Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7305

1 Tuesday, 29 August 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, sir. I take this opportunity to

7 remind you that you are still bound by the declaration that you made at

8 the beginning of your testimony to tell the truth, the whole truth, and

9 nothing else but the truth.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.

11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I'm not quite sure where are

12 we.

13 Mr. Milovancevic.

14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 WITNESS: WITNESS MM-116 [Resumed]

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Re-examination by Mr. Milovancevic:

18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, good morning.

19 A. Good morning.

20 Q. At this stage the Defence is entitled to re-examine you, and the

21 Defence will use this right. But please bear in mind that we have to

22 pause between question and answer.

23 Do you recall whether the Prosecutor asked you about the ethnic

24 make-up of the work force in Croatia in 1990?

25 A. Yes, I recall that.

Page 7306

1 Q. Do you recall the fact that you accepted the percentage put to you

2 by the Prosecution in that context?

3 A. Yes, I do recall. I didn't fully accept it, but I did agree that

4 that was roughly the percentage.

5 Q. I had -- I have the following question to put to you: Are you

6 aware of the ethnic make-up of the management level of the MUP in 1990 in

7 Croatia?

8 A. In 1990 the ethnic make-up and the size of the work force is

9 something that I am not aware of, because this was an official secret.

10 After 1990, the ethnic make-up changed in favour of the Croatian side.

11 Q. Thank you. Further to your last answer, I will ask you the

12 following: Who was the minister, the chief of police of the Croatian MUP

13 in 1990? Do you know the name of the man?

14 A. I believe his name was Josip Boljkovac.

15 Q. What was his ethnicity?

16 A. He was a Croat.

17 Q. Can you tell us who his predecessor was at the post of the

18 Ministry of the Interior?

19 A. I can't recall. I worked there for a while and I know that they

20 rotated every four months, but I know that Minister Spegelj was a Croat.

21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I thank you, I have no further

22 questions for you.

23 Thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

25 Questioned by the Court:

Page 7307

1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Witness, I would like to ask you the following:

2 For the pre-election campaign you mentioned that there was a lot of

3 nationalist propaganda on the side of the Croats. You referred to the

4 Croats. And you were -- you talked of -- you spoke of prohibited

5 iconography. Do you remember?

6 A. Yes, Your Honour, I do.

7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: [Microphone not activated].

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

9 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What laws are you referring to?

10 A. I was referring to the criminal code of the Socialist Republic of

11 Croatia and the law on violations against public law and order.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What was prohibited and contained as punishable

13 acts in these two laws?

14 A. I can't recall specifically the provisions from either of the law,

15 but the law on the violations of the public law and order, it was said

16 that speech, writing, and that other manners of disrupting public law and

17 order -- I can't recall specifically, but any kind of hostile slogans or

18 anything of that sort are -- either in speech or in writing was

19 prohibited, but I can't recall the exact definition.

20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: It's okay.

21 But I would like to know who told you that acts which were

22 prohibited not -- should not be prosecuted during that time?

23 A. Your Honour, under the circumstances of increased unrest, there

24 was an unwritten rule that we should not have any contacts with the new

25 government. This was not an explicit order. This was not -- it was,

Page 7308

1 rather, a position of my superiors, and I shared that position, that we

2 should not go against the people.

3 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Who is "the people"?

4 A. If I understand you well, the people who displayed this conduct

5 were either -- were Croats, parts of the Croat population who were either

6 affiliated with the HDZ or whose sympathies lay with the HDZ.

7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So the same would be true for this action you told

8 us about which was directed against the chiming of the bells of the

9 Orthodox church?

10 A. Yes. I recall talking about the bells chiming, but this was a

11 different situation, because what I was talking about before was simply an

12 extremist outburst, and this here was religious observance. It wasn't

13 anything in contravention of, let's say, accepted behaviour.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What kind of action was that against religious

15 observance?

16 A. Roughly speaking, under the circumstances of euphoria we would

17 have about 100 or even as many as 200 phone calls into the police station

18 complaining about the bells chiming, disturbing their sleep, and so on and

19 so forth. But this here was not a disruption of law and order. It

20 constituted or amounted to an expression of intolerance toward another

21 ethnic community.

22 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. Then I would like to ask you about

23 these Croats who were emigrants and who came back. You called them -- you

24 spoke of terrorists with an Ustasha ideology. Do you remember that?

25 A. Yes, I do, Your Honour.

Page 7309

1 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And you were speaking of members of a terrorist

2 organisation; is that true?

3 A. That's true.

4 JUDGE HOEPFEL: What do you mean in terms of "terrorist

5 organisation"? Is this an organisation which was declared terrorist

6 according to the laws at the time or was this your personal opinion?

7 A. If I may be permitted to explain this. In the area where I

8 resided, there were many people who were -- who had emigrated abroad, and

9 they were economic emigrants in search of better fortunes. However, as in

10 1945, a defeated army left the area. This was an army that collaborated

11 with the Nazis and Germans. As they fled abroad, there they organised a

12 terrorist organisation which was condemned, even abroad. I believe one of

13 them was SHS. There was extreme emigrant organisations abroad which

14 constantly organised different sabotage actions. One I mentioned was in

15 1968, 1972, where 19 people were infiltrated under the -- it was called

16 the Radusa operation. And another one where, in 1988 in Drnis, in my own

17 hometown, a monument to a national hero was bombed. These were people who

18 were opposed to anything Yugoslav, and they organised a number of sabotage

19 operations, maybe as many as 100 sabotage operations throughout

20 Yugoslavia.

21 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And you're not speaking of the time of this

22 pre-election campaign but of the decades before, are you?

23 A. That's correct. I mentioned the decades before that because it

24 was precisely from these structures, from these centuries of power that

25 certain groups of people came to the country, such as Barisic who had been

Page 7310

1 convicted and who took part in the Radusa operation, and a number of

2 others. This added to the fear among the population because the

3 then-Croatian state had gone over the limits of morality by allowing

4 terrorists who had already been convicted to enter that country. In 1990,

5 certain people started arriving in Croatia who originated from such

6 groups, and they formed units, armed paramilitary groups, and so on and so

7 forth.

8 JUDGE HOEPFEL: So you are speaking of people who entered Croatia

9 in 1990 and who were already convicted?

10 A. That's correct.

11 JUDGE HOEPFEL: By which country and when?

12 A. The terrorist who was at Radusa was convicted by the former

13 Yugoslavia -- or rather, by Croatia itself. I don't know which area had

14 the territorial jurisdiction, but I believe he was sentenced to 20 years

15 of imprisonment. And the other person was also convicted. The two were

16 convicted, but there were also people with no prior convictions who were

17 nevertheless part of terrorist organisations and who then came to Croatia.

18 They were also within reach of the Yugoslav -- they were not within reach

19 of the Yugoslav authorities, and that was why they were never convicted.

20 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And the persons you talked of now who were

21 convicted, did they serve their sentence? Had they already served their

22 sentence?

23 A. The person from Radusa, I believe he served his sentence, yes.

24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And did he in any way continue with criminal

25 activity?

Page 7311

1 A. To my knowledge, he attacked a column of the Yugoslav People's

2 Army in the area of Kupres, in Herzegovina, and that was where he got

3 killed. He organised an attack on a column of regular -- of a regular

4 army.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: When did this happen and when was he killed?

6 A. This took place in 1991.

7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And please, the second part of my question was:

8 When was this person killed, and where, maybe?

9 A. I was not there. Based on the knowledge I have, the intelligence,

10 he was killed in 1991 as he was attacking a column of tanks of the

11 Yugoslav People's Army that was moving through that area.

12 JUDGE HOEPFEL: "That area," this is in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

13 A. That's correct. That's in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

14 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you.

15 Then you were talking of -- the Defence counsel asked you about

16 the assassination of an ambassador, I think in 1972, did you say?

17 A. Yes. I do recall that, but I don't recall the year. I forgot.

18 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Where was that act committed?

19 A. I believe that crime was committed in Sweden. The Yugoslav

20 ambassador was attacked in the premises of the embassy. The terrorist

21 inflicted severe wounds on him - he shot him with a pistol - and as a

22 result of that, the ambassador died. The ambassador's name was Rolovic.

23 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And what happened to the criminal, to the

24 offender?

25 A. The perpetrator was tried in the country where he committed the

Page 7312

1 crime, and he served his sentence. However, in the 1990s he appeared in

2 Croatia, again to form terrorist organisations and to fight against the

3 regular Yugoslav army units. I don't know what became of him, but I heard

4 that he was killed.

5 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. I have no further questions.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.

7 Judge.

8 May the Chamber please move into private session.

9 [Private session]

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 7313

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

13 Yesterday you referred to reaction, and you just -- you said

14 reaction of Serbian population, Serbian police, as vehement. This was --

15 I guess the paging -- yesterday's pagination will have changed. Can -- is

16 anybody able to tell me what was page 18 -- that which was page 18

17 yesterday, what will it be today? Yesterday's -- okay. At page 18

18 yesterday, lines 7 to 12. And now what I want to find out is: What did

19 the population and the police do by way of this vehement reaction?

20 A. Your Honour, in the course of 1990 we didn't have any Serb police.

21 We had the Yugoslav police or, that's to say, the police of the Socialist

22 Republic of Croatia, which was composed of Croats, Serbs, Muslims, and any

23 other ethnic communities residing in the area. Therefore, in the course

24 of 1990 we have the Yugoslav police, as it were. After the extremist

25 outbursts by some parts of the Croatian population, members of the HDZ,

Page 7314

1 which was based on the Ustasha ideology, the Serb population in Croatia

2 lived in fear because they had already been through massacres at the hands

3 of the very same ideology in 1945, and this same ideology was now being

4 revived in 1990 by the very members of the HDZ and their leaders.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you for what you have just said. You have

6 still not answered my question. Will you please answer my question.

7 A. I apologise. Can I please ask you to repeat the question. But

8 you mentioned Serb police, and there was no such thing in 1990 or until

9 the August of 1990 -- or rather, throughout 1990.

10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I'm quoting what you said. You said: "The

11 weapons were seized in places. I'm not sure what particular

12 municipalities. That was quite a long time ago. But at any rate, the

13 reaction of the Serbian population of the Serbian police, was vehement

14 because this was an illogical decision."

15 Now, you are -- you talked about Serbian police, so don't say to

16 me police didn't exist at the time. Now, I'm asking you: What was this

17 reaction of the Serbian police, Serbian population, that was vehement? I

18 want you to tell me what it is they did that was vehement.

19 A. Your Honour, I will answer the question although I do assert once

20 more that there was no Serb police, officially speaking, but there were

21 Serb members of the police who expressed their dissatisfaction with the

22 situation, just as the Croats who were of the same position expressed

23 theirs. Because the situation in the municipalities with the Serb

24 majority, this situation showed that the -- there would be an escalation

25 of the tension, and the Serb population was asking the authorities in the

Page 7315

1 municipality to protect them.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: When you talked, at the lines that I quoted for

3 you, of Serbian police, what were you referring to? Were you referring to

4 Serb members of the police?

5 A. That's correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then I ask you: What is it that the Serb members

7 of the police and the Serbian population did that was vehement? Just

8 answer that question.

9 A. Serb policemen could not be indifferent to that. There was a

10 problem. They shared the opinion of their people, I presume, and the

11 people was apprehensive. They were frightened from certain sanctions

12 coming from the other side and that there might be problems. I wasn't

13 there when the people took the arms, took them away, but they were

14 dissatisfied. They organised rallies opposing the Croatian police from

15 taking the arms from majority Serb municipalities, and that opinion was

16 shared by policemen who were Serbs and policemen who were not Serbs but

17 had this mind-set and opinion. This shouldn't have happened because it

18 was in nobody's interest.

19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, I ask you for the last time: What is it that

20 the population, the Serbian population and the Serb members of the police,

21 did that was vehement by way of reaction to this that you say was unfair?

22 I want to know how they behaved, how the Serbs behaved. This vehement

23 action that you referred to, just tell us what it was.

24 A. I cannot understand that question. Really, Your Honour, I cannot

25 fully grasp the question. Maybe the interpretation is poor, I don't know.

Page 7316

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll try for the very last time. You said in your

2 evidence "... the reaction of the Serbian population of the Serbian

3 police" - and I guess you wanted to say "and of the Serbian police" - "was

4 vehement because that was an illogical decision. I believe that they took

5 or seized the weapons in Obrovac and other municipalities, I'm not quite

6 sure which ones at this point in time."

7 That's the sentence as you said it. I'm just using your own

8 words, and I'm saying: When you said that the Serbian population and

9 police reacted vehemently, I just want you to tell us, what is it that

10 they did that was vehement?

11 A. Now the question is clear, Your Honour. To my knowledge,

12 Croatian --

13 THE INTERPRETER: Serbian people, correction.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- or a group of a couple of

15 thousand of Serb inhabitants in the municipality of Knin forced their way

16 into the police station and seized the arms to prevent the arms getting

17 into the hands of the other side. I'm not sure whether the Serb police

18 took part in this. In our police station, we did not take any arms. We

19 threw the arms away because we didn't want to shoot.

20 JUDGE MOLOTO: You threw the arms away. Where to -- where did you

21 throw them away?

22 A. On the table, it was a demonstrative act, gesture, to -- combined

23 by the words: "We don't want to shoot at our own people." Everybody was

24 our own people at the time.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand. In your evidence again yesterday you

Page 7317

1 used the following terms, and I would like you to explain them to me. You

2 spoke of -- and you were talking about the police -- the special unit,

3 the reserve force, and the ordinary police. Do you remember that? Can

4 you tell us -- can you define each and tell us what each does.

5 A. Your Honour, I fully understand your question. I will try to

6 explain. Ministry of the Interior -- let's skip the ministry, the

7 administrative -- I'm talking about the Secretariat of the Interior in

8 Sibenik and other municipalities. Those are the ordinary police whose

9 task is to prevent violations of public law and order, to control the

10 traffic, and to detect crime. These are divided into crime in regular

11 police and in traffic police, transit police.

12 And according to the effective laws at the time, we had -- we were

13 entitled to reserve force of policemen. I don't know how many there were

14 in each police station. It depended on the problems in the area, on other

15 things, but they were not kept in military records, they did not -- they

16 were not part of the military reserve. They were police reserve. We had

17 some exercises from time to time, and we would invite them.

18 The third group is the special police. It was at the republic

19 level of battalion size, and at police stations we had special police at

20 the level of company or platoon. They were specially trained, they wore

21 the same uniform, but they had special equipment and were specially

22 trained. Regular police would have classical or regular equipment or

23 side-arms, but special police, they were younger, they were fitter, they

24 could apprehend more problematic criminals, et cetera. If -- I believe I

25 can explain more, if necessary.

Page 7318

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're going to have to. You haven't told us what

2 the reserve did, the reserve police.

3 A. Reserve police, or police reserve, served -- if called up, they

4 had the same authorities and powers as the regular police or active

5 police. They were accompanied by reserve policemen. So they would buff

6 up the ranks and the numbers of regular police in the protection of law

7 and order, in transit regulation, depending on the need at the time.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You told us that the special police were -- the

9 special units were at the republic level of battalion size, and at the

10 police stations where you had special police at the level of company or

11 platoon and they had special training. What did they do, having got that

12 training? What role did they play in society?

13 A. At the level of a republic, maybe they were the size of a brigade,

14 not a battalion, but at the level of police stations, they were either a

15 reinforced platoon or a company. But that special police unit at the

16 local level, they would perform the regular functions, but they had

17 special exercises, or part of their time was dedicated to ju-jitsu,

18 training in fire-arms, and they were supposed to be used to break up

19 demonstrations, protests, for special tasks, apprehending crime groups or

20 problematic criminals; what could not be performed by regular police

21 officers. And this is common to all countries. For instance, to

22 apprehend criminals of graver crimes, such as murderers, et cetera.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may have answered this question sometime during

24 your evidence, but I'm sorry if I'm going to be asking something that you

25 have answered already. I don't remember it. What's your ethnic group?

Page 7319

1 A. I'm a Serb.

2 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what was the ethnic group to which Ante Bojas

3 belonged?

4 A. He's a Croat.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You testified that the barricades had been

6 organised by the civilian population and that the police encouraged them

7 to behave in a civil way. Do you remember that?

8 A. Yes, I do recall.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, did this civilian population that established

10 these barricades have authority to do so?

11 A. No, they did not have the authority to do so.

12 JUDGE MOLOTO: And was it -- was it not the duty of the -- the

13 ordinary or regular -- what you called regular police today that you said

14 were responsible for traffic?

15 A. I said that under normal circumstances that would have been their

16 task, but under the circumstances at the time nobody could have prevented

17 that because the -- it was a spontaneous reaction of the people. The

18 people erected barricades to counter the wilful acts of the Croatian

19 authorities, to prevent 1941 from repeating itself. You cannot divide

20 between 1941 and 1991 because, unfortunately, in our area, the Second

21 World War has not ended.

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I have no further questions.

23 Any questions arising by the questions from the Chamber,

24 Mr. Milovancevic?

25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Thank you.

Page 7320

1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

2 Mr. Black?

3 MR. BLACK: None, Your Honour. Thank you.

4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Black.

5 Sir, thank you very much. This brings us to the end of your

6 testimony. The Chamber takes this opportunity to thank you for coming to

7 testify in these proceedings. We understand that you are -- you may be a

8 very busy person and taking time off to come and do this, it takes a bit

9 of sacrifice on your part, even if you were not busy. So thank you very

10 much. You are now excused from further attending court. You may stand

11 down. Thank you.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 [The witness withdrew]

14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we call the next witness, we have, I think,

15 some outstanding housekeeping matters to talk about. In particular, we

16 had raised, I think, the timing of the Defence case and the time allocated

17 to the various witnesses who must come. This makes our life very

18 difficult if we don't know what time to allocate to a particular witness.

19 It makes it difficult for the Chamber to control and run the proceedings.

20 And I think we need to talk about that and decide what we are going to do.

21 Yes, Mr. Milovancevic, it looks like you are ready to say

22 something.

23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

24 Concerning scheduling of witnesses, or my assessment of the

25 duration of Defence examination of witnesses, indeed there occurred a

Page 7321

1 problem and we are fully aware of it, as the Trial Chamber has already

2 detected it. Our assessment was given at a time when we had no previous

3 experience in giving assessments. We tried to be as conservative in our

4 assessment as possible. We tried to give to the Chamber our assessment

5 that was, in our view, realistic at the time. But things do not unfold

6 the way the Defence would wish and some aberration has occurred.

7 What I would like to say is that during today, for all the

8 witnesses that are on the list, we will try to re-assess in the light of

9 our recent experience and try to fine-tune that assessment and try to make

10 it as realistic as possible. We'll have to take into account the fact

11 that we have given up the testimony of Mr. Martic, with the intention of

12 covering all the issues through other witnesses that Mr. Martic was

13 supposed to testify about. This is the gist of our position.

14 On behalf of the Defence team, I would like to submit an appeal to

15 be understanding of our position. We don't want to find ourselves in a

16 position for the Chamber to find us in contempt or disrespecting the

17 Chamber or our learned friends. It would be impossible to try this case,

18 because by doing so we would have been making our own life difficult. So

19 this was not intentional. When creating the new assessment, we are going

20 to be guided by your assessment. We are not going to exceed the time; we

21 are going to try to stick to the limits imposed by you. If examination

22 can be done in less time, all the better, because, after all, our

23 defendant is incarcerated and we must be mindful of that.

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 7322

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you, Mr. Milovancevic. I know you

6 have not mentioned the name of this person, but I'm sure people who know

7 all these positions would be able to identify him and we are not in

8 private session. Would you like that to be redacted?

9 May we ask that page 17, starting from line 25 and then up to page

10 18, line 5, be redacted, please.

11 And may we then move --

12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- may we then move into private session for the

14 duration of what you are saying, Mr. Milovancevic. I interrupted you.

15 [Private session]

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 7323











11 Pages 7323-7325 redacted. Private session.















Page 7326

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 [Open session]

20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.

21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.

22 You may proceed, Mr. Whiting.

23 MR. WHITING: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 I -- the first point is, from the point of view of the

25 Prosecution, we believe that the most important figure is the total amount

Page 7327

1 of time that's going to be taken by the Defence for its Defence case,

2 which has now been set by the Trial Chamber at, I believe, 260 hours. I

3 think that's the figure. We certainly do not think that anything that has

4 occurred thus far would justify an increase of that amount of time. On

5 the contrary, we think both because of witnesses being dropped and, in our

6 view, because of the nature of the evidence that has been led, there could

7 be a basis for a decrease in that.

8 In any event, what concerns us the most, as is -- as witnesses --

9 as the first several witnesses have taken significantly longer than have

10 been anticipated, is that that figure be a firm figure and that there --

11 we would ask that the Trial Chamber make it absolutely clear to the

12 Defence that that figure will not change absent extraordinary

13 circumstances. And I suppose what our concern is - and it has happened in

14 other cases, and we really don't want to see it happen here - is we'll get

15 -- that time will be used up getting through half of the witnesses and

16 then, with a week or two left of the Defence case, we will receive an

17 application for an additional several weeks or several months of the

18 Defence case because here is a list of very important witnesses who've not

19 been heard and who must be heard in order for the accused to Defence

20 himself. It is that position that I think should be avoided at all costs,

21 and the only way to avoid that is to make it clear now that that time is

22 fixed and that the Defence must operate within that time so that if it

23 decides it's going to take several days longer with a particular witness,

24 that that -- that comes off the clock and that comes off -- that is within

25 that fixed time and that they must make up that time by shortening other

Page 7328

1 witnesses or dropping other witnesses.

2 Now, of course the -- we don't -- the accused has to have a right

3 to fully defend himself, and if the Defence can show that there is a basis

4 for increasing that amount of time for the Defence case, then so be it.

5 That's available to the Defence to try to make that showing and for the

6 Trial Chamber to rule on it. However, as I said, based on everything that

7 has happened thus far in the Defence case, I don't think there is a basis

8 for such a -- for any kind of increase in the Defence case. But it's that

9 total number and that problem that we're most worried about from the point

10 of view of the Prosecution.

11 Now, with -- with respect to individual witnesses and estimates of

12 time for individual witnesses as we go along, I'm a little concerned about

13 kind of the -- what I'm hearing from the Defence, which is the focus all

14 the time on their inability -- the problem being that they -- that they

15 were unable to assess how long these witnesses would take and that seeming

16 to be the problem. And I think it's fair to say that with respect to each

17 witness, perhaps with the exception of this last witness, the assessment

18 has been far below what the witness has actually taken, suggesting that

19 these revised estimates are going to increase rather than decrease, which

20 I think, obviously, would then cause a collision with the total number of

21 hours that have been allocated to the Defence.

22 I would also submit that, in our view, the problem is not simply

23 the assessment of -- a problem of the assessment of time that each witness

24 is going to take, but in our view the witnesses have taken longer than

25 they should have, for various reasons. And they -- the examinations could

Page 7329

1 be done more efficiently and quickly, and I think the Trial Chamber has

2 been seeking to have that happen, it has not happened, and that is, we

3 think, the problem. We think there's been a lot of time wasted, and that

4 time, again, should come off the -- that comes off the total amount of

5 time that's been allocated for the Defence.

6 The third point is that in principle with respect to particular

7 witnesses, for example, this next witness, the Prosecution does not have

8 an objection to the Defence asking for more time for a particular witness,

9 if there is some showing of why that is justified, why -- where -- what is

10 the -- what has occurred -- what is the departure from the prior estimate?

11 Are there more matters that are going to be covered? What is -- and the

12 Defence counsel, to be fair, made some attempt at such a showing. But in

13 addition, we would -- in order to keep the focus on the total amount of

14 time that's being taken by the Defence, we would suggest that the Defence

15 also perhaps offer ways in which it's going -- it's going to shorten its

16 case. If it's going to ask for doubling the length of this witness, well,

17 how is it going to shorten the case in other ways? Is this witness going

18 to cover another witness's testimony, and therefore that witness will not

19 have to come? Or are they going to shorten another witness? Are they

20 going to drop witnesses? That way, keeping the focus on the total amount

21 of time that's being taken by the Defence.

22 With respect to this next witness, I agree, yes, that there is a

23 basis for increasing the length of this next witness, and I'm fine with

24 that. I would ask two things, however. One is that the Defence be a

25 little bit more specific about how much time, because I don't think

Page 7330

1 Defence counsel will mind me saying that in several conversations with

2 Defence counsel before today - yesterday, in fact - I was told that the

3 examination-in-chief would last three days. Today he's estimating -- he

4 said, I think, the figure 16 hours for this witness. If it's -- if it's

5 three days examination-in-chief, assume three days for cross-examination

6 and questions from the Bench, that's in excess of -- by my count, that's

7 in excess of 16 hours. That's over -- I believe that's over 20 hours. So

8 just if Defence counsel could be more specific about how much time it

9 really expects to take in examination-in-chief.

10 Second -- the second thing I would request is if the -- the

11 Defence counsel provided us some time ago with a 65 ter summary for this

12 witness, and that was presumably at the time when it thought this witness

13 would take eight hours total. We have not been provided with any new 65

14 ter summary, any supplement, any additions, and it would seem to me -- I

15 would -- given what the Defence is now telling us, that they want to

16 double or triple the length of time to take for this witness, it would

17 seem to me that there should be some supplemental information, some

18 additional matters that this witness is going to cover, some additional

19 detail, so I am a little surprised that we have not received such a

20 supplemental 65 ter filing for the witness.

21 I think that's -- I think those are all the points I wanted to

22 raise. It's just the emphasis on the total amount of time and trying to

23 anticipate how that -- where we will be a week or two before the end of

24 that total amount of time is taken up. Thank you.

25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Whiting. You will have noticed, if

Page 7331

1 you -- or if you didn't, then I'll have to repeat myself. When I spoke

2 before you spoke, I indicated to Mr. Milovancevic that we're taking into

3 account the fact that Mr. Martic is not going to testify and some other

4 four witnesses are not going to testify, therefore we expect a change -

5 obviously a change by way of a decrease - in the number of hours that he

6 is going to -- that the Defence is going to take to present its case.

7 Hand in hand with that I mentioned the fact that, unlike the Defence

8 estimate of 300 hours or 320 hours, the 73 ter decision mentioned 260, and

9 we've got to try and keep within that 260. We expect that 260 to come

10 down because of the fact that Mr. Martic is not testifying and four other

11 witnesses and other factors.

12 And while you may say that the Prosecution has no objection to the

13 next witness's time being doubled, the Chamber is not satisfied that a

14 case has been made to double that number, and we're going to go according

15 to the time that was given. I see that the Defence had estimated eight

16 hours and -- I think we have to stay within that eight-hour time-limit and

17 try to finish within that time period. And we can deal with the situation

18 at the end of that eight-hour period to see what else needs to be done, or

19 how much more time is to be given. But for now we are assuming that we're

20 finishing this witness in eight hours.

21 MR. WHITING: Your Honour, if I --

22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.

23 MR. WHITING: If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt. On -- just on

24 that subject, I would ask -- just so we don't later have any issue about

25 the Defence being unable to submit the evidence to the Court that it

Page 7332

1 wanted to submit, that the Defence -- Defence counsel be given another

2 opportunity to justify with more specificity why he might want more time

3 with this witness, just so that we have a good record on this issue. I

4 don't want to -- I'd rather not deal with this issue later on, on appeal,

5 if there is an appeal.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, but then -- for the Defence to do that, we

7 must get the filing of a 65 ter summary of this witness, saying exactly

8 the things you were asking for, unless, Mr. Milovancevic, you have them at

9 hand. The point at issue, Mr. Milovancevic, is that the argument you made

10 about wanting 16 hours for this witness doesn't make out a case. Do you

11 want to make a case for applying for more time? And of course, it's got

12 to be substantive.

13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in order to fully

14 understand the position of the Defence, I have to say that the Trial

15 Chamber has set the number of hours within which the Defence has to

16 present its case. And this is maybe for the fourth or fifth time that I

17 say that we will abide by that guidance, and we will bear in mind the

18 suggestion that we should decrease the time. However, we also stated that

19 instead of Mr. Martic there will be other witnesses called. We withdrew

20 our submission that Mr. Martic should testify, and his testimony would be

21 far longer than will be of those other witnesses.

22 Now, as for the submission of the Prosecutor, it's a bit

23 far-fetched and it's not based on any fact. On what basis does he say

24 that at the end of the day we would be asking for more time? We will

25 stick to the time limit or to the hour limit that the Trial Chamber has

Page 7333

1 set. We asked for 320 hours; the Trial Chamber set it at 260 hours. We

2 will abide by that. Now, what course will be taken further will depend on

3 the situation that arises on our -- perhaps submissions on what the Trial

4 Chamber's guidance may be.

5 Now, as for the next witness, Your Honour, this witness's

6 testimony goes to the core of the case. Perhaps I should be able to give

7 you a more detailed explanation after the break because it might take a

8 bit longer than the usual break that we take.

9 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't want to waste time talking about what we

10 are going to do because we are eating on the time we should be using to

11 lead evidence. You see, just bear this in mind and be thinking about it

12 during the break, Mr. Milovancevic, that when you say there are no facts

13 on which the Prosecution bases what it says, do you remember that from the

14 beginning of the Defence case not one witness has kept within the time,

15 and therefore the pattern is emerging that makes any observer to say: How

16 are you going to meet the time limit if this pattern is going like this?

17 And this emergence of that pattern is the fact upon which a fear emerges

18 that we may not stay within the 260 hours. So there are facts to do so

19 and you have got to be able to say exactly how you are going to offset

20 those things.

21 In its estimation of the time that it gave in the 73 ter decision,

22 the Chamber was anticipating a number of witnesses coming by way of 92

23 bis. You have plainly rejected that. You say you want them all coming

24 in, and that has a knock-on effect on the time that is going to be taken.

25 And you have got to be able to put facts before us to say how you are

Page 7334

1 going to catch up this time.

2 Let's take the break. We'll come back at quarter to 11.00 and

3 we'll carry on from there. Court adjourned.

4 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.

5 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.

6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you had wanted to say something.

7 Let's try to be brief and get on with the job. You can rest assured the

8 Chamber is hearing what you are saying.

9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will

10 be quite brief. When I suggested that the time for the next witness be

11 prolonged to 16 hours, I included there the examination-in-chief,

12 cross-examination, Judges' questions, and re-examination. The ground for

13 that being that the person held all the key positions at the critical

14 time. That's one point.

15 The second point is that the Trial Chamber has set the hour limit

16 within which we have to complete our presentation of evidence, and we are

17 aware that it is our duty to complete our case within that time limit. It

18 is up to the Defence to choose the pace at which it will examine the

19 witnesses, and our possible omission to honour or to fully examine our

20 witnesses is something that can only be criticised by our client,

21 Mr. Martic.

22 As far as the time assessment is concerned, as I said, we will

23 re-assess our schedule because it is in our interest to give an assessment

24 that will be as realistic as possible in view of our recent experience.

25 As far as Mr. Prosecutor's concern about something that has not happened

Page 7335

1 yet or what is about to happen in November is something that we cannot

2 take into account now and it will be up to the Trial Chamber to judge

3 whether we are indeed honouring the schedule that we have set, and we will

4 endeavour to do that.

5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think -- unless anybody has something to say, I

6 think we've heard what you have to say, Mr. Milovancevic. We've heard

7 what the Prosecution had to say.

8 Judge Nosworthy has something to say. Will you please say

9 something, Judge Nosworthy.

10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, I do believe that Mr. Whiting

11 whilst making his observation had spoken on your behalf at least twice,

12 but this is what I want to say to you in particular. I have noticed a

13 very marked improvement with the last witness in terms of how he was led

14 and in terms of his responses, which was very much more according to that

15 which the Trial Chamber would expect. I want to commend you and I

16 certainly remain optimistic that with the coming Defence witness you are

17 going to bear in mind your duties and prepare your witnesses properly, so

18 you have effective management of the time, because it is the duty of the

19 Defence to manage the time that is allotted efficiently and economically.

20 So I remain optimistic with this last witness who did not tarry and who

21 kept a good pace, with your guidance, that this is a taste of things to

22 come. Thank you.

23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.

24 JUDGE HOEPFEL: And may I add a little remark, but more critical

25 to you, Mr. Milovancevic. I would not regard the manner of speaking or of

Page 7336

1 speech of a certain witness a reason to give him longer time unless he has

2 a speaking problem, a disability. That is what I wanted to remark.

3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. When I

4 was mentioning his manner of speech, I meant his speaking pace, because

5 you have a person who needs several sentences to just make one point, but

6 I bear in mind your remarks and try to be as much to the point as

7 possible.

8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.

9 Then taking on what Judge Nosworthy has said and also what Judge

10 Hoepfel has said, let me say to you it rests upon you to keep control of

11 the witness. I also mark -- noticed that your questions were much shorter

12 in the -- with the last witness. If you keep it at that and get the

13 witness to listen carefully to what you say and answer directly to that,

14 if you want any elaboration, you will ask for the elaboration, but let him

15 not -- don't let him give elaboration at every turn, even when it is not

16 necessary.

17 I want to suggest that you call the next witness and let's see how

18 we go with the witness.

19 [Closed session]

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 7337











11 Pages 7337-7392 redacted. Closed session.















Page 7393

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.,

6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day of

7 August, 2006, at 10.30 a.m.