Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 16509

 1                          Tuesday, 15 October 2002

 2                          [Open session]

 3                          [The accused entered court]

 4                          [The witness entered court]

 5                          --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.

 6            JUDGE LIU:  Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.

 7            THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  This is case number

 8    IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.

 9            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you very much.  Good morning, Witness, can you

10    hear me?

11            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, yes, I can.

12            JUDGE LIU:  Are you ready to start?

13            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.

14            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you very much.

15                          WITNESS:  WITNESS NX [Resumed]

16                          [Witness answered through interpreter]

17            JUDGE LIU:  Mr. Scott.

18                          Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued].

19            MR. SCOTT:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Could we go to private

20    session for a few minutes, please because I think the next questions may

21    tend to identify the witness.

22            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, we will go to private session, please.

23                          [Private session]

24  [redacted]

25  [redacted]

Page 16510













13  Pages 16510–16520 redacted – private session













Page 16521

 1  [redacted]

 2  [redacted]

 3  [redacted]

 4  [redacted]

 5  [redacted]

 6  [redacted]

 7  [redacted]

 8  [redacted]

 9  [redacted]

10  [redacted]

11  [redacted]

12  [redacted]

13                          [Open session]

14            MR. SCOTT:

15       Q.   Sir, did you know who Miljenko Lasic was during this time and what

16    his role was in the HVO military?

17       A.   Marinko Lasic?

18       Q.   No.  I think Miljenko Lasic.  If I have the name wrong, forgive

19    me.  Did you know who the commander of the operative zone, the HVO

20    operative zone, which included Mostar, did you know the name of that man,

21    Lasic?

22       A.   At that time, I didn't know what that person's name was, but later

23    on, I found out what it was.  I found out that there was someone called

24    Lasic who was one of those responsible for the operative zone in Mostar

25    but at the time, I didn't know him at all and I didn't know that this was

Page 16522

 1    the man.

 2       Q.   When you say you found out later, how much later did you find that

 3    out?

 4       A.   I don't know exactly.  I can't remember.  But later on, this name

 5    was familiar to me, but it's not at all important.

 6       Q.   Did you know another senior HVO commander in the area at that time

 7    called Zeljko Siljeg?

 8       A.   I met Mr. Siljeg perhaps on one occasion in Tomislavgrad but I

 9    really don't know him very well.

10       Q.   He was another operative zone commander, I think, for the

11    northwest zone, which included Prozor and Gornji Vakuf and those areas,

12    correct?

13       A.   I don't know, I don't know what he was in charge of, and I don't

14    know what he did.  As far as that military aspect is concerned, I really

15    don't know.  I don't know enough about this.

16       Q.   Well, that's part of my question, sir.  You see, you've given

17    various observations about military matters but would you agree with me,

18    sir, that Mr. Lasic and Mr. Siljeg, for example, would know a lot more

19    about military matters in the Jablanica, Siroki Brijeg, Prozor region,

20    than you would?

21       A.   I can't comment on that.  I don't know what Mr. Siljeg knew at the

22    time.

23       Q.   All right.  Well, tell us again -- I think you may have started on

24    this yesterday but I'm not sure we ever really completed it, what HVO

25    military units do you say were engaged in the actions around

Page 16523

 1    Sovici-Doljani in mid-April to early May, 1993?

 2       A.   I know that when I was in Sovici on the 17th, I met certain people

 3    who were in charge of those units, and I can remember certain names, but

 4    nothing in particular.

 5       Q.   All right.  Well, let me approach it differently.  If not unit

 6    names, let me mention some individuals or officers to you.  Did you know

 7    someone named Slavko Puljic?

 8       A.   No.

 9       Q.   You did know Mr. Stipe Pole, correct?  Because I think you've

10    mentioned him before.

11       A.   Yes.  He was the commander of our battalion, of the

12    Mijat Tomic Battalion.

13       Q.   And who did you understand his superior to be?  Who did he take

14    orders from and report to?

15       A.   Well, he would report to his superiors, first of all in the

16    Herceg Stjepan Brigade, and then after that, I don't know, to higher

17    authorities.

18       Q.   And who was his superior in the Herceg Stjepan Brigade?

19       A.   I think it was Mr. Sagolj at the time.

20       Q.   Was Mr. Sagolj, Zdravko Sagolj, was he involved in the actions

21    around Sovici-Doljani at that time?

22       A.   No, he wasn't.

23       Q.   Who was Marko Rozic?

24       A.   Marko Rozic was the chief of the defence department.

25       Q.   What was the difference in role between someone like Mr. Rozic,

Page 16524

 1    who was the head of the defence department, and Mr. Pole, who was chief of

 2    the -- or commander of the Mijat Tomic Battalion?

 3       A.   I'll try and explain this.  Mr. Stipe Pole was the commander of

 4    the Mijat Tomic battalion.  He was a military commander, whereas

 5    Mr. Marko Rozic was the head of the defence department.  He kept records

 6    on soldiers, he mobilised them, et cetera.  So he was involved in

 7    administrative affairs.

 8       Q.   Who was Ivica Azinovic?

 9  [redacted]

10  [redacted]

11  [redacted]  Can we

12    momentarily go to private session, Mr. President?

13            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, we will go to the private session, please.

14                          [Private session]

15  [redacted]

16  [redacted]

17  [redacted]

18  [redacted]

19  [redacted]

20  [redacted]

21  [redacted]

22  [redacted]

23  [redacted]

24  [redacted]

25  [redacted]

Page 16525













13  Pages 16525 to 16537 – redacted – private session













Page 16538

 1  [redacted]

 2  [redacted]

 3  [redacted]

 4  [redacted]

 5  [redacted]

 6  [redacted]

 7  [redacted]

 8  [redacted]

 9  [redacted]

10  [redacted]

11  [redacted]

12  [redacted]

13  [redacted]

14  [redacted]

15  [redacted]

16  [redacted]

17  [redacted]

18  [redacted]

19  [redacted]

20  [redacted]

21  [redacted]

22  [redacted]

23  [redacted]

24                          [Open session]

25            MR. SCOTT:

Page 16539

 1       Q.   Sir, turning now to the last set of questions that I will put to

 2    you, I'm going to start out by make the Prosecution position quite clear

 3    about this.  Sir, it is the Prosecution position that the man

 4    Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, was involved in commanding the HVO actions at

 5    Sovici-Doljani during the period mid-April to early May, 1993.  And that's

 6    correct, isn't it?

 7       A.   As far as I know, that is not correct.

 8       Q.   Well, tell us again one more time, please, exactly your position

 9    on the involvement, if any, of Mr. Naletilic in the events around

10    Sovici-Doljani from mid-April to early May, 1993.

11       A.   I provided a detailed explanation in my prior testimony with

12    regard to all events.

13       Q.   Sir, is it your understanding -- is it your testimony -- is it

14    part of your position, I'm trying to understand fully the scope of what

15    you're telling the judges, is it part of your position that Mr. Naletilic

16    was not an HVO military commander at all?  Or do you know that he was a

17    commander but your position is he wasn't there?

18       A.   I don't know that he was a commander, and all the other matters

19    have been explained.  I explained them earlier on in my testimony.

20       Q.   Let me ask the usher to show you Exhibit 578.13.  I asked you --

21            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

22            JUDGE LIU:  Yes?

23            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I have to object.  This document

24    concerns the 26th of August, 1993, and it has nothing to do with Sovici or

25    Doljani or with Alojz Rados which is what you established, what you

Page 16540












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

13   English transcripts. Pages 16540 to 16543.













Page 16544

1    decided in your ruling.  It has nothing to do with it.  I don't think it's

 2    relevant and I don't think it can be used to cross-examine the witness.

 3    It concerns August, 1993 and has nothing to do with Sovici-Doljani at all.

 4            JUDGE LIU:  It is true that this document dated the 26th August,

 5    1993, but still, we don't know how the Prosecutor is going to use this

 6    document.

 7            Mr. Scott, unless this document has some relevance to the events

 8    that happened in Sovici and Doljani, we will not allow you to use it.

 9            MR. SCOTT:  Very well, Your Honour.  I will put the question this

10    way.  I thought the document was one example or illustrated the point I'm

11    about to put.

12       Q.   Sir, I asked you earlier today if the commanders, Lasic and

13    Siljeg, who were senior HVO commanders, if you thought they knew more

14    about the HVO military structure and who the HVO commanders were, than you

15    did.  I think at the time your answer was you really couldn't say.  Is

16    that right?

17       A.   I stand by what I said earlier on.

18       Q.   Well, how do you react, sir, if I put it to you -- counsel doesn't

19    want me to show you documents -- if I put it to you that both the

20    commander Lasic and the commander Siljeg, in connection with events

21    involving Sovici-Doljani both describe Mr. Naletilic as playing a

22    commanding role.  What's your reaction?  How do you respond to that?

23            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

24            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have never seen a

25    single document that would -- in which it says that Mr. Lasic or Siljeg

Page 16545

 1    described Tuta as being a commander.

 2            JUDGE LIU:  Well, I believe that Mr. Prosecutor will lead us to

 3    that point, and his question to this witness will be based on this

 4    document, if I understand rightly, because I haven't read that document

 5    yet.

 6            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this isn't mentioned in

 7    this document either.

 8            MR. SCOTT:

 9       Q.   Sir, first of all I'm going to put to you my question again.  We

10    will come to some documents, I assure you, momentarily.  But I have put

11    the Prosecution case to you and giving your position, that you've

12    explained to the Chamber, that you do not consider that Mr. Naletilic was

13    involved in Sovici-Doljani, allowing that you did see him apparently

14    briefly on one day -- on one occasion, how do you respond to the

15    proposition that the two senior HVO commanders prepared documents

16    suggesting that he was in a commanding position?  Do you think

17    Mr. -- Again, I ask you, do you think Mr. Siljeg and Mr. Lasic knew more

18    about the HVO military than you did?

19       A.   I really don't know what Mr. Siljeg and Mr. Lasic knew at the time

20    and I don't know what they spoke about or what they would say.  I really

21    know nothing about this and I'm not familiar with any of these allegations

22    you have made.

23       Q.   All right.  Could the usher please assist in showing the witness

24    Exhibit P301.1?  This, sir, is a document prepared over the typed name of

25    Zeljko Siljeg dated the 16th of April, 1993.  Directing your attention to

Page 16546

 1    paragraph numbered 7, does it not say, "Coordinating with Tuta is being

 2    done through the Posusje unit on Sovicka Vrata"?

 3       A.   I really can't comment on this document.  This is the first time

 4    I've seen it and if any of it is correct, then -- well, I really can't

 5    comment on it.  I'm not familiar with this document, and I'm not familiar

 6    with military aspects.

 7       Q.   Is it your position, sir, that the Convicts Battalion was not

 8    engaged at Sovici-Doljani or you're simply saying Mr. Naletilic personally

 9    was not engaged?

10       A.   You've put two questions to me.  As I explained, I explained the

11    role of the Convicts Battalion and with regard to the second question, I

12    have also provided a detailed explanation.  I don't think it's necessary

13    to repeat it.

14       Q.   Well, tell me again, please, maybe I didn't hear it fully or

15    correctly, what do you say the role of the Convicts Battalion was in

16    Sovici-Doljani?

17       A.   I don't know what that unit's role was, but I do know more or less

18    which routes they moved along, and I have provided you with information on

19    this.  I provided you with information on this yesterday.

20            JUDGE CLARK:  Perhaps you would tell us again because I don't

21    remember.

22            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, that unit went

23    over the tops of the surrounding hills, and descended in the direction of

24    Tovarnica and Kosna Luka, that was the defence line that they reached.

25            MR. SCOTT:

Page 16547

 1       Q.   Where are those locations -- I'm afraid at the moment we don't

 2    have any maps in front of us.  Where are the locations you just mentioned

 3    in reference to the villages of Sovici and Doljani?

 4            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, Mr. Krsnik?

 5            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the locations haven't

 6    been recorded in the transcript.  Only Luka has and the other locations

 7    have not been entered in the transcript.  Perhaps the witness could repeat

 8    the names of the locations because the witness did provide the names.

 9            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you.  Witness, would you please repeat the names

10    you mentioned just now?

11            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So up from Pasije Stijene, Bacine,

12    Soaca, Pomena, down towards Pisvir, Tovarnica and towards the place Kosna

13    Luka.

14            MR. SCOTT:

15       Q.   And, sir, can you tell us, can you give us a bit more assistance,

16    please, as to the relationship between those locations you've just given

17    us and the villages of Sovici and Doljani?  Are these other close by

18    villages, a few kilometres away, or what relationship do these locations

19    bear to Sovici and Doljani?

20       A.   Well, Soaca and these other places, right up to Pomena, well, they

21    are about - it's difficult for me to say exactly - but perhaps about five

22    or six kilometres, as the crow flies, from Sovici, but there are

23    surrounding hills, so if you go by foot, it's a lot further.  It's

24    surrounded by hills.

25       Q.   Sir, I told you I would show you a couple of documents.  I've

Page 16548

 1    shown you one by Mr. Siljeg.  I'd like to show you one by -- coming from

 2    the Mijat Tomic Battalion, if I could have the usher's assistance to show

 3    you 443.1.  Do you see, sir, that this is a -- it says, "Urgent

 4    communication from the Mijat Tomic Battalion addressed to four persons, in

 5    person, it says.  Milenko Lasic, to Tuta in person, Zeljko Siljeg and this

 6    man that you've it testified about before, Zdravko Sagolj.  Do you see

 7    that?

 8       A.   Yes.  I can see the document.

 9       Q.   Do you remember, sir, I'm not asking you -- I'm not going to say

10    anything specific about your role since we are in open session, in the

11    Jablanica area during this time, but do you remember, sir, a number of the

12    local HVO in Jablanica being very unhappy that the Red Cross were going to

13    return the Muslims to -- that had been expelled from Sovici-Doljani to

14    Jablanica?

15       A.   I don't remember that and I'm not familiar with what you have just

16    mentioned.

17       Q.   Let me just probe one step further, see if it will refresh your

18    memory.  Toward the end, the next to the last sentence or paragraph in

19    this correspondence says, if you can follow me, please, in the Croatian

20    version, "We would therefore like to mention once more that they should

21    not be allowed to return to the Jablanica or indeed the Prozor or Konjic

22    municipalities under any circumstances."

23            Now, do you remember that, sir?

24       A.   I really can't remember this document.  This might be a document

25    from the command but I don't know what the intention was, what they wanted

Page 16549

 1    to do in this way.  It's difficult for me to comment on this document

 2    because it's the first time I've seen it.  It's from the command.  It's

 3    from the military part.

 4       Q.   Sir, can you explain to the Chamber, can you help us, if you can,

 5    with why, if Mr. Naletilic did not have a significant role in these

 6    events, if you will, if he did not have a stake in what happened there,

 7    why would this communication be addressed, among other senior HVO

 8    commanders, to Mr. Tuta in person?

 9       A.   I don't know.  You should ask the person who wrote this.  I don't

10    know anything about this document.  I can't comment on it because it's not

11    a document from the field in which I was involved.

12            MR. SCOTT:  I'll ask that the witness please be shown Exhibit

13    802.22.

14            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

15            JUDGE LIU:  Yes?

16            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] This document is not at all

17    acceptable and it's not suitable for any kind of examination.  It's

18    apparently an interview that Mr. Naletilic allegedly gave to some

19    newspaper.  It has nothing to do with this case and it has nothing to do

20    with this examination.  And it's from 1995.

21            JUDGE LIU:  Well, we haven't read that document yet, and we do not

22    know the contents of this document.  We want to know whether this related

23    to the events that happened in Sovici and Doljani.

24            MR. SCOTT:  Yes, Your Honour, it does.  And it is very relevant

25    because it purports to be an interview given by the accused it touching on

Page 16550

 1    a number of items that have been covered in the course of this case,

 2    including the participation in Sovici-Doljani.

 3            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm telling you now,

 4    this interview was never authorised.  We never established that

 5    Mr. Naletilic ever gave that interview.  It's a newspaper article.  It's

 6    not a document.  And you know our position.  You've known it for a year

 7    now, you've known our position about newspaper articles and my claim is

 8    that this interview is fabricated.  So the Prosecution should obtain

 9    authorisation and should bring the journalist who actually conducted the

10    interview, if an interview really was given.  This document, if this is

11    what we are going to call it, it's not a document in my opinion, it's a

12    newspaper article, this is not something that's suitable for examination.

13    I can recall many of your comments, especially many of the comments that

14    Judge Clark made when I had cross-examination to conduct, I quite clearly

15    expressed my position and said that I wouldn't use newspapers and

16    newspaper articles because I didn't consider them to be serious.  This

17    document is simply not suitable for examination.

18            JUDGE LIU:  Well, Mr. Krsnik --

19            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] It could only be used if it has

20    something to do with this witness.  If this witness had said something to

21    the newspapers but now we are asking this witness to comment on something

22    that someone said for a newspaper paper.  The matter would be quite

23    different if [redacted] had give and interview and if we had asked him,

24    "Did you say this or that?"  But there is no point in asking him to

25    comments on what a third person said.

Page 16551

 1            JUDGE LIU:  Well, Mr. Krsnik, it depends on this document, or this

 2    newspaper article is related to the matter which is subject of this trial.

 3            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no.

 4            JUDGE LIU:  Why not?

 5            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no.

 6            JUDGE LIU:  Why not?  So long as it's a relevant document, we

 7    could use it in a courtroom.

 8            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't want to

 9    contradict you.  I never have, but we can't say that a newspaper article

10    is a relevant document and have this witness comment on it, have this

11    witness comment on a newspaper article that regards a third party.

12    Whenever we had to deal with newspapers, then we would ask whether the

13    witness had given the interview and if he had, then yes, we should use it,

14    but we have never asked a witness in the course of cross-examination about

15    other newspaper articles and this can't be relevant, Your Honours. This is

16    from 1995 and we really don't know whether this is a real interview or

17    not.  We can't get involved with speculations, illusions, insinuations.

18    But the witness should be asked whether he knows anything about this

19    interview.  That should have been the first question.  And if the witness

20    knows nothing about it, then it's not possible to carry on with the

21    cross-examination.  Let's first try to establish what the witness knows

22    about this.

23            JUDGE LIU:  Well, Mr. Krsnik, I don't think the witness will know

24    everything about any interviews or any articles in the newspapers.  That

25    is not the issue.  The issue is that there is an allegation, or maybe, in

Page 16552

 1    this newspaper, and the witness has the full right to present his view

 2    concerning of this article.  He may agree with the contents of this

 3    article or he may not, disagree.  He may disagree with anything related to

 4    this article.  You may proceed, Mr. Scott.

 5            MR. MEEK:  Mr. President, just for the sake of the record, there

 6    has been no proper foundation that Mr. Naletilic in fact gave this

 7    interview and until there is some foundation, this is inappropriate and

 8    I'm making this objection for the record, obviously, but certainly, there

 9    must be some foundation laid that Mr. Naletilic actually gave such an

10    interview and that if he did give an interview that the words that were

11    spoken were correctly transcribed.

12            JUDGE LIU:  Well, I think Mr. Prosecutor will lay some foundations

13    for this article and for this interview during his cross-examination.  You

14    may proceed, Mr. Scott.

15            MR. SCOTT:

16       Q.   For the record, witness, in light of the conversation or

17    discussion that's just been occurring, this is an interview that was

18    published in the Croatian news magazine "Nacional", on the 24th of

19    November, 1995, an open source document, widely read in Zagreb and other

20    places; is that correct, sir?  You know this publication, don't you?

21       A.   I know the publication, yes.

22       Q.   And in fact, given the photographs that you've said you -- the

23    time that you saw Mr. Naletilic and the photograph that I showed to

24    you yesterday, can you look in the Croatian-language version and can you

25    tell the judges whether those appear to be indeed photographs of

Page 16553

 1    Mr. Naletilic, person -- one of the -- that you've talked about?

 2       A.   Yes.  I can see them.

 3       Q.   Mr. Naletilic said that, in fact, the Convicts Battalion was

 4    involved in the fighting at Jablanica, Doljani and Vakuf.  Do you think

 5    Mr. Naletilic would know more about his involvement there than you do?

 6       A.   This is really the first time I've seen this interview, regardless

 7    of the fact that I'm familiar with this newspaper.  If Mr. Naletilic was

 8    perhaps -- did give this interview, then you should ask him about this.  I

 9    really don't know what he said.  I really wouldn't like to comment on it,

10    and I'm not familiar with this interview.  I don't know anything about

11    this interview.  It's the first time I've seen it.

12       Q.   My final question to you, sir, if you will please turn to the

13    fourth page of the Croatian -- of the copy of the Croatian article, fourth

14    page, in the far left column, I'll come back to the English,

15    Mr. President, in a moment, but I will first orient the witness.  Do you

16    have the fourth page?  And in the bottom of the far left column, just

17    immediately above where it says, the number 16 and "Nacional," if you can

18    see the question that is -- the answer that is given to the question

19    there.

20            While you're looking at that, Mr. President, I ask the Chamber and

21    the English readers direct their attention to the top of page 7 of the

22    translation.

23            Sir, based on this "Nacional" interview with Mr. Naletilic, was he

24    asked the question, "Has the Convicts Battalion participated --

25            MR. MEEK:  Your Honour I object to the form of the question, the

Page 16554

 1    Prosecutor keeps putting in the question that this interview was given by

 2    Mr. Naletilic.  That has never been determined.  And I object to the form

 3    of the question.

 4            JUDGE LIU:  Well, I think the witness has the full right to

 5    disagree with whatever the Prosecution said.

 6            MR. SCOTT:

 7       Q.   Sir, was the question -- was this question asked, "Has the

 8    Convicts Brigade participated in the fightings which will be investigated

 9    by the International Tribunal for War Crimes such as the Ahmici event?"

10    Answer:  "No we were not at Ahmici.  Before that, we had been in Travnik

11    but we were protecting Muslims there.  We even arrested some 50 of our

12    smugglers there.  We fought Muslims at Jablanica, Doljani, Vakuf, wherever

13    it was a matter of survival, either us or them."  I'll stop there.

14            Sir, in the light of your position, presumably the reason you were

15    brought here as a rejoinder witness, that Mr. Naletilic was not involved

16    at Sovici-Doljani, what is your reaction to that?

17       A.   I told you my position with regard to this article, and as for the

18    role of the Convicts Battalion in Doljani and Sovici, I also explained

19    that in great detail earlier on.

20       Q.   Well, sir, I said my last question.  Allow me one more.  Sir, then

21    to conclude my examination, can the Chamber understand that the

22    full -- only evidence that you have to offer to this Chamber on the point

23    of Mr. Naletilic's involvement in Sovici-Doljani, the only information you

24    have firsthand, is that you saw him for a few moments on one day?  Now,

25    that's the full scope of your evidence on the point, isn't it?

Page 16555

 1       A.   I wouldn't comment on my own testimony.  The Honourable Chamber

 2    will establish the relevance of my testimony based on the facts that I

 3    have put forth here.

 4            MR. SCOTT:  Mr. Witness, thank you.  Mr. President, thank you.  I

 5    have no further questions.

 6            JUDGE LIU:  Any re-examination?  Mr. Krsnik?

 7            THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 8                          Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:

 9       Q.   [Interpretation] [Interpretation] Witness, I will not keep you

10    much longer.  I just need some clarifications.  Firstly, can you please

11    tell us whether you are -- can we please move into private session for

12    just one question?

13            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, we will go to the private session, please.

14                          [Private session]

15  [redacted]

16  [redacted]

17  [redacted]

18  [redacted]

19  [redacted]

20  [redacted]

21  [redacted]

22  [redacted]

23  [redacted]

24  [redacted]

25  [redacted]

Page 16556













13  Pages 16556-16572 – redacted – private session













Page 16573

 1                          [Open session]

 2            JUDGE LIU:  If there is any documents to tender through this

 3    witness by both parties, I hope that both parties will submit their

 4    written filings this week.

 5            Yes, Mr. Scott.

 6            MR. SCOTT:  If the Chamber is willing I'm happy to do it orally

 7    and avoid one more piece of paper, but whichever the Chamber prefers.

 8            JUDGE LIU:  We prefer to have the written submissions.

 9            MR. SCOTT:  All right.  Thank you very much.

10            JUDGE LIU:  And this is the last witness of the whole case.  The

11    case has been going on for quite a long time.  So Mr. Krsnik, I understand

12    that your client has the right to remain silent during the whole

13    proceedings of this trial, but if he wants to make a statement to this

14    Trial Chamber, we just give him an opportunity to do so.  I'm not forcing

15    any statement.

16            MR. KRSNIK:  I know.

17            JUDGE LIU:  I just want to say that -- yes?

18            THE ACCUSED NALETILIC: [No interpretation]

19            MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] My client, we have already submitted

20    this written motion.  Perhaps you have found it in the file.  We asked for

21    a lie detector, we asked other Trial Chambers for a lie detector and this

22    request was not granted and since we have been -- since this request has

23    been rejected once, I think that we don't have the right to ask -- to make

24    the same request a second time.  The Trial Chamber did not grant our

25    request and since this is a binding decision, I have explained to my

Page 16574

 1    client that we could not ask for this again, but this is what he wanted to

 2    say, that he was prepared to undergo a lie detector test at any time, but

 3    otherwise he stands by his position, the one that he expressed at the

 4    initial appearance and when our case commenced.  He would like to testify

 5    but with the use of a lie detector but otherwise he stands by the position

 6    that he has already expressed, and that is that he does not want to

 7    testify in the courtroom.

 8            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you very much.

 9            Mr. Par, how about your client?

10            MR. PAR: [Interpretation] As far as our client is concerned, he

11    does not want to testify.  He doesn't have the intention of making a

12    statement, apart from the statement he made at the very beginning, and

13    that was to say that he was not guilty, but I don't know whether we have

14    concluded this case.  I don't know if this is the end of the entire

15    proceedings, since certain issues have not been decided on with regard to

16    the presentation of evidence, and I'm referring to the wooden rifle being

17    subjected to an expert analysis.  Thank you.

18            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you very much.  Well, this Trial Chamber is

19    seized with a motion for the extension of time for all the parties to file

20    their final brief.  Mr. Scott, have you received that motion?

21            MR. SCOTT:  What's the date?  I don't think so.

22            JUDGE LIU:  I think it's on the 14th of October, 2002.

23            MR. SCOTT:  No, Your Honour, I have not seen it.

24            JUDGE LIU:  We are waiting for your reply so that we could act

25    upon this motion filed by the Defence counsel.

Page 16575

 1            MR. SCOTT:  I have not seen it, Mr. President.

 2            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, Mr. Meek?

 3            MR. MEEK:  Mr. President, if it please the courts, I don't want to

 4    direct my comments to Mr. Scott personally, but I will.  Mr. Scott, the

 5    motion was filed jointly on behalf of Mr. Naletilic, Mr. Martinovic -- in

 6    any event, Mr. Scott, the motion was filed jointly, basically -- I

 7    apologise that you didn't get it.  It was filed yesterday morning.

 8    Basically it just states that because of the length of time it took for

 9    the rebuttal witnesses, which had been scheduled for only three days last

10    week, the rejoinder had been scheduled for one day this week, that in all

11    fairness, that not only both accused' Defence counsel be allowed 48 hours

12    to file the final brief rather than Wednesday until Friday but also all

13    parties including the Prosecution based on equality of arms.  I don't know

14    if you have any objection to that or you don't.

15            JUDGE LIU:  Well, Mr. Meek, I think it will be fair for the

16    Prosecution to read your motion in detail.  Then he could give his

17    response to this matter.

18            MR. MEEK:  At least where we come from, Your Honour, it may not be

19    such -- if he knows the basis - it's a very short motion - I told him

20    orally what it was.  If they have an objection they can make it now.  If

21    they want to look at it in writing that's fine too.  I would just say to

22    the Trial Chamber that the Prosecution probably the combined experience in

23    this Trial Chamber between the four Prosecutors exceeds 14 to 16 years.

24    What you see here on the Defence side is what you get.  We don't have the

25    staff that the Prosecutor has.  However we do ask that if we be allowed

Page 16576

 1    that, that the Prosecution be allowed an extra 48 hours to file their

 2    final brief.  I don't see it as such a big issue that Mr. Scott can't

 3    answer right now.  If he doesn't want to, that's his prerogative.

 4            JUDGE LIU:  Yes, Mr. Scott?

 5            MR. SCOTT:

 6            MR. SCOTT:  Mr. President, I think I can probably respond.  I'm

 7    not blaming counsel for not having seen the papers.  I just simply haven't

 8    seen them yet.  If I understand what's being proposed, the extent -- the

 9    deadline for filing the brief for all parties would be Friday instead of

10    next Wednesday, and the oral argument schedule would remain the same?

11            JUDGE LIU:  Yes.

12            MR. SCOTT:  I don't really have any objection, Mr. President.  I

13    mean the only question would come up in my mind, frankly, would be it

14    would leave both parties and the Chamber somewhat less time to review the

15    pleadings before the closing arguments, but that's the only comment I

16    would have.  Mr. President, you know this case has been hard fought on all

17    sides and if it would assist the Defence counsel to have two more days at

18    this point to finish their brief I'm not going to object to that.

19            JUDGE LIU:  Thank you.  We will make decisions taking into

20    consideration the views expressed by both parties and we will have the

21    final argument on the 28th, 29th and the 30th.  It is the intention of

22    this Trial Chamber to give each party one day, that is, more or less four

23    hours to deliver their final arguments.  Both parties have to understand

24    that we already have your final brief at our hands so there is no need to

25    read or to repeat what is already said in those final briefs, just sum up

Page 16577

 1    your case.  Yes?

 2            MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President, I appreciate your bringing

 3    this up because it's something I have thought about in recent days and

 4    again, in light of our dialogue yesterday about practices do vary from

 5    case to case and Chamber to Chamber.  In terms of the time allowed, I

 6    appreciate what the Chamber has just said, is it contemplated then for

 7    there to be any response -- any type of reply to the closing arguments

 8    from one party -- where I come from, which is neither it particularly here

 9    nor there except to relate my own experience, there is a -- again a

10    rebuttal argument, and so I simply want to be advised what the Chamber's

11    practice -- will even side give up -- presumably we go on the 28th, one

12    accused goes on the 29th and one accused goes on the 30th and I suppose

13    when we are done on the 28th, we're done.  Is that what the Chamber

14    contemplates or will there be a chance to respond to the Defence argument?

15            JUDGE LIU:  According to the rules, rebuttal argument is allowed

16    but we will set very strict rules concerning the scope of the rebuttal

17    argument.  And very limited time will be allocated to both parties.

18    Probably one hour for each party, to do their rebuttal argument and

19    rejoinder argument.  So we will finish the whole proceedings on the last

20    day of October.  That is the Thursday.

21            MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22            JUDGE LIU:  Yes.  Having said that, the sitting is adjourned until

23    the 28th, Monday.

24                          --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

25                          1.00 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday

Page 16578

 1                          the 28th day of October, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.