Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7

1 Monday, 26th April, 1999

2 (Rule 77 Hearing)

3 (Open session)

4 --- Upon commencing at 10.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I take it I can be heard

6 by everyone? Yes.

7 Mr. Registrar, will you call the case next on

8 the list?

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.

10 This is case number IT-94-1-A-R77, the Prosecutor

11 versus Dusko Tadic in the matter concerning allegations

12 against prior counsel.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There is an appeal by

14 Mr. Tadic, and in the course of that appeal,

15 proceedings have been instituted by the Appeals Chamber

16 concerning certain allegations against prior counsel

17 who is here. Mr. Vujin, you're here. There are

18 certain interested parties, Mr. Tadic himself, the

19 Prosecution as well.

20 May I take the appearances? Mr. Vujin, is

21 anyone appearing for you or are you appearing by

22 yourself?

23 MR. VUJIN: Good morning, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just a moment. I think

25 I'm now ready. Yes, please.

Page 8

1 MR. VUJIN: [in English] First of all, I

2 shall say that I can speak in English for the Tribunal

3 but, as you know, according to the decision in the

4 Tadic case, we can use our own language, and I would

5 like to speak in one of the most beautiful languages of

6 the world, as Ms. De Sampayo said to me once. Because

7 my legal assistant, Mr. Vladimir Domazet, speaks

8 French, I think it's better that both of us speak in

9 Serbian.

10 [in Serbian] Therefore, I am going, in the

11 course of these proceedings, to be defending myself,

12 together with the help of my colleague, my learned

13 colleague, Mr. Vladimir Domazet, who is going to assist

14 me in the proceedings and in examining the witness, and

15 he will be offering other counsel in the course of the

16 proceedings. Next to me on my right is Mr. Vladimir

17 Domazet. He is a lawyer from Nis who is on the list of

18 the defence counsel of this Tribunal as well.

19 I should also like, before we begin, via the

20 secretariat, and unfortunately we only have one copy --

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, may we

22 compartmentalise the exercise at this stage and confine

23 the present effort to merely recording who is appearing

24 for whom. Do I understand you to be meaning this, that

25 you are appearing for yourself but you also consider

Page 9

1 that Mr. Domazet is appearing as counsel for you?

2 MR. VUJIN: Quite so, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Exactly. May I ask if

4 Mr. Tadic is here or if anyone is appearing for him?

5 Mr. Abell, you are appearing for Mr. Tadic --

6 MR. ABELL: That is right.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: -- who will be in the

8 court at the appropriate time?

9 MR. ABELL: I was hoping that he would be, as

10 an interested party, present throughout the

11 proceedings, Your Honours. That was my understanding.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I inquire from the

13 Registrar what is the status of Mr. Tadic?

14 Yes. The matter has been explained to me,

15 Mr. Abell. He is to testify in due course. Perhaps at

16 this stage, we will agree that his presence in the well

17 of the court is not appropriate.

18 MR. ABELL: As he is the first witness, Your

19 Honours, I don't object because I can't imagine there

20 is going to be very much done before that.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.

22 I turn now to the Prosecution bench. The

23 Prosecution is an interested party also, as well as

24 Mr. Tadic. Is anyone appearing for the Prosecution?

25 MR. YAPA: May it please Your Honours. I

Page 10

1 appear for the Prosecution as an interested party with

2 Ms. Brenda Hollis, senior trial attorney, Mr. Michael

3 Keegan, trial attorney, and Ms. Ann Sutherland, legal

4 officer.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. That concludes the

6 appearances then.

7 Let me say a word about the sitting times of

8 the court. We have allocated to us this week the 26th,

9 the 27th, the 28th, and possibly the 29th. We propose

10 to sit this way, that subject to the usual breaks, we

11 will sit from 10.00 to 1.00 and from 2.30 to 5.30 with

12 one exception. The exception will relate to tomorrow,

13 and we propose that for tomorrow, the luncheon break be

14 from, say, ten to one to quarter to three.

15 Mr. Vujin, before we pass on, may I say that

16 last week we heard the appeal relating to Tadic,

17 Tadic's appeal, and towards the end, something was said

18 about this matter. I will not go into what was said or

19 why it was said, but the Appeals Chamber immediately

20 directed that a copy of the transcript should be sent

21 to you. I think the position of the Appeals Chamber

22 would be self-explanatory on the basis of the contents

23 of the transcript, and also I believe a copy of the

24 transcript was sent to the Prosecution.

25 Mr. Abell, you didn't get it. That's an

Page 11

1 oversight. I will direct immediately that you be

2 provided with a copy of the transcript.

3 MR. ABELL: I would be very grateful.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I think you should know

5 that the Appeals Chamber considers that what was said

6 then is, as it were, a non est. It doesn't affect

7 these proceedings, but I thought I should mention that

8 immediately.

9 MR. ABELL: I'm grateful, Your Honours.

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now then I come to the

11 order made by this Chamber on the 10th of February,

12 1999. It is the order which alludes to certain

13 statements made by certain persons on the basis of

14 which the Chamber then issued that order. I will now

15 say this, that I expect Mr. Vujin and all interested

16 parties to have received copies of all statements

17 attached both to that order and to any other order

18 later made by the Chamber.

19 I will ask the Registrar to read the

20 pertinent parts of that order of 10th February, 1999.


22 "Considering that the documents appear to

23 disclose grave allegations of contempt of the

24 International Tribunal against Mr. Milan Vujin, lead

25 counsel for Appellant at the time of the events

Page 12

1 complained of, including:

2 (i) telling persons about to give statements

3 to co-counsel for the Appellant what they should or

4 should not say before they were interviewed by

5 Mr. Livingston, and in effect instructing them to lie

6 to Mr. Livingston;

7 (ii) nodding his head to indicate to

8 witnesses, during witness interviews with

9 Mr. Livingston, when to say yes and when to say no;

10 (iii) interfering with witnesses in a manner

11 which dissuaded them from telling the truth;

12 (iv) knowingly instructing a witness to make

13 false declarations in a statement to the International

14 Tribunal; and

15 (v) paying a person giving a statement money

16 when pleased with the information provided, but not

17 paying him when he did not answer as instructed,

18 all said to have been done between September

19 1997 and April 1998 at the places mentioned in the

20 documents,

21 PURSUANT TO RULE 77 of the Rules of Procedure

22 and Evidence of the International Tribunal,

23 HEREBY REQUESTS all interested persons to

24 assist this Chamber in assembling and presenting

25 evidence concerning the aforementioned allegations of

Page 13

1 contempt, and.

2 ORDERS as follows:

3 (1) Mr. Vujin is called upon to appear

4 before the Appeals Chamber on Monday, 26 April 1999 at

5 10 a.m. to respond to the allegations that he committed

6 acts, as set out in the documents, which were in

7 contempt of the International Tribunal in that he

8 knowingly and wilfully intended thereby to interfere

9 with the administration of justice ..."

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There are other parts of

11 that order, the text of which should be in the hands of

12 all concerned, but I believe it will be appreciated

13 that there is no necessity for the Registrar to read

14 out the remainder of the text.

15 One observation which I will make is that in

16 the first paragraph of the operative part of the order,

17 Mr. Vujin was called upon to appear before this Chamber

18 on Tuesday, 30 March, 1999. For reasons which are on

19 record, the matter did not proceed on that date. It is

20 now proceeding with the presence of Mr. Vujin.

21 Mr. Vujin submitted a statement to the

22 Chamber dated 26th of February, 1999. In that

23 statement, which I will not read out, he said: "I

24 categorically reject all the allegations made by

25 ill-intended persons ..." et cetera, and he said in

Page 14

1 effect that the allegations were false.

2 Mr. Vujin, I will not ask you to plead as an

3 accused pleads to an indictment. I would merely ask

4 you whether you stand by those statements, whether your

5 position has changed in relation to the allegations set

6 forth in the order of the Appeals Chamber.

7 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours, before I answer

8 your question directly, and the answer will be, of

9 course, affirmative, I should like to show my respect

10 for the Court and to send the Court decisions of the

11 federal government on the proclamation of the state of

12 the war because of the shameful aggression of the NATO

13 forces on our country and the decision of that same

14 government to ban the travels of any military recruit

15 outside the country, just to show that the reasons were

16 justified for which we failed to appear at the first

17 hearing in this proceedings.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, I thank you

19 for that statement, but we have passed that phase of

20 the matter. You stand completely excused. We did not

21 proceed with the matter on the date in question and, as

22 you know, we deferred it in response to your request.

23 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Furthermore, I should like us to clarify a

25 matter of procedure before I repeat my position with

Page 15

1 regard to the allegations made against me. From the

2 part that has been read out today of the order of this

3 Chamber, it appears that I am being accused of

4 performing acts which are set out in five points.

5 I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to

6 explain to me the Rules according to which Rule 77, in

7 fact, of the Rules of Procedure that we're going to

8 discuss today.

9 Bearing this in mind, the changes and

10 amendments to the Rules that were completed on the

11 10th of July 1998, on the 12th of, let us say, '98,

12 those were the last amendments, as well as the

13 amendments which were completed and enacted on the 10th

14 of December, 1998. I'm raising this question because

15 the period which I -- the acts that I'm being accused

16 of between September 1997 to April 1998, that is the

17 period concerned.

18 In the sense of the provisions of Article 6

19 of the Rules, in point (D) of the Rules of Procedure

20 which come after the 10th of December, 1998, there is a

21 great difference in the responsibility as it is

22 prescribed in Article 77 of the Rules from what was

23 prescribed by the same provision, Rule 77, before the

24 amendments were enacted.

25 I should like to stress this fact because if

Page 16

1 we agree, and I think that it is absolutely in

2 accordance with (D) and Rule 6 of the Rules, it is

3 impossible to apply the points of Rule 77 of the

4 amended Rules of the 10th of December, 1998.

5 Then the fifth point of the accusations,

6 unfounded ones, against me cannot be contained there

7 and I cannot be held responsible according to that.

8 So may we clear up this matter of procedure,

9 because this, of course, is a Tribunal which has to

10 abide by its own Rules and regulations.


12 proposition, I don't think there would be any dispute.

13 The Tribunal has to abide both by the Statute and by

14 its Rules. The question which I believe you're raising

15 is one of interpretation, what is meant by the

16 reference in the order of 10 February, 1999 to Rule 77

17 of the Rules.

18 Now, Mr. Vujin, may I suggest this course:

19 We can have debate on that point, but would it be

20 convenient for us to take advantage of this occasion,

21 before any witnesses enter the well of the Court, to

22 afford to the Registrar an opportunity to make a

23 statement which he's intimated to me he desires to make

24 and then we can return to your point and we can have a

25 debate, if necessary, on it. Would that be agreeable

Page 17

1 to you? Yes. Yes.

2 MR. VUJIN: Very well, Your Honour. Yes.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then, Mr. Registrar, is

4 there a statement that you would like to make at this

5 point?

6 MR. HEINTZ: Mr. President --

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you like us to be

8 in private session?

9 MR. HEINTZ: I would ask my presentation to

10 be in non-public session, in application of Rule 75 of

11 the Rules, because this is a request relating to

12 certain protective measures regarding a certain number

13 of witnesses.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it also an ex parte

15 application that you're making?

16 MR. HEINTZ: This is correct, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: So you would like it to

18 be in closed session and ex parte?

19 MR. HEINTZ: Yes, I do.

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, at this point the

21 Registrar wishes to make an ex parte application and I

22 would, therefore, request Mr. Vujin and all interested

23 parties to withdraw for a moment until we have heard

24 the Registrar and then we will proceed.

25 --- Hearing adjourned at 10:25 a.m. for

Page 18

1 Ex Parte hearing

2 [Pages 19 to 24 of Ex Parte hearing omitted

3 - see separate transcript]























Page 25

1 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.

2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: This session is

3 resumed. We are in open session. Is that right,

4 Mr. Registrar?

5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, we are.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now I will merely

7 announce that on application of the Registrar, the

8 Court has granted certain protective measures to

9 certain witness, and the operation of those measures

10 would be apparent as we proceed.

11 Now, I return to Mr. Vujin's submission as to

12 what is the meaning of the reference in our order of

13 10th February, 1999 to Rule 77. That Rule has been

14 amended from time to time. His question was whether

15 the reference to that Rule comprehended amendments made

16 subsequent to the acts which are alleged in the order

17 or whether the reference to the Rule is limited to the

18 Rule as it stood before the alleged acts were

19 committed.

20 Is that right, Mr. Vujin? Have I summarised

21 your position?

22 Then would there be any arguments on that?

23 Let me follow the sequence we had established. Perhaps

24 counsel for Mr. Tadic would like to say something. If

25 he wishes to, we will hear him.

Page 26

1 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, we have, as I

2 understand the position, three stages here. Going

3 backwards, if I may, we have Rule 77 in revision 14 as

4 from the 17th of December of last year. I won't read

5 out the whole of the Rule, but (E):

6 "Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent

7 power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt those who

8 knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

9 administration of justice."

10 It's my submission, first of all, that those

11 words would cover all the activities alleged against

12 Mr. Vujin, leaving aside for the moment the question of

13 when that Rule bites.

14 The next backwards in time, and I haven't,

15 I'm afraid, although the Prosecution may have, copies

16 for Your Honours in the time available to us, the next

17 in time, the next revision in time that I have a copy

18 of is dated the 12th of November, 1997. It is revision

19 12. I don't know whether Your Honours have a copy of

20 that.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you speak,

22 Mr. Abell, of a revision of the 17th of December,

23 1998?

24 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, yes, revision 14.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Featherstone, do you

Page 27

1 have ...

2 Our oracle here has explained the position to

3 me. The amendment was made on the 4th of December,

4 1998 but published on the 17th of December. I was a

5 little mystified a moment ago.

6 MR. ABELL: Do forgive me. I was obviously

7 reading from the date on the document that I have.


9 MR. ABELL: That was the publication date.


11 MR. ABELL: Just to repeat the submission I

12 just made, (E) of Rule 77, leaving aside the question

13 of when it bites, (E) of Rule 77, in my submission,

14 clearly covers all the activities alleged against

15 Mr. Vujin.

16 Going back in time, the next revision that I

17 would draw Your Honours' attention to is dated the 12th

18 of November, 1997. That being the publication date, it

19 may be that the actual date of enactment is a little

20 earlier, but that's the publication date. It is

21 revision 12, and it would cover -- on Mr. Vujin's

22 submissions as to when these provisions would bite, it

23 would cover anything from November onwards of 1997.

24 I would invite Your Honours' attention to

25 Rule 77(F). Again, nothing in this Rule affects the

Page 28

1 inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt

2 those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

3 administration of justice. It is quite clearly

4 precisely the same wording as the current wording of

5 Rule 77(E), and my submissions apply, therefore, to

6 anything after November of '97, any of the activities

7 alleged against Mr. Vujin after November '97, my

8 submissions apply to both those Rules in the same way.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you say,

10 Mr. Abell, that in whatever form Rule 77 stood from

11 time to time, it always included a reference to the

12 inherent jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber?

13 MR. ABELL: From November of '97 onwards. I

14 ought, for completeness, to refer to Rule 77 in the

15 July '97 revision which is revision 11. I don't know

16 whether Your Honours have a copy of that.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Not at the moment but

18 we --

19 MR. ABELL: Could I read it? Rule 77(C) has

20 a different provision.

21 "Any person who attempts to interfere with or

22 intimidates a witness may be found guilty of contempt

23 and sentenced in accordance with sub-Rule (A),"

24 sub-Rule (A) obviously of Rule 77. It is a different

25 sub-Rule obviously from sub-Rule (F) and sub-Rule (E)

Page 29

1 to which I have already drawn Your Honours' attention,

2 but in my respectful submission, although the wording

3 is not the same, it still clearly, I would submit,

4 covers the situation of a person who is either

5 attempting to interfere with or intimidate a witness.

6 That must include, in my submission, a proposed

7 witness, a person who is being interviewed with a view

8 to appearing as a witness in court proceedings.

9 I conclude my submissions by saying this,

10 that Rule 77, in its various forms, cover all of the

11 alleged activities against Mr. Vujin. That would be my

12 submission.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Should the bench

14 understand you, Mr. Abell, to be saying this, that

15 subject to your umbrella argument about the Chamber's

16 inherent jurisdiction, the Rule would only apply in the

17 form in which it stood at the time when the alleged

18 acts were committed, but your contention is that in the

19 form or forms in which the Rule then stood, the Rule

20 would embrace the alleged acts?

21 MR. ABELL: That is correct, Your Honours,

22 yes.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.

24 Would the Prosecution offer any assistance on

25 this point?

Page 30

1 MS. HOLLIS: Very briefly, Your Honours.

2 We would submit that, indeed, Rule 77 would

3 have to be read as it existed at the time of the period

4 where the conduct is alleged. We suggest that in

5 regard to that, the Rules you would look at would be

6 the Rules in existence as of 12 November, 1997 and the

7 Rules in existence as of 25 July, 1997.

8 If you look at those Rules, beginning first

9 with the Rule of July 1997, Rule 77 makes no mention of

10 the inherent power of the Judges; however, we suggest

11 that the inherent power exists whether mention is made

12 of it or not.

13 In regard to specific prohibited conduct,

14 Rule 77(C) discusses a person who attempts to interfere

15 with or intimidate a witness. We suggest that that

16 language is broad enough to include someone whose

17 statement is being offered because, indeed, it is a

18 form of testimony; it is a witness statement.

19 As to November of 1997, we again have the

20 Rule, this time it is (A)(ii):

21 "Any person who interferes with or

22 intimidates a witness who is giving, has given, or is

23 about to give evidence ..."

24 Again, we suggest that's broad enough to be

25 covered, and in this Rule, in November of 1997, we have

Page 31

1 at sub-part (F):

2 "Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent

3 power of the Tribunal."

4 That language does appear in November.

5 In regard to the Rule that is now in effect,

6 Your Honours, as of 17 December, 1998, we suggest that

7 the language that was used in sub-part (E) concerning

8 the inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt

9 those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

10 administration of justice, we suggest that to the

11 extent "knowingly and wilfully" is a new standard to be

12 applied, should that standard be more strenuous so that

13 it operates to the prejudice of the accused, you would

14 not be able to use it. We suggest without knowing the

15 deliberations that resulted in this Rule, that what was

16 meant there was to explain the standard that is

17 applied. Therefore, we do not believe that this would

18 operate to the prejudice of the accused and that that

19 standard could be used.

20 We believe that if you look at the Rules, the

21 one area where the Rules have changed, and you would

22 have to abide by the earlier Rules, has to do with any

23 type of punishment that may be imposed upon a finding

24 beyond a reasonable doubt of contempt. Of course, the

25 finding of punishment in existence at the time of the

Page 32

1 conduct would prevail in that instance.

2 Those are the only comments that we have,

3 Your Honours.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Hollis, may I ask

5 you this: You have the current Rules before you?

6 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, the 17th of

7 December, 1998.

8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The 17th of December at

9 the top. Yes, I see that. On page 1, the first page

10 as you open the cover, there's a list of amendments.

11 The alleged acts were said to have been done between

12 September 1997 and April 1998. Would it be the

13 position that amendments made after that period are

14 excluded?

15 MS. HOLLIS: To the extent that they would

16 create a new basis for contempt, we suggest that they

17 would. To the extent that they would increase the

18 punishment, we suggest that they would.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: They would, yes.

20 MS. HOLLIS: To the extent that they would

21 create a standard which would operate to the detriment

22 of the person alleged to be in contempt, in other

23 words, a standard that would be more difficult against

24 that person, we suggest that they would. Other than

25 that, we suggest they would not operate to the

Page 33

1 detriment and, therefore, they could be considered.

2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Ms. Hollis.

3 Yes.

4 (Trial Chamber deliberates)

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The ruling of the

6 Chamber is that subsequent amendments, those amendments

7 made subsequent to the period within which the alleged

8 acts were said to have been committed, are not

9 admissible if they would introduce a new standard or if

10 they would in any other way prejudice the position of

11 the counsel in question. The matter would be regulated

12 by Rule 77 in the form in which that Rule stood at the

13 times when the acts which are alleged were said to have

14 been committed. That is the position of the Chamber.

15 Having disposed of that argument, we will now

16 proceed to take the available witnesses. I understand

17 that the Chamber has at its disposal this week three or

18 four witnesses. The sequence of questioning was laid

19 out in the Court's order of 24 March, 1999, and as set

20 out in clause 4 of that order, each witness would be

21 asked questions by the bench, by counsel for Mr. Tadic,

22 by the Prosecution, and then by Mr. Vujin. We have

23 stated Mr. Vujin last because that seemed to be the

24 fairest way of ensuring that when he comes to ask

25 questions, he has before him the whole tabula of

Page 34

1 material which would have been elicited meanwhile by

2 the Court or by Mr. Abell or by the Prosecution.

3 I suppose this is recognised, but we will not

4 adhere to this scheme rigidly or inflexibly. We will

5 make modifications to it as we go along, the idea being

6 to afford to counsel a fair hearing on all of the

7 points in question.

8 Now, the statements of the witnesses would

9 have been served on all interested parties, and the

10 first witness will be Mr. Tadic, yes?

11 MR. ABELL: That is the first witness on the

12 list.

13 Your Honours, just before we embark upon the

14 evidence --

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I ask Mr. Vujin just

16 to give you a moment to make your statement?

17 MR. ABELL: I didn't see Mr. Vujin standing

18 up behind me.

19 Your Honours, it's simply this: I do want to

20 mention questions of the admissibility of some of the

21 material that has been placed before Your Honours by

22 Mr. Vujin. The reason I raise it at this stage,

23 although I appreciate Your Honours would not be hearing

24 it until later on in these proceedings, not within

25 these three or four days, the reason I mention it now

Page 35

1 is because, of course, it may have an impact upon the

2 questions that I would seek to ask Mr. Tadic and,

3 indeed, other witnesses.

4 Your Honour, may I mention briefly those

5 areas about which I am concerned?

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, you put the

7 Chamber in this difficulty: You are asking the Chamber

8 to rule on the admissibility of evidence before it

9 would have been led. That is an awkward position for

10 the Chamber to be put in. May I suggest that as you go

11 along, you test the temperature; then we will see what

12 eventuates?

13 MR. ABELL: Yes.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I add this, that

15 what the Chamber proposes to do is this: As a witness

16 is called, the witness will be asked if he made the

17 statement, if the contents were true, if he still

18 abides by the contents, and then the Chamber will limit

19 its interest to examining the witness on one or two

20 specific points but not so as to require him to recite

21 all afresh what he has said in his written statement.

22 Then the matter will be thrown open to the interested

23 parties and Mr. Vujin in the manner in which I have

24 suggested.

25 MR. ABELL: Yes. In asking Mr. Tadic

Page 36

1 questions, when I come to any area where I would submit

2 evidence sought to be put in by Mr. Vujin is

3 inadmissible, I'll indicate that, and then if need be,

4 we can discuss the matter at that point.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then you would also have

6 the right to recall a witness if the circumstances

7 indicate a necessity for that.

8 Yes, Mr. Vujin?

9 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honours. A

10 moment ago when I wanted to give proof for our apology

11 for not coming to the hearing that was called before,

12 you said that that was quite all right and that that is

13 why we're discussing this today. I forgot to ask the

14 Tribunal and all parties for understanding and,

15 according to the schedule for our work, that you

16 acknowledge and adhere to our request that we complete

17 our work by Wednesday, 5 p.m. on the 28th, that is

18 to say, because Mr. Domazet and myself have been

19 granted permission by the authorities to be out of the

20 country only until the 28th, midnight of the 28th, and

21 that is why we would not like to stay after the 28th of

22 this month.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May the position be

24 this, that the Chamber at this stage takes for

25 notification your intervention on this point, and we

Page 37

1 will give it due consideration and will see whether

2 there is any necessity to do anything about it.

3 Perhaps, who knows, the proceedings may well end before

4 that time in any case.

5 MR. VUJIN: Thank you.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It is now exactly ten

7 minutes after the hour. Would Mr. Vujin and the

8 interested parties consider that this is a convenient

9 moment to take a break? Yes.

10 --- Recess taken at 11.10 a.m.

11 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The sitting is resumed.

13 Mr. Tadic, you're on the witness stand. Would you

14 identify yourself briefly, your name, your date of

15 birth, place of birth?

16 MR. TADIC: My name is Dusko Tadic. I was

17 born on the 1st of October, 1955 in Kozarac, the

18 Prijedor municipality, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're the appellant in

20 the main case, the main appeal; is that right?

21 MR. TADIC: Yes. Yes.

22 I solemnly declare that I will speak the

23 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


25 Questioned by the Court:

Page 38

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Do sit down, Mr. Tadic.

2 Mr. Tadic, in this matter you made two statements, did

3 you? One dated 7th of November, 1998 and the other

4 dated 24th November, 1998; is that correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You have seen the

7 statements which have been served on your side? I

8 believe your counsel would have them.

9 A. You mean the statements that you have just

10 asked me about?

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. The statements

12 which you made.

13 A. Yes. Yes.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, Mr. Tadic, are the

15 contents of those statements true and correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You adhere, today, to

18 what you said in those statements?

19 A. Yes. To the best of my recollection, I wrote

20 what I believed to be the truth.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, I will turn to the

22 first of those two statements, that is, the statement

23 of 7th November, 1998. I will not be asking you to

24 recite afresh all that you said there. I will only ask

25 you a few questions about some aspects of your

Page 39

1 statement.

2 I will turn to that aspect concerning the

3 statement which you say was made by Mr. Radic. Do you

4 remember saying something about that?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you said Mr. Vujin

7 spoke to you about the statement of Mr. Radic.

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did he tell you why the

10 statement should bear the date 10th March, 1997 --

11 1998?

12 A. I insisted that Mr. Vujin should come to The

13 Hague to take the statement of Mr. Radic and

14 Mr. Kvocka. However, he did not or he could not or did

15 not want to. I don't know the real reasons. But he

16 told me -- on the occasion he told me -- we decided

17 what should be asked, what that man should be asked,

18 both the men should be asked, so that I did what he

19 told me, and that is -- the essential points that that

20 man should put in his statement.

21 As far as the date is concerned, the date

22 that is stated there, he didn't explain to me. He said

23 that this was a date given to him and there were no

24 problems there about the date.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did Mr. Vujin tell you

Page 40

1 why he wanted you to tell Radic that Radic had given

2 the statement personally to Mr. Vujin?

3 A. I don't know. He did not explain the real

4 reasons for that. He considered that that was his

5 problem and that there were no problems, and that's

6 what I did. At least, that's what he told me. As far

7 as the date is concerned, he didn't give me any

8 separate explanations as to the date.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're referring to the

10 Court that the 10th of March, 1998 was not the date on

11 which the statement was, in fact, made?

12 A. No. I think that Mr. Radic was not in The

13 Hague then at all.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Now, I turn to

15 the second statement, the statement of 24th November,

16 1998, and I would ask you one or two questions.

17 You say that Mr. Vujin stressed that you

18 should never use the expression "camp." Did you know

19 why he stressed that?

20 A. Well, on several occasions when I talked to

21 any of the Yugoslav lawyers during the time that I was

22 in Germany, he insisted that that term never be used

23 because they were not camps, in their opinion. So that

24 this could cause harm to all the proceedings which

25 could appear before the Tribunal in The Hague.

Page 41

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Why did he tell you to

2 watch him?

3 A. I'm not quite sure. Generally speaking, I

4 was never in a position to talk to so many people here,

5 before such a lot of people, something that

6 Mr. Wladimiroff agreed to, but he told me that I would

7 understand everything.

8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you understand

9 everything?

10 A. In principle, I understood nothing. I just

11 felt it was very unpleasant for me. I was confused.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You said you looked in

13 the direction of Mr. Vujin. He acted oddly.

14 Occasionally he shook his head and frowned.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: What impression did you

17 have from all of that?

18 A. I gained the impression that I should be

19 careful what I said, especially those things that were

20 in the interests of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia's

21 interests, such as the role of the Yugoslav People's

22 Army, the term "camp," and so on and so forth. I had

23 to -- I was under some sort of feeling that I wasn't to

24 say that, and then I had to take great care not to make

25 a mistake.

Page 42

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did he say something

2 about mentioning or not mentioning names?

3 A. Well, there was no mention especially of

4 names, because I didn't think that I knew any special

5 names or important names for that investigation.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you say he also

7 spoke about not wanting to jeopardise some people.

8 What did you understand by that?

9 A. Well, I understood by that that it was a

10 question of individuals who live in the territory of

11 Serbia or who hold important positions in Republika

12 Srpska.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Why didn't you want to

14 show him certain documents?

15 A. Well, he told me -- that is to say, first of

16 all, I did not trust Mr. Vujin, in principle. There

17 was a series of information, and I doubted -- I thought

18 that he might abuse those documents, documents by

19 people who would be willing to speak freely about the

20 events in the Prijedor municipality.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: When he said to you

22 something about your family, to the effect that you

23 should be careful, what did you understand him to be

24 meaning?

25 A. At the time, I knew that Mr. Vujin had close

Page 43

1 relationships with important police and military organs

2 of the Republika Srpska in Prijedor and that those

3 relationships went straight up to the general staff of

4 the Yugoslav army in Belgrade, so that I considered him

5 to be an important, powerful man.

6 On the other hand, I know that he had

7 meetings and close contacts with people who stood

8 behind many who were behind many criminal acts in the

9 Prijedor municipality and who were residing in Serbia

10 either provisionally or permanently.

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you also said, in

12 your written statement, that Mr. Vujin said that he

13 would not allow a new man to be indicted and

14 particularly not a man from Serbia.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Was it your impression

17 that part of your defence would require an allegation

18 to be made against someone else?

19 A. Well, that problem was present for a length

20 of time but it never happened that Mr. Vujin directly

21 said that he would not allow anybody to be linked with

22 the events in the Prijedor municipality and Republika

23 Srpska who was at liberty. This was also something

24 that somebody who was very close to him said, at the

25 beginning of 1998, when a delegation from the Republika

Page 44

1 Srpska visited us in The Hague. One of the detainees

2 said that he respects Vujin because his strategy was

3 based on the fact that they had done -- that they would

4 have achieved nothing if one person were to leave

5 prison in The Hague and another person to enter the

6 prison in The Hague, so that I had the feeling that his

7 priority was to protect all those who were still at

8 liberty.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you said something

10 about Mr. Borovnica. Were you surprised to know that

11 Mr. Vujin knew that Mr. Borovnica had not killed the

12 two policemen?

13 A. On several occasions I received information

14 which indicated that Borovnica had not committed those

15 crimes, and that kind of information I tried to convey

16 to Mr. Wladimiroff, first of all, and then later on to

17 Mr. Vujin, and later on again to Mr. Livingston.

18 However, Vujin never let me know that he had proved the

19 correctness of that information, and I was surprised

20 why he did not check it if he now knew that as a fact.

21 He never told me any other version, although I insisted

22 that this should be checked out, because he himself

23 said that that was a priority in my own defence.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let me ask you one final

25 question. Was it your view that your defence would be

Page 45

1 assisted if you could prove that someone else did the

2 killing?

3 A. I always insisted upon the truth, upon

4 learning the truth about the events. I did not think

5 that all this would have any special influence on my

6 position in front of this Tribunal, first of all,

7 because I thought that I was the first man to appear

8 here and that nothing could change that, but I would

9 like to have the truth known once this is all over and

10 done with, and I did not wish this to remain the truth

11 without it being known to be the truth, and there was a

12 great doubt as to this point.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I do have one or two

14 more questions, lamentably, to ask. You recollect

15 something about Mr. Lopicic, the counsellor at the

16 Yugoslav Embassy? Now, did you tell Mr. Lopicic that

17 you would re-employ Mr. Vujin to lead your defence?

18 A. It lasted for a long time. Mr. Lopicic, for

19 a longer period of time after my break with Mr. Vujin,

20 in different ways, suggested that I had made a serious

21 mistake, and I received information via him that Vujin

22 was conducting an investigation into my case and that

23 he had evidence which could help me at the Tribunal in

24 The Hague, so that when I saw that none of the key

25 witnesses had turned up during the regular hearing at

Page 46

1 the Tribunal, I thought that Vujin was the only man who

2 could do that, who could bring them there, with the

3 help of the representative of the embassy.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It would be correct to

5 say that that was your decision to re-employ

6 Mr. Vujin?

7 A. Well, prior to that I asked Mr. Wladimiroff

8 to receive him as a member of the team and I told him

9 why. I said that the man had at his disposal key

10 witnesses and that would be a benefit for all of us.

11 However, Mr. Waldimiroff did not agree to that

12 solution, and he told me quite simply that he did not

13 believe the story. So that this happened in the way it

14 did. Quite simply, I was brought into a situation

15 where I had to decide to choose somebody who would be

16 able to bring eyewitnesses for the events that I had

17 been accused of here or that the situation would not

18 change in the future.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you come into

20 contact, by telephone, with Mr. Vujin's secretary, a

21 lady by the name of Mrs. Kalincevic?

22 A. Well, from time to time I did contact her

23 when I called Mr. Vujin and at times the phone would be

24 answered by that woman, but I don't know her name. She

25 was the secretary there.

Page 47

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you call her and

2 tell her that you decided you desired to re-employ

3 Mr. Vujin?

4 A. I don't think I had a conversation of that

5 kind with that woman. It was different. Mr. Lopicic

6 contacted Vujin and the embassy in The Hague, and he

7 was the main go-between to engage Mr. Vujin in my

8 defence. In that name he thought that I should write a

9 letter to Mr. Vujin, requesting him to enter my case,

10 that I should do this formally, but that he, in direct

11 talks with Mr. Vujin, would arrange everything else.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The bench has no other

13 questions at this stage. We would invite Mr. Abell to

14 put any questions to the witness.

15 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.

16 Questioned by Mr. Abell:

17 Q. Mr. Tadic, first of all, please, can I ask

18 you some further questions relating to the statement

19 that you made on the 7th of November of last year

20 concerning Mr. Mlado Radic? The first time that you

21 saw Mr. Radic yourself was when, Mr. Tadic?

22 A. You mean since the arrest?

23 Q. Yes.

24 A. Yes, I saw him for the first time here in The

25 Hague.

Page 48

1 Q. Can you remember the date when that would

2 have been?

3 A. I can't remember the exact date but I think

4 it was the beginning of April.

5 Q. Is there any possibility that you had seen

6 Mr. Radic in the U.N. detention centre on or before the

7 10th of March?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Was Mr. Radic even arrested at that stage?

10 A. No. I heard that he had been killed

11 previously. When Mr. Waldimiroff held the

12 investigation, we got the information that the man had

13 been killed on the battleground.

14 Q. You say in your statement that when you saw

15 Mr. Radic in the U.N. detention centre, he gave you

16 certain information as to who the perpetrators of

17 certain offences that you had already been found guilty

18 of actually were. Did you feel that that information

19 could assist you, therefore, in arriving at the truth?

20 A. Yes. And apart from that, he said publicly,

21 in front of people, others, in front of the guards as

22 well, that I was not the man who had committed those

23 acts while he was on duty in Omarska. It was

24 tragicomic. He spoke of this quite openly, whereas, on

25 the other hand, I was proclaimed guilty for those

Page 49

1 acts. I said that it was better for him not to say

2 things of that kind if he did not want to say so

3 earlier on, to tell my Defence counsel earlier on.

4 Q. Having heard that information from Mr. Radic,

5 as you tell us that he had information that could help

6 you, did you -- well, you tell us in your statement you

7 spoke with Mr. Vujin in order to get a statement taken

8 from Mr. Radic; is that right?

9 A. Yes. It went like this: First of all,

10 throughout the proceedings and also after the Court's

11 decision in the regular proceedings, the Tribunal

12 decided that the bulk of the events that happened in

13 Omarska for which I was declared guilty at the time

14 that Mr. Radic was the head of the guard, that man

15 could have been important and he could have known a lot

16 of the things that happened there. That's why I

17 informed Mr. Vujin that it would be good for him to

18 take this statement from him.

19 Q. Did you feel that Mr. Radic might have been

20 able to provide Mr. Vujin with information as to who

21 the real persons were who were responsible for some of

22 the offences of which you were convicted? Did you

23 think he could help Mr. Vujin to say who they were?

24 A. Yes. Yes.

25 Q. How many times did you ask Mr. Vujin to take

Page 50

1 a statement from Mlado Radic?

2 A. I think we talked twice regarding that

3 matter. I'm not exactly sure.

4 Q. Was Mr. Vujin keen to take a statement from

5 Mr. Radic?

6 A. No. Not only Radic, Mr. Kvocka was there too

7 because there was some proof that he was head of the

8 Omarska camp during the period that acts happened that

9 I was declared guilty for, and there was a question of

10 why didn't he go and talk to these people.

11 Q. Pause a moment. Mr. Kvocka, was he in a

12 similar position in the sense that he had provided you

13 with information which could be helpful in your

14 defence?

15 A. He was in that position, yes. I said that he

16 was in charge of the camp at that time, and I thought

17 that this was a person who knew what was going on

18 there.

19 Q. We see from your statement that you say that

20 eventually Mr. Vujin said that Mr. Radic could write a

21 statement himself.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Who did you want to take the statement from

24 Mlado Radic?

25 A. I insisted that Vujin do this. I insisted on

Page 51

1 that earlier, to take statements from key people who

2 were in the municipality of Prijedor, but this

3 proceeded with difficulty. I always insisted that this

4 be carried out in the most correct way and at the

5 proper time, but from '95 onwards, there were always

6 these different obstacles.

7 Q. When Mr. Radic was in the U.N. detention

8 centre, whom did you want to take a statement from

9 him?

10 A. I wanted my lawyer, Vujin, to take these

11 statements or Mr. Livingston. I was also interested

12 for a statement to be taken from Kvocka.

13 Q. Mr. Vujin, according to your statement, said

14 that he had no time and could not come to the detention

15 centre. We see that you, therefore, spoke with

16 Mr. Radic and the statement was taken of Mr. Radic in

17 that way, with you speaking to Mr. Radic; is that

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. On whose instructions did you do that, if

21 anyone's?

22 A. I got that after I talked to Mr. Vujin by

23 telephone. On that occasion, I said which questions I

24 wanted to be posed to that person and I asked him what

25 he thought about that, and mostly we agreed on the

Page 52

1 important points, but he also said what was important

2 and what wasn't important for this person to respond to

3 in his statement.

4 Q. The statement which we have in the bundle

5 dated the 10th of March, was it taken on the 10th of

6 March in The Hague?

7 A. No. I think it was in early April.

8 Q. Why was the date "10th of March" put on the

9 statement? Whose idea was that?

10 A. Vujin told me to put that date and to also

11 say in Prijedor that the statement was taken by him

12 personally. I thought about that later, and I think

13 that Mr. Vujin was in the municipality of Prijedor at

14 that time, but I'm not sure of that.

15 Q. So the date went down on the basis of what

16 Mr. Vujin had asked you to put; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Also, the statement begins: "I, Mlado Radic,

19 in answer to a question of the lawyer Milan Vujin

20 voluntarily make the following ..." Whose idea was it

21 to say at the beginning of the statement that it was

22 answers to questions of Mr. Vujin?

23 A. It was Mr. Vujin's idea, as I've said.

24 Q. In paragraph 6 of that statement, that

25 paragraph begins: "To a question of the lawyer Milan

Page 53

1 Vujin if there were any incidents ..." and so it goes

2 on, whose idea was it to phrase that part of the

3 statement in that way, as if it was in answer to a

4 question posed personally by Mr. Vujin?

5 A. May I look at the statement?

6 Q. Yes. I'm sorry.

7 A. I have it here but I don't know if I may be

8 allowed to look at it.

9 Q. I thought you had been provided with it in

10 the bundle that the clerk gave you.

11 A. Yes, I have it. Would you please repeat the

12 question?

13 Q. Yes. I've already asked you about what

14 appears at the top of the statement, and you said that

15 that is there because Mr. Vujin asked for it to be

16 there. Paragraph 6, whose idea was it to start that

17 paragraph with that sentence, "To a question of the

18 lawyer Milan Vujin ..."?

19 A. Generally, it was Vujin's idea to respond to

20 each question in such a way that it would seem as if he

21 posed the question. I don't know in particular about

22 paragraph 6. It was just written in accordance with

23 that demand.

24 Q. Can I put it this way: Were you, therefore,

25 following the spirit of the instructions that Mr. Vujin

Page 54

1 had given you as to how this statement should be taken?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Once the statement had been written out, did

4 you send it to Mr. Vujin?

5 A. I think I gave it. I didn't send it. I read

6 it to him over the telephone, and I told him that I

7 wasn't happy that it was done in that way and that I

8 insisted that he had to come here and take an expanded

9 statement from Mr. Radic. In particular, then when I

10 asked for Mr. Kvocka to provide the same statement, he

11 said that he wouldn't do it, but he would do it if

12 Mr. Vujin came to The Hague. So then I asked him to

13 come because I wasn't satisfied with this statement and

14 also because a statement needed to be taken from Mr.

15 Kvocka.

16 Q. I want to stay at the moment on the statement

17 dated the 10th of March. You're saying that, if I

18 understand you correctly, you told Mr. Vujin on the

19 telephone what was in the statement, what Mr. Radic had

20 said to you; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Who filed the statement dated the 10th of

23 March bearing that date?

24 A. I think it was filed by Mr. Vujin after the

25 statement he took from Mr. Radic on the 18th of April,

Page 55

1 '98, when he came to The Hague. When he came to The

2 Hague, I gave him that statement. Then he took an

3 additional statement from Radic in the detention

4 centre, and then I think he probably filed all of that

5 together to the Court.

6 Q. You saw Mr. Radic in mid to late April, yes,

7 in The Hague -- Mr. Vujin; that's correct, isn't it?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. The question I'm asking you is who filed the

10 statement dated the 10th of March?

11 A. Mr. Vujin.

12 Q. Do you agree that the implication behind

13 filing that statement is that it was taken on the 10th

14 of March of '98 in answer to Mr. Vujin's questions?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. I'd like to move on from that, please, to the

17 statement that you made, the second and longest

18 statement that you made on the 24th of November of last

19 year. The first thing that I want to ask you about,

20 please, is this: At the -- do you have the statement

21 there?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. I think it's been handed to you. You deal,

24 at the bottom of the first page of that statement, with

25 the interviews that you had with the U.N.

Page 56

1 investigators. Mr. Tadic, did you wish to cooperate

2 with the U.N. investigators in their interviews?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Did you wish to answer all their questions?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. We see that you asked Mr. Wladimiroff, for

7 the last series of interviews, not to inform a single

8 Yugoslav lawyer that those further interviews were

9 going to take place; is that correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. Why did you ask Mr. Wladimiroff to make sure

12 that Mr. Vujin and others didn't know about those later

13 interviews?

14 A. There were a number of reasons. The first

15 reason was that I had a bad experience in the course of

16 the first questioning when Mr. Vujin and Mr. Simic were

17 present. I felt uncomfortable, and I think that I

18 didn't have the true freedom to speak openly. I was

19 under some kind of pressure just by the presence of

20 those people from Yugoslavia, from Republika Srpska.

21 The second problem was that after I found out

22 that Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic were thoroughly

23 informed about what I had talked about in front of the

24 investigators, after which, some members of my family

25 experienced some problems. My brother's house in Banja

Page 57

1 Luka was searched, and one of my brothers was arrested

2 several times and there was an attempt to mobilise him

3 into the army. So I felt that this was not good. Then

4 besides that, I was criticised that I had talked too

5 much about the role of the crisis staff, such as the

6 one in Prijedor, and that because of that, they were

7 angry at me.

8 Q. Who criticised you?

9 A. Mr. Vujin said that during meetings at Pale

10 with Mr. Karadzic and Mr. Mladic, that they had

11 indicated that they were not satisfied by my conduct at

12 The Hague, especially Mladic, who said that I had

13 talked about the role of the crisis staffs, which was

14 contrary to what he believed in.

15 Q. Pause for a moment. When you say, "They

16 weren't satisfied," Mr. Vujin and the other person were

17 not satisfied with your conduct in the interview, do

18 you mean just answering the questions that were put to

19 you?

20 A. Well, the problem was probably in the topic

21 that was discussed.

22 Q. Yes, but that you were being asked questions,

23 are you saying that Mr. Vujin wasn't satisfied with the

24 way you'd answered the questions; is that what you're

25 saying?

Page 58

1 A. No, I'm not talking about that. I just said

2 that I received returned information after that

3 questioning that my acts here were not all right.

4 After those talks, Mr. Vujin had a meeting with the

5 people in Pale, and I think he took them my entire

6 testimony before the Tribunal here so that I got

7 messages that they were not satisfied, and this was

8 conveyed to me by him.

9 Q. Did you have any problem yourself, if need

10 be, with using the word "camp" in answer to questions?

11 A. No.

12 Q. What was the effect upon you, Mr. Tadic, of

13 the behaviour of Mr. Vujin, as you set out in the

14 statement, during those interviews at which he was

15 present?

16 A. Well, I felt that I couldn't say -- I thought

17 that I could say many more things that the Prosecution

18 would be interested in, things that they didn't even

19 ask me at that time. So because of their presence, I

20 couldn't --

21 Q. Because of whose presence?

22 A. Because of the presence of Mr. Vujin and

23 Mr. Simic.

24 Q. Let me move on. You speak in your statement

25 on page 2 of Mr. Wladimiroff wishing to go to Prijedor

Page 59

1 before your trial commenced and that a list of

2 witnesses that you and Mr. Wladimiroff had agreed

3 should be interviewed in connection with your defence

4 was prepared; yes?

5 A. Yes. We always used to do that together.

6 Q. You say that that was confidential

7 information?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Mr. Vujin was still on your team at that

10 stage, and, as we can see, a copy of that was sent to

11 him, that list. We can see in your statement that you

12 say that you discovered that that list had found its

13 way to the Prijedor police station and, indeed, into

14 the hands of Mr. Drljaca; yes?

15 A. Yes, that's correct. Mr. Wladimiroff told me

16 that Mr. Stephen -- they were all present there. They

17 were surprised. Because of that action, they thought

18 that irreparable damage was inflicted on my defence.

19 Q. How did you feel when you learnt that that

20 list had got into the hands of that man in Prijedor?

21 A. I was sure that they would prevent anybody

22 from talking to the foreign lawyers, at least the key

23 persons. The peripheral witnesses could have been

24 available to these people, but those people who were

25 involved in the conflict in the municipality of

Page 60

1 Prijedor and especially the camps of Omarska and

2 Keraterm, that these people were not available. This

3 was the main obstacle.

4 Q. Did that cause real problems in your trial in

5 terms of your witnesses, witnesses you wanted?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. In your statement, you say that "It was

8 perfectly clear that it was Mr. Vujin who must have

9 supplied the list to the chief Simo Drljaca." Do you

10 stand by that?

11 A. Yes, I claim that was done certainly for a

12 number of reasons. First, all three of the lawyers

13 told me that they had an interest in defending me

14 honestly before this Court, and they were not concerned

15 about any eventual witness, whether the witnesses would

16 bring damage to anybody else from Republika Srpska by

17 their testimony. It was especially important that when

18 I asked Mr. Vujin whether it was true that he had done

19 this, he said that he had not, that this was perhaps

20 done by my brother Ljubomir. I asked my brother, and

21 he said, no, that wasn't true, that he did not have a

22 list of the witnesses. So this convinced me that this

23 was done by Mr. Vujin.

24 Q. Did Mr. Vujin at any stage speak to you to

25 suggest that he was going to do that, seek permission

Page 61

1 to do it, or give a reason for why it would be a good

2 idea to do it? Did he ever do that at all, say

3 anything like that to you?

4 A. No, he never asked me to do that. It would

5 have been stupid for him to ask me because we all knew

6 that some of the people on the list that we had

7 prepared were extremely important and that they knew a

8 lot about the events in the municipality of Prijedor,

9 so that statements by these people would harm the head

10 people in the police, people who held positions of

11 power. It was obvious that this was done in order to

12 prevent people from telling the truth.

13 Q. So would it be fair to say this, that if, in

14 fact, this was handed over by Mr. Vujin, he did it

15 behind your back and contrary to your wishes?

16 A. Yes, absolutely.

17 Q. And contrary to your interests in your

18 defence?

19 A. Contrary to my interests. First of all, I

20 had the information which was pretty important that

21 Mr. Drljaca was at a higher post in Bijeljina or Banja

22 Luka, but at the moment when I was arrested in Munich,

23 he was returned to a lower ranking position in

24 Prijedor, exclusively in order to block any truth from

25 coming out that would lead to important people in the

Page 62

1 municipality in Prijedor, including himself.

2 So that the list of those people was

3 something that I felt really influenced my ability to

4 defend myself before this Court, because none of the

5 eyewitnesses from Omarska or Keraterm could not have

6 appeared before this Court after that, nor ones from

7 the conflict in Kozarac, even in spite of the efforts

8 of my Defence team, Mr. Wladimiroff and the others.

9 Q. We can see in your statement that you say

10 that Mr. Wladimiroff, Mr. Steven Kay, and Mr. Orie told

11 you that they didn't want to have anything more to do

12 with Mr. Vujin, that it was up to you. It was them

13 representing you or him, Mr. Vujin representing with

14 you. Did they tell you why they didn't want to work in

15 the same team with him any more?

16 A. They told me the main reason was the fact was

17 he gave the list of the witnesses, which they believed

18 had brought irreparable harm to my case. So all three

19 of them did not want to have any contact with him

20 because they believed that he was not working in the

21 interests of my defence.

22 Mr. Wladimiroff also said that he was more

23 interested in defending Yugoslavia, Serbia, and the

24 people who are close to the authorities.

25 Q. Who said that, sorry?

Page 63

1 A. I don't know which part you wanted to hear.

2 Q. I think you said "Wladimiroff" by mistake,

3 unless I misheard that in my earphones. Who said they

4 were more interested in defending the state?

5 A. Mr. Wladimiroff said that. There were doubts

6 in a certain period, and Mr. Wladimiroff himself, and I

7 too, believed that we needed somebody to assist us in

8 the investigation in the territory of Yugoslavia and

9 Republika Srpska, because he was a foreigner, all the

10 others from the team were foreigners but, obviously,

11 this did not work.

12 Q. Mr. Tadic, I just want to clarify something

13 with you. When you say Mr. Wladimiroff said he was

14 more interested in defending the state, who is the "he"

15 that Mr. Wladimiroff was referring to?

16 A. Mr. Vujin. He didn't only tell me that on

17 that occasion, he told me that on several occasions.

18 Q. Now we can see the history of events. You

19 dispense with the services of Mr. Vujin shortly before

20 your trial. The time comes again when you re-engaged

21 Mr. Vujin sometime later, during the course of the

22 appeals process; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. During the trial, had you been able to call

25 anybody who you considered might be an eyewitness, a

Page 64

1 key witness to any of the events alleged against you?

2 A. No, I was not able. I asked all the

3 witnesses. I asked my defenders, the members of my

4 family to help. I asked many people. I had a meeting

5 with the Minister of Justice of Republika Srpska. They

6 met with me, with Mr. Wladimiroff. Mr. Arsovic, the

7 Minister of Justice, brought this problem before the

8 government of Republika Srpska, but the problem was he

9 was also replaced from his position because he urged

10 co-operation with my Defence team, the co-operation of

11 the authorities over there.

12 Q. I want you to help me about this. Given what

13 had happened with Mr. Vujin before the trial, why was

14 it that you decided to re-engaged him? What was it

15 that made you do that? Try to put it in a sentence or

16 two.

17 A. From the very beginning of Mr. Vujin's

18 engagement, he always gave me the hope that he would be

19 able to ensure the key figures who could come here and

20 testify in concrete terms on the events for which I had

21 been indicted in The Hague, and this was something that

22 was always -- this question was always raised, and he

23 would always promise me, give me promises to that

24 effect. However, things did not proceed in that way.

25 At one point, Mr. Lopicic started suggesting

Page 65

1 to me that I had made a mistake in replacing Mr. Vujin

2 and that it was not too late to include him into my

3 team once again, because he was a man who held

4 everything in his hands, and that he had made all the

5 necessary consultations in the Republika Srpska which

6 would allow me to get the key witnesses to the Tribunal

7 in The Hague. That was the vital moment, the essential

8 point.

9 I discussed this with Mr. Wladimiroff on

10 several occasions, asking him to re-employ, re-engage

11 Mr. Vujin only for the reason -- because I thought he

12 would be able to bring witnesses here to The Hague.

13 There was no other motive, just that.

14 Q. Let me ask you this: The Ambassador,

15 Mr. Lopicic, what he had to say to you, did that have

16 an influence on you and, if so, how much of an

17 influence on you?

18 A. Yes, it did have an influence. I did not

19 have contact with many people. For two or three years

20 I did not have occasion to talk to people from my

21 region. It was difficult for me to assess whom I

22 should trust and whom I should not trust. He was the

23 representative of a state, and I thought that if he

24 said something or if he promised anything that it was

25 something that could be believed, that it was the

Page 66

1 truth.

2 A. Let me deal with this part in this way:

3 You've mentioned that it was promised that Mr. Vujin

4 was making inquiries and getting hold of key witnesses

5 that could help in the progress of your appeal. Let me

6 ask you this: Once you had taken Mr. Vujin back in on

7 your team, as far as you're concerned, what did he

8 achieve? Did he deliver what he promised in terms of

9 getting key witnesses to come forward?

10 A. Well, it was a long process. I talked to

11 Mr. Wladimiroff on several occasion and asked him to

12 think about this offer that Mr. Vujin had made, to

13 think about it seriously. Quite simply, it was a case

14 of seven or eight witnesses who were eyewitnesses of

15 the events. I asked Wladimiroff whether that would be

16 important, and he said that would be exceptionally

17 important but that it was difficult to believe in this

18 offer made by Mr. Vujin, because his experience told

19 him that he was working to my own detriment.

20 However --

21 Q. These seven or eight people that you and

22 Mr. Wladimiroff identified might have been really

23 important witnesses. When Mr. Vujin came back into the

24 team, did he ever get a meaningful or helpful statement

25 from any one of them?

Page 67

1 A. No.

2 Q. You comment on the types of statements that

3 Mr. Vujin produced, in the middle of page four of your

4 statement, saying that they were prepared in a rather

5 simplistic and unprofessional manner and simply dealt

6 with not much detail, saying that they weren't present

7 at certain points. Do you stand by that, first of

8 all?

9 A. First of all, one of the important reasons

10 why I thought that he would be able to bring in written

11 evidence and eyewitnesses to the events was because

12 when Mr. Vujin took over my Defence team, brought to

13 The Hague and showed me documents which were

14 confidential in nature, and these were documents that

15 he either got in Prijedor or Bijeljina on the

16 investigations conducted there during the events of

17 1992, the investigation that was conducted under the

18 supervision of the Prijedor police.

19 Most of those documents were signed by

20 Drljaca and other investigating organs of the Prijedor

21 Municipality, so that I saw that perhaps it could be

22 true that some other documents might be in existence

23 which could help me before this Tribunal, who would

24 tell the truth about the events.

25 The documents that he brought me were such

Page 68

1 that they were investigations taken against alleged war

2 criminals in the municipality of Prijedor, crimes

3 against Serbs. But he said that he would be able to

4 come by the other documents as well, which had to do

5 with the other events that took place in the area.

6 Q. Did he ever come up with, as I say, anything

7 meaningful or helpful, the sort of things that you were

8 hoping for?

9 A. No, never. The most that he was able to do

10 was that upon my great insistence, he would sometimes

11 contact somebody who we thought could be an important

12 witness, but that individual was asked nothing in

13 regard to any of the things that could help me before

14 this Tribunal. He asked him questions, and I gave

15 answers which had nothing to do with the events that I

16 was indicted for here.

17 Q. Now, when Mr. Livingston came into the case,

18 was a decision made to seek help from the Tribunal in

19 order to try to compel certain witnesses considered to

20 be important to your case to come and give evidence?

21 A. Well, not at the very beginning. At the

22 beginning, I still thought that Vujin would fulfil his

23 promises, and he always told me he would. Other people

24 told me, General Talic and so on, he had perfect

25 co-operation, for example, with the chief of the

Page 69

1 Yugoslav army at the time, Mr. Persic, so that I had

2 the impression this was a normal minimum which he would

3 fulfil, but he protracted and procrastinated from

4 day-to-day and from month-to-month. Then I saw no end

5 to it. I felt that it would be a good idea if I

6 engaged somebody from abroad who would try to do

7 something for me.

8 Q. Did that person turn out to be

9 Mr. Livingston?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At some stage after Mr. Livingston became

12 involved, as I asked you a few moments ago, was a

13 decision taken to seek the help of the Tribunal in

14 order to compel relevant witnesses for your defence to

15 come forward and make statements?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is that what ended up in the binding order,

18 in the order seeking those witnesses to come forward?

19 A. Yes. Mr. Livingston worked for a long time

20 to achieve that, and he contacted me in that regard,

21 but Mr. Vujin was opposed to that type of procedure

22 because he said that he would have everything

23 necessary. So quite simply, it was difficult -- but it

24 was difficult to believe at that point, and I really

25 supported Mr. Livingston's idea to do everything in his

Page 70

1 power and in the power of the Tribunal to reach

2 witnesses who could make a vital contribution to

3 knowledge of the events that had taken place in the

4 region.

5 Q. So was the decision to seek the Tribunal's

6 help to compel those witnesses to come forward, was

7 that done on your instructions and in accordance with

8 your wishes?

9 A. Yes. It was the proposal made by -- I asked

10 Mr. Livingston what ways and means were there to do

11 this, and he explained that this was one of the reasons

12 of achieving it, and I agreed, and so he went on to do

13 what he did.

14 Q. Who was involved in selecting which witnesses

15 should be interviewed?

16 A. Myself and Mr. Livingston sorted those

17 matters. Vujin did not take part in any of the

18 preparations of that order.

19 Q. Did you give any instructions as to who

20 should actually ask the questions to physically take

21 the statements from those witnesses?

22 A. I always insisted that that be exclusively

23 done by Mr. Livingston, only him.

24 Q. Why was that?

25 A. Mr. Livingston, in all contacts with any

Page 71

1 witnesses up till then, had always tried to achieve the

2 truth. He had no limitations in his questions. All he

3 wanted was to ask everything of importance for my case

4 of the witnesses, and he really proved to me that he

5 was a correct and upright man working in the correct

6 fashion.

7 At first it was a little difficult, because

8 he had not entered into the case fully, but when he had

9 grasped the case, then he said to me that it was only

10 facts that were important for a high Tribunal of this

11 kind, and that anything that Mr. Vujin would say about

12 an international conflict, whether they were camps or

13 not camps, whether it was international or not

14 international, that for this high Tribunal, that was

15 not as important as the facts themselves.

16 Q. I'm not going to ask you to comment

17 specifically about what happened at Prijedor police

18 station, because for obvious reasons you weren't a

19 witness to that. Let me ask you this, please: You

20 mentioned, towards the bottom of page 5 of your

21 statement, criticism of you by Mr. Vujin. Just take a

22 moment to find the place. Reference to Gavranovic.

23 Firstly, at this time were you satisfied or

24 not with the efforts that Mr. Livingston was making on

25 your behalf in seeking to track down witnesses and

Page 72

1 evidence?

2 A. I was satisfied with the idea and his

3 involvement and the efforts he made to track all this

4 down, but he did a series of obstacles and it's quite

5 unbelievable what he encountered in the Republika

6 Srpska. He went to the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina

7 as well and contacted my former neighbours, the locals,

8 and all parties regardless of the ethnic structure. So

9 his investigation was exclusively based on arriving at

10 the truth and tracking down witnesses and eyewitness

11 who could help me in front of this Tribunal.

12 Q. You say there, at that part of page 5 of your

13 statement, that you remember that Mr. Vujin called

14 Gavranovic several times asking her not to meet

15 Mr. Livingston. Did you want him to meet that lady?

16 A. Well, I insisted that he meet all the

17 witnesses, regardless of Mr. Vujin's opinions.

18 Mr. Vujin attempted to prevent contacts of this kind

19 from taking place with Mr. Livingston.

20 Q. You say that you spoke to Mr. Vujin yourself

21 about this, and that he said on several occasions that

22 he wouldn't allow her to testify about anything

23 connected with the events of Kozarac in '92. Do you

24 stand by that?

25 A. I absolutely stand by that, and even more

Page 73

1 than that. I know that he was in a situation of

2 controlling the behaviour of that woman, because he had

3 freed her husband, who was imprisoned, and he was set

4 free from detention by some means and sent home. This

5 was provisional. So there was always the possibility

6 of that husband of hers being taken prisoner again. So

7 he had almost complete control over that man and that

8 woman. Every time that Mr. Livingston met her, it was

9 in secret, as far as I know.

10 Q. Now, you've been asked questions already by

11 Their Honours in relation to Borovnica, and your

12 understanding as to whether that person had committed

13 the murder of the two policemen in Kozarac. Was that

14 your belief at the time of the trial?

15 A. It was difficult to believe in a story like

16 that in view of the fact that other rumours circulated

17 relating to the event, and particularly so because that

18 man died in a very strange way, allegedly on the battle

19 front. Later on, it transpired that he was forcefully

20 taken to the battlefront and was killed there. What he

21 had seen and whatnot, I don't know, but I don't think

22 that the man took part in the event.

23 Q. You speak, at the top of page 6, of

24 Mr. Vujin's visit to The Hague on the 5th of September

25 of '98, and a heated argument that you had concerning

Page 74

1 this part of the case.

2 Now, can we understand this? The thrust of

3 your defence, is this right, Mr. Tadic, has always been

4 that you were not responsible for any of the incidents

5 that you've been charged with and convicted of? First

6 of all, yes? Just a very simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

7 A. Yes. Especially with regard to the events in

8 Kozarac, when the two policemen for which Vujin said he

9 would take over the affair, and that he would

10 investigate the affair and prove the truth of the

11 affair.

12 Q. In your defence, would you have been

13 interested in evidence which tended to prove that you

14 were not the person responsible even if it tended to

15 identify who really was responsible?

16 A. I always asked that all the evidence be

17 presented, both written evidence and eyewitnesses,

18 particularly those two individuals. It was normal that

19 the people in Prijedor knew everything about the event,

20 because they were employed in the police force.

21 Drljaca, Jankovic, all the head police people knew what

22 their workers and members were doing. It was no

23 explanation that they did not.

24 This was confirmed by Mr. Vujin, later on in

25 his contacts with Jankovic. He said that Jankovic told

Page 75

1 him the true story linked to the events. I heard many

2 versions of the events but I always asked that they be

3 checked.

4 But since April 1998 onwards, Mr. Vujin and

5 Mr. Livingston, because of the facts that

6 Mr. Livingston had insisted upon, that is, to arrive at

7 the facts, they came into collision, Mr. Vujin and

8 Mr. Livingston. From April onwards, they didn't have

9 any contact, so that I found myself in a very difficult

10 situation, especially because Mr. Vujin insisted that

11 he take over the investigation and look into the events

12 in Kozarac.

13 Q. Let me ask you this, because that rather long

14 answer was from a fairly short question by me, which is

15 this: Were you interested in trying to get hold of

16 evidence to disprove your conviction, even if it meant

17 implicating other people in the crimes that you were

18 accused of?

19 A. Yes, absolutely so.

20 Q. Was Mr. Livingston interested in pursuing

21 that line?

22 A. Yes, he was.

23 Q. What about Mr. Vujin?

24 A. He exclusively stuck to his own strategy,

25 that everybody outside, especially those who had moved

Page 76

1 to live in Serbia, must not be brought into any kind of

2 connection with the Tribunal in The Hague.

3 Q. Did you, at any stage, trial or appeal stage,

4 want to run your defence on that basis? In other

5 words, not wanting to implicate any third parties.

6 A. No. Everything that I know through

7 Mr. Livingston's investigation and the investigation

8 led personally by my brother and the knowledge that he

9 arrived at in the previous period, I conveyed that

10 quite fairly to Mr. Livingston and Mr. Vujin to check

11 whether it was true, and to see and to prove what was

12 true, and to present the witnesses before this

13 Tribunal, regardless of the consequences, regardless of

14 who was in question, myself or anybody else.

15 Q. So help me about this. Page 6, near the top,

16 back to the argument between you and Mr. Vujin on the

17 5th of September of '98, dealing with the incident with

18 the two policemen, you say Vujin angrily replied that:

19 "I was ungrateful, but he could not allow a new man to

20 be indicted and particularly not a man from Serbia."

21 Do you stand by that?

22 A. I absolutely stand by that. All the more so

23 as that in the meantime I received information that he

24 personally had helped many others to move to Serbia and

25 to live there, so that these people were under control,

Page 77

1 were controlled.

2 Q. You go on to say that Mr. Vujin told you,

3 during this argument, that he and everyone at the

4 Prijedor police -- in the Prijedor police knew very

5 well that Borovnica did not kill the two policemen that

6 were dead and that that was the best solution. Again,

7 do you stand by that?

8 A. I stand by that theory completely and what he

9 told me at that time.

10 Q. Let me move on, please, to page 8. You've

11 referred, in the statement, to a number of documents

12 which you had come into possession of, and you deal,

13 towards the bottom half of that page, with another

14 discussion with Mr. Vujin where you say he repeated

15 several times that he, as lead counsel, would decide

16 what to submit and when to submit it. "He was

17 completely clear when he told me that he would never

18 allow any evidence to be submitted in my case that

19 could jeopardise anyone who was at liberty in

20 Yugoslavia or in Republika Srpska," and so it goes on

21 warning you to be careful what you did because you had

22 a family in Serbia and perhaps no one would be able to

23 protect them. How did you take that warning,

24 Mr. Tadic?

25 A. I took that warning seriously. All the more

Page 78

1 so as all my former lawyers from abroad advised me that

2 it was a good idea for my family to leave the territory

3 of Republika Srpska, and that the greatest danger for

4 their sojourn there were individuals who could be

5 uncovered by the investigating organs in The Hague.

6 All of them, for many years, for the most

7 part, considered that once I was proclaimed guilty,

8 they would all be free and that they could continue

9 their lives as they had lived them hitherto.

10 Apart from that, many of those people I knew

11 were living both in Belgrade and Novi Sad, and that

12 they had bought property there, and that they were in

13 contact with people that had already been arrested here

14 in Holland, and that they were well-informed about

15 everything taking place in and around my case.

16 Q. Mr. Tadic, just pause there for a moment.

17 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, that's all I want

18 to ask him about his statements, but I would wish to

19 ask him some questions relating to the material that

20 Mr. Vujin has put in. It would appear that that's a

21 natural break. I wonder, I see it's nearly 1.00. I

22 don't know whether that might be a convenient moment.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, I was looking at

24 you inquiringly, Mr. Abell. It would help the bench if

25 you would find it possible to indicate how much further

Page 79

1 time you might need to complete your examination.

2 MR. ABELL: Yes. Well, I would hope - I

3 would hope - to deal with it perhaps in half an hour.

4 These things always are difficult. Please don't hold

5 me to it to the minute.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: One appreciates that

7 very readily, Mr. Abell.

8 MR. ABELL: Of course, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then would it be

10 convenient if we resumed at 2.30?

11 The Court stands adjourned accordingly.

12 --- Recess taken at 12.58 p.m.














Page 80

1 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.


3 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.

4 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'm going to turn in just a moment

5 to the material which has been submitted in this matter

6 by Mr. Vujin, but before I do, could I just ask you to

7 do this: Obviously, listen very carefully to the

8 questions I ask and try to just answer the questions

9 that I ask. We all understand you want to say things,

10 but listen to my questions and try to keep your answers

11 short, if you can; all right? I'm sure that will help

12 everyone.

13 Now, first of all, I'm going to be looking at

14 the documents sent in by Mr. Vujin dated the 19th of

15 March headed "Submission of the Written Statements of

16 Witnesses," and that bundle has the pagination on it

17 165, if that assists.

18 Mr. Tadic, do you have a copy of that? You

19 can be supplied with it if need be.

20 A. I would like a copy, please.

21 Q. I'm going to look at a statement at page 146,

22 top right, of Djordje Lopicic, Dr. Djordje Lopicic. It

23 goes from 139 to 146.

24 A. I've been given a text in English.

25 Q. Mr. Tadic, we may well be getting you one in

Page 81

1 your own language in just a moment. I've asked for

2 that and it may be ready in a moment. Do you have it

3 now?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Good. Now, the first thing I want to ask you

6 about Dr. Djordje Lopicic is this: Can you just help

7 me as to what your understanding is of the relationship

8 between Mr. Vujin and Dr. Djordje Lopicic? Is there

9 any link between them?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that is what, please?

12 A. They have been friends for many years. I

13 think that they are very close when it comes to Djordje

14 Lopicic's stay in America as an ambassador and the

15 education of Mr. Vujin's son abroad. So they have very

16 close family ties.

17 Q. There is a statement from a (redacted)

18 (redacted), is there not, in the bundle provided by

19 Mr. Vujin. You don't need to turn to it just yet.

20 Just answer "Yes" or "No."

21 A. Yes, I know there is. I know there is a

22 statement.

23 Q. She is not, is she not, (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 A. Yes.

Page 82

1 Q. And she is employed where?

2 A. She is employed in Mr. Vujin's offices.

3 Q. Now, can you help me, please, on the second

4 page --

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would you

6 give me the page number?

7 MR. ABELL: Yes, 145 on the top right. I

8 hope I understand the pagination, Your Honours, that --

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It seems to be in

10 reverse order.

11 MR. ABELL: It does, and I was a little

12 curious about it. I hope that I have got it right.

13 It's the second page. It begins with the words

14 "Defence Counsel's," and it's 145 in the manuscript at

15 the top.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. You say that that

17 is the statement of?

18 MR. ABELL: That is the statement of Djordje

19 Lopicic. It begins at page 1 --

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, but you were

21 talking of his daughter, were you?

22 MR. ABELL: Only in passing, just to mention

23 the fact --

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're not asserting

25 that her statement is before us, are you?

Page 83

1 MR. ABELL: It is. It is further on in the

2 bundle.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: At what page number?

4 MR. ABELL: Would Your Honours bear with me

5 for a moment?

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Thank you very

7 much.

8 MR. ABELL: It is a little further on in the

9 bundle.

10 Q. I'm looking now at page 145 of Dr. Djordje

11 Lopicic's statement. He says that he discussed matters

12 with you. Firstly, do you agree that there were

13 occasions when you and the ambassador would speak?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. He says on that page, "I know for a fact that

16 at that time Milan Vujin was very professionally,

17 conscientiously, and expertly doing his work on the

18 defence of Dusko Tadic." Do you accept that statement

19 or not about the quality of Mr. Vujin's work on your

20 behalf?

21 A. What I saw through my case, I thought it was

22 not professional.

23 Q. How often would you discuss with the

24 ambassador, Dr. Lopicic, the details of your case and

25 the conduct of it?

Page 84

1 A. Well, the details from the defence case, we

2 didn't discuss them much. It all boiled down to one in

3 the same thing, the need to enable me to have an

4 insight into all the written documents and the bringing

5 in of the witnesses who were vital to my case. We

6 didn't discuss any other details much, so the

7 discussion was of a general nature mostly.

8 Q. On your meetings with Dr. Lopicic, did you

9 always discuss the details of your case or were there

10 other topics that would be discussed?

11 A. We discussed my physical state and quite

12 different matters, questions that were not related to

13 my case before this Tribunal at all.

14 Q. On the same page lower down, about six or

15 seven lines from the bottom, he says: "Mr. Vujin, on

16 several occasions, visited the highest state

17 authorities and personalities in the Republika

18 Srpska." As far as you know, Mr. Tadic, when he did

19 that, did he ever bring with him any foreign lawyer

20 from the team, either Mr. Livingston or

21 Mr. Wladimiroff, at the various stages, or Mr. Kay?

22 A. He usually came alone. He did not like to

23 contact the foreign lawyers much.

24 Q. I'm now on page 3, page 144 at the top, where

25 Dr. Lopicic deals with his finding out that you had

Page 85

1 dispensed with the services of Mr. Vujin. It came as a

2 great surprise to him, he says. He then says this:

3 "The only thing that I mentioned to him was that it

4 was not convenient that in his defence team there was

5 not a single defence counsel, a Serb either from FRY or

6 from the Republika Srpska." Do you agree that he just

7 restricted himself to saying it was not convenient or

8 did he say more than that?

9 A. He said far more than that.

10 Q. Give us, please, the gist or a precis, just a

11 summary of what he said to you when you decided to

12 dispense with Mr. Vujin's services shortly before the

13 trial.

14 A. Well, we talked about cooperation between the

15 authorities of Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska and the

16 court in The Hague and the possibility of bringing

17 witnesses to the Tribunal who would be defence

18 witnesses, and he expressly said that I would get

19 nobody if I -- it was in that context, that I shouldn't

20 be stubborn because Yugoslav interests were at stake,

21 far more important interests than my own and mine

22 myself. So we had a much more lengthy conversation in

23 that direction, and everything boiled down to the fact

24 that my case was not only a case of me personally but

25 that many more important things were at stake. He said

Page 86

1 that there was a case against Yugoslavia and a

2 complaint from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and when it was a

3 case of an international armed conflict, that this

4 could have a serious effect and that I must take care

5 what I did.

6 Q. Mr. Tadic, you were the man in the dock or

7 about to be put in the dock on this trial. Who were

8 you concerned with, your own position or the position

9 of the state?

10 A. I was exclusively interested in my own

11 defence and not anybody else's, especially not the

12 defence of the state or important individuals who were

13 at the head of that state. They all knew that very

14 well. Everybody knew that, especially the foreign

15 lawyers.

16 Q. What impression did you get from what

17 Dr. Lopicic was telling you in that conversation?

18 A. Everything boiled down to the fact that

19 unless I had people from Yugoslavia, that is to say,

20 from Serbia, the Republika Srpska, on my defence team,

21 that I wouldn't get defence witnesses, that I would not

22 have access to material that could help my case. Quite

23 obviously, this was held under the control of my

24 defence team. Mr. Wladimiroff very often said that he

25 wasn't interested in the defence of Yugoslavia and

Page 87

1 Serbia, that he was only working for my own interests.

2 This very often irritated Ambassador Lopicic, and he

3 would criticise me for that, reproach me for it.

4 Q. Now, about two-thirds of the way down page

5 144, page 3, Dr. Lopicic says: "I most strongly refute

6 the allegations that I was telling Tadic at the time

7 that he would end up without a single important witness

8 from either FRY or the Republika Srpska." Do you agree

9 or disagree with that statement from this man?

10 A. I do not agree with his statement. I think

11 that it was quite the opposite. He raised his voice

12 when talking to me, and he clearly let me know that I

13 would end up as I have ended up. He made use of the

14 people who knew me and contacted Mr. Lopicic, and they

15 all came to visit me to tell me that I should listen to

16 his advice. He even called my wife up for that

17 purpose. He tried to exert influence on her, for her

18 to tell me that I was making a mistake.

19 Q. Did she speak to you about that, your wife?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. From your conversation, how did she react?

22 What was her impression of what was being said to her

23 about getting you to change your mind?

24 A. The whole time after I was arrested, I tried

25 to keep my wife and children apart, because they had

Page 88

1 had a very difficult life and were finding it

2 difficult. I was very sorry that anybody had asked her

3 to use her influence with me. She was angry, and she

4 said that she wouldn't have come to visit me in The

5 Hague had she known they were going to do so. It was

6 her first visit.

7 She knew me very well and, of course, she

8 knew that nobody could influence me, that I would do

9 how I saw fit and how I thought that I should proceed.

10 My wife and I have known each other since we were 15

11 years old.

12 Q. You say or, rather, I'm sorry, I draw your

13 attention to the very bottom of that same page. "At

14 the time Tadic was simply obsessed," is the word used,

15 "with his Defence counsel Mr. Wladimiroff and his

16 team." Do you agree that you were obsessed with them

17 or were they simply your legal team?

18 A. I never had any dealings with a Court before,

19 and the way in which Mr. Wladimiroff and his associates

20 behaved towards me and my problem, the case that I was

21 being tried for, was something that I was exceptionally

22 satisfied with. There was no personal sentimentality

23 of any kind.

24 I was very satisfied with the professional

25 relationship that they displayed and, quite simply, he

Page 89

1 didn't find it difficult to travel to Republika Srpska,

2 and even the most remote village to check out some

3 things, whereas other lawyers found it very difficult

4 to go even 20 or 30 kilometres away and always found

5 reasons why they should not go. But he did not find it

6 a burden to go from Holland, or Steven Kay from London,

7 for example, and that was something that I was

8 extremely satisfied with, their approach.

9 Q. So they would take the trouble to go out to

10 your country and make investigations. Did they find it

11 easy, though, to get hold of the people they were

12 trying to get hold of?

13 A. It was very difficult, and I was -- really

14 marvelled at the courage they showed because, you know,

15 in 1995 there was a war waging in the area, and I know

16 that Mr. Wladimiroff spent so