Defence with all necessary

    10 information on the trial. And such testimonies,

    11 without going into the details of Rule 68 as to the

    12 disclosure of exculpatory evidence, such witness

    13 testimonies we thought might be of interest for the

    14 Defence in preparing their case. Our reading of Rule

    15 68, which is very clear, which is absolutely

    16 indispensable in the Rules, is sometimes difficult to

    17 apply. It's hard to elucidate what an exculpatory

    18 piece of evidence is. We don't know what the Defence

    19 cases will be. Are they going to say that the accused

    20 were present in Ahmici on the 16th of April, 1993, or

    21 are they going to invoke another type of defence?

    22 So on the date ruled by your Court, we

    23 decided to disclose as great a number of statements as

    24 possible under Rule 66 and Rule 68, and in doing so, we

    25 believe that the Prosecution took due care of the

  24. 1interests of the Defence, provided the Defence with

    2 relevant and considerable material which made it

    3 possible for the Defence to prepare its case.

    4 There are other arguments made by the

    5 Defence. Some can be accounted for by the ruling of

    6 this Court aimed at protective measures for a number of

    7 witnesses and others are based on the Rule 66(A)(ii)

    8 which I read out a few minutes ago. Admittedly, a

    9 certain number of witnesses' names were not accompanied

    10 with the witness statements for the simple reason that

    11 we did not have the witness statements. If witnesses

    12 had provided witness statements we would, of course,

    13 disclose them to the Defence. So we believe that we

    14 complied with all the obligations we were under, under

    15 the Rules, and under the rulings by this Court.

    16 As to the motion filed before this Court

    17 today aiming at prohibiting the Prosecution from

    18 calling any witness whose name would not have been

    19 disclosed 60 days earlier, so this would mean that we

    20 could not call any new witness and this would be in

    21 patent violation of Rule 66(A)(i), and this is the

    22 reason why we believe that the Defence's motion should

    23 be denied by you.

    24 At any rate, if you were to rule against the

    25 Prosecution, you would be deprived of relevant

  25. 1information in this case, and you know from experience

    2 that it is when the time for the opening of the trial

    3 is drawing close, that it is then that important

    4 information is disclosed to the Prosecution, which then

    5 must submit it to your consideration; otherwise, it

    6 would be in violation of the fair administration of

    7 justice and in violation of the Rules.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Prosecutor, on behalf of

    9 the Chamber, I wish to put a few questions to you for

    10 clarification.

    11 There is a first problem dealing with

    12 figures. In a document recently filed with the Court,

    13 you state that you plan to call 71 witnesses. However,

    14 it appears from the motion filed by Mrs. Glumac that

    15 the witness statements which were gradually disclosed

    16 to the Defence amount to 82 or 81 witnesses.

    17 The first question we would like to put to

    18 you is to the effect of knowing who, among the 81 or 82

    19 witnesses mentioned are the ones who are going to be

    20 called as Prosecution witnesses? We would like to

    21 understand why there is such a disparity in the

    22 figures.

    23 Another issue we would like to tackle: Did

    24 you disclose the witness statements of the 71

    25 witnesses? If so, when did you do so?

  26. 1If I understood you adequately, you justify

    2 the fact that close to half of the witness statements

    3 of the witnesses you intend to call were disclosed once

    4 the 60-day time limit had come to an end. So legally

    5 speaking, what is your reason, your justification for

    6 the delay in submitting and disclosing the witness

    7 statements? You seem to invoke Rule 66(A)(ii), second

    8 part of the sentence, "Copies of the statements of

    9 additional Prosecution witnesses shall be made

    10 available to the Defence when a decision is made to

    11 call those witnesses" and, on the other hand, you also

    12 invoke Rule 68. "The Prosecutor shall, as soon as

    13 practicable, disclose to the Defence the existence of

    14 evidence known to the Prosecutor which, in any way,

    15 tends to suggest the innocence or mitigate the guilt of

    16 the accused or may affect the credibility of

    17 Prosecution evidence." In such a case, there is no

    18 time limit, and you argue that anyway, since evidence,

    19 exculpatory evidence, has to be disclosed 60 days

    20 before the trial begins, you are entitled to disclose

    21 the witness statements even after the 60-day time limit

    22 has elapsed.

    23 So the legal foundation you put forward is

    24 based on these two rules, and this is my first question

    25 to you. Did I interpret, did I understand you

  27. 1properly, and if it is so, you do realise that this

    2 would apply to just about half of the witnesses you

    3 intend to call, close to half of the witnesses. So

    4 there is no balance. Any accepted and agreed reading

    5 of the two Rules I have just mentioned are such that

    6 witness statements should be disclosed to the Defence

    7 within the 60-day time limit, and if there are any

    8 additional witnesses which would be few in number, if

    9 additional witnesses are discovered by the Prosecutor,

    10 the latter is entitled to disclose, even at the last

    11 minute, disclose the witness statements only recently

    12 discovered. Some kind of balance has to be maintained

    13 because this could be used as a technique to butt in at

    14 the last minute and to disclose those statements to the

    15 Defence only too late, and there the Defence is right,

    16 it would not have enough time to prepare its case, and

    17 the Defence is entitled to enough time so as to prepare

    18 its case in relation to witnesses whose statements have

    19 been produced at the very last minute.

    20 So I would like to have some explanations

    21 from you on these various points I have just mentioned.

    22 MR. TERRIER: I shall endeavour to do so.

    23 As to the legal references or the legal

    24 foundation of our thesis, I have mentioned Rule 68 of

    25 the Rules on the disclosure of exculpatory evidence. I

  28. 1did so because I wanted to explain why we decided, back

    2 in June 1998, to produce a large number of witness

    3 statements to the Defence. There were among themselves

    4 statements of witnesses that we did then not plan to

    5 call to court, but we thought it was interesting for

    6 the Defence to know what was in the witness

    7 statements. But in order to use Rule 68, maybe we made

    8 a wrong choice, but I think it can be accounted for, we

    9 decided to disclose a large number of witness

    10 statements, and this was done under Rule 66 and Rule 68

    11 of our Rules.

    12 You mentioned something that appeared to you

    13 as some delay in the disclosure of this information

    14 according to the rulings and according to the Rules.

    15 Let me say this: On the 3rd of August, we produced a

    16 list of 71 Prosecution witnesses to the Defence. We

    17 thought that these might be the witnesses that we may

    18 call to testify before you, and I can say already that

    19 out of the list of 71 witnesses we had drafted, we know

    20 already that seven will not appear. They decided not

    21 to appear for various reasons that I could explain to

    22 you, but this is to be inappropriate and out of place

    23 for the time being. Out of those, eight had not

    24 produced any witness statements, so we had nothing that

    25 we could disclose to the Defence. So out of the

  29. 1initial 71 witnesses whose names were disclosed to the

    2 Tribunal on the 3rd of August, 1998, there are only 56

    3 witness statements.

    4 On the 16th of June, then on the 30th of

    5 June, as well as on the 17th of July, we disclosed a

    6 certain number of witness statements. I shall not

    7 mention those disclosed on the 16th of June because it

    8 doesn't seem to be challenged. As to the disclosure of

    9 the 30th of June, we disclosed 16 witness statements of

    10 which seven concerned witnesses for whom we had been

    11 granted an additional time limit by the Court. We

    12 regarded these witnesses as being possible Prosecution

    13 witnesses on the strength of the second part of Rule

    14 66(A)(ii). For this same reason, we disclosed another

    15 13 witness statements on the 17th of July. Last but

    16 not least, in the very first days of August, we

    17 produced and disclosed one last witness statement. So

    18 it's all a matter of appreciation as to the scope that

    19 can be given to that second part of Rule 66(A)(ii), and

    20 like other legal systems I am familiar with, with their

    21 own positive and negative sides, I want to mention that

    22 we did not want to have anything that would be fixed

    23 whilst the trial had not yet begun. We had to be able

    24 to find other new evidence until the trial would open

    25 so as to inform this Tribunal as comprehensively as

  30. 1possible as to the facts of this case. It would be

    2 regrettable if 60 days before the trial began, all the

    3 evidence, all the elements of a case file, were fixed

    4 once and for all. This would be regrettable for the

    5 Tribunal altogether.

    6 On the basis of the figures I have provided,

    7 I can say that the Prosecution has not made an

    8 excessive use of Rule 66(A)(ii). I believe that we

    9 used this Rule in a reasonable way and in a fair way

    10 towards the Defence. Should, of course, this Court

    11 rule otherwise, I shall comply with the ruling, but I

    12 think that I don't have any other things to say right

    13 now.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Of course, we agree with you

    15 as to the need not to predetermine too early in the

    16 piece how many witnesses will be called, but we need to

    17 find some kind of pragmatic solution. Hence, these two

    18 following questions. If my figures are right, 37

    19 witness statements were disclosed to the Defence whilst

    20 the 60-day time limit had elapsed already.

    21 Thirty-seven minus eight, because these were the

    22 statements of protected witnesses, and, as you said,

    23 you were authorised to disclose those witness

    24 statements with some delay. Remain 29 witness

    25 statements.

  31. 1First question: Out of the 29 witnesses, how

    2 many of them are Defence witnesses governed by Rule 68

    3 of the Rules? How much of it is exculpatory evidence?

    4 Second question: Out of the 29 witnesses,

    5 how many do we have who are among the 56 witnesses

    6 which you intend to call and whose statements you

    7 have? I am mentioning 56 because I am taking 71 minus

    8 seven, minus eight. So out of the 71 witnesses, we

    9 have to take seven and then eight out, remain 56. So

    10 we have the figure of 56 and now we have 29 witness

    11 statements. We would like to have the proper ratio to

    12 put us in a position to rule adequately. So what did

    13 you do? Did you use, if not abuse this liberty, did

    14 you have a sort of extensive interpretation of this

    15 last part of Rule 68(A)(ii)?

    16 MR. TERRIER: I understand your concerns,

    17 Your Honour. Let me explain the matter of these

    18 figures.

    19 As far as the 29 witness statements are

    20 concerned, you are right, Your Honour, they were

    21 disclosed after the time limit had elapsed and outside

    22 of the Court rulings. I note that eight of the

    23 witnesses have not produced witness statements. We are

    24 not in a position to disclose those witness statements

    25 to the Defence. So we should take these eight

  32. 1witnesses with no witness statements out of the 29.

    2 You wished to know, Mr. President, which of

    3 the 37 witness statements disclosed in June, on the

    4 16th of June, 1998, which, among those witness

    5 statements, had been disclosed with some delay and how

    6 many of them could be justified by Rule 68. I say that

    7 among those witness statements disclosed out of the

    8 time limit, none of them is based on Rule 68. All the

    9 disclosure to be carried out under Rule 68 has been

    10 done, and we did not find any other element that could

    11 be regarded as exculpatory evidence. If we had, of

    12 course, we would have disclosed in keeping with the

    13 Rule.

    14 I am not right now in a position of informing

    15 you any further. If you wanted any more refined

    16 calculations, maybe we could have some time in order to

    17 do so, but presently, this is all I can say.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Last question: What is your

    19 position in respect of the Defence motion as argued

    20 orally this morning? It may be that I had failed to

    21 understand the written motion, so this is to the effect

    22 of having the testimonies of witnesses postponed if

    23 their witness statements fail to be disclosed within

    24 the time limit of 60 days. But if I understood the

    25 Defence right, the Defence said that it is not asking

  33. 1to preclude such testimonies even if the witness

    2 statements were disclosed with delay. They only want

    3 to have a 60-day time limit which they can enjoy, which

    4 would mean that the witnesses could be called only in

    5 three to four weeks' time.

    6 What is your position as to the motion argued

    7 by Mrs. Glumac?

    8 MR. TERRIER: I had some trouble and

    9 difficulty in understanding the accurate meaning of the

    10 Defence motion. If the Defence motion ends at

    11 requesting that the calling of testimony with

    12 examination-in-chief and cross-examination by the

    13 Defence would be postponed for more than 60 days

    14 following the disclosure of the witness statements,

    15 this is contrary to justice, in my submission, and also

    16 in violation of the Rules.

    17 However, if the Defence should wish to have

    18 the opportunity to receive the opportunity from the

    19 Chamber to proceed to the cross-examination of a

    20 witness at a later date, the witness could come and be

    21 heard and be examined in chief, and as long as there

    22 were good reasons to do so, the Defence could proceed

    23 to the cross-examination only later on, maybe when it

    24 comes to the Defence case, and I think that this could

    25 be perfectly all right for us and the fears of the

  34. 1Defence might be allayed.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: I think that Judge May wanted

    3 to ask a question.

    4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Terrier, yes, the essence of

    5 the problem is that the Defence should have proper time

    6 to prepare. Trial by ambush is unacceptable, but at

    7 the moment, I haven't -- it may be that I have

    8 overlooked it -- a list of when statements were

    9 disclosed. Now, it may be that the problem can be

    10 overcome if sufficient time has been given for the

    11 Defence to prepare the particular witnesses, prepare

    12 their cross-examination. Obviously, they must have

    13 time to do that. But what I don't think we have is a

    14 list of the witnesses with a list of when the

    15 statements were disclosed.

    16 Could I refer you, please, to the order of

    17 witnesses and estimated length of examination-in-chief

    18 which you produced on the 3rd of August? Registry page

    19 2053. Where we have your list of witnesses, I take it

    20 from the way its described, in the order in which you

    21 propose to call them, starting with Mr. Watters.

    22 Now, I think what would be helpful to me so

    23 that I can try and judge that is to know which of those

    24 witnesses you now propose not to call so that we do not

    25 have to be troubled with that, but also to know when

  35. 1these statements of these witnesses were disclosed.

    2 For instance, those witnesses who you propose to call

    3 in the next day or two during the course of the next

    4 week, were they disclosed within the normal Rules or

    5 have they recently been disclosed, in which case it may

    6 be right not to call them at that stage?

    7 Can you assist us to that?

    8 MR. TERRIER: Your Honours, of course we

    9 shall submit to you a more precise account out of the

    10 list of 71 witnesses filed on the 3rd of August. We

    11 are going to provide you with the exact dates when the

    12 witness statements were disclosed to the Defence. But

    13 I do insist those of the witnesses who never produced

    14 any witness statements do not fall under the obligation

    15 of disclosure because there is nothing to disclose, and

    16 we know -- for some of them we know that they will not

    17 be called. Eight witnesses did not make any witness

    18 statements, seven will not come. Well, this is what we

    19 know today.

    20 As far as this week is concerned, I can tell

    21 you, and this will be checked very closely, but I don't

    22 think this will be challenged by the Defence, I do

    23 believe that all the witness statements were indeed

    24 disclosed to the Defence counsel; therefore, there

    25 should not be any problem for this week.

  36. 1But let me add that even for the witnesses to

    2 be called this week, we are not yet absolutely sure of

    3 the order of witnesses. We don't know whether the

    4 order that was scheduled on the 3rd of August can be

    5 totally adhered to. There are specific constraints

    6 under which we operate. We are talking about events

    7 that took place 1500 kilometres away from here five

    8 years ago, some people moved out, left the country;

    9 others are under family or professional obligations,

    10 they have commitments, and we have to make sure that we

    11 do take their wishes into account. So please do not

    12 believe that this is a sign of inconsistency or

    13 of flippancy on the part of the Prosecution, but it may

    14 well be that at times the order in which the witnesses

    15 may be called will not be the order that had been

    16 initially scheduled. It may well be that some of the

    17 witnesses mentioned in the list of whom we think will

    18 be willing to come might, in the end, decide not to

    19 testify before the Tribunal.

    20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Terrier, will you produce for

    21 us, please, a schedule setting out when it was that the

    22 witness statements were disclosed, and it might be

    23 helpful if that was done in the order of the witnesses

    24 which you set out on the 3rd of August.

    25 There is one further matter I want to raise,

  37. 1if I may, and it's this: That you made the point,

    2 Mr. Terrier, that it was not clear from the Defence as

    3 to whether it was admitted that the accused were in

    4 Ahmici on the 16th of April. In fact, in the case of

    5 one accused, it is admitted, although it said he was in

    6 the shelter, and if I have read that right, that's in

    7 the case of Vlatko Kupreskic, but I think I'm right in

    8 saying that no other accused has addressed this

    9 important point.

    10 Now, if it is to be suggested that an accused

    11 was not in Ahmici that day, then clearly that would

    12 constitute an alibi, and that would require, or

    13 requires under the Rules, disclosure before the trial,

    14 and perhaps I am addressing the Defence through you.

    15 Were it suggested that any accused was not in Ahmici

    16 that day, that should be promptly disclosed, but one

    17 must take it from the absence of disclosure that, in

    18 fact, that is not the case. But it would be helpful to

    19 know what the defence is on that particular point. One

    20 accused has made his position clear, and it seems to me

    21 the others should do so too.

    22 MR. TERRIER: In respect of the two questions

    23 raised by Judge May, I say that shortly within the

    24 recess granted, we shall communicate to you the dates

    25 of disclosure for those witnesses.

  38. 1When it comes to the defence of alibi as

    2 invoked by Mr. Kupreskic, and Rule 67 indeed, there is

    3 a need to communicate the intention of having witnesses

    4 appear on this defence of alibi, and we did not receive

    5 any other notification from any other Defence counsel

    6 for other accused. We conclude, therefore, that they

    7 themselves could testify on a special defence. This is

    8 the third sub-rule of Rule 67. But other witnesses

    9 could not be called on their behalf. But I believe

    10 that I noted in the statements disclosed this morning

    11 or a few days ago, I noted that several of the accused

    12 did not challenge or deny that they were present in

    13 Ahmici on the 16th of April. They do challenge the

    14 arguments raised by the Prosecution, but they do not

    15 challenge the fact that they were present in Ahmici.

    16 But I do believe that the Defence could more adequately

    17 than I do express their views on that.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether we can,

    19 before moving on to other items and before we take a

    20 break, we should break at around 11.00, whether I could

    21 turn to Mrs. Glumac and ask whether she would like to

    22 comment on the response given by the Prosecution to

    23 this particular item. Let us leave aside now the

    24 defence, the alibi question, because on that particular

    25 point, I should turn to Mr. Krajina.

  39. 1Please.

    2 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: We have responded in

    3 our brief saying that at the critical time our clients

    4 were indeed in Ahmici.

    5 As for the comments of the Prosecution, I

    6 think that he is not quite clear on the dates when the

    7 statements were disclosed. I have checked the dates

    8 and put them down and I can supply those dates to the

    9 Court. The Prosecutor has not disputed those dates.

    10 It seems to us that the Prosecutor says that he doesn't

    11 have statements for eight witnesses but, according to

    12 our count, it's ten, so it seems to me that it is quite

    13 the same to them whether it is eight or ten. I think

    14 that we must take care that the evidence is presented

    15 to the Defence correctly. It is not proper to act in

    16 this way. All these are witnesses on the Prosecutor's

    17 list.

    18 If I understood him well, he said that at

    19 first the statements of witnesses were given that they

    20 do not intend to call so as to give us an overall

    21 picture of the situation and that they did not submit

    22 statements of the witnesses they do intend to call.

    23 But that is obstruction of the Defence. So how can we

    24 prepare our defence in this way? That is what I heard

    25 at least being said by the Prosecutor, and I do feel

  40. 1that that is a violation of our rights.

    2 I agree that we should not freeze the process

    3 of presentation of evidence, but the question is, what

    4 has been happening in the meantime? There were no new

    5 investigations. These statements are all several years

    6 old. They are not the product of any current

    7 investigation. Therefore, I feel that the explanations

    8 given by the Prosecutor are not acceptable.

    9 In addition to my motion, I had intended to

    10 attach these dates so that the Trial Chamber should

    11 have an idea of the way in which the Prosecution

    12 behaved. I am not trying to say that anyone is

    13 intentionally wasting time. We do indeed want an

    14 expeditious trial but also a fair one, because that is

    15 our right. Thank you.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Let me just

    17 clarify one point -- yes, please, Mr. Radovic.

    18 MR. RADOVIC: In connection with the question

    19 of special defence and the defence of alibi, we know

    20 that we are obliged to disclose such a defence

    21 promptly, but in this case, that point will not be

    22 disputed, whether our clients were in Ahmici as an

    23 area. But what is disputed is whether they were in a

    24 spot where they shouldn't have been or somewhere else,

    25 and that is my reply to the question put by Your

  41. 1Honours.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Let us leave aside for

    3 one second the question of alibi because we have to now

    4 adjourn.

    5 It is clear that now the Prosecutor will

    6 provide the Defence and the Court a list of 71 names

    7 and he will specify there when the relevant statements

    8 have been produced. The eight or ten names of the

    9 witnesses for whom no statements have been produced,

    10 and also the list of those witnesses, out of those 71

    11 witnesses who have dropped out already, so that we can

    12 make up our minds and decide on this matter.

    13 Let me just clarify one point, probably due

    14 to a misunderstanding because of interpretation

    15 problems. Mrs. Glumac said that the Prosecution does

    16 not intend to provide to the Defence some statements of

    17 witnesses. Actually, the Prosecutor said that for

    18 eight witnesses they do not have statements. They're

    19 not withholding those statements, they simply don't

    20 have those statements available, so that's why -- but

    21 also for those witnesses, we would like to have a

    22 proper indication of their names so that when we resume

    23 at 11.30 or 11.35, probably the Prosecutor will be in a

    24 position to pass on to us and give to the Defence this

    25 particular list.

  42. 1I think we should now adjourn and discuss the

    2 issue of alibi later on because I see that some Defence

    3 counsel are keen to address this particular point.

    4 Let me say that I hope that by half past

    5 12.00, when we have to adjourn, I hope that we will be

    6 in a position to go through various procedural matters,

    7 and this afternoon at two o'clock when we reconvene, we

    8 should be able to quickly deal with the housekeeping

    9 matters and then start with the opening statement of

    10 the Prosecutor so that we proceed in a quick way.

    11 I now suggest that we adjourn for 30

    12 minutes. So we will rise now. We will come back at

    13 11.32 sharp.

    14 --- Recess taken at 11.03 a.m.

    15 --- On resuming at 11.40 a.m.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: I must apologise for the

    17 delay, but I understand the Prosecutor needed some

    18 time. I wonder whether the Prosecutor is now in a

    19 position to give us these documents; otherwise, we can

    20 move on to other matters.

    21 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, yes, we are in a

    22 position to provide you with the document, but there

    23 are other matters that maybe we should look into which

    24 could give me enough time to check the various pieces

    25 of information and draw up a summary. Thank you very

  43. 1much.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Thank you. Then

    3 may I suggest that we move on to our next item, namely,

    4 the issues which were raised -- some of the issues,

    5 legal issues, which were raised in the motion filed by

    6 the counsel for Vlatko Kupreskic. This motion for the

    7 withdrawal of the indictment. There are some

    8 particular matters which I think have been caused

    9 mainly by a misunderstanding.

    10 May I draw the attention of Defence counsel

    11 to page 5, paragraphs 19 through 22, of their motion,

    12 and I would like to ask Defence counsel to clarify

    13 their position on this particular matter because, as I

    14 say, I have the feeling that all the issues raised by

    15 Mr. Krajina are probably due to some misunderstanding

    16 concerning the position of the Prosecution.

    17 May I ask Mr. Krajina to come back and dwell

    18 upon those paragraphs, 19 through -- well, say, 24?

    19 MR. KRAJINA: With your leave, Your Honour,

    20 may my colleague Par explain this?

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: I'm sorry, but we have a

    22 problem with Mr. Par because -- this is a question

    23 which I intended to raise later on -- within the

    24 framework of what I have called the housekeeping

    25 matters; namely, the right of audience of Mr. Par.

  44. 1Now, Mr. Par is a legal assistant and, as

    2 such, he has no right of audience. He can sit here in

    3 the courtroom, but he has no right of audience. Since,

    4 therefore, this problem has cropped up now, I will deal

    5 with it right away because I understand that

    6 Mr. Krajina had requested that the position of Mr. Par

    7 be upgraded to that of a co-counsel. A co-counsel is

    8 entitled to address the Court, in addition of course,

    9 to sitting in court.

    10 Now, on this matter, the Trial Chamber has

    11 already come to a decision based on the following

    12 elements: First of all, a ruling was made by Trial

    13 Chamber II both in Tadic and in Kupreskic to the effect

    14 that whenever the lead counsel does not have any

    15 command of one of the two working languages of our

    16 Tribunal, French or English, he may suggest that a

    17 co-counsel be appointed, of course on condition that

    18 the co-counsel has full command and is fluent in one of

    19 the two working languages. We have to stick to this

    20 ruling, and for this purpose, the Trial Chamber has

    21 requested the Registry, which has the final say on this

    22 matter, as you know, to let us know what their position

    23 was.

    24 The position of the Registry is that,

    25 according to the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar,

  45. 1Mr. Par does not meet the linguistic requirements which

    2 are laid down I think, if I am correct, in Rule 14 of

    3 the relevant document. I have got this document

    4 somewhere, but I will dig it out in a few minutes,

    5 because there it is stated that the counsel must -- the

    6 lead counsel must be fluent in one of the two

    7 languages.

    8 So this is the position of the Registry, and

    9 the Registry, however, has suggested that this position

    10 should be, in a way, scrutinised by the Trial Chamber,

    11 which will eventually decide upon this matter. This is

    12 our second element, the second element we have decided

    13 to take into account.

    14 The third element is the judicial practice of

    15 the other Trial Chambers. They have consistently

    16 decided that either the leading counsel or the

    17 co-counsel must meet the requirements laid down in that

    18 particular provision, Article 14, and therefore, if the

    19 Registrar or the Deputy Registrar feel that those

    20 requirements are not fulfilled, the suggested

    21 co-counsel may not take up the task of co-counsel but

    22 may be given the position of legal assistant.

    23 Therefore, I suggest -- legal assistant, yes.

    24 We have decided that Mr. Par should be given

    25 the position of legal assistant, and therefore,

  46. 1Mr. Krajina is entitled to address the Court on any

    2 question relating to their accused.

    3 This being so, I wonder whether Mr. Krajina

    4 is in a position to address the item we were

    5 discussing; namely, the paragraphs I had mentioned of

    6 their motion. I am referring, of course, to the motion

    7 filed on the 27th of July suggesting that the

    8 indictment against Vlatko Kupreskic should be withdrawn

    9 and suggesting also that a separate hearing should be

    10 scheduled.

    11 As you know, Judge Mumba had already issued

    12 an order on this particular motion; however, in that

    13 order, as I reminded you this morning, in that order,

    14 Judge Mumba, acting on behalf of the Trial Chamber,

    15 decided that any problems, procedural problems, which

    16 were outstanding should be addressed in court this

    17 morning.

    18 So I wonder whether again -- I turn to

    19 Mr. Krajina. I would like to ask him whether he would

    20 be prepared to do so or whether he would like to deal

    21 with this matter this afternoon?

    22 MR. KRAJINA: Your Honour, since my colleague

    23 Par prepared to present the argument, may I be allowed

    24 to respond to your questions this afternoon? I don't

    25 know whether I understood well, Mr. President, whether

  47. 1this applies to your decision regarding our subsequent

    2 request for the appointment of Mr. Par as co-counsel

    3 because certain circumstances have changed regarding

    4 his command of an official language, and subsequently

    5 we addressed the Registry in writing and received a

    6 positive response from the Registry but, of course, the

    7 final decision was left with the Trial Chamber.

    8 Therefore, I didn't understand quite well

    9 whether the Trial Chamber is familiar with this most

    10 recent opinion of the Registry regarding this matter.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: No, we received from the

    12 Registrar a letter, which I have here in front of me,

    13 where he stated that actually, according to the

    14 Registrar, those requirements are not met; however,

    15 that, of course, the Trial Chamber would have final say

    16 on this matter.

    17 We decided to stick to the judicial practice

    18 of other Trial Chambers as well as to the ruling made

    19 by our Chamber in Tadic and Kupreskic; and therefore,

    20 to assign Mr. Par the role and the status of a legal

    21 assistant. This applies also to any future question

    22 and to your motion.

    23 Of course, I am ready to comply with your

    24 request that you should address this issue this

    25 afternoon so as to have enough time to prepare on this

  48. 1particular matter.

    2 Now, let us -- if, meanwhile, the Prosecutor

    3 has -- are you in a position to come back to that

    4 particular point, or shall we move on to -- well, I

    5 could ask the Prosecutor a question about the two

    6 ex parte motions filed recently, and we feel that it is

    7 probably not necessary that the Prosecutor should

    8 present oral argument on those motions because they are

    9 quite clear and we may make a ruling on them without

    10 hearing oral argument. However, if the Prosecutor is

    11 willing and prepared and wishes to present oral

    12 argument, of course, we would hold ex parte

    13 proceedings.

    14 What is your position?

    15 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, it is up to

    16 you. I do believe that the motions are clear in

    17 themselves. Should the Court wish to receive

    18 additional explanations, we are willing to provide the

    19 Court with them, but I think we are in the hands of the

    20 Tribunal.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. So we will decide

    22 on this matter, if possible, at lunch time, and we may

    23 now move on to two issues raised this morning in

    24 addition to the various items that I had set out in my

    25 introduction. One issue is that of protective measures

  49. 1was raised by the Prosecutor, and the other problems

    2 were raised by Defence counsel: One, the restoration

    3 of documents and property of Vlatko Kupreskic and the

    4 second item was the specialist medical examination,

    5 again of Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic.

    6 Could we start with the protective measures?

    7 I wonder whether the Prosecutor could briefly deal with

    8 this item so that we may then afterwards, if need be,

    9 hear the Defence counsel and move on?

    10 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour. We wish to

    11 address the way this Chamber wishes the parties to

    12 proceed in respect of protective measures which will be

    13 asked for regarding a number of witnesses.

    14 We know already that some witnesses, who all

    15 reside in Bosnia, will ask for protective measures, and

    16 based on that request, will put forward arguments that

    17 appear to be extremely well-founded. For instance,

    18 some witnesses have professional or social dealings

    19 with members from the other community and wish that

    20 their contribution to the ICTY remains as low profile

    21 as possible. The Tribunal is well-aware of the

    22 situation prevailing in Bosnia, still prevailing in

    23 Bosnia and Central Bosnia. It is a very unstable,

    24 precarious situation. There are acute tensions still

    25 between the communities.

  50. 1Therefore, our requests for protective

    2 measures are required by factual circumstances. We

    3 need to ensure the protection of the witnesses as ruled

    4 by the Statute but also by several Rules of Procedure

    5 and Evidence.

    6 So a pragmatic suggestion, in order to waste

    7 as little time as possible and to work to the

    8 satisfaction of all parties, is as such: When and if

    9 the Defence agrees to the requested protective

    10 measures, alteration of the voice, distorting the

    11 images, if such measures are agreed to by the Defence,

    12 the Chamber would not have to make any ruling on such

    13 measures.

    14 It may be different if, as provided by the

    15 Rules, the Chamber has to give reasoned motives for the

    16 protective measures. This should happen in closed

    17 session. This will happen only very rarely. I don't

    18 know as yet whether we shall ask hearings to be held in

    19 closed sessions, in-camera. It may well be the case,

    20 but I am not in a position to say when the Prosecution

    21 may have to ask for closed sessions.

    22 As to the witnesses due to appear this week,

    23 we ask for minimum protective measures, the voice

    24 should be distorted, so should the images, and we may

    25 ask some other minor protective measures.

  51. 1The only request I wish to formulate is that

    2 the Court should tell us which time limits to apply for

    3 the request of such protective measures, whether they

    4 are accepted or not accepted by the Defence.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether the Defence

    6 counsel has anything to say on this particular matter.

    7 Our conclusion would be -- I have quickly

    8 consulted with my two fellow Judges -- and we feel

    9 that, to respond to the request of the Prosecutor, of

    10 course our philosophy is that all the protective

    11 measures requested by other parties should be accepted

    12 to the extent that they do not limit the rights of the

    13 Defence, which are sacrosanct. First point. So,

    14 therefore, we intend to be quite generous in complying

    15 with requests designed to protect witnesses.

    16 The second point is that, of course, we can't

    17 make a decision, a blanket decision, but any decision

    18 must be made on a case-by-case basis, it goes without

    19 saying.

    20 Third point, from the viewpoint of

    21 practicality, I would suggest that if the parties are

    22 agreeable, that probably a day before a witness is

    23 called the party calling the witness should propose to

    24 the Trial Chamber the sort of protective measures to be

    25 taken. We will ask the other party whether they are

  52. 1agreeable, and then we will grant, if need be, the

    2 requested protective measure.

    3 Is it feasible, if you say a day before a

    4 witness is called, you suggest to the Court that you

    5 would like the particular witness to enjoy particular

    6 protective measures, we could make up our mind right

    7 away after consulting with the other party.

    8 What is your position on this?

    9 MR. TERRIER: Quite, Mr. President. I see

    10 absolutely no difficulty in doing so. The Chamber may

    11 wish one of the Defence counsel to be appointed as our

    12 counterpart in such questions and we could, before

    13 addressing the Court, turn to the representative of the

    14 Defence counsel to see whether they agree with the

    15 requested protective measures so as to duly inform the

    16 Court. But I think it might be good to have one such

    17 member of the Defence counsel to be appointed for the

    18 purpose.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: I think that is quite

    20 sensible, what you have suggested. Actually, we had

    21 already -- remember, we had thought of coordinating

    22 counsel, and this morning I reminded you that we are

    23 very keen to know whether a coordinating counsel has

    24 been appointed by the various counsel. We raised this

    25 issue some time ago. I remember that Defence -- one or

  53. 1two Defence counsel said they were not able to appoint

    2 just one coordinating counsel but they preferred to

    3 have two counsel, one speaking on behalf of a

    4 particular group, I think you mentioned, the Zagreb

    5 group, is it? Am I correct? And the other one, I

    6 don't remember which sort of group, linked to an area

    7 or to a city. I wonder, since we are dealing with this

    8 matter, it is a matter which I intended to raise this

    9 afternoon within the framework of the so-called

    10 "housekeeping matters," I wonder if you could tell me

    11 whether or not you have agreed upon a particular

    12 Defence counsel to act on behalf of all of them, to

    13 discuss all these procedural matters, in particular, to

    14 act in contact with the Prosecutor so that we can speed

    15 up practical matters and deal with them as quickly as

    16 possible.

    17 May I ask one of you to respond? I thought

    18 Mr. Radovic. I don't remember. I think Mr. Radovic,

    19 were you -- can I ask one of you just to remind us of

    20 what you had decided or whether or not you have changed

    21 your mind?

    22 MR. RADOVIC: Unfortunately, we have decided

    23 nothing regarding this matter. If it is necessary to

    24 appoint a coordinator, then I would ask for a short

    25 recess for us to make a kind of brief elections to see

  54. 1who we could appoint?

    2 MR. SUSAK: Mr. President, I feel that Petar

    3 Pavkovic has already been appointed coordinator. This

    4 is something that has gone down in the record, and I

    5 think that colleague Radovic was the author of that

    6 proposal or, rather, of that appointment.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, I think your

    8 recollection seems to be correct, and Judge May ...

    9 15th of May. I think since there may be

    10 hesitations, of course, you are fully entitled to have

    11 some time to discuss again this matter and come back to

    12 us maybe this afternoon. Is it fine with you if, say,

    13 you let us know this afternoon at 2.00 when we

    14 reconvene so you have plenty of time at lunch time. We

    15 tend, I'm afraid, to work at lunch time, both parties

    16 and the Judges. I'm afraid it's a bit taxing.

    17 All right. So much for the protective

    18 measures. We could probably quickly move on to the

    19 question raised by counsel for Vlatko Kupreskic about

    20 the restoration of documents and property belonging to

    21 Vlatko Kupreskic and since the issue was quickly raised

    22 this morning, I think by Mr. Krajina, I wonder whether

    23 the Prosecutor is in a position to state their stand on

    24 this particular point.

    25 Mr. Moskowitz?

  55. 1MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Mr. President. We

    2 filed, I think it was on May 20th, pursuant to this

    3 Court's order, a detailed accounting of the briefcase,

    4 and we have looked high and low for documents as

    5 described by Mr. Kupreskic as being in that briefcase.

    6 To the best of our ability, we have not found

    7 those documents. There was an extensive inventory

    8 done, there was a re-check done, there was an attempt

    9 to actually have Mr. Kupreskic look through the

    10 briefcase himself, but the briefcase had been sent back

    11 to Bosnia by the time that could take place. So it is

    12 our view and our position that those documents were not

    13 in the briefcase when we obtained them from SFOR back

    14 in 1997.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Could you, since

    16 you are now addressing the Court, also deal with the

    17 question of the specialist medical examination, the

    18 other issue raised this morning by Mr. Krajina?

    19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: May I have a moment to

    20 consult?

    21 It is our position that we do not object to

    22 that kind of examination, Your Honour.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Krajina, may

    24 I ask you to comment?

    25 MR. KRAJINA: Mr. President, first of all,

  56. 1may I thank you for putting on the agenda these two

    2 issues which we consider to be very important for the

    3 Defence of the accused Mr. Kupreskic.

    4 As for the restoration of documents contained

    5 in the briefcase when the accused Kupreskic was

    6 arrested, may I very briefly provide some explanations

    7 in connection with this problem?

    8 We had several contacts with the Office of

    9 the Prosecutor, and, as you know, this was discussed at

    10 the Status Conference held on the 15th of May this

    11 year, and there is a ruling of the Trial Chamber

    12 explicitly instructing that all objects seized from the

    13 accused have to be restored to the accused.

    14 The Prosecutor's Office has denied the

    15 existence of 14 documents, as my learned friend claims

    16 now as well, that they were not in the briefcase at the

    17 time that it was seized from the accused.

    18 In our submission of the 2nd of June this

    19 year, which we addressed to the Trial Chamber, we

    20 continue to allege that the objects, that the contested

    21 objects were indeed in the briefcase. They were

    22 prepared and put in the briefcase by our client because

    23 he intended to use them for his defence in the

    24 Tribunal. He kept for himself copies of all those

    25 documents, and they are still in his possession.

  57. 1Why do we keep pressing this issue? Because

    2 we wish to avoid the unnecessary effort that tracing

    3 those documents would entail and because we fear that

    4 in the course of that process, if we were to present

    5 copies of those documents in court, they may be

    6 challenged, and that is why we keep insisting that

    7 those originals need to be found and restored to the

    8 accused.

    9 The instructions given by the Trial Chamber

    10 to the Prosecutor to find and restore those documents

    11 says that the Prosecutor was also obliged to prepare an

    12 inventory of all the objects found in the briefcase and

    13 how, upon his arrest. I must repeat that the report

    14 submitted by the Prosecutor on the 20th of May, '98,

    15 does not contain such an inventory, such a list, with

    16 data on documents found in the briefcase, and because

    17 no such list has been submitted, the instructions of

    18 the Trial Chamber have not been followed, and all we

    19 hear now from the Prosecution is simply that those

    20 documents were not to be found in the briefcase.

    21 Our submission was that this problem could be

    22 tackled in two ways: either by making an inventory

    23 list, which probably exists, or by interviewing the

    24 persons who had any contact with the briefcase before

    25 it reached the Prosecution and the Tribunal. In that

  58. 1way, we could establish the chain of custody or, the

    2 alternative would be for the Defence to be allowed to

    3 use copies of those documents in the course of the

    4 presentation of its case in court on the condition that

    5 they should not be challenged. We are referring to

    6 copies only of those documents that were contained in

    7 the briefcase.

    8 That is why, in view of the fact that we

    9 still haven't received a final answer regarding our

    10 motion, we appeal to the Trial Chamber to make a ruling

    11 on this matter.

    12 A second point that we would like to raise

    13 has to do with our request for specialist examinations

    14 of our client. Vlatko Kupreskic, according to

    15 available medical documentation, is disabled 100 per

    16 cent because of a congenital heart condition and

    17 because of surgery that he underwent on his heart.

    18 That is why, for seven months now, the time that he has

    19 been in detention, we have been asking that the

    20 appropriate experts, cardiologists, should examine our

    21 client and file their reports on their findings because

    22 by staying in detention -- and we know what that means

    23 for people with a heart condition -- he is frequently

    24 in a stressful condition; and in our request, we asked

    25 permission for a specialist to examine our client, and

  59. 1we proposed the names of university professors,

    2 specialists. However, the Registrar did not accept

    3 this but notified us that Mr. Kupreskic would be

    4 examined by a Dr. Deichman of the Netherlands, a

    5 cardiologist; however, to date no such examination has

    6 taken place, nor have we been notified in any way why

    7 this has not been done.

    8 We must also point out in this Trial Chamber

    9 that we are concerned for the condition of our client

    10 and, as his Defence counsel and as human beings, we

    11 would not like to accept any responsibility should

    12 anything happen to him while in detention.

    13 In connection with this health problem of our

    14 client, we have also submitted a request to the

    15 management of the detention unit to allow the accused

    16 Vlatko time in the fresh air that is double the amount

    17 that people in good health are given. We have not

    18 received official permission for this either, though I

    19 must say that the unit management has informally

    20 accepted this request of ours.

    21 Also, we have requested that during the

    22 breaks in the trial, the accused should be allowed to

    23 go outside the booths envisaged for the accused which

    24 obviously lack fresh air so that he be allowed to spend

    25 the time during the break in another room with fresh

  60. 1air. This request has not been responded to either to

    2 date, and we appeal to the Trial Chamber to make an

    3 appropriate ruling on this matter too.

    4 Thank you.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    6 All right. Let me start with the question of

    7 restoration of documents and property to Mr. Vlatko

    8 Kupreskic.

    9 Actually, I understand 14 documents are

    10 missing and, of course, they can't be found, and we

    11 don't doubt the good faith of those who seized those

    12 documents. Probably they got lost. Therefore, we feel

    13 that the Defence counsel is entitled to use copies of

    14 those 14 documents and the Prosecutor will not, of

    15 course, be allowed to challenge the authenticity of

    16 those copies. It goes without saying that we will take

    17 into account the fact that we will be using copies.

    18 As for the specialist medical examination,

    19 the Trial Chamber fully shares the concern of Defence

    20 counsel, and we will direct the Registrar to ensure

    21 that Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic be visited by one or two

    22 cardiologists as soon as possible. Actually, I hope in

    23 the next few days. I fully share your views that it is

    24 crucial for the accused to be duly examined by one or

    25 more specialists. This is a matter which, of course,

  61. 1comes within the purview of the Registrar, but we will

    2 today ask the Registrar to put in hand all the

    3 necessary measures.

    4 As for the question of fresh air, again, we

    5 also share your concern. We feel this is quite an

    6 appropriate request, but again, this is a matter which

    7 must be decided upon by the Registrar. We will ask the

    8 Registrar to see to it that the accused, if possible,

    9 enjoy some fresh air in the appropriate times instead

    10 of being locked in some closed rooms.

    11 I think we have disposed of this matter.

    12 Since we still have some time, I wonder whether the

    13 Prosecutor is now in a position to let us know about

    14 the list of witnesses.

    15 MR. TERRIER: Yes, thank you, Mr. President.

    16 I am referring to this list of 71 witness names which

    17 was filed with the Tribunal in the beginning of August

    18 in keeping with the wish you expressed during the

    19 Status Conference.

    20 I note that ten and not eight, as I

    21 mistakenly mentioned earlier on, that ten witnesses

    22 have not produced any written statement, which means

    23 that we cannot disclose any of those statements under

    24 Rule 66. So this was a very accurate observation by

    25 the Defence. We are dealing with ten and not eight

  62. 1witnesses, having not produced any statement.

    2 Following the 16th of June, the witness

    3 statements of 38 witnesses were disclosed to the

    4 Defence. On the 30th of June, 14 witness statements

    5 were disclosed, among which there were statements of

    6 seven witnesses for which postponement of the

    7 disclosure had been granted by the Tribunal.

    8 Following the 17th of July, the statements of

    9 five witnesses were disclosed to the Defence, and on

    10 the 5th of August, three witnesses were notified to the

    11 Defence. I add that in compliance with the Court

    12 orders, one witness statement was disclosed on the 10th

    13 of August. This was one of the last witnesses for whom

    14 protective measures had been granted by this Court.

    15 So if you quickly sum up all this, you find

    16 out that out of the 71 witnesses mentioned in the list,

    17 minus the seven who will not testify and possibly

    18 additional witnesses not willing to testify, we have 15

    19 names for which disclosure will be provided once the --

    20 although the time limit has elapsed, this is based on

    21 66(A)(ii) because it appeared that they were necessary

    22 witnesses for the Prosecution, although the time limit

    23 had elapsed.

    24 This process of disclosure is sometimes

    25 inevitably confused. Some disclosure took place within

  63. 1the time limits, and for some of the witnesses

    2 disclosed within the 60-day time limit on the 16th of

    3 June, we may have additional statements, but they were

    4 already disclosed to the Defence. Most of the time we

    5 were dealing with witness statements that we had but

    6 had only in Serbo-Croatian. Translation had to be

    7 carried out which necessitated further time limits. As

    8 a result, with regard to some witness statements, they

    9 were disclosed past the 16th of June, past the 60-day

    10 time limit. I think this will not be challenged by the

    11 Defence.

    12 As to the additional witness statements

    13 disclosed, we are only dealing with statements that we

    14 wanted to disclose but there was no additional input

    15 compared with the previous witness statements. It was

    16 for the sake of thoroughness and comprehensiveness that

    17 we wanted to disclose them. But they were names that

    18 we didn't have in our files.

    19 So these are all the data relating to

    20 disclosure. Once again I repeat that we have the

    21 feeling that we did not exceed our rights under the

    22 Rules, we complied to the letter and the spirit of the

    23 Rules, we equally complied with the Court orders, the

    24 15 witnesses that were belatedly disclosed or were

    25 disclosed past the 60-day time limit had elapsed, were

  64. 1disclosed belatedly because of the investigating effort

    2 that we were still carrying out, although the 60 days

    3 had elapsed. We had the feeling that the Office of the

    4 Prosecutor and its representatives fully complied with

    5 the spirit and the letter of the Tribunal and the Court

    6 orders.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Two things: Could we have

    8 the list that is in the document filed on the 3rd of

    9 August, the order of appearance, the order in which you

    10 intend to call the various witnesses so we could have,

    11 in addition to the information already provided, an

    12 indication of the time when you disclosed the

    13 statements to the Defence? Could you tell us as well

    14 who are the witnesses who will not come to testify and

    15 who are the 15 you mentioned? Because we wanted to

    16 address this matter during the lunch break, and it

    17 might be useful to have the said list, say, in half an

    18 hour. That would be very useful.

    19 But we have something else that bothers us.

    20 I mentioned that with my colleagues over the break.

    21 There are ten witnesses for whom you did not

    22 disclose any statements because there aren't any

    23 statements, but the Defence is entitled to prepare for

    24 cross-examination, and we hold the view that the

    25 Defence is entitled to at least a short summary

  65. 1concerning each witness, concerning also the topics

    2 addressed by the witnesses during their testimonies.

    3 This is essential. Failing that, the Defence is not in

    4 a position to prepare its case and to defend their

    5 clients, so we would like to have at least a summary of

    6 the essential points dealt with during testimony. The

    7 Defence, otherwise, could not know what you would have

    8 to cross-examine upon.

    9 Is the Prosecution in a position to disclose

    10 such a summary for each of the ten witnesses concerned

    11 to the Defence?

    12 MR. TERRIER: If the Chamber expresses such a

    13 wish, we shall, of course, comply. I do understand the

    14 reasons why you formulate such a wish, you express

    15 concern because there is no Rule, no provision dealing

    16 with this. Nowhere is it said in the Rules that this

    17 should be disclosed, the names should be disclosed to

    18 the Defence; no special, no specific measure is

    19 provided for either party because we might find

    20 ourselves in the same situation when the Defence case

    21 comes. Nothing is said as to the need and the

    22 obligation to supply the other party, the opposing

    23 party, with the gist of such witness statements. It

    24 may well be a good cause to adopt, but with a proviso

    25 that it may be difficult to be totally accurate and

  66. 1comprehensive in respect of a testimony that we intend

    2 to provide the Court with just on the basis of

    3 hypothesis of investigation carried out by the

    4 Prosecution. Say if we call a specialist in demography

    5 before this Court, we know, obviously, which topic we

    6 shall ask him to deal with and it is therefore easy not

    7 to provide the answers to the questions to the Defence

    8 but at least to provide the Defence with the gist of

    9 the questions that are likely to be asked of the

    10 witness.

    11 However, if we ask a specialist in ethnology

    12 before the Court and we ask that person to express

    13 their views on the living conditions, on the

    14 relationships within the various ethnic communities

    15 before 1992, in '92, and past '92, in '93, it will be

    16 difficult for us to tell you what the gist will be of

    17 such testimony. It could only be limited to what I

    18 have said myself right now.

    19 So we are perfectly aware of the concerns and

    20 the wishes expressed by the Tribunal. We shall

    21 endeavour, within reasonable limits, to provide a

    22 summary for those witnesses who have not provided any

    23 written statements.

    24 I hope that this commitment is in compliance

    25 with your wishes.

  67. 1JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, quite, but I don't quite

    2 agree with you with your legal interpretation. There

    3 are provisions in the Rules, there is a fundamental

    4 principle anchored in the Statute, Article 21(4)(B)

    5 every accused has the right to have anything that is

    6 necessary for the preparation of their defence, and if

    7 he wants to prepare his defence, the accused has to

    8 know what the topics will be that will be addressed.

    9 So we have a very solid legal foundation ensuring the

    10 protection of the accused's rights but, on the other

    11 hand, I wish to insist on something that we already

    12 mentioned in a prior hearing when it comes to expert

    13 witnesses. Let us attempt to have as few of them as

    14 possible. Let us not fall again into this trend that

    15 we notice from the Office of the Prosecutor, which is

    16 to call too many witnesses. I think we should focus on

    17 the allegations formulated by the Prosecution against

    18 the accused. We have to limit, as much as we can, the

    19 number of expert witnesses who are not going to say

    20 anything in relation to the accused.

    21 I am aware of the legal issues of crimes

    22 against humanity, of persecution. The Prosecutor,

    23 therefore, has to insist on some general facts to

    24 establish the framework, and then, at a later stage, to

    25 focus on the charges pressed against the accused. But

  68. 1we have got to focus on the charges rather than on the

    2 general topics like demography. So let's try to avoid

    3 too general issues. For instance, the relationship

    4 between two ethnic groups causes me to wonder whether

    5 it would be appropriate. Of course, you are free to

    6 call any witnesses you may wish to call, but we have to

    7 try and limit, to the best extent possible, the number

    8 of witnesses, especially if such witnesses are not

    9 relevant to the charges or not crucial in relation of

    10 those charges.

    11 MR. TERRIER: I do quite understand what you

    12 are saying. I was just mentioning a specialist

    13 in demography by way of an example. I don't think it

    14 will be necessary.

    15 Let me just say this: The Prosecution does

    16 not intend to cause delay or digressions that will be

    17 unnecessary to the Tribunal. We want to focus as much

    18 as possible on the charges. However, we do wish to

    19 provide necessary explanations as to the circumstances

    20 of the crimes indicted in the indictment as well as on

    21 the general circumstances prevailing at the time of the

    22 facts. We hope to be in a position to provide the

    23 Judges with all the points that are necessary for

    24 determination of the issue. This may be ambitious, but

    25 I can tell you that we do not want this trial to be

  69. 1unduly long.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: I think we are coming close

    3 to the end of this hearing. We are going to suspend

    4 our work. We are going to start at 2.00 sharp, and I

    5 hope that, within the next ten to fifteen minutes, you

    6 will be in a position to provide us with a relevant

    7 document, and I hope that we will not devote more than

    8 three-quarters of an hour to these preliminary matters

    9 in the early afternoon, including the housekeeping

    10 matters that I would like to deal with the two

    11 parties. I would like to move as fast as we can to the

    12 opening statement by the Prosecution, so as to open and

    13 start the trial proper.

    14 But you want to ask a question, Judge May,

    15 don't you?

    16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Terrier, have you the

    17 document there that we were talking about with the

    18 witnesses and the dates of disclosure? Is that really

    19 it? Behind you there is a document being waved.

    20 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. I think probably

    21 we can, although this is not complete, we can use it

    22 for the purpose of our ruling.

    23 We will now adjourn and reconvene at 2.00

    24 sharp. We will start with the Defence counsel. We

    25 hope to hear from Defence counsel, to hear the name of

  70. 1the coordinating counsel. Then we will ask Mr. Krajina

    2 to elaborate on the motion concerning Vlatko Kupreskic

    3 and we will move on to the few practical housekeeping

    4 matters. After that, I hope even before our break,

    5 which will be at 3.30, I think, I hope that the

    6 Prosecutor will probably start with his opening

    7 statement, which I assume will not be very long because

    8 we have already been provided a detailed pre-trial

    9 brief, which is quite useful, and then we can move on

    10 to various matters -- or witnesses.

    11 This afternoon, I will ask the Defence

    12 counsel whether they wish to make an opening statement

    13 at this stage or whether they prefer to make their

    14 opening statement at the end of the Prosecution case.

    15 This is for you to decide, and you will let me know

    16 this afternoon.

    17 So we may adjourn now, and we will reconvene

    18 at 2.00 sharp.








  71. 1--- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.

    2 --- On resuming at 2.05 p.m.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon. Yes, please.

    4 MR. SUSAK: Mr. President, may I ask you that

    5 we consider the question of alibi referred to by Judge

    6 May, and at the same time I shall request to speak on

    7 the issue if possible.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, this will be done in a

    9 few minutes. Let us first of all deal with other

    10 matters.

    11 First of all, I would like to read out the

    12 ruling on the motion filed on the 13th of August, 1998

    13 by Defence counsel for Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic. It

    14 is as follows: The Trial Chamber decides that those

    15 Prosecution witnesses whose statements have been

    16 disclosed to the Defence after the 16th of June '98,

    17 may be called by the Prosecutor only 30 days after such

    18 disclosure. This ruling also applies to the ten

    19 witnesses for whom the Prosecutor shall provide a

    20 summary of evidence, whereas it does not apply to the

    21 eight witnesses for whom the Trial Chamber ordered

    22 protective measures.

    23 Now, we will issue by tomorrow morning orders

    24 concerning the two ex parte motions filed by the

    25 Prosecutor. We have already deliberated on that matter

  72. 1and those two questions, and we may now move on to --

    2 first of all, let me ask whether the various Defence

    3 counsel have appointed a coordinating counsel. May I

    4 ask Mr. Pavkovic to tell me whether he has been

    5 confirmed as coordinating counsel.

    6 MR. PAVKOVIC: Your Honour, members of the

    7 Trial Chamber, by unanimous decision by my learned

    8 colleagues, I shall in the future present the positions

    9 which my colleagues feel I should present as our common

    10 positions. Of course, I must underline that that does

    11 not affect the core of the Defence of each one of us,

    12 because we are all defending separate accused, and then

    13 they will separately present their arguments. Thank

    14 you.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: That's good news. Now, by

    16 the way, as for the definition of coordinating counsel

    17 and his tasks, or her tasks, may I refer you to the

    18 guidelines we issued, guidelines for the trial, letter

    19 A, number 1: Defence counsel are to agree to appoint

    20 from their number a coordinating counsel whose role

    21 will be to address the Court and communicate with the

    22 Prosecution on those matters in which the co-accused

    23 share a joint position.

    24 This is in line with what you just said, so

    25 we are very pleased that all Defence counsel

  73. 1unanimously agreed to appoint you as coordinating

    2 counsel.

    3 I think we shall now move on this question of

    4 alibi, the alibi defence, and I would like to ask

    5 Mr. Susak to address this item.

    6 MR. SUSAK: Mr. President, the question of

    7 alibi is a difficult issue, both for me and for my

    8 client, Drago Josipovic. Namely, in the indictment

    9 Drago Josipovic is charged, as are the other accused,

    10 of criminal offences from the period of October '92 to

    11 April '93. And I think it is impossible for the

    12 accused to refer to an alibi, because the Prosecutor

    13 charges him of having been there, moving around in his

    14 neighbourhood, near his house, where his family lives,

    15 and so on.

    16 However, on that same indictment, Marinko

    17 Katava was charged in the same way as the other

    18 accused. And he referred to the Defence of alibi only

    19 for the date of the 16th of April. And after that the

    20 Prosecutor withdrew the indictment against him.

    21 This fact confused my client, as it did me,

    22 and I don't know how we can refer to an alibi when he

    23 is charged with offences throughout this period. That

    24 is one point.

    25 My second point is: Could the Prosecutor

  74. 1assist the Defence in such a way as to specify the

    2 criminal offence? Because the indictment says that on

    3 the 16th of April, eight villages were attacked, and

    4 the town of Vitez, and my client was a member of the

    5 village guard; so the question is could he have

    6 organised and planned an attack on such a wide area,

    7 the more so as he was not a member of the civilian

    8 authorities, he was not a member of the party, nor was

    9 he a member of the active military force.

    10 Therefore, I think that the Prosecutor should

    11 assist us and shorten these proceedings, because in

    12 that case we would need to hear only fewer, fewer

    13 witnesses. So, could the Prosecutor specify where and

    14 when Drago Josipovic committed the offences, what acts

    15 he committed and what were the consequences of those

    16 acts. That is my second point.

    17 My third point: After that Drago Josipovic

    18 could appeal for the Defence of alibi, only then.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Are there other counsel

    20 wishing to address the same issue of alibi? I see

    21 none, so I will turn to the Prosecutor and ask him

    22 whether they may assist us in this particular point,

    23 either right away or in due course.

    24 MR. TERRIER: Well, if you wish me to state a

    25 few points on this matter, I shall do so. And there

  75. 1after I could complement my oral observation with

    2 written arguments submitted at a later stage.

    3 I somehow share this difficulty expressed by

    4 the Defence counsel to a certain extent. The Rule,

    5 Rule 67, on the communication of evidence on reciprocal

    6 disclosure and the steps to be complied with in the

    7 case of defence of alibi, all of this is perfectly

    8 clear. The text is unambiguous.

    9 It remains to be seen as of what moment, as

    10 of what state we find ourselves in a situation of

    11 alibi. Is it from the point onwards when somebody

    12 alleges not to have been present at the scene of a

    13 specific crime the accused is charge with? Or does it

    14 happen only then when an accused maintains that on the

    15 day of the events, in this instance on the 16th of

    16 April, the accused was not present in the immediate

    17 area?

    18 This is to be appreciated in the last

    19 instance by you, Your Honours. But my view is as

    20 follows:

    21 In this case most of the accused, five out of

    22 six of them, are accused of, as crimes against

    23 humanity, of taking part in the attack launched against

    24 the civilian population, the Muslim civilian population

    25 in Ahmici on the 16th of April of 1993, and also they

  76. 1are charged with having committed in the context of

    2 such an attack, having committed a number of specific

    3 criminal offences.

    4 Therefore, means of defence based on alibi

    5 can only be summarised by the accused as the allegation

    6 that they were not present on the 16th of April at the

    7 scene of the crimes.

    8 However, if they maintain that they were in

    9 another city, in another town, in another country, they

    10 should be in a position to provide to the judges, and

    11 also at the hearing, to provide evidence that can be

    12 examined and cross-examined. We then find ourselves

    13 within the terms of Rule 67(A) second i.

    14 If the Defence aims at establishing before

    15 this Tribunal that the accused were well in Ahmici but

    16 were not at scenes of the crimes then committed, for

    17 instance, were not in the house or on the premises of

    18 the house of Sejad Ahmic. Then I do not believe we are

    19 in a case of alibi, we are in a means of defence as to

    20 the merits. And then the Defence would claim that the

    21 accused did not commit the crimes with which they are

    22 charged. Then maybe they will try and introduce

    23 evidence to that effect.

    24 But my personal view, and I certainly defer

    25 to the determinations made by the Tribunal, I believe

  77. 1that in such a context, we are not dealing with a

    2 defence of alibi, strict assensu. Given the

    3 circumstances, it would mean, then, that one or several

    4 of the accused were not in Ahmici at the time when the

    5 crime of persecution, which characterised the 16th of

    6 April, 1993 attack were committed. But I defer to the

    7 higher judgement of this Tribunal. It is a very

    8 difficult, tough legal issue, indeed.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: We agree with your

    10 interpretation of the alibi, defence of alibi, namely

    11 that it should only apply or should be relied upon when

    12 it is claimed that an accused was not in Ahmici on that

    13 particular day, 16th of April, or not in the country.

    14 But this defence of alibi cannot apply to somebody when

    15 it is claimed that he was there but not doing what he

    16 is accused of having done.

    17 So therefore, your interpretation is regarded

    18 by the Trial Chamber as the proper and sound one.

    19 As for the question raised by counsel for

    20 Josipovic, by Mr. Susak, and this is relating

    21 particularly to the accused Josipovic; probably you may

    22 wish to address the points addressed by Mr. Susak in

    23 your opening statement, if you are in a position to do

    24 so, so as to see whether or not you may to clarify your

    25 position with regard to the crimes alleged to be

  78. 1committed by Mr. Josipovic.

    2 Do you think you could do so when you are

    3 moving on to your opening statement?

    4 MR. TERRIER: I shall endeavour to do so,

    5 Mr. President.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. All right. I

    7 think we could now move on to a different question,

    8 namely, the question we raised this morning and on

    9 which Mr. Krajina was asked to dwell. I wonder whether

    10 Mr. Krajina could elaborate upon the various reasons

    11 set out in the motion for Vlatko Kupreskic.

    12 You may remember that this morning I drew the

    13 attention of Defence counsel in particular to some

    14 paragraphs of that motion, and these are the

    15 paragraphs, 19 through 24. Why? Because I feel, my

    16 personal feeling, but I hope the Court may get some

    17 clarification on these items, is that probably some of

    18 the queries made in those paragraphs and some of the

    19 criticisms levelled by the Defence counsel against the

    20 Prosecutor, probably they arrive out of some sort of

    21 misunderstanding about the proper role of the

    22 Prosecution and the possibility for Defence counsel to

    23 cross-examine witnesses, Prosecution witnesses.

    24 But still, as I say, to clarify the matter,

    25 probably it's better for Mr. Krajina to restate their

  79. 1position on this item, his particular position, and the

    2 position of Defence counsel for Vlatko Kupreskic so we

    3 may ask, then, the Prosecutor to respond and come to

    4 some sort of conclusion on this particular matter.

    5 Mr. Krajina could you be so kind as to address this

    6 issue?

    7 MR. KRAJINA: Mr. President, thank you.

    8 Before addressing this particular matter, I should like

    9 to make a request. It has to do with the previous

    10 ruling about my request for a co-counsel, assignment of

    11 co-counsel. Something is not quite clear to us.

    12 We fear that this decision taken this morning

    13 was based on a previous request that we made in June of

    14 this year. However, on the 11th of August, this year,

    15 we submitted a new request to the Trial Chamber asking

    16 its approval for the co-defence, co-counsel status for

    17 our colleague, Mr. Par, in closing evidence showing

    18 that he qualifies for this post.

    19 I don't know whether the Trial Chamber had

    20 this request at its disposal, but on the 3rd of August

    21 we received a written answer from the Registry which

    22 was favourable to our request; however, it was noted

    23 that the final decision, of course, rests with the

    24 Trial Chamber.

    25 Therefore, if the Trial Chamber was not

  80. 1familiar with this most recent request, together with

    2 its enclosure, and we gave a copy during the break to

    3 the Registrar requesting she forward it to the members

    4 of the Trial Chamber, so I hope you have now received

    5 it. If you consider that I should continue, I will.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, please.

    7 MR. KRAJINA: Regarding the clarifications

    8 requested, regarding paragraphs 19 through 24 of our

    9 motion for a separate hearing, I shall try to briefly

    10 present our position.

    11 The motion for the withdrawal of the

    12 indictment was based on our conviction that the

    13 Prosecution witnesses will not come to trial to confirm

    14 the allegations from the indictment, because their

    15 statements made in 1993, 1994 and 1995, in our view,

    16 are not relevant; as they were made before local police

    17 bodies and local investigators.

    18 The Prosecutor interpreted this position of

    19 ours in such a way by expressing concern that we were

    20 infringing upon the Trial Chamber's decision of the

    21 16th of June, prohibiting contact with witnesses. In

    22 paragraphs from 19 to 24, we express our concern that

    23 the Prosecutor is applying tactics with the witnesses

    24 by naming certain people as witnesses, even though the

    25 Prosecution knows that they will not appear in court.

  81. 1The Prosecution is still keeping those

    2 witnesses under protection whereby it is impossible for

    3 the Defence to have access to them. In today's

    4 argument of the Prosecution, he has also said that he

    5 will not give the statements of witnesses that he knows

    6 will not appear. That is why we asked for a separate

    7 hearing, prior to trial, to examine the allegations

    8 made by the Prosecution regarding the Defence's

    9 contacts with the witness, also to indicate the

    10 pressure to which witnesses are exposed by the local

    11 police, and that is why we made such a request and why

    12 I am repeating that request on this occasion, that you

    13 allow me to highlight a few more points linked to this

    14 problem.

    15 In connection with the concern expressed by

    16 the Prosecutor on the possible violation of a ruling by

    17 the Trial Chamber regarding contacts with witnesses

    18 after the 16th of June, the Defence counsel of Vlatko

    19 Kupreskic has submitted to the Trial Chamber all

    20 clarifications and statements. We are also ready, at

    21 the request of the Trial Chamber, to provide additional

    22 explanations and to answer any questions that would

    23 contribute to further clarification of these points,

    24 for the simple reason that we have no cause to conceal

    25 anything in these proceedings.

  82. 1It is the position of the Defence that no one

    2 from the Defence or people connected with the Defence

    3 of Vlatko Kupreskic had any contact with Prosecution

    4 witnesses after the decision of the Trial Chamber of

    5 the 16th of June, 1998.

    6 The Prosecutor has not offered any evidence

    7 that would contest this, and the concern, the alleged

    8 concern of the Prosecutor, is, in our view, a tactical

    9 move designed to present Vlatko Kupreskic's defence in

    10 a negative light.

    11 The contact that we had before the 16th of

    12 June, that is, contact made with the witnesses by the

    13 wife of the accused and other persons who contacted the

    14 witnesses and who were later identified by the

    15 Prosecution as Prosecution witnesses, we feel that

    16 those contacts were quite in order. At that time,

    17 there was no prohibition on contact, nor was any kind

    18 of pressure exerted on those witnesses, nor were any

    19 financial offers made to them. Of course, the

    20 Prosecutor claims the opposite, as can be seen from his

    21 submissions. The statements offered in support of

    22 these allegations, there are hints of some kind of

    23 financial offers made. But the Prosecutor has

    24 forgotten to mention that the witnesses that he refers

    25 to did not go to the police to complain about this but,

  83. 1on the contrary, the police came to pick them up when

    2 they learnt that they had had contact with people

    3 linked to the accused Vlatko Kupreskic.

    4 The Trial Chamber, in our view, will find it

    5 easy to establish the real truth regarding the

    6 allegations about impermissible contact with witnesses,

    7 for all of these witnesses will probably be called and

    8 interviewed in this courtroom and we will be able to

    9 hear from them directly what the real truth is and what

    10 was the nature of the contacts that anybody had with

    11 them.

    12 A second and, in our view, equally important

    13 point in this area and which prompted us to ask for a

    14 separate hearing, has to do with the influence on

    15 witnesses exerted by the police responsible for

    16 supervising them. I shall try briefly to explain our

    17 position in this connection.

    18 From the moment the indictment was confirmed,

    19 my learned colleague, the Prosecutor, informally

    20 divided all witnesses into Muslims and Croats,

    21 considering the Muslim witnesses as Prosecution

    22 witnesses. At our last Status Conference on the 15th

    23 of May this year, after the Prosecutor's statement, we

    24 opposed this thesis, considering it to be

    25 unacceptable.

  84. 1Muslim witnesses have been placed under

    2 police supervision, probably upon instructions from the

    3 Office of the Prosecutor. Any contact by the Defence

    4 with these witnesses has thereby been prevented, even

    5 before the decision of the Trial Chamber of the 16th of

    6 June, because those witnesses, Muslims, if they were to

    7 have contact with people linked to the accused, would

    8 immediately be called in by the police for questioning,

    9 and the persons with them, or those that may have

    10 contacted them, are even arrested and questioned by the

    11 police and even physically harassed. We have evidence

    12 to corroborate all this.

    13 We have submitted to the Trial Chamber and

    14 the Prosecutor the documents in support of our

    15 request. These witnesses fear the police in the

    16 environment in which they live if they were to make

    17 statements that could be in support of the defence of

    18 the accused. I think it is common knowledge that the

    19 interest of the police who supervise these people is,

    20 for all the accused Croats, to be condemned, regardless

    21 of whether there is evidence of their responsibility or

    22 not.

    23 In the name of the defence of the accused

    24 Vlatko Kupreskic and on the basis of our experience so

    25 far in working on this case, we wish to draw the

  85. 1attention of the Trial Chamber to the existence of

    2 impermissible interference with the witnesses on the

    3 part of local bodies supervising the witnesses. They

    4 prevent them from making statements that would be in

    5 support of the Defence and, at the same time, they

    6 pressure them to support the indictment at all cost.

    7 This can be seen from the statements given to us by the

    8 Prosecutor in which the same witnesses, who were

    9 questioned on a number of occasions by various local

    10 bodies, give biased and differing reports on the same

    11 events. That is why we appeal to the Trial Chamber, in

    12 the course of the presentation of evidence and the

    13 examination of witnesses, to devote equal attention to

    14 this objection of ours as well as the objections made

    15 by the Prosecution about alleged interference with

    16 witnesses.

    17 Thank you, Your Honour.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I wonder whether

    19 the Prosecutor could comment on these points?

    20 MR. TERRIER: Very briefly, Mr. President.

    21 I fail to understand what the purpose is of

    22 the motion submitted to the Court. I believe I

    23 understood, but this may be wrong. I understood that

    24 this request, this motion, was for a severance of

    25 instances of trials, also that the indictment would be

  86. 1withdrawn, but this is not very logical because that

    2 would mean that we would try Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic

    3 before the trial has actually begun.

    4 I would like to state two things in this

    5 respect: We know -- and last May your Tribunal, your

    6 Chamber, devoted some time to this issue -- we know

    7 that there were illegal contacts made between the

    8 Defence counsel and specific witnesses. Money was

    9 offered. This is certainly inadmissible in this trial

    10 as it is inadmissible in all trials.

    11 This situation was duly taken into account by

    12 your Chamber, which did not rule out any contact

    13 between Bosnian witnesses and the Defence; however, you

    14 said that specific measures had to be taken to ensure

    15 protection, which is quite normal. The procedure you

    16 wanted to set up for such contacts never really was

    17 operational.

    18 However, this never meant that the Defence

    19 counsel were precluded from having contact with

    20 specific witnesses on account of their nationality or

    21 of their ethnic background. This has never been the

    22 view of the Prosecution and this was not enshrined in

    23 the Court order.

    24 We were somewhat surprised and worried at

    25 reading in one of the motions filed by the Defence of

  87. 1Vlatko Kupreskic that there was this bold statement

    2 according to which Prosecution witnesses will not come

    3 to testify in this court on the basis of what happened,

    4 and we wondered whether violation of the order issued

    5 by the Tribunal had not been committed, but I have to

    6 date no clues as to the occurrence of such a

    7 violation. I have no evidence of any violation of the

    8 Court order of the 20th of May by the Defence counsel.

    9 However, I do state that given the very

    10 sensitive nature of this issue, if a witness, a

    11 Prosecution witness, allegedly approached by the

    12 Defence, would not accept to testify, he would not

    13 communicate to us the reasons for his refusal to

    14 testify.

    15 We have not been instructed of any illegal

    16 contacts by Defence counsel, but I do want to reserve

    17 the right to mention any such future occurrence, should

    18 they happen, in which case I would turn to the Tribunal

    19 to pass on such evidence. But I have no clues to the

    20 effect to date, and I hope that the matter can be

    21 settled for the time being by these very remarks.

    22 Thank you very much, Mr. President.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Let me try to sum up at least

    24 the main points because so many points have been made.

    25 As for the question of a separate trial, I

  88. 1think this matter has already been dealt with by Judge

    2 Mumba in the order we mentioned before, which is, of

    3 course, the 11th of August, 1998, and, of course, that

    4 means that we will not hold separate hearings for

    5 Vlatko Kupreskic; and as for the credibility of the

    6 evidence, this is, of course, a matter which relates to

    7 the merits of the trial and will be dealt with in due

    8 course.

    9 As for the statement or the claim by

    10 Mr. Krajina whereby some witness statements are not

    11 relevant because they were made before police

    12 investigators, again is a matter which may be looked

    13 into in due course. For the time being, we don't need

    14 to pronounce on this matter.

    15 The third point is about the so-called

    16 impermissible contacts with witnesses, and the

    17 Prosecutor has just stated that they are not claiming

    18 that after a particular date, the date which was set by

    19 the Trial Chamber, any such contacts have been made by

    20 the Defence counsel, family, relatives, and so on, with

    21 witnesses. Of course, the Defence counsel are free to

    22 get in touch with the Prosecution witnesses, however,

    23 after complying with the conditions set out in the

    24 order issued by this Trial Chamber; namely, they should

    25 go through the Prosecutor or inform the Prosecutor that

  89. 1such contacts are being made.

    2 A fourth point has been made by Mr. Krajina,

    3 who has repeatedly spoken of tactics or tactical moves

    4 by the Prosecutor, and they would consist of the

    5 Prosecutor naming witnesses that they would then not

    6 call to testify before the Trial Chamber.

    7 I am at a loss to understand the significance

    8 of this claim because if the Defence counsel feel that

    9 those witnesses may be important for the Defence, they

    10 may, of course, contact those witnesses, those

    11 Prosecution witnesses, always after complying with the

    12 conditions I just referred to, and afterwards, they may

    13 decide, if those witnesses are not called by the

    14 Prosecution, that they themselves, the Defence, will

    15 call them as Defence witnesses. If witnesses are

    16 called, they, of course, may be cross-examined by the

    17 Defence counsel.

    18 So therefore, I think that, as I expected,

    19 the airing of the various criticisms and claims and the

    20 discussion here in court has contributed to clarifying

    21 that there is no major issue to be dealt with at this

    22 juncture here in court.

    23 Let me, therefore, quickly turn to the

    24 question of the appointment of Mr. Par as co-counsel.

    25 We were actually handed a document at

  90. 1lunch time, a document which has been filed on the 17th

    2 of August, namely today, a document reproducing the

    3 request submitted by Mr. Krajina for the assignment of

    4 co-counsel and a letter sent to him by the Registrar,

    5 and, actually, it is true what Mr. Krajina said, that

    6 in her letter the Registrar wrote to Mr. Krajina that

    7 this was a matter on which the Registrar wished the

    8 Trial Chamber to pass our judgement on, and so

    9 therefore, she left this matter for us to decide.

    10 However, I would stick to what we said this

    11 morning, to our ruling, because, as I said before, we

    12 are very keen to be consistent with the judicial

    13 practice of this Tribunal, the various Trial Chambers,

    14 and also stick to the precedents set by our own Trial

    15 Chamber and other Trial Chambers. For the time being,

    16 it is apparent from what members of the registry told

    17 us yesterday, on Sunday, namely that Article 14 of the

    18 directive, the directive on assignment of Defence

    19 counsel of 10th July, 1998, the requirements laid down

    20 in this Article 14 are not met in this particular case,

    21 and on the basis of this assessment and taking into

    22 account, as I say, the precedents of our Tribunal, we

    23 confirm our ruling that Mr. Par is granted the status

    24 of legal assistant but not of co-counsel.

    25 I propose now that since we have, I think,

  91. 1dealt with all matters which we raised this morning or

    2 were raised this morning by the Prosecutor and the

    3 Defence, I propose that I quickly move on to a few

    4 housekeeping matters. These are a few practical

    5 questions.

    6 First of all, we insist that the parties

    7 should fully comply with the guidelines we set out and

    8 circulated a few months ago, the guidelines for the

    9 trial which have been also handed in writing to Defence

    10 counsel.

    11 In addition, this is number 2, I would like

    12 to draw the attention of all Defence counsel to the new

    13 amended provisions of our Rules of Procedure and

    14 Evidence which have been reproduced in a booklet. I

    15 hope that you all have received a copy of this

    16 booklet. You will have noticed that quite a few Rules

    17 of Procedure and Evidence have been amended, revised,

    18 by the Plenary Session of the Tribunal, some other

    19 provisions have been added, and please take into

    20 account that we shall apply all those provisions, new

    21 provisions, amended provisions, as long as they do not

    22 affect or compress the rights of the Defence. That is

    23 a matter which we discussed this morning.

    24 This applies in particular to a new provision

    25 on the limits of cross-examination. You may have

  92. 1noticed that there is a new rule on cross-examination,

    2 there are new rules on the pre-trial Judge, pre-trial

    3 Conference, and also a pre-trial Defence Conference.

    4 Actually, we hope that we will be in a position to hold

    5 such a conference towards the end of the Prosecution

    6 case or, if Defence counsel prefer, at the end of the

    7 Prosecution case we will hold this particular

    8 conference so as to better organise the Defence case,

    9 the practicalities of the Defence case.

    10 Again, third point, practical matters, we

    11 intend to, as for the sitting hours, we start every

    12 morning at 9.30, have a break at 11.00, resume at

    13 11.30, and stop at 12.30. In the afternoon, again we

    14 will have a break of half an hour. We will reconvene

    15 at 2.00 and finish at 5.00, so from 2.00 to 5.00 with a

    16 break from 3.30 to 4.00.

    17 Since we have to deal also with other matters

    18 concerning other trials, we will need at least half a

    19 day off, and we suggest that Friday afternoon should be

    20 off. On Friday, if you agree, we would like to sit

    21 until 1.00 and then have the Friday afternoon off so

    22 that we could attend to other matters.

    23 As from now, I should say that there will be

    24 probably one day off, the 31st of August afternoon, the

    25 afternoon. We will not hold any hearing on that

  93. 1afternoon, the 31st of August. I think it is a

    2 Monday. It is a Monday.

    3 I move on to my fourth point. These are

    4 really down-to-earth practicalities. To save as much

    5 time as possible, we would like to suggest that each

    6 morning, after the registrar has called the case, we

    7 will dispense with the appearances. If there is any

    8 change in the appearances, you will let us know or you

    9 will tell the registrar so we will not even waste our

    10 time in calling for the appearances; and when we come

    11 to the production of evidence, in particular,

    12 witnesses, we would like to start from the assumption

    13 that documents tendered into evidence by one party will

    14 be admitted into evidence if not objected to by the

    15 other party. So that I don't need each time to ask the

    16 other party, "Do you object to the admission into

    17 evidence of this particular exhibit?" If, therefore,

    18 no objection is made after the proffer of one party to

    19 give in evidence the particular exhibit, it is assumed

    20 that that document is admitted into evidence. A very

    21 practical measure again to save time.

    22 We will think of other measures designed to

    23 speed up our proceedings.

    24 We have a few other points, but some of them

    25 have already been covered, and so therefore, if you

  94. 1don't have any other matter, I think we could now turn

    2 to the Prosecutor and ask whether they are prepared to

    3 make their opening statement.

    4 However, before doing so, let me very quickly

    5 go through the list of witnesses just for one minute

    6 because this may be a point to be raised before the

    7 opening statement of the Prosecutor.

    8 I noticed -- I have so many lists that now I

    9 can't find it -- but I noticed that there are 32, I

    10 counted 32 Prosecution witnesses who, according to the

    11 Prosecutor, will only address Count 1. I wonder

    12 whether the Prosecutor -- this is just a query --

    13 whether the Prosecutor needs so many witnesses only for

    14 Count 1, and I assume, having read some, not all of

    15 them, some of the witness statements, relevant witness

    16 statements, that those witnesses are not going to

    17 testify on any particular accused. They will not deal

    18 with the question of whether or not the accused were

    19 there or committed the alleged crimes, they will only

    20 address the question of persecution and so on.

    21 If this is so -- but I may be wrong, and I

    22 stand to be corrected -- then again we, the Court,

    23 wonder whether you really need so many witnesses. But,

    24 as I say, you don't need to respond now. You may need

    25 to ponder this matter and, in due course, decide

  95. 1whether or not to drop some of those particular

    2 witnesses because we could then shorten the list of

    3 witnesses.

    4 As I say, since we don't need a response from

    5 you right away, we may ask you to make your opening

    6 statement if you think that you could finish by 3.30.

    7 If not, if you wish to have now a break, we could now

    8 rise and start with your opening statement after the

    9 break. It is for you to suggest the better course of

    10 action.

    11 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, I can't tell you

    12 exactly. I'm not sure that I will be able to complete

    13 the opening statement before 3.30.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: How much time do you need?

    15 MR. TERRIER: Three-quarters of an hour to

    16 one hour. I would like to turn to the map, have some

    17 comments, and also introduce two video clips.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: But it might be better to

    19 adjourn the hearing now and return within -- yes, I

    20 think we need 30 minutes every time, as we were told by

    21 the registrar, we need 30-minute breaks.

    22 So we can adjourn. We shall return at 3.25

    23 sharp, and we shall start with the opening statement.

    24 That's fine. Thank you.

    25 --- Recess taken at 2.55 p.m.

  96. 1--- On resuming at 2.32.

    2 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, shall I go to

    3 the pulpit, or what should I do?

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: As you like.

    5 MR. TERRIER: If you don't mind, I'll stay

    6 here.

    7 Your Honours, this morning already, and until

    8 now we have had discussions that will make it possible

    9 for me to shorten my submissions. Your Trial Chamber,

    10 as well as the Defence counsel, have received the

    11 pre-trial brief which gives you an overview of the

    12 Prosecution's intentions for this trial.

    13 Through this opening statement I wish to

    14 convey to the Court some factual elements, some

    15 topographical elements, and that such elements will be

    16 useful to the Court as soon as we hear the first

    17 Prosecution witnesses. And they will be useful, too,

    18 when it comes to the Defence case.

    19 These topographical and factual elements will

    20 be challenged by the Defence at some stage, I'm sure.

    21 Although, it might not be necessary to come back to

    22 them during the proceedings.

    23 To start with, I shall describe in broad

    24 terms what happened exactly and precisely on the 16th

    25 of April in Ahmici. What took place was an ethnic

  97. 1cleansing operation directed by a military unit against

    2 a civilian population.

    3 I shall be brief, but I think it is necessary

    4 to set up the frame, the context in which the

    5 Prosecution witnesses will be better understood in the

    6 days to come. And then equally briefly, for indeed all

    7 these points were stated in the pre-trial brief, I

    8 shall make some observations as to the legal

    9 characterisation against the excused, but let's speak

    10 about the location.

    11 I think it is necessary for an investigator,

    12 for a judge to know the places we're going to be faced

    13 with at the beginning of a trial.

    14 Let me get closer to the map, and I'll take,

    15 I'll use the microphone located close to the map.

    16 This photograph, this aerial photograph shows

    17 you the Lasva River Valley. We are some 90 kilometres

    18 north-west of Sarajevo. The Lasva River Valley is named

    19 after a river which you see meandering here, and which

    20 goes further towards the south-west of the area.

    21 The major town of Zenica is mainly inhabited

    22 by Muslims and lies in this direction which I'm

    23 showing, some 15 kilometres away and can be reached

    24 easily either through this road extending into the

    25 Lasva River Valley, or through this mountain road that

  98. 1goes uphill, goes through the top of the mountain to

    2 get to Zenica.

    3 There were two areas which were mainly

    4 inhabited by Croats in this valley. There is Busovaca,

    5 which you can see here towards the top, and also the

    6 town of Vitez, which you see here.

    7 However, there is a major neighbourhood

    8 inhabited, or used to be inhabited by Muslims in

    9 Vitez. The neighbourhood no longer exists today, it

    10 was destroyed in the early hours of the 16th of April,

    11 1993, as was Ahmici was destroyed, too.

    12 Ahmici is located in these lines that have

    13 been drawn into a rectangle. I draw your attention to

    14 two sides, this one on the road between Busovaca and

    15 Vitez going further towards Travnik. This was known as

    16 the Bungalow, a former hotel, a former restaurant.

    17 Then, and when I mean then, I mean in early 1993, was

    18 inhabited by a Croat unit, the unit of the Jokeri or

    19 Jokers. We shall have the opportunity to come back to

    20 the various actions carried out by the Jokeri.

    21 The second site is located here. The

    22 Dubravica school. This is a relevant site, because a

    23 large number of the Muslim inhabitants who used to live

    24 in Ahmici, that's where they were rounded up and

    25 detained for some 14 days, up until the time when the

  99. 1Red Cross intervened and secured their release.

    2 This is the Dubravica school. And then

    3 towards late '92 and early '93, you have the front line

    4 against the Serbs in this direction towards the

    5 north-west, some 30 kilometres away from Vitez, beyond

    6 the cities of Travnik and Turbe.

    7 And we apologise for this, the northern

    8 direction is more towards what is usually described as

    9 the south, but if we had used the proper cardinal

    10 points we would not have been able to show you the

    11 whole area to be investigated.

    12 And then I'm going to show you the part that

    13 has been blown up, to show you the actual village of

    14 Ahmici. I may ask the help of the usher for the map to

    15 be produced.

    16 Can you see this map or photograph?

    17 This aerial photograph has the north,

    18 actually it's towards the west, and this is an enlarged

    19 section of this first photograph I just showed you.

    20 You find the road, this is a regional road along the

    21 valley from Busovaca to Vitez, you can see the Bungalow

    22 here, and towards the centre of the photograph you have

    23 most of the houses making up the village of Ahmici.

    24 However, as the inhabitants themselves put

    25 it, whether they are Croats or Muslims, there are also

  100. 1various names given, traditional names given to the

    2 various parts of the village. For instance, this is an

    3 area called the Donji Ahmici, or the lower Ahmici. And

    4 as you go up the hill you come across an area sometimes

    5 called Sutra (Phoen). You go further along the road

    6 that leads to the forest and you come across an area

    7 often called Grabovi.

    8 Still further towards the top, then you come

    9 to upper Ahmici or Gornji Ahmici. And this area shown

    10 here people tend to call it Zume, close to Santici.

    11 And this last one I have shown you is Pirici.

    12 Areas inhabited by Croats and Muslims in 1993

    13 are delineated and separated. You can take this as a

    14 landmark, a cemetery, this is used by many witnesses

    15 as a landmark, because you can't miss it. It is very

    16 visible from everywhere.

    17 There is another landmark that of the Pican

    18 cafe, a Croat place close to the main road, and it will

    19 be a major landmark for many witnesses. The area of

    20 Zume Santici was predominantly an area inhabited by

    21 Croats. There is another Croat area around Sutra

    22 Grabovi with, in particular, what will be termed by

    23 many witnesses the Kupreskic houses, in other words,

    24 many members of the Kupreskic family owned a house in

    25 that area. Vlatko Kupreskic, one of the accused, has

  101. 1his house here, and his shop was here. The accused

    2 Mirjan Kupreskic owned a house here. Zoran's house was

    3 here. Dragon Papic owned a house here on the other

    4 side of the road and Mr. Josipovic owned a house here,

    5 further down. As to Mr. Santic, he does not live in

    6 this area. He lives towards the town of Vitez, which

    7 can be reached along this road only four kilometres

    8 away. So, this is what I wanted to show you by way of

    9 these photographs. If you do not mind, we shall carry

    10 on this topographical discovery with a video clip.

    11 This was shot in 1993, following the events -- '96,

    12 sorry.

    13 A long time after the events, but showing the

    14 village of Ahmici in the condition it was between 1993

    15 and today. There is practically no difference

    16 whatsoever between the village then and the village

    17 now. With one exception, some of the former

    18 inhabitants, Muslim inhabitants of Ahmici where -- the

    19 census of NGOs of various governments -- have started

    20 clearing the rubble and the ruins and have started

    21 building their houses again. None of the houses

    22 formerly inhabited by Muslims is today inhabited by

    23 Muslims, but there are a few attempts at rebuilding.

    24 Such attempts have been started on some of the hills

    25 and especially, they all take place in Gornji Ahmici,

  102. 1in upper Ahmici, where they were exclusively Muslim

    2 inhabited houses prior to 1993. While viewing the

    3 video clip we are going to see three various phases.

    4 The first phase was shot from a helicopter and we shall

    5 see the lower Mosque, we shall carry on to the upper

    6 Mosque and then we shall make a loop and come back to

    7 the initial point. The second sequence taken by car

    8 will start from this forking off of the main road to

    9 its secondary road, we'll go up to the centre of

    10 Ahmici, Sutra Grabovi and we'll take this small road to

    11 see the Kupreskic houses and we shall return to the

    12 larger path to go back or go up to upper Ahmici.

    13 We have a short section of the road, the main

    14 road we will be able to see the front houses of the

    15 Zume neighbourhood, we will see the Pican cafe. We

    16 shall catch glimpse of a house that used to be located

    17 in this Croat neighbourhood and which was used at the

    18 time of the events in April of 1993 to round up some of

    19 the Muslims captured by the HVO forces before the

    20 people captured were taken to the Dubrivica school,

    21 which I mentioned a few moments ago. If you don't mind

    22 I will return to my desk and provide with you some

    23 comments as we view the video clip.

    24 (Videotape played)

    25 MR. TERRIER: The helicopter is moving

  103. 1towards the north-west along the regional main road.

    2 You can see in the centre of the image the catholic

    3 cemetery. Now, central in the image is that little

    4 road that enables you to reach upper Ahmici. You can

    5 see the lower Mosque which used to have a minaret, the

    6 minaret was blown up by explosive in the evening of the

    7 16th of April, 1993, around the Mosque you can see

    8 houses which, by all accounts, are destroyed and

    9 unoccupied.

    10 Now, towards the lower part of the image you

    11 can see the house of Vlatko Kupreskic and the part goes

    12 up towards upper Ahmici, and if a few moments you're

    13 going to see the upper Mosque which was also

    14 extensively destroyed. You can sit here in the middle

    15 of the picture and the houses surrounding the Mosque

    16 were inhabited by Muslims and the houses were burned or

    17 destroyed to the ground.

    18 I suppose we're going to see the second part,

    19 where we start from the regional road to go up towards

    20 upper Ahmici.

    21 Stop the image, please.

    22 I think you must be informed of this: There

    23 is a traditional way of building houses in the area,

    24 Croat houses would be of the Swiss chalet types, so two

    25 sided roofs, whilst Muslim houses usually had a hipped

  104. 1roof with four sides. That's the rule. But you will

    2 notice, especially here on this picture, that there

    3 were also many exceptions to this rule, and that some

    4 Muslim houses also had two-sided roofs, thereby showing

    5 no distinctive sign to somebody not being from the

    6 village. There was no difference between that house

    7 and a Croat house.

    8 We will mention the house of Mesic Pjanic

    9 (Phoen) in the course of this week. All of the houses

    10 along the road have two-sided roofs, so nothing would

    11 differentiate a Muslim house from a Croat house along

    12 that road.

    13 We can carry on, yes, please go on.

    14 You can see here a Muslim house with this

    15 four-sided roof. You can only see the roof structure

    16 because there is no roofing material anymore, and here

    17 you have the Mosque.

    18 What you see here is the school or what used

    19 to be the school, it was also destroyed on the 16th of

    20 April, 1993. However, here you can see intact Croat

    21 houses.

    22 To the right you can see a shop owned by

    23 Vlatko Kupreskic, his house was close by to the right

    24 of the shop. And straight behind, tens of metres away,

    25 there is the house of Saki Pafmic (Phoen), or rather

  105. 1the ruins of what remains of the house, and we will

    2 mention this during this week of proceedings.

    3 We're moving now towards the Kupreskic

    4 houses. Towards the right, yes, carry on, this house

    5 is not the house of one of the accused; however, on the

    6 other side you've got the houses of Zoran and Mirjan

    7 Kupreskic.

    8 Here's Mirjan Kupreskic's house, while

    9 Zoran's house is straight in front of this one. Vlatko

    10 Kupreskic's house is straight on the left. We fork off

    11 and go through this little path to upper Ahmici, back

    12 in 1993 this area was exclusively inhabited by Muslims,

    13 and all the houses still today are destroyed.

    14 In front of us now to the right is the upper

    15 Mosque. Here it is. As you can see, very extensively

    16 destroyed.

    17 We are now in upper Ahmici where all the

    18 houses were destroyed on the 16th of April, '93. Some

    19 of which are now being rebuilt or have work done to it,

    20 for instance, to rebuild the roof frames.

    21 Now, we have reached the upper part, the

    22 highest point in Ahmici.

    23 The third clip was made on the regional road

    24 in the direction of Vitez, and we will see, to the

    25 right of that road, the houses of Zume, houses which

  106. 1were virtually all Croat, and the Pican cafe at the end

    2 of this clip.

    3 (Videotape played)

    4 MR. TERRIER: Can you stop that? The houses

    5 that we see, all of them with two slopes, they're all

    6 Croat houses, houses at the end of the Zume area, the

    7 Pican cafe is on the right-hand side of the screen, and

    8 it was here that a certain number of detainees were

    9 rounded up, and we will see this spot on the left-hand

    10 side of the screen.

    11 Mr. President, Your Honours, these were the

    12 principal topographical indications that I wanted to

    13 present to you, and I think that this film, this video

    14 that you have just seen, shows us or illustrates one of

    15 the elements of the facts that we need to prove to the

    16 court, that is, that on the 16th of April, 180 houses

    17 in Ahmici were destroyed, that all the destroyed houses

    18 were Muslims', and that almost all the Muslim houses of

    19 Ahmici were destroyed. On the other hand, Croat houses

    20 remained intact. Not a single one of them was damaged

    21 in any significant manner.

    22 This is a fact which could have been admitted

    23 by the Defence in its pre-trial brief. Also, the

    24 Defence could have admitted the census data from 1991

    25 according to which, in 1993, at the beginning of 1993

  107. 1or at the end of 1992, Ahmici had 466 inhabitants of

    2 whom 356 were Muslim and 87 Croat, which means a very

    3 large majority were Muslims.

    4 Also something else that the Defence cannot

    5 contest, that at the end of 1992 and the beginning of

    6 1993, there was a certain number of Muslim refugees

    7 staying in Ahmici which were chased out of their homes

    8 by the fighting on the front against the Serbs and

    9 which came to live with their families in Ahmici. Very

    10 often, these people came in 1992, at the end of the

    11 summer, and sometimes even at the beginning of 1993.

    12 These refugees, all Muslims, were not well-known among

    13 the local population, so that it is difficult to assess

    14 exactly the number, but we can say that about 50

    15 refugees, who were chased from their homes from the

    16 front-line with the Serbs, stayed mostly in weekend

    17 houses because in Ahmici, in the lower area, there were

    18 a number of smaller houses used before the war by

    19 people residing in the cities, and these houses were

    20 placed at the disposal, quite naturally, of these

    21 refugees.

    22 If we compare the village of Ahmici before

    23 the 16th of April, '93, and the village of Ahmici in

    24 the days that followed and even to this day, we will

    25 see that what used to be a Muslim, majority Muslim

  108. 1village, we see hundreds of -- Croat village, and we

    2 will also see that this total destruction of Ahmici

    3 took place in a very short period of time, a period of

    4 time that began on the 16th of April at dawn and which

    5 continued in the hours that followed, that is, the next

    6 morning, the morning of the 17th.

    7 I was struck by the fact that on the wall of

    8 the lower mosque, we found the words "48 hours of

    9 ashes," and it is rather strange that numerous Muslim

    10 villagers said that "48 hours of ashes" was the code

    11 name given by the HVO forces to this ethnic cleansing

    12 campaign.

    13 I will say straight-away that we were not

    14 able to prove this assertion which is based basically

    15 on a rumour, a persistent rumour, but still a rumour.

    16 However, it has been possible to note the total

    17 correspondence between this designation of 48 hours of

    18 ashes, perhaps it will be better to say of blood and

    19 ashes, fully illustrates the pain and suffering of the

    20 victims of those events.

    21 I will not refer to the political situation

    22 in Central Bosnia-Herzegovina at the beginning of

    23 1993. I think that the Tribunal is perfectly familiar

    24 with that situation, as it is with the military

    25 situation that was prevalent at that point in time, and

  109. 1the existence of an armed conflict opposing the Croats,

    2 the Croat authorities of Bosnia, against the

    3 authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The army of the

    4 Bosnian Croats, the HVO, was present in full strength

    5 in the area of Vitez and Busovaca. On the other hand,

    6 the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina was virtually absent

    7 from this region.

    8 The fighting could entail these two armies in

    9 Travnik, that is, about 20 kilometres to the west of

    10 Vitez, in the region of Ahmici itself and in Ahmici,

    11 there were what was known as the Territorial Defence

    12 forces, and this Territorial Defence cannot be

    13 considered as an armed force. It is a grouping of

    14 citizens, based on the voluntary principle, who got

    15 together to protect the security of their homes and

    16 their families. If they were armed, they were lightly

    17 armed. They didn't, each one of them, have a weapon,

    18 in principle, and if there was any command structure,

    19 there was no real centralised chain of command that

    20 would correspond to a military structure.

    21 In that period, I am talking about the end of

    22 '92, the beginning of 1993, UNPROFOR was present in

    23 the area. Vitez, Ahmici belonged to the area of

    24 responsibility of the British battalion that was based

    25 in Vitez and whose commander at the time was Colonel

  110. 1Stewart and his assistant was Colonel Watters, who will

    2 be our first witness and who will speak, if the Court

    3 allows it, after me.

    4 The mission of UNPROFOR was to protect

    5 humanitarian convoys, to protect the population, of

    6 course, fully respecting the principle of impartiality

    7 regarding the conflict in which various communities

    8 were opposed against one another in Central Bosnia as

    9 in the rest of Bosnia-Herzegovina. But this British

    10 battalion area, or the members of the battalion, were

    11 present and their testimony is important for an

    12 understanding of the situation, and they were observers

    13 which your Tribunal, I am sure, will listen to with

    14 great attention.

    15 Regarding the forces present in Busovaca and

    16 Vitez, they will have important information to convey

    17 to you. At the end of 1992 and the beginning of 1993,

    18 we find ourselves in a situation of an armed conflict

    19 between the Bosnian authorities and the Bosnian Croat

    20 authorities, the alliance that united them against a

    21 common enemy, the Serbs, having completely been broken

    22 in the meantime.

    23 In this situation of an armed conflict, it

    24 had very direct impact on the situation in Ahmici. In

    25 October 1992, in Ahmici, an event occurred which was an

  111. 1immediate reflection of the armed conflict which had

    2 swept to Central Bosnia at the time.

    3 In the second half of October 1992, combat

    4 broke out in Travnik between elements of the Bosnian

    5 army and elements or units of the HVO. The Territorial

    6 Defence of Ahmici placed on the road linking Busovaca

    7 and Vitez and then on to Travnik a roadblock which, in

    8 the view of their authors, was to prevent HVO forces

    9 from Busovaca to make progress towards Travnik and thus

    10 to reinforce the forces engaged in the conflict in the

    11 region of Travnik.

    12 This roadblock on the road at Ahmici was

    13 erected on the 19th of October. It was manned by some

    14 30 Muslims from the village of Ahmici and, as we will

    15 show in the course of our case, the 30 or so men were

    16 insufficiently armed for the task they assigned

    17 themselves and they had very little command.

    18 This provoked the fury of the HVO which

    19 immediately demanded the deblocking of the road and

    20 which, after some threats at dawn on the 20th of

    21 October, launched a resolute attack because the HVO

    22 used heavy weapons against the roadblock, against the

    23 barricade but, it is also important to note, also

    24 against non-military targets, that is, houses or some

    25 houses which were in the lower part of Ahmici.

  112. 1At the beginning of the afternoon, members of

    2 the Territorial Defence of Ahmici found themselves in a

    3 weaker position; they withdrew and opened the way to

    4 the HVO. More than 20 houses were destroyed, the

    5 minaret of the lower mosque was seriously damaged, and

    6 this target was obviously intentionally targeted, and

    7 it cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a

    8 military target. A young man of 15, Alija Pezer, a

    9 non-combatant, was killed by a sniper during that day.

    10 After that event of the 20th of October,

    11 1992, the situation in Ahmici between the communities

    12 became extremely tense. The violence throughout that

    13 period, from October '92 until April 1993, was rampant

    14 and, from time to time, it would explode.

    15 The HVO forces, in fact, in Ahmici, as in

    16 Vitez, required total subordination of the Muslims.

    17 They required the surrender of weapons. They demanded

    18 the right to be able to control any movement by the

    19 Muslims. They demanded a curfew to be applied to the

    20 Muslims but not to the Croats.

    21 At the beginning of 1993, a unit that called

    22 themselves the Jokers established itself in the

    23 Bungalow, and members of this unit, during the weeks

    24 that followed until April 1993, will distinguish

    25 themselves in particular by their brutality towards the

  113. 1civilian population and their provocation consisting,

    2 among other things, of firing at roads, firing at cars

    3 or buildings along the road, and very many Muslims in

    4 that period were victimised by these acts of

    5 provocation which were elements of persecution.

    6 A few weeks before the tragedy in April, a

    7 person called Esad Salkic, who lived in Nadioci, which

    8 is very close to Ahmici, in the direction of the

    9 Bungalow, was killed in his house because he refused to

    10 surrender a weapon demanded by the HVO. At that point

    11 in time, the Muslims decided to protect themselves with

    12 night guards. The Croats reacted immediately,

    13 demanding that these patrols be abolished, and in the

    14 discussions that ensued between the Muslims and Croats

    15 of Ahmici, upon a suggestion, made a conciliatory

    16 suggestion by the Muslims that there should be joint

    17 patrols by the Croats and the Muslims, the Croat

    18 representatives, among whom Zoran Kupreskic, invoked

    19 superior orders and said that there was no question of

    20 ensuring security of the civilian population with joint

    21 patrols. On the 15th of April, during a meeting, the

    22 Muslims were given assurances that no steps would be

    23 taken against them and that their safety was fully

    24 ensured in the region.

    25 Even though tension was running high between

  114. 1the two communities and even though difficulties were

    2 considerable and even though the impact of the armed

    3 conflict was significant in Ahmici, the majority of the

    4 witnesses will tell you, and not one of them will tell

    5 you that not one of them could have imagined that the

    6 events of the 16th of April could take place. When we

    7 listen to the various witnesses speaking about that

    8 day, this attack was against a civilian population, the

    9 attack of 16th of April, which reflected a

    10 determination and a savagery that was quite unique.

    11 That attack did not have any aspect of an

    12 improvisation. It was an episode of an HVO offensive

    13 against Muslim settlements throughout the Lasva River

    14 Valley, and particularly in Vitez and Ahmici, certainly

    15 a most conspicuous episode but only an episode of this

    16 overall offensive.

    17 The attack started about 5.30 in the

    18 morning. They were supported with heavy weapons,

    19 anti-aircraft guns in particular charged with

    20 explosives and with incendiary bullets. The ground

    21 forces, the infantry belonging to the HVO and the

    22 Jokers unit, which were wearing camouflage uniforms in

    23 the case of the HVO and black uniforms in the case of

    24 the Jokers, they were armed with automatic rifles, with

    25 mortars, with incendiary weapons, and this military

  115. 1force was deployed first in the lower part of Ahmici

    2 against an exclusively civilian population, women,

    3 children, and elderly, which were awoken from their

    4 sleep and were still wearing night-clothes, night-gowns.

    5 It should be known that the attack started

    6 simultaneously in Grabovi. The village was encircled,

    7 shelled from the outside, but also attacked from within

    8 from the area of the Kupreskic houses, that is, the

    9 locality known as Grabovi.

    10 This action continued throughout the day;

    11 they went from one house to another. The soldiers were

    12 perfectly organised, they knew what they had to do,

    13 they communicated by radio. Each one of them carried a

    14 ribbon which indicated their task or the zone they were

    15 assigned to. They fired at the houses. They ordered

    16 the inhabitants to come out. In principal, they

    17 separated the men from the women. In most cases, they

    18 shot the men on the spot, and they took the women and

    19 the children to detention centres. Sometimes women and

    20 children were also killed because soldiers fired on

    21 several occasions on people who tried to flee, whoever

    22 they may have been, whether they were children or

    23 adults. In all the cases, the soldiers set fire to the

    24 houses.

    25 The members of the UNPROFOR, the British

  116. 1battalion of UNPROFOR, as of 11.00 that morning and on

    2 several occasions throughout the day, entered Ahmici to

    3 assist the wounded, to try to protect the women and the

    4 children, to try to evacuate them to a safe area. When

    5 the members of the British battalion entered Ahmici

    6 with their armoured vehicle, the HVO forces moved away,

    7 they didn't stop shooting; but as soon as the British

    8 battalion withdrew from Ahmici, the HVO forces came

    9 back again and continued their operation.

    10 The members of the British battalion did a

    11 lot for the civilian population and their testimony is

    12 important. They helped many Muslim civilians, many

    13 women and children, and I think that in the dramatic

    14 circumstances they found themselves in, they did

    15 everything that they could within their mandate. Those

    16 of them who were there in Ahmici will convey to you the

    17 feelings that they had at the time.

    18 This continued throughout the day. In the

    19 early morning hours of the next day, it was completed.

    20 Ahmici could not resist. Only a few Muslims, belonging

    21 to the Territorial Defence with some light arms, did

    22 fire a couple of shots. There never was a single

    23 Croatian victim alleged, so that the resistance of the

    24 TO was symbolic. It was the resistance of men trying

    25 to protect their families from soldiers threatening

  117. 1their lives.

    2 This operation provoked a great deal of

    3 emotion, it stupefied many witnesses, eyewitnesses, the

    4 scope of the destruction, the number of victims, some

    5 of whose bodies were still in the buildings 15 days

    6 after the operation, all this was noted by various

    7 persons, either members of the UNPROFOR or members

    8 belonging to the U.N. or to European or international

    9 institutions.

    10 I would like to suggest that we now see a

    11 very brief video which quite precisely reflects the

    12 emotions felt 15 days after the event because some

    13 reports were aired about this massacre. This film was

    14 made by the BBC News, it was aired by BBC News at the

    15 beginning of May 1993 when British soldiers of UNPROFOR

    16 came to the village to investigate and to carry out

    17 some of the bodies from the rubble.

    18 Perhaps we can now look at this video?

    19 (Videotape played).

    20 MR. TERRIER: There is the second part to it.

    21 Needless to say, we shall submit to the

    22 Defence a copy of the video clips as well as copies of

    23 the aerial photographs that are introduced in the

    24 beginning of my opening statement.

    25 Let me add this: In Vitez on the 28th of

  118. 1April, 1993, 12 days, that is, after the attack, 99

    2 bodies, some of which beyond recognition, burned beyond

    3 recognition, were buried in some mass graves dug by the

    4 members of the British battalion. You shall see

    5 footage of the burial ceremony.

    6 There are four members of the Ahmic family

    7 that were later discovered by the BritBat members in

    8 the ruins of the torched house, were buried on the 6th

    9 of May in the same cemetery. This means there are

    10 today 103 bodies, the bodies of the victims of the HVO

    11 attack in the Lasva River Valley.

    12 However, 45 bodies could not be identified

    13 before they were buried, and we know that all of the

    14 victims were not from Ahmici. We know that a lot of

    15 the victims of Ahmici have not been buried in the Vitez

    16 cemetery. And we, but especially the families, do not

    17 know where their next of kin were buried. There was a

    18 rumour, according to which there was a clandestine

    19 cemetery set up by the Croats for unknown reasons.

    20 This was never established or confirmed, but it

    21 nevertheless remains that a lot of families still don't

    22 know today where their parents were buried.

    23 During these trial proceedings, we shall

    24 endeavour to establish as accurately as we can the

    25 number of civilian victims in Ahmici. This figure

  119. 1could be some 110 people of whom over 30 women and

    2 close to 20 children or teenagers under 18 years of

    3 age. This is a considerable amount of children and

    4 teenagers. This will be shown and established with as

    5 much accuracy as is possible today.

    6 The witnesses you will come to hear, the

    7 inhabitants of Ahmici will tell of their personal

    8 tragedies, the ones they experienced during those days,

    9 but also in the ensuing months and years.

    10 Let me insist on the fact that there were

    11 individual tragedies in Ahmici that have left no

    12 traces, no survivors, no witnesses.

    13 I would like to speak of the killing fields,

    14 as some witnesses will, too, close to the lower part of

    15 Ahmici. This was the name given by the members of the

    16 British battalion when they saw what they had to see in

    17 the massacre.

    18 In the middle of the 16th of April in those

    19 killing fields across the Catholic cemetery, the

    20 members of the British battalion saw some 20 bodies,

    21 bodies of civilian people, some were female bodies,

    22 some were the bodies of children, one woman was killed

    23 while she was still holding the hand of a child.

    24 There is another tragedy, that of this father

    25 and his child whom he was holding in his arms, and they

  120. 1were both killed, shot dead on their doorstep. Another

    2 tragedy, among many others, is that of Sejad Ahmic,

    3 whose house you've just seen. Colonel Stewart

    4 mentioned the victims found near that house. But I

    5 must state we have very little information as to what

    6 really happened, apart from what Colonel Stewart said,

    7 and we have no accurate data on the exact circumstances

    8 in which all the members of this family were killed.

    9 We are well aware of the fact that the

    10 tragedy and the crime of Ahmici is still not known in

    11 many of its aspects, but we have a few accurate facts

    12 that we will show during these proceedings. And I am

    13 sure that the Tribunal and the Court will be convinced

    14 of the elements we will show.

    15 I will stop here when it comes to the actual

    16 facts, time is flying; and if you will allow me, I

    17 shall be briefer, to move straight away to the

    18 following.

    19 Why were the crimes committed in Ahmici in

    20 1993? Why were they crimes against humanity? Pursuant

    21 to Article 5 of the Statute, and pursuant to the case

    22 law established by this Tribunal.

    23 If we look at the motives and the purposes

    24 sought by the perpetrators of these crimes, there is no

    25 doubt whatsoever they did it on ethnic, political,

  121. 1racial and religious grounds. They wanted to cleanse

    2 the area, they wanted to root out the entire

    3 community. One community wanted to root out the other.

    4 The Tribunal knows that the Vance-Owen Plan

    5 was made public in January, 1993, a plan according to

    6 which they should be Canton province number 10, to be

    7 under Croat administration was Ahmici and Vitez, were

    8 to be under province number 10.

    9 Most of the inhabitants in that province of

    10 Canton were in deed Croats, but there were some

    11 municipalities, some hamlets or villages that had a

    12 Muslim majority, which was the case in Ahmici.

    13 The offensive launched by the HVO against the

    14 Muslim civilian dwellings and the civilian population

    15 in Ahmici in 1993 did not aim at fighting against the

    16 positions of an opposing army; it aims at splitting,

    17 separating communities by driving out, by destroying

    18 houses, by murdering, by removing, by force transfer

    19 and deportation. In so doing they aimed at rooting out

    20 the Muslim community from the face of this earth.

    21 This operation is beyond any reasonable doubt

    22 planned and carried out on a systematic, in a

    23 systematic fashion at large scale. The forces involved

    24 in the Ahmici operation, in the operation against

    25 Ahmici, the means used, the material, equipment, the

  122. 1military resources involved implied that everything had

    2 been planned and organised at all levels of the

    3 military command.

    4 Planning and preparation implies orders that

    5 have been prepared, issued, confirmed at all levels of

    6 this military hierarchy. And in spite of these

    7 important resources, they managed to keep an absolute

    8 secrecy in relation to the operation in the days prior

    9 to the attack. Not a single Muslim was warned of what

    10 was about to happen.

    11 As I said before, this operation was part of

    12 a general offensive in the Lasva River Valley, against

    13 all Muslim positions and houses. It lasted several

    14 days, did not come up against any resistance until such

    15 time when the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina launched a

    16 counter attack.

    17 For instance, in Vitez similar facts as those

    18 in Ahmici were committed on the same day and Stari

    19 Vitez, the Muslim neighbourhood, was totally destroyed

    20 on that day.

    21 BritBat members will tell that they went out

    22 in the early hours of the morning on that day and they

    23 saw in Vitez the bodies of civilians lying around in

    24 the Muslim neighbourhood while in the Croat

    25 neighbourhood everything was calm and no damage had

  123. 1been caused.

    2 As a result, I think that the evidence will

    3 show that all the men taking part in the operations

    4 were carrying orders, complied with such orders, and

    5 that they in no way had some personal pursuit in mind.

    6 Neither did they want to settle any hostility they may

    7 have had towards individual single Muslim neighbours.

    8 All the Croats taking part in the operation

    9 can be held and must be held responsible for it.

    10 Evidence will show that the six accused tried

    11 here today took part in the offensive, in a direct

    12 fashion with weapons in their hands, or else,

    13 alternatively, that they aided and abetted in a very

    14 active way, and they also provided logistical support

    15 to such operations.

    16 We shall prove beyond any reasonable doubt

    17 that the six accused back in those days were involved

    18 in the HVO forces, had sympathy for nationalistic

    19 causes, were subjected to Croat and HVO authority, and

    20 even that some of them were fanatics, or behaved in a

    21 fanatic way.

    22 It is obvious that if you were in the HVO

    23 forces, if you were dedicated to a nationalistic cause,

    24 that means that you could not remain passive once the

    25 village in which you lived was prey to, or was going to

  124. 1undergo such an operation.

    2 There was the need for local support,

    3 according to military doctrine. The military doctrine

    4 made it necessary for military forces penetrating into

    5 the village be clearly informed of their targets, that

    6 the Muslim houses that looked like Croat houses be

    7 shown to them, that the Croat houses to be protected be

    8 shown to them, as well.

    9 It is unthinkable that an operation of such

    10 scale be conducted by military forces that would be

    11 alien to the area, to the village. Military logic and

    12 doctrine make it necessary for Croats residing in

    13 Ahmici to be part of those forces which launched the

    14 attack against the village.

    15 And the community rationale or doctrine also

    16 makes it necessary for the Croats living in Ahmici to

    17 be associated with the operation. It is unthinkable

    18 that the Croat families or Croat interests in Ahmici

    19 would be jeopardised, would be imperilled by such an

    20 operation.

    21 It was therefore necessary, to the extent

    22 possible, that the Croat families be evacuated on the

    23 eve of the operation, and this is precisely what

    24 happened. And the evidence will show that. And this

    25 is another indicator of the involvement of the Croats

  125. 1from Ahmici, and more especially from the six accused

    2 tried here today.

    3 The evidence will also show that five out of

    4 the six accused committed specific crimes during that

    5 day. We shall adduce evidence through numerous

    6 converging and corroborating testimony. We will show

    7 that Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic are responsible for the

    8 destruction of the family of Sakib Ahmic, their closest

    9 Muslim neighbours; their father, Naser; the wife,

    10 Zehrudina, and their two children Elvis and Sejad.

    11 Sakib Ahmic was wounded but survived the attack and he

    12 will be here to testify.

    13 The credibility of this major witness, that

    14 is Sakib Ahmic, will be established through other

    15 testimony, but also through crime scene investigation

    16 carried out in the ruins of the houses of his family.

    17 We will show that Vlatko Kupreskic is also

    18 responsible for the death of Fata Pezer for the

    19 wounding of Dzenana Pezer, that many witnesses will say

    20 that they saw him in the peak of the offensive armed

    21 with a weapon close to the house. And witnesses will

    22 say he fired with that weapon, which leaves no doubt as

    23 to his guilt.

    24 And we will also show that Vlado Santic and

    25 Drago Josipovic are responsible for the death of

  126. 1Musafer Puscul and for the destruction of his house.

    2 They seem to be irrefutable witnesses, even though the

    3 Defence did not seem to agree with this, this morning;

    4 but this will be established through witnesses in front

    5 of you, Your Honours.

    6 I shall come to an end by mentioning very

    7 briefly the order in which witnesses will be called, in

    8 order to give you further information on this. We

    9 wanted to call witnesses according to some logical

    10 order.

    11 We first will deal with the circumstances of

    12 the attack with Dragan Papic's participation in the

    13 planning and the execution of the attack.

    14 At a further stage we shall turn to specific

    15 crimes relating to the Pezer family, to the Ahmic

    16 family and to the Puscul family, and will look into the

    17 their own participation in the attack, but also in the

    18 acts of Zoran and Mirjan Kupreskic, to start with, and

    19 Vlatko, following with Drago Josipovic and finish with

    20 Vladimir Santic.

    21 We will try to adhere to this logical order

    22 of appearance, but I do beg you to apologise for any

    23 possible trouble that may, or difficulty that may crop

    24 up later and cause this order to be changed. But as

    25 much as we can we shall stick to this logical order of

  127. 1appearance. Thank you very much for your attention.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you very much,

    3 Mr. Prosecutor. It is a quarter to five, it is

    4 probably pointless to have the first witness, after all

    5 it will take more than 15 minutes.

    6 MR. TERRIER: We were going to call Colonel

    7 Watters, who was the deputy of Colonel Stewart at the

    8 time. Colonel Stewart was the commander of the BritBat

    9 in Vitez, and I do fear that his testimony, the

    10 examination-in-chief, but especially the

    11 cross-examination might take more than 15 minutes. We

    12 are faced with a problem, though. Colonel Watters told

    13 us, and he is still a member of the British Army, and

    14 he must be back in Great Britain at the latest by

    15 tomorrow, end of tomorrow morning.

    16 I was probably too long in my opening

    17 statement, I'm sorry for that; but exceptionally maybe

    18 could we extend the hearing by half an hour and we

    19 could begin the examination-in-chief and continue

    20 tomorrow morning? I fear that we might not have enough

    21 time tomorrow morning. We might, if we start today, we

    22 might have more time.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Well, this will be an

    24 exception, but we agree to work until 5.30. So, you

    25 may call your first witness.

  128. 1Which are the witnesses you intend to call

    2 tomorrow and the day after tomorrow? Could we follow

    3 the order that you gave us in your motion of the 3rd of

    4 August?

    5 MR. TERRIER: Yes, but with one exception,

    6 Mr. President; some witnesses have to go back to Bosnia

    7 quite rapidly, so, I was hoping to be able to -- we

    8 have Mr. Akhavan, who is a member of the office of the

    9 Prosecutor, and we could postpone his testimony to

    10 enable the Bosnian witnesses to be heard before him.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: That's fine.

    12 MR. PAVKOVIC: The Defence would request, in

    13 order to prepare for the cross-examination, to be given

    14 at least a minimum of 48 hours to be informed, 48 hours

    15 ahead of the arrival of the witness, who the witness

    16 will be.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, I think that's quite

    18 sensible. Can I ask the Prosecution whether they are

    19 prepared to give the advance notice, 48 hours? I think

    20 it's quite proper that they should know the list of

    21 witnesses the Prosecution is going, are going to call;

    22 are you in a position to do so?

    23 MR. TERRIER: That's fine, in principle, no

    24 objection in principle. I do understand the reason why

    25 Defence counsel have formulated such a request, which

  129. 1seems to be quite legitimate. But we sometimes are

    2 faced with practical problems, and sometimes they are

    3 such that we can't really do anything else, and

    4 sometimes the advance notice of 48 hours might not be

    5 an accurate one.

    6 So, if we make this commitment, please do not

    7 take offence if we have to change things at the last

    8 minute. But in principle there is no objection to this

    9 advance notice. Of course, with the proviso that we

    10 have a counterpart, the coordinating counsel could then

    11 pass on the information to the other Defence counsel.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: That's fine, but this means

    13 that this afternoon, tonight you're going to pass on

    14 this to the Defence.

    15 MR. TERRIER: Yes, tonight we shall submit

    16 the list of the next witnesses to the Defence, together

    17 with the protective measures requested, that's no

    18 problem.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, I would like, you

    20 should provide to the Defence the list of the witnesses

    21 you intend to call until Friday, roughly speaking, that

    22 would be fine for the Defence to have an idea of what

    23 is going to happen over the week.

    24 MR. TERRIER: That will be done,

    25 Mr. President.

  130. 1JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon, Mr. Watters.

    2 May I ask you to make the solemn declaration?


    4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    5 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the

    6 truth.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: You may be seated.

    8 Examined by Mr. Moskowitz:

    9 Q. Good afternoon, Colonel Watters.

    10 A. Good afternoon.

    11 Q. Could you start, Colonel, by telling us what

    12 you do for a living?

    13 A. I'm a Lieutenant Colonel in the British Army

    14 and I'm currently commanding the First Battalion of the

    15 Cheshire Regiment.

    16 Q. Could you briefly give us a summary of your

    17 experience in the British military, if you would?

    18 A. I was commissioned into regiment 25 years ago

    19 this month from our military academy. And to date I've

    20 served in commands in staff posts in my regiment and in

    21 the wider British Army.

    22 In command appointments as a platoon

    23 commander, company commander and now battalion

    24 commander, I've commanded soldiers in Northern Ireland,

    25 the former Rhodesia, Bosnia and in other parts of the

  131. 1world.

    2 As a staff officer, I was a staff officer in

    3 an armoured brigade in NATO, I was a staff officer in

    4 Northern Ireland and I was a staff officer at our

    5 infantry school.

    6 Q. Now, you mentioned that you served in Bosnia.

    7 Could you give us a time frame for that service?

    8 A. I was recalled to my battalion to take up the

    9 post of second in command in late January '93. I

    10 arrived in Bosnia in early February, and I took up the

    11 appointment of second in command from about the 6th of

    12 February to about the 16th of May in Bosnia.

    13 Q. You say second in command, who was in command

    14 at that time?

    15 A. The commanding officer was Lieutenant Colonel

    16 Stewart.

    17 Q. Could you give us an idea, if you would, what

    18 the duties of a second command is?

    19 A. You're the deputy commander of the unit at

    20 that point, the one Cheshire group named as BritBat,

    21 part of the United Nations UNPROFOR force. My role was

    22 to shadow and mirror the commanding officer, to replace

    23 him in the event that he became a casualty.

    24 And my routine duties were to control the

    25 operational and information branches within the

  132. 1headquarters and to act as the de facto Chief of Staff.

    2 Q. Could you describe, if you would, your

    3 general area of operation in Bosnia during that time

    4 period in early 1993?

    5 A. Yes, we had an area of responsibility. In

    6 the north was Tuzla. In fact, I'll explain what the

    7 size of our force was, then I can superimpose that on

    8 our area of responsibility.

    9 We were a battalion group of three infantry

    10 companies; a heavy weapons company, a reconnaissance

    11 company provided from a cavalry regiment; and a

    12 reconnaissance platoon of our own; and a battalion

    13 headquarters and echelon, the echelon being the

    14 logistics support.

    15 One company was based in Tuzla when I arrived

    16 in February. A company and the reconnaissance squadron

    17 were based in Vitez, and a company was based in Gornji

    18 Vakuf. And that essentially encompassed our area.

    19 Q. Thank you.

    20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm going to ask for the

    21 assistance from the usher at this point, if I might.

    22 We have two maps over there on the wall if we could

    23 have them set up on the easel to help illustrate the

    24 additional testimony coming next.

    25 Can we have the first map marked as an

  133. 1exhibit?

    2 JUDGE MAY: Are we going to get a copy of

    3 this?

    4 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes, Your Honour, we have

    5 copies prepared.

    6 THE REGISTRAR: The first map will be

    7 Prosecution Exhibit number 5.


    9 Q. If you will look at the exhibit marked number

    10 5, and if would you, step up to that exhibit, there's a

    11 microphone there. If you would, would you describe

    12 what that map shows?

    13 A. The map shows the former Yugoslavia. And the

    14 highlighted square --

    15 Q. Yes, if you would.

    16 A. That's essentially the centre of our area of

    17 operations based on Vitez where our battalion

    18 headquarters and two manoeuvre units were, and the

    19 towns of Zenica, Travnik, Turbe, Busovaca, which were

    20 areas that we operated in and concentrated on from the

    21 16th of April until we left on the -- in the middle of

    22 May.

    23 Q. Now, that yellow square, does that define

    24 your entire area of operation during that time period,

    25 or is it within your area of operations which is larger

  134. 1than that?

    2 A. It is within our area of responsibility. Our

    3 area of responsibility was considerably larger than

    4 that.

    5 Q. Would it be possible with perhaps your finger

    6 to give a general indication of your entire area of

    7 operation outside of that square?

    8 A. It's a little difficult without marking on

    9 the position of the Serbs at the time. But in very

    10 general terms, it went up through Zenica, Zepce, Maglaj

    11 at parts of Doboj and up to Tuzla.

    12 Q. Thank you. Where was your headquarters

    13 during that time period?

    14 A. In the school just outside the town of

    15 Vitez.

    16 Q. If you would remove that exhibit and look at

    17 the one behind it, and if we could have that exhibit

    18 marked, as well.

    19 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecutor's Exhibit number

    20 6.

    21 Q. That is now marked Exhibit number 6. Could

    22 you make a correlation between the square on exhibit

    23 number 5 and the map now designated Exhibit number 6?

    24 A. Yes, I can.

    25 Q. Please do so.

  135. 1A. You have the Lazva Valley, the town of Vitez

    2 in the centre, and the main Vitez road that looped

    3 around to Zenica and the mountain road to Zenica and

    4 the road going north-west out to Vitez past our

    5 headquarters, which is here at Bila, and on up to

    6 Travnik. The map is familiar to me, this is exactly

    7 the scale of map we used when we were deployed there.

    8 Q. You mentioned the Lazva Valley; would you

    9 describe what you mean by the Lazva Valley?

    10 A. The valley through which the river Lazva

    11 flows, in our terms, Vitez was the centre of it. And

    12 the main sort of road that runs diagonally across the

    13 map up to Travnik and down around to the Zenica road.

    14 It was an area that became extremely well-known after

    15 the 16th of April. I knew it quite well up till then,

    16 although, other than liaising with the military

    17 commander in Vitez and the regional commander, whose

    18 headquarters was also in Vitez, Colonel Blaskic, I had

    19 no particular reason to know the hills around.

    20 Q. Now, you mentioned a road going through the

    21 Lasva Valley from Vitez to Zenica. Actually, I think

    22 you mentioned two roads.

    23 A. Yeah. One we called the road to the dual

    24 carriageway and the other one we called the mountain

    25 road which went directly from Dubravica, at the

  136. 1junction just outside Vitez, up over the hills into

    2 Zenica, and running around the valley floor, along the

    3 Lasva Valley, until it joined at the dual carriageway

    4 junction, just where I'm pointing now (indicating), and

    5 the faster road there up to Zenica. Which road we took

    6 depended on the military situation and the weather.

    7 Q. You mentioned that road that goes along the

    8 Lasva Valley; not the mountain road, the other road.

    9 Did that road also go through the town of Ahmici?

    10 A. I always understood that Ahmici was north of

    11 the road.

    12 Q. So it skirted along the edge of Ahmici?

    13 A. Yeah, and then went sort of further up into

    14 the hills on minor roads.

    15 Q. Did you often drive that route from Vitez

    16 along the Lasva Valley road past Ahmici?

    17 A. Innumerable times.

    18 Q. Approximately how many kilometres is it from

    19 the centre of Vitez to the area of -- the Ahmici area,

    20 along that road?

    21 A. Approximately four kilometres.

    22 Q. Four kilometres? Yes. Now, you also

    23 mentioned Blaskic having a headquarters in Vitez.

    24 A. Yeah.

    25 Q. Who is Blaskic?

  137. 1A. Colonel Blaskic was the HVO regional

    2 commander for Central Bosnia reporting to Commander

    3 Petkovic.

    4 Q. Just to get our terms straight. What is the

    5 HVO?

    6 A. The HVO was the military army of the Croat

    7 people of Central Bosnia, of Bosnia.

    8 Q. Could you tell us where, if you recall, the

    9 HVO and Colonel Blaskic had its headquarters in Vitez,

    10 what building?

    11 A. In the Hotel Vitez, in the middle of the town

    12 along the main road on the right as we were transiting

    13 through from our school.

    14 Q. Now, if you could, I would like you to look

    15 at the map on the easel behind the easel in front.

    16 It's a bit awkward, but perhaps the usher could assist

    17 in allowing you to do that.

    18 A. The photograph?

    19 Q. Yes, the one behind. The one behind the

    20 easel. The big one, yeah.

    21 THE INTERPRETER: Would you ask the witness

    22 to speak into the microphone, please?

    23 MR. MOSKOWITZ: We will actually need the

    24 easel in a minute. It's a little awkward, I'm sorry,

    25 but ...

  138. 1We would like to have this exhibit marked as

    2 well.

    3 THE REGISTRAR: This is Exhibit, Prosecution

    4 Exhibit number 1.


    6 Q. Now, Colonel Watters, this may be a little

    7 confusing because I think things are flipped around a

    8 little bit on this map --

    9 A. I can understand.

    10 Q. -- so take your time, but if you could give

    11 us an idea of what that shows?

    12 A. It's an air photograph taken at an oblique

    13 angle of the area we have just been talking about with

    14 Vitez in the centre and then moving what is actually, I

    15 think, south, but going up the map.

    16 Q. Yes.

    17 A. The sort of -- the road up to Kaonik,

    18 Busovaca, looping round to the Zenica road, and then

    19 the road either through Vitez or the Vitez bypass

    20 leading down to where our school was at Bila, and the

    21 village of Kruscica up here, which I know well, the

    22 village of Santici and Ahmici, which I know well, and

    23 the general topography of the area.

    24 Q. Would you again show the Court, if you would,

    25 the road from Vitez along the outskirts of Ahmici that

  139. 1followed the valley, not the mountain road?

    2 A. Right. From the centre of Vitez, which is

    3 here, you went up here through what was actually a sort

    4 of Croat-living area, over the bridge, onto the main

    5 road, which ran through the valley, you turn right and

    6 the road followed the valley until you reached this

    7 junction here, which was the road that led in towards

    8 Ahmici, and the road continued along the bottom end of

    9 Ahmici village until it made its way past the Busovaca

    10 turning, off to the dual carriageway leading to Zenica.

    11 Q. Again, from the centre of Vitez to Ahmici is

    12 about four kilometres?

    13 A. That's about four kilometres, yeah.

    14 Q. Now, you also mentioned earlier about the

    15 Hotel Vitez where the headquarters for the HVO was

    16 located. Was that located in the centre of Vitez or in

    17 the outskirts of Vitez?

    18 A. No, it's in the centre of Vitez. It's a

    19 little difficult, five years ago, on this scale, but I

    20 think that is probably as near as --

    21 Q. That was a multi-storey building, a fairly

    22 large building for that town?

    23 A. The entrance was actually along the road

    24 here, sort of pointing in this way, and the main bulk

    25 of the hotel went back.

  140. 1Q. Now, did Vitez have certain well-defined

    2 ethnic areas at the time you were in Vitez?

    3 A. Yes, it did. I mean, they weren't

    4 necessarily manifest to us initially on our tour as it

    5 wasn't an area we focused on, but you had a sort of --

    6 coming from this direction, from the north, you had a

    7 sort of mixed all-Croat area leading to a Muslim area

    8 here centred on a mosque, then up past the municipal

    9 buildings, the town hall I think was just about here

    10 where the mayor resided, and then this area here was

    11 Croat, north of the sort of Hotel Vitez, which was

    12 almost on sort of the interface between the Muslim

    13 sector of the town and the Croat sector of the town,

    14 and then with Croat houses here and then quite sort of

    15 well-to-do houses along this road here leading out of

    16 the village.

    17 Q. We are going to hand you a marker now, the

    18 usher will hand you a marker. If you could outline for

    19 us on that map the separate areas you've just described

    20 indicating the different ethnic areas in Vitez?

    21 A. If I drew lines there (indicating) and about

    22 there, it's a bit rough, but that would show that area

    23 being Croat, this area being either mixed or largely

    24 Croat, and this area here being largely Muslim.

    25 Q. So the area, like a sandwich, in between

  141. 1those two other areas would be largely Muslim --

    2 A. Yeah.

    3 Q. -- in Vitez?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Now, what if you followed the road out of

    6 Vitez going towards Ahmici around that curve, right by

    7 that label saying "Vitez"? Would that area be Croat or

    8 Muslim?

    9 A. That would be Croat. The Croat area extended

    10 this way -- I mean, again, I wouldn't be able to point

    11 and say what house was what, but by and large, it was a

    12 wealthier area of the town and largely Croat.

    13 Q. Following that road on to the T-junction, if

    14 you would, what was that area called, if you remember?

    15 A. I can't remember, I'm afraid.

    16 Q. Do you recall the Dubravica school, by any

    17 chance?

    18 A. Yeah, that is about here, actually. That

    19 will be the Dubravica junction here, and the school was

    20 just north of the road leading up through Dubravica.

    21 It could actually be this -- it's this area here. It

    22 could actually be there (indicating). Again, on this

    23 scale, it's a bit difficult. Yes, again, that's the

    24 mountain road that leads to Zenica. So it would be

    25 this junction here, and the school was just north of

  142. 1the junction.

    2 Q. I see. And that was simply an elementary

    3 school, to the best of your knowledge?

    4 A. I really couldn't answer that. It was just

    5 the school. There weren't very many children at school

    6 during this period.

    7 Q. Then continuing on up that road, you come

    8 into the area known as Santici and Ahmici; is that

    9 right?

    10 A. Yes, it is, sir.

    11 Q. Were you familiar with a place known as the

    12 Bungalow?

    13 A. Yes, I was.

    14 Q. That map is perhaps a little small, but take

    15 a look and see if you might be able to find it.

    16 A. It's roughly in this area here (indicating).

    17 It could be there, it could be there. It's certainly

    18 that sort of area, to the best of my knowledge and

    19 memory.

    20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Finally, having to impose on

    21 the usher one more time, we would like to do the

    22 blow-up of Ahmici and have the Colonel look at that for

    23 us a little bit. We would also like to mark this

    24 blow-up that will be put on the easel as our next

    25 exhibit.

  143. 1THE REGISTRAR: This exhibit has been marked

    2 as Prosecution Exhibit number 2.


    4 Q. Now, Colonel Watters, could you identify that

    5 for us, please?

    6 A. Yeah. It's a blow-up of the previous air

    7 photograph concentrating on the junction off the main

    8 Lasva Valley road where it turned left into Ahmici.

    9 The cemetery was an obvious feature, Santici, and we

    10 had -- a United Nations Dutch battalion transport base

    11 was located somewhere around here (indicating).

    12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I see. Thank you, Colonel

    13 Watters. You may take a seat.

    14 At this time, we would like to offer into

    15 evidence those four exhibits.


    17 JUDGE CASSESE: You are being asked by the

    18 interpreters to slow down. I just saw it on the

    19 transcript.

    20 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I'm sorry. At this time, I

    21 would like to show Colonel Watters three photographic

    22 exhibits and have them identified.

    23 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 7, 8,

    24 and 9.

    25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: If you might place that on

  144. 1the ELMO? Thank you.

    2 Q. Now, Colonel Watters, could you tell us what

    3 this exhibit shows?

    4 A. An overhead photograph of Vitez.

    5 Q. Sort of a detail of downtown Vitez similar to

    6 what you showed us on the Lasva River Valley one?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. It may be difficult this many years later,

    9 but is it possible for you to pick out the headquarters

    10 of the HVO, the hotel?

    11 A. Yeah. I think it's this building here, it

    12 was the HVO regional headquarters. The town

    13 headquarters was in a cinema, and that was further back

    14 here somewhere, I think.

    15 Q. I think we have a pointer that you can use.

    16 That's good.

    17 A. This area here (indicating), to the best of

    18 my memory, is the Hotel Vitez, with the entrance off

    19 the main road here, and that was the regional

    20 headquarters of HVO and Colonel Blaskic.

    21 Q. I see there's a road, sort of a long road

    22 that goes from left to right on the map. Would that be

    23 the main road that ultimately goes up to Ahmici?

    24 A. Yes, it is.

    25 Q. Four kilometres away?

  145. 1A. Yes.

    2 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I would like to show then the

    3 next photograph, as soon as the delivery has been made.

    4 Q. Could you identify that for us, Colonel

    5 Watters?

    6 A. It's the side of the Hotel Vitez. The front

    7 of it is somewhere around here (indicating).

    8 Q. And that would be where the headquarters of

    9 the HVO was located?

    10 A. Yes, it was, sir. I visited them there.

    11 Q. This is essentially a close-up now of the

    12 actual building that was portrayed in that overhead

    13 aerial map we just looked at.

    14 A. (No audible answer)

    15 Q. And then, finally, the third picture? Again,

    16 what does that show?

    17 A. That's the Hotel Vitez from the main road in

    18 Vitez.

    19 Q. And that road, directly in front of it, is

    20 again, that main road that leads up to Ahmici and so

    21 forth?

    22 A. Yes, sir.

    23 Q. Along the Lasva Valley?

    24 A. Yes, sir.

    25 Q. Now, could you tell us, Colonel Watters, when

  146. 1you first arrived in early 1993 in Central Bosnia, what

    2 was your mission and what was the mission of the

    3 British battalion at that time?

    4 A. Our mission was to facilitate the

    5 distribution of humanitarian aid in our area of

    6 responsibility in order to prevent starvation and the

    7 degradation of the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    8 And that's as best as I can remember it.

    9 Q. During the course of your stay in Central

    10 Bosnia, did the thrust of that mission change somewhat?

    11 A. Yes, it did. The essence of the mission

    12 remained unchanged and we distilled it to be the

    13 preservation of life. The thrust of the mission, from

    14 delivering humanitarian aid, as the military situation

    15 in Central Bosnia degenerated, that became more and

    16 more difficult and increasingly less relevant as the

    17 means of saving life was best achieved by interdicting

    18 and, where we could, preventing the fighting between

    19 the opposing forces, and by establishing cease-fires,

    20 monitoring cease-fires, and later establishing a

    21 cease-fire-monitoring mission based on the ECMM. We

    22 felt that we were achieving the implicit essence of our

    23 mission to save life because we no longer really could

    24 effectively distribute aid and, as I said, the

    25 distribution of aid was less and less relevant.

  147. 1Q. Is there a particular day that comes to mind

    2 that sticks in your memory as to perhaps when your

    3 mission changed somewhat from merely delivering aid and

    4 assisting in the delivery of aid to actually saving

    5 lives in a more direct way?

    6 A. There were a series of situations that began

    7 to change the focus of our mission. Facilitating the

    8 movement of refugees from further Serb -- the fallout

    9 from further Serb attacks and the consolidation of Serb

    10 positions around Banja Luka caused us to spend a lot of

    11 time helping refugees through Turbe. Then the Serb

    12 positions in the pockets in eastern Bosnia, Srbrenica,

    13 our focus was heavily in Srbrenica in early April, and

    14 then within the centre of the area of responsibility,

    15 in the Lasva Valley, that changed abruptly on the

    16 morning of the 16th of April, '93.

    17 Q. Do you recall where you were early that

    18 morning, on the 16th of April?

    19 A. I was in the headquarters in Bila school.

    20 The commanding officer was in Zenica investigating the

    21 kidnapping of a man called Totic who was the HVO police

    22 commander in Zenica, and he was overnighting in Zenica,

    23 sorting out how we could assist in finding Mr. Totic,

    24 as I was actually commanding the battalion at that time

    25 as he was at a radio communication, and I was in from

  148. 1about 3.00 in the morning, I was in the operation

    2 centre, as some strange things were happening. We were

    3 trying to understand what was going on.

    4 Q. You mention strange things were happening

    5 early in the morning on the 16th as you were the

    6 operations officer at your headquarters in Vitez. What

    7 sort of strange things did you begin to hear that

    8 early?

    9 A. The first thing that happened was a group of

    10 reporters came into the school asking for safety,

    11 basically. They had been staying in a sort of

    12 bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I think it's on the

    13 Vitez ring road, there was a garage, best known to us

    14 because there was a bear in a cage outside it, which we

    15 later sort of liberated, and these people reported that

    16 the door had been kicked into their room and masked men

    17 had ordered them to leave or they'd be killed, and they

    18 left all their belongings, got in their car and driven

    19 down to the school, and they were in a total state of

    20 shock. There had been an increase in criminal activity

    21 in the Lasva Valley, but that was quite unusual.

    22 Q. You mention the ring road. This is a road

    23 that goes essentially or bypasses Vitez and goes around

    24 Vitez?

    25 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.

  149. 1Q. I take it these reporters were pretty scared

    2 when you saw them.

    3 A. They were petrified.

    4 Q. What else happened early that morning?

    5 A. We began to receive reports of fighting and

    6 could hear very -- by about 6.00 in the morning, we

    7 could hear distant sounds of something like mortars or

    8 artillery in the direction of Vitez, and our echelon,

    9 which was closer to Vitez than we were, was reporting a

    10 considerable amount of heavy fire in and around the

    11 Vitez area and small arms fire all the way up the Lasva

    12 Valley.

    13 Q. How were you getting these reports?

    14 A. From the static positions of our base leading

    15 in towards Vitez, at the junction of the main road into

    16 Vitez and the ring road, we had our echelon base and

    17 our petroleum point, and they were reporting it. And

    18 at about 6.00, I sent out some reconnaissance patrols

    19 up the Lasva Valley to report what exactly was

    20 happening.

    21 Q. And when you say you sent out reconnaissance

    22 patrols, what do you mean?

    23 A. I mean pairs of Scimitar light tanks, or we

    24 call them CVRT, and pairs of Warriors to move up the

    25 road and report back what they see, not to actually

  150. 1interdict what they see, because they didn't have the

    2 combat power to deal with it, but just to report so we

    3 could get a picture of what was going on because it was

    4 very confusing.

    5 Q. You mentioned Simtars as light tanks.

    6 Perhaps you might explain a little bit about what they

    7 are because we will be hearing about them again in the

    8 future?

    9 A. We have a generic vehicle within the British

    10 army called CVRT, and it has a number of

    11 specific-to-task vehicles, one of them is a

    12 reconnaissance vehicle, which is a two-man turret with

    13 a driver, a three-man crew all together, and it mounts

    14 a 30-millimetre rod-and-canon machine gun and it is our

    15 primary reconnaissance vehicle in the British army.

    16 Q. It is basically an armoured, tracked vehicle

    17 with a gun on it?

    18 A. It's a lightly armoured track vehicle. It

    19 can deal with small arms but can't take anti-tank fire.

    20 Q. You have, I think, another kind of vehicle at

    21 your disposal, a heavier kind of vehicle. Would you

    22 describe that for us, please?

    23 A. Yeah. We were an armoured infantry battalion

    24 and it's based on 53 Warrior fighting vehicles. The

    25 Warrior is a substantially larger vehicle, it is a

  151. 1personnel carrier that carries eight fighting soldiers

    2 in the rear, a turret crew of two and a driver, and it

    3 has a higher degree of protection but is a much heavier

    4 vehicle and therefore not as --

    5 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask the witness to

    6 slow down, please?

    7 THE WITNESS: Sorry. It is not as

    8 manoeuvrable as the CVRT, as the Scimitar. We had 53 of

    9 those, and it was on those that our capability was

    10 based.

    11 Q. But on the morning of the 16th, for purposes

    12 of reconnaissance, you sent out Simtars rather than

    13 Warriors?

    14 A. To be honest, sir, I can't remember. I think

    15 I sent out both. We had the reconnaissance squadron

    16 and "A" Company in Vitez at the time, and I would

    17 probably utilise both types of vehicle.

    18 Q. When you say you sent them out throughout the

    19 Lasva Valley, could you be a little more specific on

    20 that, if you might? Where in the Lasva Valley?

    21 A. I'd probably have to refer to our radio logs

    22 to be specific. Essentially, I just told them to go

    23 towards the sound of artillery and mortar fire and see

    24 if they could establish what on earth was going on.

    25 Q. Did you get reports back after a while from

  152. 1these reconnaissance patrols?

    2 A. Yeah, for a couple of hours, I got reports of

    3 heavy fighting within Vitez and the hills above it,

    4 houses burning down the length of the Lasva Valley

    5 around Santici, Ahmici, and all the way up. The

    6 checkpoint that was normally at Dubravica was deserted

    7 as was the checkpoint at the bottom of the road where

    8 it joins the Zenica flyover, and they could hear a lot

    9 of small arms fire, and there was a report of an

    10 infantry assault in Vitez, a Croat infantry assault

    11 onto the sports centre, and it was still quite

    12 difficult from the radio reports to form a prognosis of

    13 what was happening because it was out of our area of

    14 familiarity. There had not been large-scale fighting

    15 in this area during our period, and I can't remember

    16 the exact time, but about 8.00, I took a patrol out

    17 myself just to try and get a feel for what was going

    18 on.

    19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: This may be a good time to

    20 stop, Your Honours.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Before

    22 adjourning, may I just draw the attention of Defence

    23 counsel to one of our guidelines? It's C, number 3,

    24 where we have stated: "Where possible, the Defence may

    25 consider appointing one of them to cross-examine a

  153. 1particular witness."

    2 I wonder whether they may consider this

    3 particular point tomorrow when cross-examining our

    4 witness.

    5 Before adjourning, let me also again ask the

    6 registrar to make sure that tomorrow at 9.30 sharp all

    7 the accused are here in court and also the witness

    8 should be here so that we can start right away.

    9 We will adjourn now until tomorrow at 9.30

    10 sharp.

    11 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at

    12 5.30 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

    13 the 18th day of August, 1998, at

    14 9.30 a.m.