1 Tuesday, 3rd June 1997
2 (10.00 am)
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 We are just having seen for the first time and I think
5 Mr. Greaves mentioned something like that, the protection
6 for a defence witness.
7 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, can I mention there is no
8 transcription coming up on the screens. My screen is
9 blank. I'm sorry.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I am sure the Prosecution has this
11 application and it has no objection to it.
12 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we received it a couple of
13 minutes ago. To the extent that the motion is
14 requesting protection from the public or media of the
15 identity of these people and that they be heard in
16 private session, the Prosecution has no objection, but
17 we just got it a few minutes ago. To the extent that
18 there is other things, I am not sure they go to the
19 Office of the Prosecutor. If they do, we have not had
20 a chance to look at it, but I can say -- we can say we
21 have no objection to them getting protection from the
22 public or media.
23 JUDGE JAN: If you notice at the last page, he has made
24 certain requests that they be moved out of Vienna and
25 transferred to preferably a German speaking area of
1 Switzerland. Look at the last page.
2 MS. McHENRY: I believe that is a matter the Office of the
3 Prosecutor takes no position on. I don't believe that
4 it's within our purview.
5 JUDGE JAN: Is there any urgency about it?
6 MR. GREAVES: I think the phrase used this morning by the
7 Victim and Support Unit is time is getting on. We would
8 like this as soon as possible, particularly bearing in
9 mind the summer holidays are upon us.
10 JUDGE JAN: We will have to consult the Registrar also
11 before we make any decision on this.
12 MR. GREAVES: Of course we understand that but, as we say,
13 time is getting on and matters are becoming really
14 rather more urgent than they have been.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: We should be able to take it later in
16 the day.
17 MR. GREAVES: I am very grateful to your Honours. I say
18 that on behalf of my leading counsel and myself and
19 I thank the Prosecution as well.
20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us get on with the day's
21 proceedings. Who is your next witness?
22 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution calls Mr Bart d'Hooge.
23 JUDGE JAN: How do you pronounce it?
24 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe we should ask the
25 witness that. As you may have noticed, my --
1 JUDGE JAN: I found some difficulty.
2 MS. McHENRY: I am not good with many different kinds of
3 names, and I consider Flemish names among them.
4 (Witness enters court)
5 Mr Bart d'Hooge (sworn)
6 Examined by Ms. McHenry.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Take your seat.
8 MS. McHENRY: Sir, would you please state your full name?
9 A. My name is Bart d'Hooge.
10 Q. How are you employed at the present time?
11 A. I am an investigator with the OTP.
12 Q. By OTP do you mean Office of the Prosecutor?
13 A. The Office of the Prosecutor.
14 Q. Prior to working for the OTP how were you employed?
15 A. I was an investigator with the Belgian Criminal Police.
16 Q. How long were you an investigator with the Belgian
18 A. For about ten years.
19 Q. Have you been involved as part of your work within the
20 OTP in investigation into crimes alleged to have been
21 committed in the Celebici detention camp?
22 A. I have been working on the Celebici case since 1st
23 September 1995.
24 Q. As part of the investigation did you participate in
25 interviews of any accused?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Which accused?
3 A. I participated in the interview of Mr Mucic, Mr Landzo
4 and Mr Delic.
5 Q. Let me start off with Mr Mucic. When was Mr Mucic
6 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor?
7 A. Mr Mucic was interviewed in Vienna, if I remember well,
8 in March 1996.
9 Q. Do you know when Mr Mucic was arrested?
10 A. Mr Mucic was arrested in Vienna on 18th March.
11 Q. Were you present when Mr Mucic was arrested?
12 A. We were not present during the arrest, but I was in
14 Q. Did you yourself have any contact with Mr Mucic on the
15 18th, the day he was arrested?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. Did you have any contact with Mr Mucic on 19th
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Can you please describe what happened and how it
21 was that you had contact with Mr Mucic and briefly just
22 describe the surrounding circumstances?
23 A. The interview took place in the building of the Ministry
24 of Justice in Vienna in one of the rooms that were
25 provided to us by the local authorities.
1 I participated in the interview together with
2 Mr Abribat, Mr Nicholson and our interpreter.
3 Q. Let me go back for a minute. Where was it that you
4 first saw Mr Mucic on 19th?
5 A. We first saw him together with Dr Sada, a judge from the
6 Vienna court, in an office.
7 Q. Okay. What occurred during this meeting? Was this the
8 OTP interview or was something else going on?
9 A. That was an interview done by Dr Sada about the
10 extradition procedure.
11 Q. Okay. Did you or anyone else from the Office of the
12 Prosecutor ask any questions or participate during this
13 meeting with Dr Sada?
14 A. No.
15 Q. What happened after the meeting with Dr Sada?
16 A. After the meeting with Dr Sada we changed rooms. We
17 went to another room.
18 Q. Who is "we"? Who, in fact, went to the other room?
19 A. The members of the OTP. Mr Mucic went away for a rest,
20 I think. He took a rest.
21 Q. Who showed you this other room?
22 A. Dr Sada.
23 Q. After Dr Sada showed you this room, what did you do, you
24 and the other members of the Office of the Prosecutor?
25 A. It was a very small room and we set up the audio
1 equipment and video equipment.
2 Q. Okay. Then what happened?
3 A. Then Mr Mucic came back. We talked briefly to him and
4 then started the interview.
5 Q. Okay. When you say you talked briefly to him, can you
6 just tell us what -- can you give us the circumstances
7 surrounding the brief talk?
8 A. Yes. We wanted to explain Mr Mucic the way in which the
9 OTP conducts an interview, meaning that we have to audio
10 record, video record. We explain him the rights
11 according to Rule 42 and 43, just technically how we do
12 an interview.
13 Q. Okay. Who conducted the interview on 19th March?
14 A. Mr Abribat.
15 Q. Okay. On 19th March did anyone from the Office of the
16 Prosecutor other than Mr Abribat speak with Mr Mucic?
17 A. No.
18 Q. At any time prior to or during the interview did
19 Mr Mucic suggest that he might wish to have an attorney
20 present when he spoke with representatives of the Office
21 of the Prosecutor?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did anyone suggest to Mr Mucic for any reason that he
24 should not have -- for any reason that he should not
25 have an attorney?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Now, you've already stated that Mr Mucic was advised of
3 his rights under the Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Are
4 you aware of whether or not there is a recording of
5 Mr Mucic being advised of his rights under Tribunal
6 rules and procedures?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did Mr Mucic indicate whether or not he was willing to
9 give an interview and, if so, whether or not he wished
10 an attorney to be present?
11 A. No, he agreed to be interviewed and he didn't express
12 his desire to have legal counsel present.
13 Q. Was the interview of Mr Mucic completed on the 19th?
14 A. No, no.
15 Q. Did the interview then continue?
16 A. I continued on 20th and 21st March.
17 Q. Okay. Going now to 20th and 21st, can you explain the
18 procedure for those days that the interview -- the
19 circumstances surrounding the subsequent portions of the
20 interview on 20th and 21st?
21 A. Again at the start of the interview we advised Mr Mucic
22 of his rights, asked him if he agreed to be interviewed
23 with or without legal counsel and started the interview,
24 took a break, continued after the break.
25 Q. Okay. When Mr Mucic was advised of his rights on 20th
1 and 21st, was that also recorded?
2 A. Everything was recorded.
3 Q. Was there a time, in fact, either on 20th or 21st, when
4 an attorney appeared?
5 A. On 20th March I think around the lunch break.
6 Q. Please describe what happened?
7 A. I think we just finished the first part of the interview
8 and proposed to have a lunch break, and an attorney
9 appointed to him by the Austrian court, by the Vienna
10 court, came into the room. I think his name was Dr
11 Manfred or something. He told us that he was appointed
12 by the court as the defence of Mr Mucic. He asked us
13 if he could have a copy of the indictment and the rules
14 of the Tribunal. Then he spoke briefly with his client
15 in private.
16 Q. Then what happened?
17 A. Then he went away.
18 Q. Okay. Did he say anything -- did the attorney say
19 anything to you before he went away?
20 A. Yes. He advised me that Mr Mucic said that he did not
21 want a legal counsel present.
22 Q. Okay. This occurred during a break; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When the interview commenced again was there any
25 notation or record made of the fact that -- reference
1 made to the fact that this person had appeared?
2 A. Yes. I cannot remember the exact words, but it should
3 be somewhere in the transcript.
4 Q. Okay. If you looked at a copy of the transcript would
5 it refresh your recollection?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. I would ask that the witness be given a copy of
8 the exhibit -- Prosecution Exhibit 101 for
9 identification purposes. (Handed to witness).
10 Sir, I'm going to ask that you direct your
11 attention to page 33 of the transcript.
12 A. It is the third paragraph:
13 "We would like to state, as required by Mr Mucic,
14 defence counsel shall not be present at the
16 This is, I think, what I mean.
17 Q. Thank you. At any time on 20th or 21st did Mr Mucic
18 ever -- I'm sorry. I already asked that. At this
19 time -- excuse me. Can the witness keep that?
20 Sir, I would ask you to also look at Prosecution
21 Exhibit 101 and tell me if you recognise it and, if so,
22 what it is, and then with the usher's assistance if
23 something else could be given to the Registrar for
25 A. This is the English transcript of the interview that we
1 conducted in Vienna, and this is the transcript in
2 Serbian, Bosnian, Croat versions.
3 Q. Were you present at all times during 19th March?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And you yourself conducted the interviews on 20th and
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you reviewed the transcript of the interview of
9 Mr Mucic?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does it fairly and accurately reflect the interview?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. Sir, you are being shown what has been marked
14 for identification purposes as Prosecution exhibit 101A
15 and 101B, if I have the numbers correct?
16 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that is 101A and 101B.
17 MS. McHENRY: Okay. Sir, can you recognise what those are?
18 A. These are sealed envelopes with the original videotapes
19 of the interview that was conducted in Vienna.
20 Q. Okay. Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution seeks
21 to introduce Prosecution Exhibits 101, which is the
22 transcript, 101A and 101B, which are the sealed tapes
23 originals. I'm sorry. We have a technical issue
24 before there is any objections. Just let me ask. We
25 also have copies of the videos, an extra copy and it's
1 really if the Registrar could instruct me whether or not
2 they require that the envelopes be unsealed and, if so,
3 whether or not they then would re-seal them, because we
4 have them available, but if the originals are going to
5 be unsealed, I understand that the Registrar may require
7 THE REGISTRAR: Actually all the envelopes that we receive
8 which are sealed are opened to verify the contents of
9 the envelope. That was already the case with the
10 exhibits in the case of Mr Delalic. The sealed
11 envelopes that we have received were opened and then the
12 exhibits were numbered. These were exhibits that all
13 the parties received. When we receive copies of
14 additional tapes, it's not necessary to put them in an
15 envelope, nor to give them other numbers if they are
16 copies of videos. They are simply given the letter
17 C. The first envelope is A, the second B and this
18 would be exhibit 101C.
19 MS. McHENRY: Does the Registrar then reseal the envelopes
20 or do they leave them unsealed once they've been
22 THE REGISTRAR: We close them again, but we do not seal
23 them, and then they are deposited under protection.
24 MS. McHENRY: Thank you. In that case I don't believe it's
25 necessary to introduce the extra copies. At this time,
1 your Honours, the Prosecution seeks to introduce
2 exhibits 101, 101A and 101B.
3 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, Tom Moran for Hazim Delic. First,
4 I would ask that the court order any reference to
5 Mr Delic in these be redacted for the reasons set forth
6 both in my pre-trial memo and I believe I filed a
7 specific memorandum of law on this. Basically I don't
8 have the right to cross-examine Mr Mucic. I would ask
9 at least until such time as he takes the stand that all
10 references to Hazim Delic be removed from both the
11 transcript and redacted from the tapes. I believe
12 there is about fifteen references to him.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is not possible.
14 JUDGE JAN: How can you redact it? You can argue this
15 should not be used as evidence against him as far as you
16 are concerned. You can argue that.
17 MR MORAN: That is my fall-back position.
18 JUDGE JAN: This is what he is supposed to have said.
19 This is on the record. Whether that can be used as
20 evidence against you is a different matter altogether.
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You cannot have redaction.
22 MR MORAN: Then I would object to them being used
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that is not the purpose for
25 which they are intended. They are intended for another
1 issue. When the question of being used arises, it
2 might depend on the purpose for which it was being
3 intended, not Hazim Delic.
4 MR. MORAN: I think it is Rule 8 where I have to object
5 contemporaneously. Just in all caution I bring that to
6 the court's attention.
7 JUDGE JAN: It will be a question of law whether the
8 statement of one accused can be used as evidence against
9 the other.
10 MR. MORAN: That is correct, your Honour. I am bringing it
11 to the court's attention. That's why I am making the
13 JUDGE JAN: I want to find out: these audio, videotapes,
14 the initial ones, are they initialled by this witness or
15 do they bear his signatures? I just want to find out.
16 MS. McHENRY: Sir, is it the case that these sealed
17 envelopes bear your signature?
18 A. My signature, the signature of a witness and the
19 signature of the accused.
20 JUDGE JAN: On the tapes?
21 A. On the envelopes.
22 MS. McHENRY: On the envelopes.
23 JUDGE JAN: The envelopes were sealed by the Registrar you
24 just told us.
25 MS. McHENRY: I'm sorry. Maybe I did not express myself
1 well. Let me ask the witness. I think when I was
2 referring to what the Registrar does, it was once we
3 introduce them into evidence. It was not what had
4 happened previously, who had sealed them previously.
5 Let me just ask the witness. Sir, who sealed those
7 A. I sealed the envelope.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Who authenticated the tapes
11 MS. McHENRY: Well, let me ask: what happened, sir to the
12 originals of the videotape?
13 A. We didn't dispose in Austria of equipment to make a copy
14 of the videotapes as set out in the rules, so we brought
15 the videotapes -- we put them in an envelope, brought
16 them back to The Hague, made a copy here and then went
17 to the prison with the original tapes. We put them
18 again in an envelope, showed them to Mr. Mucic and we
19 sealed them and everybody signed on the envelope,
20 because it's impossible to put the signature on the tape
22 Q. Okay. Do you recognise your signature as being the
23 signature you placed on the envelope at the time that
24 the originals were placed in the envelope and sealed?
25 A. Yes.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that is satisfactory.
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I simply want to join Mr. Moran
3 and at this point object to the use of any statements
4 contained on these videos regarding my client,
5 Mr. Landzo, as evidence in this case, just to have it on
6 the record that I'm making the objection
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Even if you did
9 not, I think we observe the rules. Yes? Let's us hear
11 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I would
12 like to join the objection of my learned colleague,
13 Mr. Moran, that these tapes can (sic) be used against our
14 client Mr. Delalic.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Is that all you have for this?
16 JUDGE JAN: There is a slight correction to the
17 transcript. There is a slight correction to be made in
18 the transcript. You said "cannot be used." The word
19 is "can be used" in the transcript.
20 MS. McHENRY: Certainly the Prosecution will stipulate that
21 Ms. Residovic is objecting to the use of this statement
22 against her client.
23 JUDGE JAN: There is no admission on your part.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you.
25 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we do have more for this
1 witness. Has your Honour ruled on the admission of
2 Prosecution's Exhibit 101, 101A and 101B? I do not know
3 if there wants to be voir dire or we should continue
4 with respect to other interviews. I'm at the court's
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
7 JUDGE ODIO BENITO: I'm sorry. You see why you have to
8 speak slowly and clearly, precisely for these kind of
9 reasons. Thank you.
10 MS. McHENRY: With the record clearly reflecting that
11 they've been admitted into evidence, I will now go, sir,
12 with respect to Mr. Landzo. You indicated, sir, that
13 you had participated in an interview of Mr. Landzo. Can
14 you please tell us the date and the place and who was
15 present other than members of the Office of the
16 Prosecutor when Mr. Landzo was interviewed?
17 A. Mr. Landzo was interviewed by members of the OTP in the
18 detention unit in Scheveningen.
19 MS. McHENRY: I'm sorry. Ms. Residovic, may I ask that you
20 turn off your microphone. Thank you.
21 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): I apologise. May I put
22 a question? I did not hear the Ruling of the trial
23 chamber that these documents have been accepted as
24 evidence. After you there is the possibility of
25 cross-examination and as far as I know only then can the
1 evidence be admitted.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, what we've admitted are the
3 tapes and the documents which have been authenticated
4 even by the witness himself and the accused person.
5 They have signed it and security was guaranteed, so
6 I think they're admissible.
7 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your
9 MS. McHENRY: Sir, if you would please continue, I believe
10 you were telling us the date and place and who was
11 present when Mr. Landzo was interviewed?
12 A. Mr. Landzo was interviewed by members of the OTP in the
13 detention unit in Scheveningen, and I believe it was in
14 July 1996.
15 Q. Okay. Who was present other than members of the Office
16 of the Prosecutor and a translator?
17 A. Defence counsel of Mr. Landzo.
18 JUDGE JAN: And Mr. Landzo.
19 MS. McHENRY: Thank you, your Honour. Was Mr. Landzo also
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you. Sir, was Mr. Landzo advised of his rights
23 under Rules 42 and 43?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Was the interview recorded and a transcript subsequently
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. With the usher's assistance I would now like to
4 show the witness some exhibits. These have been
5 previously provided to defence counsel. (Handed to
6 witness). Maybe before anything is opened it can be
7 shown to the witness, if that is possible. Those are
8 just three extra copies for the court's convenience,
9 Mr. Registrar.
10 Sir, showing you what has been marked for
11 identification purposes as Prosecution Exhibits 102,
12 being the binder, and 102A, being the envelope, can you
13 please tell us if you recognised what those are?
14 A. Yes. This is a binder with the English transcript of
15 the interview, the Serbo-Bosnian transcript and some of
16 the exhibits used during the interview.
17 Q. Have you reviewed the translation of the interview of
18 Mr. Landzo?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Does it fairly and accurately reflect the interview
21 taken of Mr. Landzo?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Was that Prosecution Exhibit 102 that you just referred
24 to, if you can look in the --
25 A. This is number 102.
1 Q. Now directing your attention to Prosecution Exhibit 102A
2 for identification purposes, can you please tell us if
3 you recognise what that is?
4 A. This is a sealed envelope with four tapes of the
5 interview of Esad Landzo. It's marked on it 18th July
6 1996, detention unit, Scheveningen.
7 Q. Are these the originals of the videotapes, sir?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When was this envelope -- is the envelope in a sealed
11 A. It's two sealed with two signatures on the envelope --
12 three signatures.
13 Q. Those signatures are on the envelope?
14 A. My signature, Mr. Landzo and Mr. Brackovic.
15 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic the defence counsel of Mr. Landzo?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. At this time the Prosecution would seek to admit into
18 evidence Prosecution exhibit 102 and 102A?
19 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I would like to conduct
20 cross-examination for the purpose of establishing a
21 foundation for objecting to the admission of these
22 transcripts and videotapes.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You would when the evidence is given,
24 because all he's now showing you are the secure tapes
25 signed by the three of them, which is sought to be
1 introduced into evidence.
2 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, she is offering them into evidence.
3 JUDGE JAN: Yes.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: If the court admits them at this point, I am
5 deprived of the opportunity of developing an objection
6 and there's an objection that I can develop if I'm
7 permitted to cross-examine at this point. I don't want
8 to sit here silently and let them be admitted and then
9 be told later that it is too late, they have been
10 admitted and I did not make a proper objection.
11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do not know what objection you now
12 have for the signed and sealed envelopes which contain
13 those things.
14 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, if I may be --
15 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, my objection will be they were
16 not taken in accordance with the rules of this court.
17 I can evenly establish that by cross-examining this
18 witness. I cannot establish it by standing here giving
19 evidence out of my own mouth, but I do not want to waive
20 the opportunity to object to the admission of these.
21 She has now offered them. She is asking you, the
22 Prosecutor, to make a ruling now on whether or not
23 they're admissible. I object to their admissibility,
24 and I can show why they're not admissible if I'm
25 permitted to do a cross-examination.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can examine him as to whether
2 the rules were complied with. Let us hear your
3 cross-examination because I do not know what you want to
5 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you your Honour.
6 JUDGE JAN: This is a record prepared by him. Whether he
7 has done it rightly or wrongly that can being argued in
8 the light of your cross-examination. It may be a bit
9 premature to cross-examine him at this stage. Your
10 objection has been noted and come on the transcript.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Let me tell you of my concern. It may be
12 confusion between systems. At this stage in the courts
13 I normally practice in if the court were to say on the
14 record that these documents are admitted, then I am no
15 longer able to contest their admissibility. They have
16 been admitted. So in the courts that I practice in
17 I have to lay the foundation for my objection and make
18 that objection now or be forever barred. If that's not
19 the case, I'm willing to wait until my normal turn in
20 cross-examination and then show the court that there's a
21 reason why they should not be considered by the court.
22 Perhaps all that has happened at this point, if they've
23 been marked and are now available in the event the court
24 decides that they were properly taken, and if that is
25 the case, then I'll wait until my turn. Now according
1 to our rules, illegally obtained evidence can be removed
2 at any time.
3 JUDGE JAN: At any time. You see --
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I am sure it is so according to your
5 own rules.
6 JUDGE JAN: Even if a document has been admitted and later
7 on it is found it has not been obtained in accordance
8 with law, it can always be excluded from
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Then I am at the court's pleasure. Would
11 you prefer that I proceed now or wait until my normal
12 turn of cross-examination at this witness? It is
13 completely up to the court. I am happy.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: All you need to do is show at any
15 stage these documents were not obtained legally and the
16 rules have not been followed. The moment you show that
17 you bring yourself within the exclusionary rules of this
19 MR. ACKERMAN: I fully understand that, your Honour. The
20 only question is when would the court want me to do
21 that, now or later in cross-examination?
22 JUDGE JAN: Wait until the examination-in-chief is over.
23 Your objection has come on the record.
24 MR. MORAN: I would renew the same objections to exhibits
25 102 and 102A that I had on 101, 101A and B and C.
1 I renew all those objections.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: It is the same rule you apply.
3 MR. MORAN: I understand, your Honour. It is just a matter
4 of making sure I do come within the contemporaneous
5 objection Rule in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, for the same reasons
7 Mr. Delalic makes the same objection to the use of these
8 statements against him.
9 JUDGE JAN: It gives a much wider field. Even if a
10 document has been admitted and it is found to be wrongly
11 admitted, it can be excluded from consideration. That
12 gives you a much wider scope.
13 MR. GREAVES: I make the same proposition on behalf of
14 Mr. Mucic? Can I also say this? I think the word
15 "admitted" is perhaps an unfortunate word to use in the
16 circumstances. I hate to refer always to one's own
17 system. In England the word "produced" would be
18 used. The Prosecution is asking the witness: "Do you
19 now produce the tape or the transcript?" Perhaps that
20 avoids confusion, because the word "admission" in legal
21 terms can have a wide variety of meanings and can be
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually it's not the Prosecution
24 which admits evidence. It's the Trial Chamber which
1 MR. GREAVES: It is anticipated your Honours do that. So
2 the process which my learned friend is, in fact, doing
3 is inviting the witness to produce and place in the
4 custody of the court the physical evidence. I hope
5 that's a useful suggestion. It may not be.
6 MS. McHENRY: Sir, going to Mr. Delic, you indicated
7 previously that you participated in --the interviews
8 which you participated in including those of Mr. Delic.
9 Can you please tell us when Mr. Delic was interviewed,
10 where and who was present?
11 A. Mr. Delic was interviewed in the detention unit in
12 Scheveningen. He was interviewed in the presence of
13 his defence counsel and members of the OTP.
14 Q. Was Mr. Delic's defence counsel present on both
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Was Mr. Delic advised of his rights under the Tribunal
18 Rules of Procedure, including Rules 42 and 43?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Were the interviews recorded and a transcript
21 subsequently made?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know why there were two interviews of Mr. Delic?
24 A. I believe Mr. Delic requested himself to be interviewed
25 again, because if I believe -- if I'm correct, he wanted
1 to make some corrections to his first interview.
2 Q. Okay. With the usher's assistance may I ask that
3 certain proposed exhibits be shown to the witness?
4 (Handed to witness). I would just ask that before any
5 envelopes be unsealed that they be shown to the witness:
6 I will note far for the record that copies of all
7 these exhibits have previously been provided to defence
8 counsel and three copies of Prosecution -- proposed
9 Prosecution exhibit 103 are being provided to the court
10 for its convenience.
11 Sir, I'm asking you to look at what has been
12 marked for identification purposes as Prosecution
13 Exhibit 103. If you can please tell us if you
14 recognise it and, if so, what it is?
15 A. These are the English and Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian
16 transcript of both of the interviews and exhibits used
17 during the interviews.
18 Q. Okay. Have you reviewed the transcripts of the
19 interviews of Mr. Delic?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Do the transcripts fairly and accurately reflect
22 the interviews the Office of the Prosecutor took from
23 Mr. Delic?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Do the transcripts accurately reflect that the Rules of
1 the Tribunal, including that the accused was advised of
2 his rights, were followed?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. Now I'm going to ask that you look at
5 Prosecution -- what has been marked for identification
6 purposes as Prosecution Exhibit 103A, and if you could
7 please with respect to 103A tell us if you recognise it
8 and, if so, what it is?
9 A. Yes. These are the videotapes, original videotapes of
10 the interview with Hazim Delic conducted on 7th
11 January. The second interview in the detention unit in
12 Scheveningen, sorry.
13 Q. Can you please tell us when these tapes were placed in
14 the sealed envelope and who witnessed their being placed
15 in the sealed envelope?
16 A. This was done immediately after the interview and it was
17 done in the presence of the accused and his defence
18 counsel. There's -- both their signatures are on the
19 front said and also on the back.
20 JUDGE JAN: Your signature?
21 A. My signature and the accused and the defence counsel.
22 MS. McHENRY: Directing your attention to what has been
23 marked for identification purposes as Prosecution
24 exhibit 103B, can you please tell us if you recognised
25 that and, if so, what it is?
1 A. Four originally videotapes of the interview conducted on
2 19th July, also in the detention unit at Scheveningen.
3 Q. Okay. These are Mr. Delic's interview?
4 A. Yes, first interview.
5 Q. Can you please tell us when those were sealed, in whose
6 presence and whose signature appears on the envelopes?
7 A. They were sealed immediately after the interview. My
8 signature is on the envelope as well as the accused and
9 his defence counsel on both sides.
10 Q. Your Honour, at this time the Prosecution would seek to
11 admit into evidence exhibits 102, 102A and 102B. The
12 Prosecution has no objection if your Honours want to
13 defer admitting them into evidence until after
14 cross-examination. The court's indulgence. That
15 concludes the examination-in-chief of this witness.
16 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, to make sure that I understand the
17 -- understood the court's ruling to Mr. Ackerman, if at
18 any time in the future I can show that these -- that
19 there was some problem with the admissibility of it, I
20 can then move to exclude them from evidence, given that
21 understanding of what the court's ruling was, at this
22 point I will not raise any objections at all to their
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, that is the Ruling and you can
25 proceed to prosecution examine the witness.
1 MR. ACKERMAN: I assume, your Honours, that there will come
2 a time, if not today, within the next day or two that
3 the Prosecution will seek to play these videotapes in
4 open court. I think Rule 78 requires that. We would
5 certainly want to make sure that our objections are
6 properly lodged before the tapes are played in open
7 court, because I think they have to be played in open
8 court under Rule 78. So I would want to make sure that
9 my objections are properly lodged before the Prosecution
10 seeks to have them played for the court.
11 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you have made your objection
12 and the Trial Chamber has noted the objections.
13 Whenever the tapes are played, I think we will follow
15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, on behalf of Mr. Delalic,
16 I would like to renew our objection regarding the
17 previous statements by the other co-accused, that none
18 of their statements can be used against Mr. Delalic.
19 MR. GREAVES: A similar objection is made on behalf of
20 Mr. Mucic.
21 MS. McHENRY: Again, just so the record is clear, it is the
22 Prosecution's position that under -- that the accused
23 may not -- excuse me. Let me find the Rule. Under
24 Rule 73 with the exception of Mr. Mucic on one issue, the
25 accused may not challenge -- they may not seek the
1 exclusion of these into evidence. I understand the
2 court may have a different opinion, and I also -- if
3 evidence later comes up suggesting -- raising new
4 issues, the Prosecution, of course, reserves its right
5 to call additional witnesses if necessary. Other than
6 that -- I just wanted the record to be clear I'm not
7 asking that the court do anything at this point.
8 I would also, just so the record is clear, indicate that
9 the Prosecution does not believe that it's necessary to
10 play all the tapes in open court. Proceedings -- the
11 Rule proceedings must be in open court but it does not
12 mean, I believe, that every exhibit needs to be shown in
13 its entirety. We will defer to the court. If the
14 court wishes us to play the interviews in their
15 entirety, we will do so. Otherwise we would just plan
16 on introducing the videotapes into evidence, the
17 transcript and then, if necessary, we will use some of
18 it in closing argument, but unless your Honours direct
19 us to, we were not intending really just for matters of
20 time to play the interviews in their entirety but they
21 are in evidence. Thank you.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you looked at Rule 95 as to the
23 circumstances under which evidence could be admitted?
24 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You have seen that.
1 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is an overriding provision for
3 whatever might be admitted.
4 MS. McHENRY: That's right. I understand that, your
5 Honour. The Prosecution also believes that Rule 73 is
6 applicable, but I don't believe that this issue is going
7 to come up because, of course, the Prosecution believes
8 that these interviews were taken in full accordance with
9 all protections, including the Tribunal's and any
10 internationally accepted rights. So I was just for the
11 record both noting our objection and noting that if
12 additional issues were raised later, we may seek to call
13 additional witnesses.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: One's apprehension is your submission
15 that you only need to play a number of the tapes for the
16 purposes of authenticating what has been claimed to have
17 been done. At least you know that any aspect of it
18 that has been challenged ought to be heard.
19 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe -- I'm not sure
20 I understand. To the extent I do, I do not disagree
21 with your Honours. That is why the Prosecution try to
22 bring witnesses to discuss in detail Mr. Mucic's
23 challenge, because we know that those are challenges.
24 With respect to the other accused, in particular
25 Mr. Landzo and Mr. Delic, in all frankness we do not know
1 what the challenge is. So other than to have the
2 witness state that the rules were complied with, we
3 believe we've done everything we can, and if something
4 later comes up such that the Prosecution believes it
5 appropriate to bring more evidence to clarify an issue
6 that the accused has raised, we will certainly do
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: So the limitation of the number of
9 tapes you wish to show will depend largely on the
10 challenges of the defence irrespective of the fact
11 whether it has been admitted, because they might still
12 challenge aspects of it which might not be consistent
13 with the rules as a whole. They have been admitted for
14 the purpose of evidence but the complete compliance with
15 the rules as a whole might depend upon what has been
16 shown on the tapes.
17 MS. McHENRY: Well, your Honour, we are entirely at the
18 court's pleasure. We believe that the witness has
19 testified that the rules have been complied with, and we
20 have admitted into evidence the transcript of the entire
21 interview as well as the tapes, and we believe that they
22 are admitted into evidence and that the Chamber may use
23 them whenever they wish. We are certainly very willing
24 to have the tapes shown in their entirety, if it's
25 necessary, or for the defence or the Trial Chamber to
1 look to certain portions of them.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: What I wanted you to understand is
3 that their admission is still subject to
5 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
7 MS. McHENRY: Certainly we have no objection to there being
8 any cross-examination on any relevant issue.
9 MR. GREAVES: Can I just mention one thing which is to do
10 with the public nature of evidence? This is not an
11 objection. It is merely something for discussion by
12 your Honours. If the tapes are not played or the
13 transcripts are not read out, the public at large will
14 never know what the defendant said about these
15 matters. It is an important aspect that all evidence
16 be, as it were, subject to the closed session idea,
17 heard in public. If your Honours simply take the tapes
18 and transcripts away and read them privately, the people
19 out there in the public gallery will never know what the
20 evidence is and that is unfortunate.
21 JUDGE JAN: It is your case that the transcripts do not
22 accurately represent what has been said in the
23 interview. For the public the transcript is all there.
24 MR. GREAVES: I am merely saying the public is not going to
25 know what the evidence is.
1 JUDGE JAN: The transcripts are there.
2 MR. GREAVES: They are not being read out in public.
3 MS. McHENRY: I believe, and the Registrar can correct me if
4 I am wrong, all exhibits are public and so this evidence
5 is available to the public.
6 MR. GREAVES: Thank you.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the witness is now open for
8 cross-examination for anybody who wants to.
9 JUDGE JAN: Is that the agreed order of cross-examination?
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, your Honours. The agreed order
11 of cross-examination is, first, defendant Landzo;
12 followed by defendant Mucic; followed by defendant
13 Delic; followed by defendant Delalic. Thank you.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: It is Mr. d'Hooge, isn't it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Am I saying that right?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Why don't you correct me. I really want to try to say
20 your name right?
21 A. D'Hooge.
22 Q. D'Hooge?
23 A. Close enough.
24 Q. Mr. d'Hooge, I don't have a lot of questions for you.
25 I have a few. To the extent that those questions
1 appropriately call for a "yes" or "no" answer, I'd
2 appreciate that. In other words, what I'm saying is
3 I'm not interested in you having -- in having you answer
4 questions that I don't ask you. Do you understand what
5 I'm getting to (witness nods) thank you. You shook
6 your head "yes." Can we have a "yes" for the record
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I take it that English is not your native language?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Your native language is Flemish?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you speak any other languages?
14 A. I speak French and English.
15 Q. All right. What day was it that you told us that you
16 went to the detention centre to do your interview of
17 Mr. Landzo?
18 A. I believe it was 19th -- no, 18th July.
19 Q. About what time did you go there?
20 A. That must have been around 9 o'clock. If you want to
21 be sure, I can take a look at the transcript. It's ...
22 Q. Did you go with anyone or did you go by yourself?
23 A. We went by car with the Tribunal car, with the members
24 of the OTP.
25 Q. And that would be who?
1 A. The persons present during the interview.
2 Q. That would be who?
3 A. That would be myself, Ms. McHenry, the interpreter and
4 Mr. McLeod.
5 Q. So the Prosecutor, Ms. McHenry, was present during the
6 course of this interview?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And is therefore one of the witnesses as to what
9 happened during the course of this interview; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When you first arrived at the prison to conduct this
12 interview, tell me where you first went?
13 A. We went to the reception where one of the security
14 guards came to pick us up and brought us to the
15 detention unit.
16 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic with you at that point?
17 A. I can't remember.
18 Q. You don't remember where you met him?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Where did you go after you were picked up at the
21 entrance to the prison by a security guard? Where did
22 you go then?
23 A. To the UN detention unit.
24 Q. Where in that detention unit?
25 A. I think to the room where we conducted the interview.
1 The recreation room, I think.
2 Q. Is it a small room, large room?
3 A. It is a large room.
4 Q. Was Mr. Brackovic there when you got there?
5 A. I believe so.
6 Q. Was Mr. Landzo there when you got there?
7 A. I believe so.
8 Q. Was anyone else there when you got there?
9 A. I don't think so.
10 Q. Who brought the equipment that you used to do the audio
11 and video of this interview?
12 A. We brought the equipment.
13 Q. "We" being you, Ms. McHenry and the interpreter?
14 A. And Mr. McLeod.
15 Q. Was Mr. McLeod present throughout this entire interview?
16 A. Mr. McLeod was not present in the room where the
17 interview was conducted but was in an adjoining room
18 where the back-up material was placed.
19 Q. What is the back-up material?
20 A. I believe the video recorders, audio recorders, the
22 Q. Was he in a position where he could see what was going
23 on during the interview or simply hear it?
24 A. I believe he could hear and see what was happening.
25 Q. So he had a monitor there where he could monitor what
1 was going on during the interview?
2 A. His role is to monitor the sound and the image.
3 Q. Do you know where Mr. McLeod is from?
4 A. Mr. McLeod is from Scotland.
5 Q. Do you know if Mr. McLeod speaks Serbo-Croatian?
6 A. He doesn't speak it.
7 Q. You do not speak Serbo-Croatian?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Ms. McHenry does not speak Serbo-Croatian to your
11 A. No.
12 Q. The only representative there from the Office of the
13 Prosecutor that spoke Serbo-Croatian was the interpreter
14 or from the -- was the interpreter from the office of
15 the Prosecutor?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. That was the only representative there that spoke
18 Serbo-Croatian; correct?
19 A. If you mean representative of the Office of the
20 Prosecutor, yes.
21 Q. That's what you mean. Of course, you know that
22 Mr. Landzo speaks Serbo-Croatian?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And Mr. Brackovic, of course?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you familiar with how fluent Mr. Brackovic is in the
2 English language?
3 A. No.
4 Q. All right. Prior to the time that this interview began
5 did you hear or observe any conversation that took place
6 between Ms. McHenry and Mr. Brackovic?
7 A. I can't remember.
8 Q. You can't remember whether there was such a conversation
9 or -- is that what you mean?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You don't recall today seeing the two of them converse
12 prior to the taking of this statement?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Do you recall a private conversation that took place
15 between Mr. Brackovic and Mr. Landzo in your presence or
16 out of your presence prior to the taking of this
18 A. No.
19 Q. After the very beginning of this statement, when you
20 went through the process of advising Mr. Landzo of his
21 rights, his rights to remain silent, his right to
22 counsel, things of that nature, was there then a moment
23 where Mr. Landzo and Mr. Brackovic had a conference out of
24 your presence in order to make a decision whether or not
25 to go forward?
1 A. I can't remember.
2 Q. You cannot tell this Tribunal, I take it, that there was
3 a time at the beginning of this statement where
4 Mr. Brackovic in lieu of the warnings that had been given
5 to his client had a conference with his client regarding
6 the nature of what was about to take place, you have no
7 knowledge about that, I take it?
8 A. If this did not happen during the recording.
9 Q. And you don't know that it happened at any other time?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you have the exhibit which I think is 102 in front of
12 you, the transcript? Could I ask the Registrar to give
13 it to him, please? (Handed to witness). Now I think
14 you have told us -- that is exhibit 102 that you are
15 looking at now?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. I think you told us that it contains both the English
18 and the Serbo-Croatian transcript of the interview?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Could I ask you to look at the Serbo-Croatian transcript
21 of the interview and just tell us if you can read and
22 understand that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. You have told the court that you have looked at
25 this and it is a true and correct transcript of the
1 interview that you conducted; correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. You, of course, could not make that determination with
4 regard to the Serbo-Croatian transcript, could you?
5 A. No.
6 Q. So when you told the court that you were referring only
7 to the English transcript?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Could you tell the court how you went about making the
10 determination that it was a true and correct
11 transcription of your interview?
12 A. I revised and checked the English transcript of this
13 interview and qualified people from the translation unit
14 checked both versions.
15 Q. Well, you told the court that you had done it, and
16 I want to know exactly the process you went through in
17 doing that?
18 A. Since I do not understand or read Serbo-Croatian,
19 I can't have done the Serbo-Croatian revision.
20 Q. So you cannot tell the court, as you sit here today,
21 from your own personal knowledge that the Serbo-Croatian
22 transcript is correct?
23 A. Of course not.
24 Q. How did you make a determination that the English
25 transcript is a true and correct reflection of that
1 interview? How did you do that? Physically how did you
2 do that?
3 A. Because I went through the transcript. I read it.
4 I listened to the tapes.
5 Q. Did you sit with the transcript and go through it word
6 by word?
7 A. Yes. Word by word, yes, I think so, yes.
8 Q. How long a time would that have taken you?
9 A. I can't remember.
10 Q. Now what, of course, you were listening to was the
11 interpretation of the Serbo-Croatian into English and
12 comparing that English interpretation with the English
13 transcript; correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Again, you were not able to interpret the Serbo-Croatian
16 yourself to see if the English transcript is a correct
17 interpretation of the Serbo-Croatian, were you?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Could you look, please, at page 3 of that transcript?
20 About one-third of the way down the transcript indicates
21 that there is a statement made by someone identified as
22 "I2". That would be you, would it not?
23 A. That is.
24 Q. So in the transcript you are designated as "I2". That
25 would be Investigator 2; correct? Ms. McHenry is
1 indicated as Investigator 1, "I1"; correct? Was she at
2 that time an investigator employed by the Tribunal
3 rather than an attorney with the Prosecutor's office?
4 A. I think Ms. McHenry is employed as an attorney.
5 Q. Even though she is designated here as an investigator,
6 she at that time also was an attorney; correct?
7 A. I think this is a detail.
8 Q. The answer is yes. As far as you know, she was an
9 attorney with the Prosecutor's office and not an
10 investigator on that day?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. It is correct, is it not, that in that paragraph that --
13 it is the second I2 paragraph on page 3 -- you make the
14 following statement:
15 "I have asked the interpreter not to interpret
16 every single word, especially when we're speaking about
17 background matters".
18 Those are your words?
19 A. Exactly.
20 Q. Now if I were, for instance, to say to you right now
21 what time did that happen, I doubt that you would be
22 able to give me an accurate answer to that question
23 until I give you some background, that being what that
24 means; correct?
25 A. Could you please be more specific about the question?
1 Q. Yes. If I were to simply ask you a question: "What time
2 did that happen?" ?
3 A. This?
4 Q. You see, that's the problem. You don't have any
5 background. You don't know what I'm talking about, do
6 you? Now if I tell you I'm referring to the beginning
7 of this interview and then say to you: "What time did
8 that happen?", I have given you the background that
9 enables you to answer my question, haven't I?
10 A. Although it's not very clear to me what you're pointing
12 Q. You have asked the interpreter with this statement that
13 I've referred to here on page 3 not to interpret
14 background matters, haven't you?
15 A. I asked her not to interpret every word when it referred
16 to background.
17 Q. Your language was:
18 " ... especially when we're speaking about
19 background matters"?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Because you do not understand
22 Serbo-Croatian, you have no idea what it was the
23 interpreter did not interpret to Mr. Landzo, do you?
24 A. To me, you mean?
25 Q. When you would ask a question in English?
1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. The interpreter would then interpret that question into
3 Serbo-Croatian and ask it of Mr. Landzo. That's the way
4 it worked, wasn't it?
5 A. That is the way it worked.
6 Q. Because you don't know Serbo-Croatian, you have no idea
7 what that interpreter left out of the question that was
8 asked of Mr. Landzo?
9 A. I don't think that she left any word out of the
10 question. Maybe words out of the answer. That is the
11 purpose of this sentence.
12 Q. But it doesn't say that. It says not to interpret
13 every single word, especially when speaking about
14 background. That's what it says, doesn't it?
15 A. It reflects the answer of the accused, not my questions.
16 Q. So what you're saying is that there may be answers of
17 Mr. Landzo that do not appear in this transcript because
18 they were not interpreted?
19 A. There might be some words out of the answer of Mr. Landzo
20 that were not completely interpreted.
21 Q. Because you don't speak Serbo-Croatian, you cannot tell
22 this court, as you sit here today, whether the
23 interpreter interpreted every word of your question,
24 whether the interpreter interpreted every word of
25 Mr. Landzo's answers?
1 A. I repeat that the purpose of this sentence is to
2 interpret every word of my question but not of the
3 answer, because of the limited time. That is purpose.
4 Q. But it doesn't say that, does it? It doesn't say:
5 "Interpret every word of my questions but leave out the
6 answers." It doesn't say that there, does it?
7 A. For me this is very clear.
8 Q. Read the part that says: "Interpret every word of my
9 questions but be free about your interpretation of the
10 answers." Just read that if it is clear?
11 MS. McHENRY: I am going to object. I think the question
12 has been asked and answered. The record speaks for
13 itself. I think this is now argument rather than
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Actually you
16 have made your point that he was trying to guide the
17 interpreter to what she should say and what not to
18 within the limits of what he was doing.
19 MR. ACKERMAN: As long as the court understands my point,
20 I'm satisfied.
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes. I think that's what you are
22 trying to show.
23 MR. ACKERMAN: What day and month did you begin this
24 investigation, the Celebici investigation, did you begin
25 working on it?
1 A. 1st September 1995.
2 Q. So by the time you took this statement you had been
3 engaged in this investigation for how long?
4 A. Ten months.
5 Q. So in a ten month investigation when you are talking a
6 statement from my client, perhaps one of the more
7 important duties you performed in this case, your
8 concern was to try to save time; is that your testimony?
9 A. I think we only had one day to interview your client.
10 Q. It's true, is it not, that the only way that we can --
11 that the Tribunal can know and that we can know for
12 certain what was left out of either questions or answers
13 in terms of the interpretation is to have the
14 interpreter go through the tapes and make that
15 determination? Because you don't know Serbo-Croatian,
16 you could not do that, could you?
17 A. I could not do it. That is correct.
18 Q. That's all I have. Thank you.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Any other cross-examination?
20 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, may I say this? I am in a bit
21 of a quandary. I had filed earlier in this case a
22 motion to permit me to file a challenge to this
23 statement in accordance with the rules for that
24 challenge to be filed late, and therefore to let me go
25 into a complete presentation in an effort to try to
1 suppress the statement. You will recall that I argued
2 that in front of this court several days ago, my
3 contention being that Mr. Brackovic was insufficiently
4 familiar with Anglo-American jurisprudence and therefore
5 did not and could not have given his client proper
6 advice. Although it was made fairly clear to me from
7 the bench when I made the argument what this court's
8 ruling is going to be, the matter was taken under
9 advisement and I was advised that there would be a
10 ruling later on. That ruling has not yet been made so
11 I still don't know if I am permitted to go forward with
12 that matter, but in any event it would be done with
13 different witnesses. I think that would complete my
14 cross-examination of this witness in any event.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually what you sought to do then
16 was to bring an application out of time.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: Yes, your Honour.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Outside the period. That is what was
20 MR. ACKERMAN: Exactly. All I am saying is it has not been
21 formally rejected.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: No, it has been. The Ruling has been
23 but apart from a more considered version not having been
24 circulated but it was ruled you cannot be allowed.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: That is fine. I certainly had that sense at
2 A. Could I --
3 MR. MORAN: I think I am in the same boat that Mr. Ackerman
4 is in; is that correct? I made a similar application
5 and although the written decision isn't out, that it has
6 been overruled?
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, on the same basis we indicated
8 that you could not bring that application at that time.
9 MR. MORAN: That's fine, your Honour.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Because -- yes.
11 MR. MORAN: I just wanted to make sure that I understood the
12 court's Ruling. I would not argue with the court over
13 its Ruling. I just wanted to -- unnecessarily.
14 A. Could I add something?
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes. Yes, Mr. Olujic, you have
16 something to say?
17 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Olujic
19 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): My name is Zeljko Olujic,
20 Mr. d'Hooge. I am defence counsel of Mr. Zdravko
21 Mucic. Can you hear me?
22 A. I just want to add something. A few minutes ago I asked
23 permission of the court to add something to my
24 testimony. Is it possible that I do it now?
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I think he is asking to answer
1 a question of mine which I'm convinced he has already
2 answered. If the Prosecution wants to ask him
3 additional questions on re-examination, that's their
4 business, but I don't think it is anticipate the
5 business of the witness to begin volunteering.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually you've closed your case and
7 the cross-examination has ended?
8 A. Okay.
9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you. Mr. d'Hooge, am
10 I pronouncing your name properly? Mr. d'Hooge?
11 I consider you to be a highly qualified person, a highly
12 qualified witness. You are a policeman coming from
13 Belgium. You have considerable experience of ten years
14 in the service. Could you tell us, please, whether you
15 graduated from the police academy?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you study at the police academy any law subject such
18 as the criminal procedure law of Belgium?
19 A. Yes, not only at the police academy but also at
21 Q. Which? The school of law?
22 A. And criminology.
23 Q. That's very fine. Tell us, Mr. d'Hooge, according to
24 the Belgium law on criminal procedure with respect to
25 arrest do you know how long a person can be kept in
1 detention before a decision is taken by the
2 investigating judge, how long that person may be held by
3 the police?
4 MS. McHENRY: I object, your Honour, as to the relevancy of Belgian law.
5 MR. OLUJIC: All I'm asking is this, your Honours, to
6 lead up to the procedure which took place in Austria and
7 it has to do with my client who had to be treated
8 according to the laws of Austria and the Republic of
9 Croatia, and considering the witness is a qualified
10 person, I'm asking how these matters are regulated in
11 his country.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can put your question and he
13 can answer it?
14 A. Excuse me. I didn't understand.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You should answer the question?
16 A. I would like to explain, although I don't think this is
17 the correct place, but we have a totally different legal
18 system than the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
19 Tribunal. The --
20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Counsel just wants to know. Answer
21 his question.
22 A. As the police, we can keep a suspect for 24 hours before
23 he is interviewed by a judge.
24 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you. You travelled
25 to Austria, to Vienna. Do you know how this is
1 regulated by the law on criminal procedure of Austria,
2 since you were going to Austria; in other words, how
3 long a suspect may be held by the police before he is
4 interviewed by the judge?
5 A. I am not familiar with the Austrian system.
6 Q. You don't know?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. Fine. Could you tell us, Mr. d'Hooge -- let us
9 reconstruct the events of 20th March 1996. At 9.30 you
10 interviewed Mr. Mucic. Does that correspond to the
12 A. Could I have a look at the transcript, please?
13 Q. Will you please provide the witness with the
14 transcript? (Handed to witness).
15 A. With the transcript of the ... I have found it.
16 Q. Yes. Fine. On that occasion did you ask Mr. Mucic --
17 did you advise him that he is entitled to an attorney of
18 his choice, and if he cannot find him then one would be
19 assigned to him, and then did you go on to say -- to ask
20 him whether he agreed to be interviewed without the
21 presence of an attorney? So will you check, please?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Then you told him that he was entitled to an interpreter
24 free of charge, an attorney free of charge and an
25 interpreter free of charge?
1 A. (Witness nods).
2 Q. Tell us, please, in connection with the previous
3 question for the benefit of the record, the transcript,
4 will you please give us your answer in words, "yes" or
5 "no." So you asked Mr. Mucic or rather you mentioned to
6 him in addition to a defence attorney that he was also
7 entitled to an interpreter. Isn't that so. You
8 nodded "yes", but will you say "yes"?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Mr. d'Hooge, when you were in Vienna how
11 many times did you ask Mr. Mucic whether he agreed to be
12 interviewed without an attorney, if you remember, of
14 A. I can't remember. I should inspect the transcript, the
15 English transcript.
16 Q. You don't remember, therefore? You can't recall?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the Trial Chamber will rise
19 for 30 minutes and you will come back with your
21 (11.30 am)
22 (Short break)
23 (12.05 pm)
24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHITE: I apologise for our few minutes
25 lateness. We were having a discussion. Can we invite
1 the witness now? Invite the witness.
2 (Witness re-enters court)
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Kindly warn him he is still on his
5 THE REGISTRAR: I should like to remind you that you are
6 still testifying under oath.
7 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, may
8 I proceed?
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can.
10 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.
11 Mr. d'Hooge, let us complete this section regarding
12 the events on 20th March 1996. You were conducting the
13 interview with Mr. Mucic, were you not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Tell us, Mr. d'Hooge, in addition to that
16 interview and the meeting with Mr. Mucic in Vienna, after
17 Vienna did you have occasion to talk to Mr. Mucic again?
18 A. I believe that Mr. Mucic requested to have a talk with
19 me. That was later. I don't remember the date
20 exactly, but I think it was in the month of August 1996.
21 Q. In August 1996?
22 A. I believe so, yes.
23 Q. Do you think so or you actually spoke to him in The
24 Hague after returning from Vienna?
25 A. I spoke to Mr. Mucic in The Hague after returning from
2 Q. And that was certainly in August 1996, as you say?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Who else was present at the interview in August 1996
5 apart from you?
6 A. First of all, I would like to say that it was not an
7 interview and present was Mr. Mucic himself.
8 Q. I'm sorry. I'm just asking who was present apart from
9 you when you had this contact -- let us call it that --
10 with Mr. Mucic? You and Mr. Mucic and who else?
11 A. I think Ms. McHenry was present, defence counsel.
12 Q. Who was that, defence counsel of Mr. Mucic or another
13 defence counsel?
14 A. It was the defence counsel of Mr. Mucic.
15 Q. Was that talk recorded on tape and on video?
16 A. Everything was video recorded and audio recorded.
17 Q. Who was present on behalf of the technical services?
18 A. According to my knowledge I think it was Mr. McLeod.
19 Q. Was it recorded with one, two, three or more cameras?
20 A. I cannot remember.
21 Q. Your Honours, we are now discovering that in addition to
22 the talk the witness had with Mr. Mucic in Vienna, he had
23 another interview in The Hague which the defence counsel
24 of Mr. Zdravko Mucic is not familiar with, nor do we have
25 a transcript, nor a video recording. Therefore, I am
1 unable to continue the cross-examination before I am
2 supplied with both the video and the transcript of that
3 talk, so that I can check all this once again and
4 continue the cross-examination.
5 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour --
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Ms. McHenry?
7 MS. McHENRY: If I may be heard to potentially clarify
8 matters, and I believe, your Honours, the witness may
9 also clarify this, but given the defence counsel has
10 made this, I will state for the court that it is correct
11 that at some point Mr. Mucic wrote a letter asking to
12 speak to Mr. d'Hooge. It was given to Mr. Mucic's
13 lawyer. Mr. Mucic's lawyer then said: "Yes, let's have
14 this meeting. Mr. Mucic has something he wants to
15 say." It was recorded Mr. Mucic made a few comments.
16 The Prosecution did not ask any questions, and
17 Mr. Mucic's attorney indicated that he agreed that it was
18 not an interview. In fact, it was a couple of minutes
19 discussion. If my memory serves me correct -- I do not
20 want to be a witness about this; it is all in recording
21 -- Mr. Mucic suggested two people be talked with or two
22 witnesses were not reliable or something to that
23 effect. Mr. Mucic's counsel was present and in all
24 respects it was agreed how it would be handled. It was
25 not an interview. There was no transcript made. That
1 was also agreed with defence counsel.
2 So to the extent that this defence counsel says he
3 does not know anything about it, I am afraid that the
4 Prosecution assumes and must assume that defence counsel
5 communicate with each other. Certainly the Prosecution
6 is willing to -- if he has not already gotten the
7 information about this from prior counsel, the defence
8 counsel will give him a copy of -- the Prosecution will
9 give him another copy of this few minute exchange, and
10 if it's necessary, the witness can be recalled. He can
11 also ask this witness about it, but if that will help
12 expedite things.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually your submission is that there
14 was no transcript of that discussion.
15 MS. McHENRY: There was a recording made but there is no
16 transcript, because it was agreed by everyone concerned,
17 including Mr. Mucic and his defence counsel that it was
18 not an interview and so there was no need. It was
19 something requested by Mr. Mucic. He had, I believe, a
20 little advice that he gave the Prosecution, and no
21 transcript was made. I don't believe any transcript
22 had to be made, but if this defence counsel has not
23 gotten all the material he believes necessary, the
24 Prosecution will provide another copy of what it has.
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: But the witness has not denied that a
1 video recording was made.
2 MS. McHENRY: That is correct, your Honour. I think that
3 that's correct and the Prosecution is offering to
4 provide another copy of that to this defence counsel,
5 and I'm just trying to expedite matters, but also trying
6 to clarify that in terms of this counsel saying the
7 defence counsel of Mr. Mucic was not aware of it, I'm
8 trying to clarify that defence counsel of Mr. Mucic was
9 present at all parts of this.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually your main complaint is that
11 you are unable to go on with your cross-examination
12 unless all these facts are made known to you.
13 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I fully
14 appreciate the concern of the Prosecution concerning my
15 contact with the previous defence counsel, but
16 independently of that we have noted something that is
17 astonishing, the more so as we claim that the former
18 attorney does not have possession of that recording.
19 Therefore, the manner in which this was done is in
20 complete contradiction with the Rules 42 and 43
21 regarding the collection of evidence. That is why we
22 are requiring that we be supplied both with the
23 transcript and the video recording, so that we might
24 continue the cross-examination, because at this point I
25 do not know.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us get the sequence right. Is
2 that so-called interview, because they do not regard it
3 as an interview, part of the transcript or evidence
4 which they are trying to tender? Is it part of it? Are
5 you aware whether that conversation is part of the
6 evidence they are trying to introduce into evidence,
7 because if it is not, perhaps you might wish to
8 introduce it, but you might not hold them against -- not
9 providing it, because they have not used it. You did
10 not have it, and if you want to have it, I suppose you
11 can now have it. I'm only surprised that the counsel
12 did not have any copies of it, both the audio recording
13 and the summary of whatever was discussed. He should
14 have had it.
15 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I must express the concern
16 that the previous attorney didn't have it, because I
17 don't believe that he would not have given it to me if
18 he had it. He had no reason not to pass it on to me.
19 As for the transcript itself, it emanates from the
20 recording. Therefore it is very simple to transfer the
21 content of the recording into a text. Clearly the
22 Prosecution has this and the defence does not. It is
23 also quite clear, as confirmed by the witness, that he
24 was present during that conversation in The Hague in
25 August 1996. Your Honours, we are truly handicapped.
1 We do not have something that may tomorrow be used in
2 the proceedings by the Prosecution. We are not aware
3 of that, but we do not have possession of it.
4 Therefore, in order to be able to continue the
5 cross-examination I am requesting that we be supplied
6 with both the recording and the transcript, because even
7 Mr. Mucic never received this.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think the Prosecution has offered to
9 turn them over to you. I think they have.
10 MS. McHENRY: That is correct. We will also turn over a
11 copy of the recording we have. There is no transcript
12 made. Of course, defence counsel can make his own
13 transcript, if he believes it is necessary. I will, of
14 course -- I think it is clear, but to the extent there
15 is any confusion, the Prosecution does not intend to
16 bring any of this into evidence. It is entirely
17 irrelevant but, of course, we will immediately make sure
18 that this defence counsel has a copy of the contact.
19 JUDGE JAN: You said it's only a few minutes talk with the
20 accused so it can easily be made available.
21 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. We are happy to make it
22 available, and we are happy if it is then necessary
23 later on for defence counsel to recall this witness, if
24 he wants to, no objection whatsoever.
25 JUDGE JAN: If it is a few minutes you can give him it
1 immediately during the lunch break.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, your Honour, please.
3 JUDGE JAN: You can have it after the lunch break. It is
4 said to be only a few minutes. They don't call it an
5 interview. I think counsel on both sides agreed it is
6 not an interview at the time it was being recorded. So
7 they can give it to you immediately after the lunch
9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I am grateful. I would
10 like to have that. I propose that I continue the
11 cross-examination after that of Mr. d'Hooge.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Then I do not see any problem with
13 this, if they are prepared to hand over the tapes to
14 you. You can do that. Then how soon will you be
15 ready? Tomorrow morning or today, if you want to watch
16 the video? It depends on you.
17 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): I think by tomorrow morning
18 I would be ready to continue the cross-examination.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that should be all right.
20 MS. McHENRY: If it's at all possible, the Prosecution, just
21 because we have witnesses coming in this afternoon to
22 start tomorrow morning, and because I believe it's very
23 short, we might suggest that we just continue on with a
24 late afternoon session, but, of course, it is entirely
25 up to your Honours, but I will emphasise that it's a
1 very short matter. So it would be the Prosecution's
2 preference that we get this witness completed today but,
3 of course, it's up to your Honours.
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: He still has to study the tape himself
5 and satisfy himself that he can make use of it. It
6 might appear that he might not even need them. It
7 depends. Actually it depends on the information you
8 have about the tapes.
9 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): When I see them.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: So --
11 MS. McHENRY: No objection, your Honour.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually why don't we postpone your
13 cross-examination and if there is any other
14 cross-examination, we can go on with that?
15 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Thank you, your Honours.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Moran.
17 MR. MORAN: May it please the court.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Moran, you can carry on.
19 MR. MORAN: Good afternoon, sir?
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. My name is Tom Moran and in case you don't know it
22 I represent Hazim Delic in this case. I'm going to ask
23 you a few questions and I think that we may be able to
24 get done fairly quickly. Let me just tell you so
25 there's not going to be any surprises, one, I'm going to
1 go into some general background with you and your
2 experience and the investigation of this case, and then
3 I'm going to go into some specific areas involving your
4 testimony earlier today, and I think we can probably
5 wind it up at that point.
6 Now, as I understand it from your testimony with
7 Mr. Ackerman, your native language is Flemish and you
8 also speak English and French?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. So, of course, English is not your native language?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Sometimes I talk a little fast and sometimes my
13 questions are a little hard to understand, because I
14 don't just do as good a job on asking them as
15 I should. Now, if that happens, will you stop me and
16 ask me to rephrase it, repeat it or whatever so you
17 understand it?
18 A. I will certainly do.
19 Q. Okay. Will you just answer the question that I asked?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. The other thing is will you answer out loud?
22 Let me tell you why. That woman sitting in front of
23 you, the blond lady named Melanie is the court
24 reporter. She has to write down everything everybody
25 says in here and she can't write down a nod?
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. Fair enough. Sir, tell me a little bit about your
3 education? I understand that you went to the law
4 faculty at the university of, where, Brussels?
5 A. I was a law student in Gent.
6 Q. In Ghent. You have a law degree?
7 A. I was what you call a junior law degree. I completed
8 the first cycle.
9 Q. So you don't have enough legal education to be admitted
10 to practise law but you have enough where you are pretty
11 familiar with the legal system in the continent of
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And the legal system in the continent of Europe is
15 pretty different to what I'm used to or other people
16 from the Anglo-Saxon, aren't they?
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Some of the things that would be routine in law in the
19 civil law system might be very, very strange to me as an
20 American lawyer, an Anglo-Saxon lawyer, and vice versa?
21 A. I think so.
22 Q. In fact, the rules of the Tribunal, although they are
23 amelled (sic), lean fairly heavily towards the
24 Anglo-Saxon legal system, don't they?
25 A. I think so, yes.
1 Q. You are pretty familiar with the rules. I noticed when
2 you came in this morning you had a copy of the Rules of
3 Evidence and Procedure and the statute, that big thick
4 book. Do you still have it with you, by the way, so if
5 we need to refer to it we can refer to it. You were a
6 police officer for ten years. What were your duties as
7 a police officer in Belgium?
8 A. I was an investigator in homicide and terrorism.
9 Q. Okay. By the way, are you just lent to the Tribunal or
10 have you severed all of your contacts with the Belgian
12 A. No, I'm --
13 Q. Seconded?
14 A. No, not seconded; employed. I'm UN staff.
15 Q. You are a permanent employee. You have resigned?
16 A. No, I have not resigned. I am what you called
18 Q. On leave?
19 A. On leave, yes.
20 Q. So when you have leave here, you'll go back to the
21 Belgian Police Department?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. As part of your duties as a police officer and homicide
24 investigator you testified fairly regularly, didn't you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. A lot of times?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So what we're going through today is nothing new to you?
4 A. It's nothing new.
5 Q. So you're pretty familiar with this process and pretty
6 comfortable with the process. By the way, you talked
7 to Ms. McHenry before you testified today about what you
8 were going to testify about in preparation for your
9 testimony here today, didn't you?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about the background of
12 the investigation in general. As I understand it the
13 investigation in general was hampered because the
14 parties really didn't want to cooperate with the
15 Tribunal; is that fair?
16 A. It depends on what you're referring to. I don't think
17 during the investigation we had a lot of problems of
18 getting cooperation of witnesses and parties.
19 Q. Well, in fact, there were a couple of non-governmental
20 organisations, what would be called in the UN parlance,
21 NGOs, that helped you find witnesses, weren't there?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. In fact, there was one in Belgrade?
24 A. I believe so, yes.
25 Q. That was the Association of Detainees, wasn't it?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What they did was go out and find witnesses, people they
3 thought had relevant knowledge; right?
4 A. I think that is correct for certain witnesses. For
5 other witnesses we probably gave them the names and
6 asked them to locate them.
7 Q. What the association did was they took a statement from
8 those folks and translated it into English and had that
9 person sign it; isn't that right?
10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 Q. You never saw any statements gathered by the Association
12 of Detainees?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So if someone from the Association of Detainees said
15 publicly that they had gathered statements, had
16 witnesses sign them, translated them into English, had
17 the witness sign them and mailed them to a member of the
18 staff of the Office of the Prosecutor, that person would
19 be mistaken; is that right?
20 A. That is possible but I can't remember having seen such a
22 Q. Okay. Fair enough.
23 THE INTERPRETER: If counsel could please speak slower for
24 the interpretation. Thank you.
25 MR. MORAN: Sure. Okay. Let me go to some of your
1 testimony on direct about your interview in Vienna;
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. You testified on direct that a lawyer by the name of --
5 it's in my notes but there was a lawyer that showed up?
6 A. I think his name was Dr Manfred, Manfred being the first
7 name. I can't remember the family name.
8 Q. He asked for a copy of the indictment and the rules of
9 the Tribunal; right?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. And you gave him both of those?
12 A. No. We gave him the phone number (sic) since we didn't
13 have the copies of the indictment and rules with us,
14 extra copies, I mean.
15 Q. But you had a copy of the indictment?
16 A. I believe we had a copy of the indictment, yes.
17 Q. And you had a copy of the rules?
18 A. We didn't have this book but we had a document, a
19 prepared document with Rule 42 and 43?
20 Q. Okay. So you had some portion of the rules at least.
21 By the way, on the 19th there was an interview with Dr,
22 what was it said --
23 A. Sada.
24 Q. The judge in Austria?
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. You were present during that interview?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. In fact, that wasn't really an interview. That was a
4 court proceeding, wasn't it?
5 A. I think you can call it an interview.
6 Q. You could or you --
7 A. No, I think it's an interview.
8 Q. Okay. Well, he was acting as a judicial officer,
9 wasn't he, a judge?
10 A. (Witness nods). Yes.
11 Q. What language was that conducted in? Was it conducted
12 in English, French or Flemish?
13 A. I think it was conducted in German, Austrian.
14 Q. Okay. You don't speak German at all?
15 A. I speak a little bit of German, yes.
16 Q. Enough so you can order lunch?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Not much more than that?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. So you don't know what Mr. Mucic was asked during
21 that proceeding, do you?
22 A. I understood a few things but not the entire interview,
24 Q. You don't know what -- whether or not he asked for an
25 attorney, do you?
1 A. I know that he asked for an attorney. That was what Dr
2 Sada told us, that he asked for an attorney for the
3 extradition procedure.
4 Q. Now if the court record just said he asked for an
5 attorney, would that probably be correct?
6 A. He asked for an attorney for the extradition procedure.
7 Q. I said if the court records reflect he asked for an
8 attorney, would that probably be correct?
9 MS. McHENRY: Your Honours, I'm going to object to this.
10 The court record speaks for itself. As far as I know
11 there's been no indication that this witness has seen
12 the court record and the witness has already answered
13 the question that he has knowledge of.
14 MR. MORAN: Okay. So you really don't -- all you know
15 about what Mr. Mucic asked for in the way of an attorney
16 is what somebody else told you?
17 A. Dr Sada informed us that Mr. Mucic asked for an attorney
18 for the extradition procedure.
19 Q. And that was on what day of May -- what day of March?
20 A. 19th.
21 Q. 19th? Are you familiar with a man named Richard
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who is he?
25 A. He was The Prosecutor of the Tribunal.
1 Q. And at that point he was the chief Prosecutor of the
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Appointed by the Secretary General?
5 A. I believe so.
6 Q. Okay. If I could show this man a document?
7 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution is aware of the document.
8 MR. MORAN: (Handed to witness). I sincerely hope so.
9 JUDGE JAN: It is the indictment.
10 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour.
11 JUDGE JAN: I do see from the cover.
12 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, just so the record is clear, I can,
13 if the court wants, introduce this thing into
14 evidence. It is a copy of the release from the
15 Tribunal's official press staff along with a copy of the
16 indictment in English, French and I believe in
17 Serbo-Croatian, but --
18 JUDGE JAN: I believe it is an admitted document.
19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if it is not admitted it is sure
20 part of the record. If it's not part of the record we
21 can all go home.
22 Sir, I would ask you to look at the back of that
23 document, page 14, or if you feel more comfortable in
24 the French version, it is also page 14 of the French
25 version. Is there a date on that, way down at the
2 A. Yes, 19th March 1996.
3 Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not at the time Mr. Mucic
4 was arrested in Vienna whether the Austrian authorities
5 gave him some kind of a document in German telling him
6 about his rights as a person who was arrested, basically
7 an information sheet?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. Are you familiar with a man named Eric Ostberg?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And a man named Giuliano Turone?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And a woman named Teresa McHenry?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And a man named Stefan Waespi?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In fact, they are all sitting over on the Prosecution
18 side now, aren't they?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If they were to have presented a document to the Trial
21 Chamber alleging to be an English translation of
22 something that was given to Mr. Mucic, would you disagree
23 that that was not -- would you say they weren't correct?
24 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to this, to
25 this witness being asked about things that he has no
1 knowledge of. He's really just being asked to vouch
2 for our credibility, and although we anticipate it would
3 be positive, we really think that it's entirely
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually spare him some legal
7 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I don't want to get him into
8 trouble with his bosses. Are you familiar with a
9 document called Prosecution Response to Mucic Defence
10 Motion to exclude evidence?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. Let's jump forward to your interview with my
13 client, Mr. Delic, the first interview; okay? Who was
14 present at that interview?
15 A. Mr. Delic was present. The interpreter, myself,
16 Ms. McHenry and Mr. McLeod.
17 Q. In fact, Ms. McHenry is referred to in that transcript
18 as "I2", isn't she?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. She took part in the interview?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you recall Mr. Delic telling you during that interview
23 that he was sick?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And do you know whether he was taking any medication for
1 his illness -- first, let us back off. Do you know
2 what was wrong with him?
3 A. I believe that Mr. Delic was suffering of headaches.
4 Q. He was feeling pretty bad?
5 A. I don't think he was feeling that bad, because he agreed
6 with the interview, so ...
7 Q. Do you know what medication he was taking?
8 A. I can't remember the exact name but I think there is
9 some mention in the transcripts of the exact name.
10 Q. In fact, he later asked for another interview in January
11 of this year, didn't he?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And the basis for him asking for that interview was
14 because he was so sick during the first interview he
15 made mistakes; isn't that right?
16 A. I don't know if the reason was he was so sick. I think
17 he wanted to make some corrections.
18 Q. So there were some things that weren't correct in there?
19 A. According to Mr. Delic, yes.
20 Q. By the way, did you -- when you were informing Mr. Delic
21 -- let me just broaden it to the other two people whose
22 statements you took, Mr. Landzo and Mr. Mucic. Did you
23 tell them that they have the right under the Vienna
24 Convention of 1962 to have counsel representative
1 A. I'm working as an investigator for the Tribunal.
2 I follow the rules that are set out in the Rules of
3 Evidence and Procedure.
4 Q. Now let's try it again, sir. Did you tell him or them,
5 any of them, that they have the right under the Vienna
6 Convention on counsel relations from 1962 to have
7 contact with members of their consulate?
8 A. I am not familiar with that document so I didn't advise
9 him of it. I only follow the rules of the tribunal.
10 Q. In your ten years as a homicide investigator in Belgium
11 and your how many years as an investigator here?
12 A. Since 1st September 1995.
13 Q. Was it common or uncommon for you to interview people
14 who were not citizens of Belgium?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Which, common or uncommon?
17 A. It's very common.
18 Q. And nobody ever told you -- by the way, do you know
19 whether or not Belgium has ratified the Vienna
20 Convention of 1962?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Okay. So you've never -- nobody -- you've never told
23 anybody that they have the right under Treaty to see a
24 counsel from their country?
25 A. I'm not familiar with that. In Belgium we have a book
1 on criminal procedure which we follow to the rules and
2 I think these rules are pretty good, so ...
3 Q. How familiar are you with the rules of the detention
4 centre? You've got them right next to you?
5 A. Not very familiar.
6 Q. Okay. Would you dispute with me if I told you that
7 those rules say that an inmate, a prisoner, a detainee
8 can refuse a visit from any person other than a
9 representative from the Office of the Prosecutor?
10 A. I have no knowledge about that Rule.
11 Q. Okay. Let me jump back to something we talked about a
12 little earlier and that was your discussion with
13 Ms. McHenry about your testimony here today. When was
15 A. I believe I saw Ms. McHenry yesterday around lunch,
16 I think, during the lunch break.
17 Q. Okay. What did you all talk about?
18 A. I basically asked questions of what was going to happen
19 here in the courtroom.
20 Q. And what did she say?
21 A. She gave me the answers to my questions.
22 Q. What kind of questions are we talking about?
23 A. That there would be first an examination-in-chief, then
24 cross-examination, that's all.
25 Q. So she didn't discuss at all with you the content of
1 what you were going to say?
2 A. I think that is up to me, the content.
3 Q. Okay. So you've talked to her a lot about this case?
4 A. Well, I work with her since 1st September 1995, so ...
5 Q. She knows what you know pretty much and you pretty much
6 know what she knows?
7 A. That is a fair statement.
8 Q. So there wouldn't be any need for her to do anything
9 more than talk to you about the procedures that were
10 going to occur here today?
11 A. I don't believe so.
12 Q. Okay. How long was that conversation?
13 A. Maybe 20 minutes, fifteen, 20 minutes.
14 Q. Okay. Judge, if I can just a second to flip through my
15 notes, I think I'm done, subject to any further cross
16 I may need after Mr. Mucic's lawyer does his cross.
17 Going through my notes -- and these are my notes, okay,
18 and they're not a transcript and I may have made my
19 notes wrong, and if I did, stop me and tell me I did a
20 lousy job taking notes, and I'll not be offended; okay
21 -- my notes reflect that you were asked something along
22 the lines -- this involved Mr. Mucic:
23 "Did anyone suggest he might wish to have an
25 The answer was "no"?
1 A. Could you please repeat?
2 Q. My notes reflect that you were asked on direct:
3 "Did anyone suggest he", that is Pavo Mucic,
4 "might wish to have an attorney?"
5 Your answer was "no." Is that what you testified
6 to? If it isn't, if my notes are wrong, I told you it's
7 my notes. It's not a transcript?
8 A. I think that is correct.
9 Q. That really wasn't right, was it? Dr Sada told you he
10 wanted a lawyer, didn't he?
11 A. Dr Sada told me and my colleagues that Mr. Mucic wanted a
12 lawyer for the extradition procedure, which is totally
13 under the Austrian law and has nothing to do with the
14 Tribunal and with the interview.
15 Q. Your Honours, subject to possibly additional cross based
16 on the cross that may occur this afternoon, I'll pass
17 the witness.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You mean for the time being you have
19 no further questions to ask?
20 MR. MORAN: That is correct, your Honour. If something
21 pops up I may have something more, but I don't think
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Any further cross-examination?
24 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I will
25 cross-examine this witness. However, I would suggest
1 that this cross-examination be moved to the afternoon
2 not because we are closing to 1 o'clock, but because as
3 the defence counsel of Zejnil Delalic I just found out
4 that the Prosecutor has in their possession a videotape
5 containing a conversation with Mr. Mucic. As we
6 discussed our reciprocal discovery, and the request and
7 motion that is over one year old, pursuant to Rule 66B,
8 I now have to regretfully say that even though the
9 Prosecutor had in their possession materials that may be
10 of interest to Zejnil Delalic, they never informed the
11 defence of it and I request that this document be
12 submitted to the defence counsel, to Mr. Delalic, at the
13 same time as it is delivered to Mr. Mucic's attorney,
14 because it may affect our cross-examination. Even
15 though the Prosecutor has on numerous occasions said
16 that they were conducting their Prosecution in good
17 faith, the Rule 66B has not been honoured and I,
18 therefore, request that a copy of this videotape also be
19 submitted to us so that I will be able to continue with
20 cross-examination of this witness in the afternoon.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Do you know the particular videotapes
23 which you expect them to turn over to you so that you
24 might ask them of the particular ones?
25 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I want the
1 videotape of Mr. Mucic, the conversation from August 1996
2 which this witness confirmed to have taken place in the
3 presence of Ms. McHenry. I asked in June to get a
4 transcript of Mr. Mucic's statement before the
5 investigator of the Tribunal and I only received them in
6 November and today I am, finding out that there is an
7 additional statement in existence. I am sure it may
8 potentially be of interest for Mr. Delalic, which is then
9 set in Rule 66B.
10 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, we believe that we have complied
11 with our discovery obligations in full, but we are also
12 happy to give defence counsel another copy of -- a copy
13 of this recording that we are prepared to give to
14 Mr. Mucic's counsel also. We have no objection to
15 giving it to them. We have no objection to their
16 continuing their cross-examination tomorrow.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You mean not this afternoon?
18 MS. McHENRY: I am sorry, your Honour. I had heard your
19 Honours previously to state that we would continue this
20 morning (sic). We are also -- I believe -- I don't
21 know how long it takes to make a copy. We can
22 certainly give it to her during the lunch break and
23 continue late this afternoon if that is also possible.
24 It is entirely up to your Honours.
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Counsel would wish to continue
1 cross-examination in the afternoon.
2 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, if the
3 cassettes are not ready and if we only receive them
4 before the resumption of the afternoon session, then we
5 propose to do it tomorrow.
6 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, on the basis
7 of the request of Mr. Delalic's attorney and based on the
8 fresh information that that was 130 minute long
9 interviews, not just several minutes, then I really feel
10 that we should continue tomorrow so that we could
11 prepare. Madam Residovic has just mentioned that we
12 need to view the tapes. We need the transcripts so
13 that we can prepare for the cross-examination of this
15 JUDGE JAN: Is it 130 pages?
16 MS. McHENRY: No, your Honour. I'm totally confused. I
17 do not believe it's anything close to 130 minutes. If
18 I said something which defence counsel interpreted to
19 mean it is 130 minutes, certainly I withdraw that
20 statement. I'm a little confused, because it's not 130
22 A. Certainly not.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually this was not my understanding
24 of the scope of the video or the conversation which went
25 on between the parties. I thought it was a short
2 JUDGE JAN: A few minutes.
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: It should not have lasted a long
4 time. Actually I was talking about Delalic's counsel
5 starting its own cross-examination, but since they have
6 also introduced the question of their having a videotape
7 submitted to them, that might be a good reason for
8 waiting until tomorrow so that the cross-examination can
9 all take place about the same time. It depends. I do
10 not know what Mr. Mucic might have had in mind, but since
11 the conversation was the initial reason for seeking an
12 adjournment, one should understand exactly how you got
13 your information about the scope of the videotape.
14 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, it is correct
15 that a colleague said that it was only several
16 minutes. She did not mention the 130 minutes and also
17 it was the intervention of the Judge Jan. However, my
18 client, Mr. Mucic, claims that this conversation took
19 much longer but that is the basis for our needing to see
20 this tape. Maybe it is 3, 15, 20, 30 minutes, but we
21 cannot say anything until we see the tape. So this is
22 why I said it that maybe we should wait until tomorrow
23 so we are prepared. We may not be prepared this
24 afternoon. If it is only a couple of minutes, then
25 there's no problem. We can continue with the
1 cross-examination of this witness.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, we might still hope that you
3 will be able to view the tapes and assess your ability
4 to study it. When we come at 2.30 and you are unable to
5 do that, then we adjourn until tomorrow, because from
6 all the indications there wasn't a real interview and
7 perhaps it might not be as long as has been thought.
8 So we will adjourn until 2.30.
9 (1.00 pm)
10 (Luncheon Adjournment)
1 (2.30 pm)
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Is counsel satisfied with their
3 viewing of the videos?
4 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, if I may be heard for one minute,
5 I think I may be able to clarify things. The first
6 thing that I want to state is that my recollection of
7 how long it was was entirely wrong. The entire thing
8 has been video recorded and a copy was given to
9 Mr. Tapuskovic, but I believe it is closer to over an
10 hour, and so defence counsel have not yet been given a
11 copy of it. Mr. Olujic and I watched a small portion
12 together. What the Prosecution would suggest in an
13 effort to move things forward and save time is that the
14 witness be called back and we watch the tape, everyone,
15 so everyone can see it and see exactly what happened.
16 I have confirmed with counsel for Mr. Mucic that we are
17 not seeking to introduce this in evidence against
18 Mr. Mucic or anyone else, just so there is no appearance
19 that anything has been hidden from anyone, and
20 I certainly apologise for my incorrect recollection of
21 how long it was.
22 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I take note
23 or we take note of the corrections of our learned
24 colleague. There is absolutely no doubt now that the
25 tape is much longer than we thought originally. In any
1 event we request that we apply the rules of evidence and
2 procedure in the International Tribunal of the Hague,
3 that we be given the tape to examine it, together with
4 the transcript, so that we might continue the
5 cross-examination of today's witness. Therefore, it is
6 necessary for us to adjourn today to resume the hearing
7 tomorrow by when we will be ready to continue our
8 cross-examination. Thank you.
9 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I fully
10 agree with the proposal of my learned colleague,
11 Mr. Olujic. I heard the apology of Ms. McHenry for an
12 inadvertent error, but it must be noted before this
13 Trial Chamber that this was a flagrant violation of the
14 obligations of the prosecution under Rule 66B regarding
15 disclosure of evidence, and that is why we request that
16 the videotape, together with the transcript, be
17 submitted to the defence counsel, as it is of interest
18 for the preparation of the defence and of the
19 cross-examination. We are absolutely opposed to the
20 viewing of the tape in the presence of the witness or
21 any other such procedure before an exhibit is admitted
22 as evidence. So I do not understand on what grounds
23 the Prosecution could have proposed that we view the
24 tape together.
25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, first, I had a little memory lapse
1 last week and I apologise for that and I understand how
2 that could happen to the Prosecution, but it seems to me
3 to be a most irregular procedure to show to fact finders
4 something that not only has not been introduced into
5 evidence but nobody has the slightest idea what is on
6 it. I have never heard of such a procedure and it
7 seems to me to be quite irregular. I think we would
8 object to that procedure. Anything else is fine, but
9 I think somebody in the courtroom ought to know what's
10 on something before it's shown to fact finders.
11 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe the defence is --
12 specifically the last thing is correct and so we have no
13 objection to adjourning until tomorrow morning. I will
14 advise everyone that the Prosecution -- I will hesitate
15 to speak about anything now, but the present position of
16 the Prosecution is that it is still not an interview and
17 therefore it's not required that a transcript be made.
18 However, the Prosecution would be happy to make a
19 transcript specially -- in an effort to move things
20 along, but certainly there is absolutely no possibility
21 that a transcript could be made by tomorrow. That is a
22 very long procedure and again one that the Prosecution
23 doesn't think is required, especially -- and, in fact,
24 at least with Mr. Tapuskovic, who was given a copy of it,
25 he himself had agreed with that, but in any event we are
1 happy to give defence counsel copies immediately and we
2 are happy to adjourn until tomorrow morning, when the
3 proper procedure can be resolved, including the option
4 of playing the tape so that there's no suggestion of
5 anything improper.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually the Trial Chamber itself was
7 a little hesitant in coming this afternoon, but we just
8 thought we should come and be sure that it might not be
9 possible to go on with cross-examination until the tapes
10 have been made available and counsel have viewed them
11 and been able to prepare their own cross-examination
12 strategies. Actually that is what we have-- we know it
13 was not possible to get it played. Mr. Olujic, do you
14 still want to say anything because -- do you still want
15 to say anything?
16 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Yes, your Honours. Thank
17 you for your concern, but I wish to underline once
18 again, so that there should be no confusion tomorrow
19 morning, that we are requiring that we receive not only
20 the tape but the transcript as well. There is no
21 reason to act contrary to the Rules of Procedure and
22 Evidence of the International Tribunal in any case and
23 especially in this one, which may be legally highly
24 relevant. We do not know, I wish to underline once
25 again, what we will find on that tape, but let me repeat
1 we request to be supplied with both the tape and the
2 transcript. Thank you.
3 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, may I add
4 that the transcript is very important, so that the same
5 may be shown to the witness, so that he may be
6 cross-examined on that basis and, secondly, let me add
7 that since we do not know the contents of the
8 conversation and as it may be of interest for the
9 defence of Zejnil Delalic, we are not interested in the
10 conversation between defendant Mucic and the
11 Prosecution, but this may be evidence under Rule 68, and
12 this may be one of those pieces of evidence that could
13 be exculpatory. That is why the transcript is
14 absolutely essential. Thank you.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we hear you, Mr. Ackerman?
16 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, just so that I don't have to
17 raise this in the morning and leave at least this
18 afternoon for it to be considered, the same Rule that
19 provides for the kind of recording that was done with
20 regard to this statement provides that a transcript
21 shall be prepared as soon as possible thereafter and
22 provided to counsel. I understand that the Prosecution
23 takes the position that Mr. Tapuskovic waived that on
24 behalf of his client. I haven't seen the tape and none
25 of us have seen the tape. If my client's name is
1 mentioned on that tape anywhere, I was entitled to have
2 that transcript and tape a long time ago. It may not
3 be there. If my client's name is not on it and it says
4 nothing about my client, then it's not a problem for me
5 but I'm not going to know that until tomorrow morning.
6 What I did not want to do was come in here tomorrow
7 morning and say: "Aha, my client's name is on it.
8 Let's have another adjournment".
9 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel please slow down a tad?
10 Thank you.
11 MR. ACKERMAN: And have to have another adjournment because
12 my client's name shows up on it. Perhaps the
13 Prosecutor at least knows the answer to some of those
14 questions now and can clear up some of that matter now,
15 but I think in any event the rules require that a
16 transcript has to be made of that tape. Thank you.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Logically it should follow that the
18 transcript should accompany it, since they go in pairs,
19 I think.
20 MS. McHENRY: Well, your Honour, I believe that the Rule
21 specifically states whenever the Prosecutor questions a
22 suspect, and I believe that there is not -- this is an
23 interview that Mr. Mucic -- it's not even an interview.
24 Mr. Mucic requested the meeting to give information and
25 he was not being questioned. In terms of responding to
1 Mr. Ackerman's specific question, although I have not
2 seen all of the tape during the lunch hour, and I do not
3 want to rely on my recollection, I do not anticipate
4 that there is any discussion of other accused on the
5 tape. So to the extent that anticipation is helpful
6 for you, certainly -- anyway. So that is to the extent
7 that is of assistance.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Ms. McHenry, let me give you a little
9 tip. I think in things of this nature it is always
10 some wisdom to try and anticipate this thing happening,
11 because if there is a conversation, whatever you call
12 it, between the Prosecution and the accused person, at
13 some stage the defence will raise it, whether it is
14 exculpatory or inculpatory, one of you would remember it
15 and raise it. So it is safer and in the interests of
16 justice to have both the transcript and video recording
17 to all parties concerned. As long as anyone is affected
18 by it, let him have both the transcript and the video.
19 JUDGE JAN: We have Rule 66(A):
20 "All statements made by the accused are to be made
21 available to the defence".
22 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. Let me be very clear.
23 Mr. Tapuskovic was present and was given a copy of the
24 tape. So --
25 JUDGE JAN: But there are four accused here and they have
1 the right to obtain the statements of the accused to
2 find out what exactly they have said.
3 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe that there can be --
4 your Honour, I believe that we would want to fully look
5 at the tape to see what has been -- what exactly this
6 contact consisted of. I can certainly agree with your
7 Honours that the Prosecution wishes a transcript had
8 been made, and had we been cautious we would not have
9 relied on defence counsel and the Prosecution agreeing
10 that it did not fall within the requirements of the
11 Rule, and certainly we will make a transcript as soon as
12 possible in case there's any issue, and your Honours are
13 exactly correct in that.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: At this stage the Trial Chamber will
15 now adjourn until 10.00 am tomorrow morning. Let's be
16 sure whether the transcript and the tape could be
17 delivered to the counsel today.
18 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I believe the tape can be
19 delivered as soon as this hearing is over. I think
20 there is no possibility that the transcript could,
21 because it is a very time-consuming procedure. So I
22 don't believe that is possible.
23 Your Honour, we will have other witnesses, if it
24 is the defence and the chambers' pleasure --
25 JUDGE JAN: Today?
1 MS. McHENRY: No, tomorrow morning. So we could continue
2 with that tomorrow morning.
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Until the transcript is ready.
4 MS. McHENRY: Exactly. Give the tapes immediately, get the
5 transcript prepared immediately and then call the
6 witness back once the transcript has been prepared.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That should be convenient for
8 cross-examination as long as you wait until the
9 transcript is ready and handed over to counsel so they
10 can use it for the purpose of cross-examination, but for
11 the time being any other witness can continue.
12 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, if I may be
13 allowed, of course I hope those other witnesses are not
14 linked to this matter. As far as I have understood the
15 witnesses are two policemen from Vienna, which I should
16 cross-examine, asking questions linked to Mr. d'Hooge and
17 I'm handicapped because I haven't had occasion to
18 cross-examine Mr. d'Hooge. Therefore, if there are
19 other witnesses that are not linked to the question of
20 extradition and unlawfulness, then there's no problem.
21 Otherwise these things are closely interrelated. There
22 is witness d'Hooge, who has not been cross-examined by
23 defence counsel of Mr. Mucic and my learned colleague,
24 I see, intends to cross-examine him too, and we don't
25 know in which context tomorrow's witnesses will be
1 testifying or, rather, I assume they'll be talking about
2 the legal rights that were provided or not provided to
3 Mr. Mucic in Vienna. So I think that we cannot continue
4 with the hearing of witnesses until we hear Mr. d'Hooge
5 through. I'm saying this so as to spare the Trial
6 Chamber a further waste of time and the possibility of
7 raising this objection tomorrow, which we would not like
8 to have to do. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you given them the name of the
10 next witness?
11 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. The next two witnesses are
12 Austrian police officers, who will testify concerning
13 the arrest and searches made in Austria at the time of
14 the arrest. The Austrian police officers have no
15 involvement, information, knowledge, anything about
16 Mr. Mucic's request in August of 1996, while he was in
17 The Hague to speak to Mr. d'Hooge. So the Prosecution
18 fails to see how the defence is hampered in any way,
19 shape or form by the fact that they will not have had a
20 transcript of something that occurred in August.
21 Certainly if they have anything else that they wish to
22 cross-examine Mr. d'Hooge about in Austria, we believe he
23 could do that now and then counsel could reserve
24 anything to do with this August thing, and even, if
25 necessary, to call back the Austrian police officers,
1 but because the Prosecution fails to see how this issue,
2 which is Mr. Mucic's request and contact with the Office
3 of the Prosecutor in August, would have any relationship
4 to what the Austrian police officers testify happened in
5 March of 1996, we would propose that the Austrian police
6 officers be examined, and then if something entirely
7 unexpected comes up and there is some relevance between
8 the two, of course they could be recalled.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I hope Mr. Olujic is satisfied by this
10 explanation. I personally do not agree to this until
11 the issue actually arises.
12 MR. OLUJIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, I said this
13 for the sake of caution, because the witness has not
14 been fully cross-examined in relation to everything that
15 happened in Vienna, and now we are having police
16 officers coming who should testify, among other things,
17 certainly Mr. d'Hooge must have contacted them, but they
18 also have to testify on his actual arrest in Vienna.
19 I'm not claiming anything but there may be a link
20 between the actions taken by Mr. d'Hooge in Vienna and
21 these police officers. How am I able to cross-examine
22 them before having completed the cross-examination of
23 Mr. d'Hooge? I am saying this not to have to make any
24 objections tomorrow but I have understood the
25 Prosecution very well.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you can when you hear them.
2 Except you can show there's any connection between the
3 activities of the two, there's no point wondering what
4 they will say in respect of what they did. I think
5 that's what concerns you in cross-examination. So
6 I think we will adjourn until tomorrow morning.
7 (2.55 pm)
8 (Hearing adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow morning)