1 Tuesday, 17 January 2006
2 [Pre-Trial Conference]
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.06 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Would the registrar please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning to
8 everyone. Case number IT-95-14-R77.2, the Prosecutor versus Ivica
9 Marijacic and Markica Rebic.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Can we have appearances, please.
11 MR. AKERSON: Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of the
12 Prosecution, David Akerson. I'll be the lead attorney today. To my right
13 is Rebecca Graham and Salvatore Cannata. They will be assisting. And our
14 case manager is Sebastiaan van Hooydonk.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
16 For the Defence, please.
17 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning. My name is Marin
18 Ivanovic and I shall represent Mr. Ivica Marijacic. I'm a member of the
19 Croatian Bar.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Ivanovic.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. My name
22 is Kresimir Krsnik, I'm a member of the Croatian Bar and I'm going to
23 conduct the Defence of Mr. Markica Rebic. I'm assisted here by our case
24 manager, Ms. Koraljka Tomasic. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik. At this time I would like to
1 make sure the accused are following in the language they understand.
2 Mr. Marijacic, do you follow the procedure in your language?
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 JUDGE KWON: Could you turn on the microphone, please.
5 THE ACCUSED MARIJACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Yes, I can follow the proceedings
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Marijacic. How about Mr. Rebic. Do
8 you follow the procedure in the language you understand?
9 THE ACCUSED REBIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. This is a Pre-Trial Conference in the
11 trial of Mr. Ivica Marijacic and Mr. Markica Rebic for contempt of the
12 Tribunal, which is a crime within the inherent jurisdiction the Tribunal
13 and punishable under Rule 77 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
14 According to the operative indictment, dated 14th of October, 2005, the
15 allegations against Mr. Marijacic are that he knowingly and wilfully
16 interfered with the administration of justice in three respects: By
17 publishing the identity of the protected witness, the statement of the
18 witness, and the fact that the witness had testified in non-public
19 proceedings before the Tribunal.
20 The allegations against Mr. Rebic are that he knowingly and
21 wilfully interfered with the administration of justice in three respects:
22 By disclosing the identity of a protected witness, the statement and
23 transcript of the witness, and the fact that the witness had testified in
24 non-public proceedings before the Tribunal.
25 I have to note my monitor is gone.
1 The Rule 77(E) of the Rules state that Rules in parts four to
2 eight of the Rules shall apply mutatis mutandis to contempt proceedings.
3 This would mean that the contempt proceedings do not necessarily require
4 the same course of proceedings usually envisaged by the Rules.
5 Accordingly, the Trial Chamber shall adopt a somewhat flexible approach,
6 reflecting the fact that this case involves a single count of contempt of
7 the Tribunal and that the trial can be concluded in a relatively short
8 period of time. Thus, as the parties are well aware, we have scheduled
9 trial proceedings for two days; today, directly following this Pre-Trial
10 Conference, and tomorrow. So I'd like to make sure to the parties that it
11 is the Chamber's intention to conclude the trial proceedings within this
12 period of time.
13 With the foregoing in mind, this Pre-Trial Conference shall serve
14 to narrow down the main issues of contention between the Prosecution and
15 Defence so that we can focus the evidence and legal arguments on them
16 during trial. Before going into these main issues, let me briefly discuss
17 the conduct of the trial.
18 The Trial Chamber is of the view that we will not have opening
19 statements but, rather, commence with legal arguments following the
20 Pre-Trial Conference, and then we'll have the Prosecution's case, to be
21 followed by the Defence case.
22 As for Defence case, I understand that both accused will give
23 evidence as witnesses. I will leave it to the Defence who shall begin
25 Since the accused will be giving evidence as witnesses, they shall
1 make the solemn declaration pursuant to Rule 90, and their testimony shall
2 not be considered as statements of the accused pursuant to Rule 84 bis.
3 And at the end of hearing, a brief period of time shall be reserved for a
4 brief closing remark from both parties.
5 Before we hear from the parties on legal arguments, I'd like to --
6 I have to remind both the parties that as of yesterday, 16th of January,
7 2006, the Appeals Chamber issued a decision on Prosecution's motion for
8 variance of protective measures, lifting all protective measures granted
9 with respect to Johannes Van Kuijk in the hearing of 16th of December,
10 1997 in the Blaskic case, and stating that the fact that witness Van Kuijk
11 testified, his statement to the Prosecution, as well as his testimony
12 transcript in Blaskic case may be referred to publicly and in open
14 Furthermore, with regard to the first order of -- what was the
15 date of -- sometime in June. With regard to the first order, the Appeals
16 Chamber found that because protective measures were ordered out of the
17 Trial Chamber's extreme concern for the security of witnesses residing in
18 the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Prosecution has failed to
19 establish that those protective measures are applicable to witness Van
20 Kuijk given that he testified that he was a Dutch army officer of the
21 infantry stationed for a specific period of time in Central Bosnia.
22 So before we hear from the Prosecution on their legal arguments,
23 can I hear from Mr. Akerson what, if any, the Prosecution's position on
24 this finding of the Appeals Chamber.
25 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, I'd first like to point out that we
1 just received this at 6.00 p.m. last night and I was able to provide it to
2 Defence counsel a few minutes ago, so they really haven't had a chance to
3 look at it. I don't know if you want to give them a little bit of time to
4 try to digest this order before you have a discussion on its application,
5 or do you want me to go ahead and just render what our opinion is about
6 this order?
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Akerson, can I ask you directly whether the
8 Prosecution still needs to bother to prove that Mr. Rebic was
9 representative of the Blaskic team, Defence team?
10 MR. AKERSON: I -- it was never our position that that was a
11 critical element that we had to prove in order to convict Mr. Rebic. It
12 helps to establish the application of the 1997 order, but there's two
13 provisions -- the June 1997 order. There's two provisions in that order
14 in which the Blaskic Trial Chamber sought to stop the disclosure of
15 protected witness information. One is that provision where they are
16 directing it at the defendant, Mr. Blaskic, himself, his legal
17 representatives -- his legal counsel and their representatives, but then
18 there's another provision where they say that anyone who receives copies
19 of the statements shall be instructed by the attorneys and Defence counsel
20 not to reproduce them under pain of contemptive sanction. And what was
21 submitted in the motion to modify the protection measures was only
22 submitted on the basis of the first clause, so I think the second clause
23 still applies. That would be the position of the Prosecution.
24 JUDGE KWON: Appeals Chamber should have read all the text of the
25 first order. Is it not clear from the reading of the Appeals Chamber
1 decision that the first order of June 1997 is not applicable to this case?
2 Do you not agree?
3 MR. AKERSON: We don't agree with that. The ruling of the Appeals
4 Chamber, based on our interpretation -- that's certainly a reasonable
5 interpretation of the Appeals Chamber's order. The other interpretation
6 would be that they have said that, based on our submission in that motion,
7 the Prosecution has failed to prove, based on that provision -- because
8 that's the only provision they specifically mention, which is the witness
9 Van Kuijk, we didn't establish that the first provision of -- of the 1997
10 order applied because he wasn't a resident of the former Yugoslavia and he
11 was not personally -- and/or he was not personally -- the arguments put in
12 favour of proceeding in closed session were not based on his personal
14 We still think there's an argument that, because what the Appeals
15 Chamber said is that we didn't prove it for the purposes of that motion,
16 that we could adduce evidence which would establish it and would allow us
17 to go forward with the 1997 order.
18 JUDGE KWON: Judge Bonomy has some questions.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Akerson, the order in question was made because
20 a previous order appeared to extend only to persons residing in Central
21 Bosnia. So it was extended to the whole of the former Yugoslavia. And
22 then if you read further on in the order, it says on page 6: "It
23 therefore deems that the accused, his counsel, and their representatives
24 must not disclose to the public or to the media the name of the witnesses
25 from certain areas of the former Yugoslavia or any information which might
1 make it possible to identify them unless that is absolutely necessary for
2 preparing the Defence. The Trial Chamber also considers that additional
3 measures must be implemented by both parties in order to guarantee
4 satisfactory protection of the witnesses. It therefore orders the
5 Prosecution and the Defence to ..." and then it goes on to deal with the
6 second part you've just referred to.
7 Now, is it not clear as day that that is simply a measure, an
8 administrative measure to secure the effective implementation of the main
9 order, which is to protect witnesses residing in the former Yugoslavia?
10 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, what I would submit is that the -- if
11 you look at the order in its entirety, the Prosecution had originally
12 requested a number of forms of relief, and that it could be interpreted
13 that when the Blaskic Trial Chamber issued these orders that they -- they
14 can be read individually, and so the order that I'm referring to orders
15 the Prosecution and the Defence to instruct those persons who have
16 received a copy of these statements not to reproduce them under pain of
17 sanction can be read independently and it's still viable.
18 That being said, if this Chamber wants to -- you know, it's not a
19 critical part of this case, this 1997 order. I think it's a clear
20 expression by the Blaskic Trial Chamber that they were making efforts to
21 protect the closed-session testimonies that were being leaked in the
22 newspapers. But the case doesn't turn on it.
23 We haven't had a lot of time to digest the Appeals Chamber ruling,
24 and I know the Defence counsel hasn't.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Akerson, it seems to me there might be a quite
1 separate question whether any statement made by any witness has a degree
2 of confidentiality that means it ought never to be divulged. However, you
3 have never at any stage in this case suggested that that was a basis on
4 which there might be contempt here. You've relied exclusively on the
5 orders themselves and the general -- not perhaps exclusively on the terms
6 of the orders but possibly also the spirit of the orders. But that's --
7 that's a separate question. It seems to me that on a pure and simple
8 interpretation of this order, is confined to people residing in the former
9 Yugoslavia, and that's the end of the matter as far as that order is
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson. I wonder --
13 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, could I just respond very briefly to
14 Judge Bonomy?
15 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Akerson.
16 MR. AKERSON: There is the issue of -- one of the complicating
17 factors with all of these newspapers that have been disclosing
18 confidential material is the confusion between a witness statement and his
19 testimony, and at the juncture at which point a statement is actually
20 released, because it seems to me that there is a point in time where when
21 a witness testifies, even if you presume that witness statements at some
22 point aren't protected at all, when a witness testifies in closed session
23 and his witness statement covers the exact same material, which a lot of
24 times it's at least going to be significantly overlapping, that by
25 disclosing the witness statement after he's testified in closed session,
1 the statement then assumes a cloak of protection, because when the Trial
2 Chamber orders that a witness is entitled or needs to testify in closed
3 session, they are protecting the content of what he's saying, at a
4 minimum. The content of what he's saying also can be contained in the
5 witness statement. So we would say that there is a timing question as to
6 a witness statement, when protection may attach to it. At a very
7 minimum. It may be that there's more protection of a witness statement
8 than that.
9 JUDGE KWON: We'll come to the issue of closed session, the effect
10 of it, but can we confine our discussion on the first order of 6th of
11 June, 1997, whether it is confined to those witnesses who were residing in
12 the territory of former Yugoslavia and on a factual issue whether
13 Prosecution is challenging that the witness Van Kuijk himself was residing
14 in the former Yugoslavia or not. No?
15 MR. AKERSON: No, we're not challenging the fact he was a member
16 of the military. He was never a resident, in the legal sense, of the
17 former Yugoslavia. He was residing in the former Yugoslavia on an interim
18 basis or on a periodic basis as part of his duties, but ...
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
20 I wonder if Defence has anything to say in relation to the first
21 order and on what Appeals Chamber had said.
22 Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Our
24 understanding of this is also very simple, and we believe that the
25 decision of the Appeals Chamber and our position are very straightforward,
1 as Judge Bonomy pointed out. It clearly transpires that protective
2 measures, generally written as they are, are directed to the parties, et
3 cetera, and generally refer only to the witnesses residing in the former
4 Yugoslavia. It's very clear that they refer only to residents of the
5 former Yugoslavia, and then the conclusion is very clear.
6 If we are talking about a specific witness, Van Kuijk, this order
7 had a general thrust and was more directed to some other witnesses whom I
8 cannot mention because they still enjoy protection. They were not
9 actually directed at witness Van Kuijk. This whole problem arose much,
10 much later, in 2004; seven years later, after the entire Dutch Battalion
11 had withdrawn. And if we talk about the reasons why anything was
12 published in this Croatian newspaper at all, whatever was written could
13 not have applied to a protected witness at all, because this witness never
14 enjoyed such protection, let alone in 2004.
15 That is our position, Your Honour, and it is clear in all our
16 submissions. And we wanted ourselves to raise the first issue you began
17 this discussion with, plus the issue whether Mr. Markica Rebic was indeed
18 a member of the Defence team. I hope this issue will be resolved today.
19 And in conclusion, I have to say it's very difficult for me to
20 speak at this moment because it was only thanks to our learned colleague
21 Mr. Akerson that I received this order of the Appeals Chamber only a few
22 minutes before this hearing started, and we would be grateful for at least
23 a couple of minutes in peace to read this decision.
24 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please try to do so.
25 Yes, Mr. Ivanovic.
1 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me, I
2 would be very brief. We held the position from the very beginning that
3 Mr. Marijacic never violated any orders of this Honourable Court. We
4 believe it is very clear, especially now, that no portion of the
5 transcript of the closed session was ever published.
6 Hrvatski List newspaper never published --
7 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Ivanovic. We'll come to
8 the closed session order later on. We are discussing only the first
9 order, whether --
10 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, but that is
11 closely linked to the finding of the Court of the 6th of June, 1997, to
12 the order of the 6th of June, which specifies that it refers to the
13 parties in the courtroom. It has no other link with this case. Thank
14 you, Your Honour.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE KWON: So the Prosecution's position is that while it is not
17 challenging the fact that the witness Van Kuijk was not residing in the
18 territory of former Yugoslavia, some parts of the first order of 6th of
19 June in 1997 can be applicable to -- even to the witness who was not
20 residing in the territory of former Yugoslavia. Am I correct in so
21 understanding, Mr. Akerson? We are talking about the first order.
22 MR. AKERSON: Yes. That's correct. That would be our position,
23 that it's a general expression of the Blaskic Trial Chamber that is
24 attempting to protect witnesses, and when -- when the two accused had
25 knowledge of that order, that that extended even to Mr. Van Kuijk.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Akerson, if the Trial Chamber did not decide
2 that point now but left it to the trial, how would you be seeking to
3 substantiate it, your argument, during the trial?
4 MR. AKERSON: Essentially through legal argument. One of the --
5 one of the cases cited by the Defence is a case out of the United Kingdom,
6 the Levellee case, and one of the principles in that case is that contempt
7 would apply in situations where the Court has made a clear expression of
8 its intent to protect --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I don't want to hear the argument now. I just
10 wanted to be sure that you were seeking to do it through legal argument as
11 distinct from witnesses.
12 MR. AKERSON: Yes. And if I could just emphasise, this is a minor
13 point in the case because the case really turns on closed session --
14 JUDGE KWON: Would you still need Mr. Tomljanovich as your
16 MR. AKERSON: Yes.
17 JUDGE KWON: To prove that Mr. Rebic was part of the Defence team.
18 MR. AKERSON: Not to prove that point, no. I don't need him for
19 that point, and that was always a minor point of this case anyway.
20 JUDGE KWON: But you wouldn't lead that evidence in trial, whether
21 Mr. Rebic was a part -- representative of the Blaskic Defence team.
22 MR. AKERSON: That's correct.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes. As suggested by Judge Robinson, the Chamber is
24 of the view to leave the issue open 'til the later stage of this trial.
25 MR. AKERSON: Thank you.
1 JUDGE KWON: So we shall come to the issue of second oral order
2 for closed session. In relation to that, the Appeals Chamber said the
3 following: "In its order, the Appeals Chamber noted that the reason why
4 witness Van Kuijk's testimony was -- was ordered by the Trial Chamber to
5 be conducted in closed session was not out of concern for witness Van
6 Kuijk's own security but because he would be testifying about information
7 that is extremely sensitive and because the questioning could intrude upon
8 sensitive operational matters."
9 Having said this, therefore one of the key issues in this case
10 would be what if -- what the effect of such an order is, and I'd like to
11 hear the legal submissions on this issue from the parties.
12 And the third order -- in relation to third order, which ordered
13 that publication of statements and testimony of the witness concerned and
14 generally of any protected witness shall cease immediately. So same issue
15 of the effect of the closed session, and the issue of whether the witness
16 Van Kuijk was a protected witness at all rises here again.
17 So we'll hear submission from the parties on this issue. But
18 before I hear from you, Mr. Akerson, one issue that can possibly arise in
19 relation to the third order is that while it is only the publication of
20 statements or testimony that was prohibited by this order, it may be
21 argued that Mr. Rebic is not alleged to have published anything and,
22 therefore, cannot be alleged to have violated the order per se.
23 Do you have anything to say? Start from this and continue your
24 legal submissions, please.
25 MR. AKERSON: I'll start with what Your Honour had first
1 mentioned, which is the oral order, and that is when Mr. Van Kuijk
2 appeared in front of the Blaskic Trial Chamber, there was a discussion as
3 to whether or not he should testify in open session or closed session.
4 The ruling was that he should testify in closed session. Very evident on
5 the face of the transcript in a number of places that he was testifying
6 completely in closed session. And it is the important principle that's at
7 stake in this case.
8 Mr. Van Kuijk testifies in closed session. His identity is never
9 revealed in any part of open session. And assuming that the purpose of
10 him testifying in closed session was to protect what he was testifying
11 about and that the parties weren't concerned with protecting his identity,
12 his identity was protected in closed session. And so this decision is
13 going to define what the meaning of protection measures is, and it would
14 be the Prosecution's position that the only reasonable interpretation is
15 the simple interpretation that whatever is in closed session is protected.
16 And in this particular case, Mr. Van Kuijk's identity was never revealed
17 in open session. It was only mentioned in closed session and therefore it
18 is protected and he is a protected witness.
19 But a fundamental question for this case is what is a protected
20 witness versus protection measures. The Appeals Chamber has said
21 protection measures apply to this witness, and then the question is: Is
22 he a protected witness or is he a witness who has protection apply to
23 him? And it would be our position that because his identity was never
24 revealed, that it opens a Pandora's box if you allow other people to go
25 beneath the surface of a closed-session transcript and determine what the
1 intent of the parties was and parse out what is protected and what is not
2 protected. So our simple argument is he is a protected witness because
3 his identity is never revealed outside of closed session.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, Mr. Akerson, that's all very dramatic, but how
5 is it you say that -- or are going to say that divulging the identity of
6 the witness could have prejudiced the security of the material, which the
7 Appeals Chamber have clearly stated was the purpose of that particular
8 order? What you've said seems to me pure speculation.
9 MR. AKERSON: Our response would be, Your Honour, respectfully,
10 that when the Blaskic Trial Chamber heard arguments that Mr. Van Kuijk
11 should testify in closed session, they very well -- it's reasonable to
12 come to the conclusion that they were only interested in protecting the
13 content of what he said. But that's not what happened. Ultimately,
14 Mr. Van Kuijk's identity was never revealed, and the record -- there's an
15 ex parte motion filed by the Prosecution, and I think this Chamber's well
16 acquainted that this argument is presuming that all the reasons to move
17 into closed session were recorded on the record. But assuming that's the
18 case, that everything was laid out and the Prosecution was never
19 interested in protecting Mr. Van Kuijk's identity, his identity was
20 protected because it was never revealed --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So are you conceding that the Prosecution never
22 aimed to protect his identity but aimed to protect the material?
23 MR. AKERSON: I think that's -- from looking at the record, I
24 think that's a fair analysis, yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
1 MR. AKERSON: But it would be our position - if I could just add
2 one other point - it doesn't matter because his identity was never
3 revealed. And if then subsequent parties, whether it be newspapers,
4 anybody who happens to get a closed-session transcript, can look at a
5 transcript and say, well, it's the intent of the parties only to protect
6 this material, then it's my right to parse out what is protected and what
7 isn't. It's a very dangerous precedent, because what that means, in this
8 case the parties argued that they were concerned with Mr. Van Kuijk's
9 operational details. He testifies in closed session to a lot of issues,
10 and if this Chamber is considering adopting the position that someone can
11 look at the intent of the parties in arguing for closed session and parse
12 out that part of the closed-session testimony and publish closed-session
13 testimony because the parties never advocated that that should be
14 protected, then that's the Pandora's box and that's a dangerous precedent
15 because then closed-session testimony really becomes subject to the
16 argument the parties make as to why closed session should be imposed.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: What -- I don't want to enter into a lengthy debate
18 with you at this stage, but what that leaves out of account is the fact
19 that the order -- the Rule clearly specifies that the reason for granting
20 the protection must be stated on the record, and here it was clearly
21 wasn't clearly stated but you can deduce what the reason was from the
22 debate and from the terms of the transcript. Now, does that not rather
23 nullify the submission you're making that if by coincidence the name never
24 comes out, or if as a result of the order, even, the name never comes out,
25 that somehow or other it's protected?
1 MR. AKERSON: It would be our position that it's a slippery slope,
2 that unless we adopt a very simple interpretation of what closed session
3 means, we're opening the door to really water down what a closed-session
4 protection really affords, and if we allow parties to interpret based on
5 the arguments, it's just going to become very complicated as to determine
6 what protections really apply in these cases.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
8 JUDGE KWON: I wonder Mr. Akerson, you answered my question in
9 relation to the third order, the order of 2000, which was concerned with
10 the publication of statement or testimony, but Mr. Rebic was not alleged
11 to have violated -- have published anything; he was alleged to have
12 disclosed something. What is your view on this matter?
13 MR. AKERSON: Our view would be that Rule 77(A)(ii) says that a
14 person will be in contempt if they wilfully -- knowingly and wilfully
15 interfere with the administration of justice, in this case by disclosing
16 information relating to proceedings. He's charged in the indictment only
17 with disclosing, not with publishing.
18 JUDGE KWON: So that is related to the -- with the second order,
19 not with the third order.
20 MR. AKERSON: Yes.
21 JUDGE KWON: Because third order is only concerned with
23 MR. AKERSON: Yes, except for it -- in the -- on the face of the
24 Hrvatski List article, there's an interview between Mr. Rebic and
25 Mr. Marijacic, and they are freely discussing that the purpose of him
1 turning over this material is to have it published in the edition. So he
2 is in essence participating in the publication of the material as well.
3 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
4 Before we come to the Defence, if the Defence wishes, the Chamber
5 is minded to allow some time for the Defence to be able to read the
6 decision of the Appeals Chamber.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour. We
8 do need a little time. But I would like first to respond very briefly, if
9 you allow me, to the position of my learned colleague.
10 The Defence believes to the contrary, that something else is a
11 slippery slope; namely that the OTP of this Tribunal has much too great
12 authorities and authorisations, some of them not completely justified, and
13 they would like to stretch their confidentiality concerns to the entire
14 globe. And of course civil law and our domestic law is familiar with
15 witness protection, but their interpretation is, or seems to be that what
16 is believed to be confidential by them may not be published anywhere
17 around the globe.
18 We all know that such an order on confidentiality can refer only
19 to the parties to the proceedings; namely the Defence, the experts, anyone
20 participating directly in the courtroom, people who may actually be aware
21 of confidential, protected material.
22 But what is the greatest concern to the Defence, Your Honour, is
23 the fact that there is misrepresentation of the reasons why Van Kuijk
24 received protection in the first place. Not because his security or his
25 life were in danger; he received protection because the Dutch government
1 asked for it. Why doesn't my colleague state this clearly? For military
2 reasons, military reasons.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: He stated that clearly. He stated quite clearly
4 that the Prosecution didn't even ask for protection for the witness's
5 security. It went beyond that. It wasn't just that the Trial Chamber
6 didn't grant it, he didn't -- his colleague didn't ask for it.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Precisely, Your Honour. And if
8 protection was received, it was granted only to protect military concerns
9 of the Dutch state. And the Dutch state started an initiative in 2005,
10 citing Mr. Cameron, who will appear as a witness for the Prosecution, and
11 they asked for all protective measures to be removed because all their
12 concerns were now moot.
13 Therefore, I believe that we cannot have such a unilateral,
14 lopsided interpretation as my colleague seems to adopt. Only then would
15 we be on a slippery slope, because one of the purposes, one of the goals
16 of this Tribunal is to make public whatever can possibly be made public.
17 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
18 JUDGE KWON: Before we continue that kind of debate, I take it
19 from your submission that, Mr. Ivanovic, I assume you would not need Van
20 Kuijk as a Defence witness any more, because all the issues have been
21 resolved by the Appeals Chamber decision and by these legal submissions.
22 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is not the view
23 of the Defence. It is not the view of the Defence that our party
24 published anything from a closed session. We wanted witness Van Kuijk to
25 confirm whether what was published in Hrvatski List was part of his
1 statement or part of his testimony, whether what was published in Hrvatski
2 List newspaper in any way endangered the concerns of the Dutch state.
3 We would like to resolve now in the pre-trial stage --
4 JUDGE KWON: Sorry to interrupt you, but why do you need witness
5 Van Kuijk himself to prove that what was part -- what was published in
6 Hrvatski List was part of his statement? We can read the transcript.
7 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But who will confirm the
8 authenticity of his statement? On the facts that was published in
9 Hrvatski List newspaper, I cannot see that anyone signed the statement. I
10 don't see who else I can call to confirm the authenticity of the
12 What I'm trying to say, Your Honour, is that of course if, when we
13 study this decision, this decision of the Appeals Chamber, we will decide
14 after giving it some more thought whether to call Mr. Van Kuijk or not,
15 but what is important to say, I believe, is that all this time we see
16 attempts -- we are witnessing attempts to link two distinct matters.
17 Hrvatski List did not publish a single word from the closed-session
18 testimony of witness Van Kuijk. That is very clear.
19 JUDGE KWON: It is not the Prosecution's case that Hrvatski List
20 published the closed-session testimony of Van Kuijk. Instead, it
21 published a part of statements given to the Prosecution. It is clear from
22 the indictment. And I thought it was the purpose of the Defence team to
23 prove the fact that Mr. Van Kuijk was not residing in the territory of
24 former Yugoslavia and that the protective was not given for his own
25 security reason, so -- and those issues have been resolved. I don't think
1 you need Mr. Van Kuijk any more. And I think this is the proper time to
2 allow some time to allow the Defence to read the Appeals Chamber decision.
3 Would a quarter of an hour be sufficient?
4 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour. And I
5 believe I can agree with your analysis. That is the crux of all our
6 submissions and arguments from the beginning. Mr. Van Kuijk was not a
7 protected witness. What was protected was his closed-session testimony.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE KWON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
10 --- Break taken at 9.55 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.18 a.m.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes. We'll hear from the Defence on the legal
13 arguments. I hope you have had enough time to read the Appeals Chamber's
15 Mr. Ivanovic, will you start.
16 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, I should
17 like to respond first of all to your question before the break. After we
18 have reviewed the decision, we no longer intend to call Witness Van Kuijk
19 as a witness in this case.
20 As for the publication of the article, I think the position of the
21 Appeals Chamber is very clear. They confirm almost all submissions of the
23 First of all, the witness himself, Van Kuijk, was not a protected
24 witness. It was his testimony that was protected for reasons of special
25 interests of the OTP and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The only thing
1 that we take issue with in this case, and what we believe should be
2 resolved before the trial, is the material itself, the material that is
3 only a burden for this case. We have received over a hundred documents
4 which have absolutely nothing to do with either the witness himself, Van
5 Kuijk, or the accused who are present in this courtroom. Therefore, I
6 believe that before we proceed with the trial a decision should be reached
7 that the parties must focus on the charges -- on the charge of the
8 indictment and not to introduce material which has nothing to do with the
9 case against the accused.
10 Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Ivanovic.
12 Mr. Krsnik, you have anything to say?
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I will be very
14 brief. The position of the Defence of Markica Rebic is very clear. He
15 was never a member nor was he able to be a member of the Defence team in
16 the Blaskic case, the Defence which was led by Counsel Nobilo. As for the
17 submissions, I think that was the submission that appeared for the first
18 time at the last Status Conference, we received, and I believe you have,
19 Your Honours, a pile of documents. I don't know how much time we will
20 lose in order to prove this -- this allegation. That he was a member of
21 the Defence team, I don't think I should waste my time on that. I think
22 the position is clear. If you read the order of the Court, you will see
23 that the -- his function was very clear. He was at the disposal of
24 whoever needed any assistance from the Prosecution or from the Defence.
25 He provided that assistance to both parties equally. Would that therefore
1 mean that he was a member of the OTP of this Tribunal? No. I think my
2 colleague went a bit too far, but I'm not going to waste precious time. I
3 believe your decision will be fair and just.
4 What concerns me, Your Honour, is that the witness that we
5 intended to call, and you know who the witness is, if my colleague is
6 going to maintain his position, I will have to call the witness. If not,
7 I will then drop the witness. And I have been thinking of dropping other
8 witnesses as well.
9 We have another problem with this witness: He is sick. He has a
10 40 degree temperature, and I don't think he will be able to come. I fully
11 agree with your positions, Your Honour, everything that you stated today,
12 and the Defence is prepared to act as -- to be as flexible as possible
14 Thank you, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE KWON: So let me be clear about Mr. Krsnik. (redacted)
18 (redacted) Can we move into private session, please?
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, I apologise. That part can be redacted,
20 if necessary. Can we go into private session, briefly.
21 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honour.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE KWON: At this time, the Chamber wishes to make sure that
18 the witness's name should not be revealed in publications.
19 Can I ask a question to the Defence that I leave it to you who
20 will answer the question, but my understanding is that the Defence agrees
21 that the testimony, not his -- his own security, his testimony is
22 protected by the order of the closed session. That's what Mr. Ivanovic
23 has said a minute ago. Then is the Defence position that the publication
24 of his statement has nothing to do with that order? So, one, even if the
25 witness, a certain witness gave evidence in closed session, it is free for
1 anybody other than the parties to publish it at any time? Is it the
2 Defence position?
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to be very
4 cautious when trying to answer your question. I am inclined to agree that
5 that should be a general principle. Not that everybody should be given
6 such freedom but that it in every case we must be able to analyse who was
7 given what kind of protection, because not all protective measures are
8 identical, they're not all the same.
9 There is a difference between a witness who comes to testify and
10 who is from a destroyed village and comes to testify in a capacity of a
11 victim and has his relatives and his friends who still live with him in
12 the village in question. That situation is not the same as the protection
13 given to a high-ranking officer of a high-level army which participated in
14 a high-level mission involving NATO and other military forces and the
15 purpose of such protection was to protect the interests of this armed
16 force. These protective measures are not the same.
17 Now, if the testimony of such an officer cannot be published, I
18 don't know what we're talking about here. If within hundred years such
19 protective measures are still in place, then nothing will -- no one will
20 ever be able to publish that testimony which was given in closed session.
21 What I'm saying -- my submission is that we have to look into the
22 type and the reasons of specific protective measures afforded to
23 individual witnesses.
24 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
25 Mr. Akerson, in terms of legal submission, do you have anything to
1 add to what you have said earlier, and anything to respond to the Defence
3 MR. AKERSON: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
4 In response to Mr. Krsnik's argument that he just made, it's clear
5 from the way we do business, it's clear from the Appeals Chamber ruling
6 that closed-session testimony is protected. Now, the issue, as I'm
7 understanding it, is does that protection extend only to the transcript of
8 that testimony or is the content protected? Because if a witness
9 statement covers the exact same material, can a newspaper avoid contempt
10 by saying we know this witness has protection measures, he testified in
11 closed session, we're not going to print in our newspaper the transcript
12 of his testimony, but we are going to print his witness statement that has
13 the exact same material. So the question that this Court has to decide is
14 the content of what the witness testifies to protected or is it literally
15 the transcript? And I would say the only reasonable conclusion, the only
16 reasonable interpretation is it has to be the content, because what that
17 opens the door to is if a newspaper says we're not going to publish the
18 transcript of a protected witness but here is a summary of what he said,
19 the summary is not protected because what the Defence is arguing is it's
20 only the literal transcript.
21 So it would be the position of the OTP that whatever is in, it's
22 the content, it's the subject of the closed-session testimony that is
23 protected. And once the witness testifies and receives protection
24 measures, a newspaper cannot print his witness statement if it covers the
25 same material, they can't print a summary, they can't print any of that
1 content or subject matter.
2 Now, going back to the issue of identity. The -- it's very clear
3 that Mr. Van Kuijk was awarded protection measures and it would be the
4 OTP's position that therefore he is a protected witness, but that is an
5 issue that needs clarification and it is something that you're going to
6 have to decide, the difference between protection measures and a protected
7 witness, because there are occasions where a witness's identity is not
8 protected but the content of what he testifies to is protected.
9 In this particular case it's very clear: The Blaskic Trial
10 Chamber carefully considered arguments whether or not this witness should
11 testify in closed session. In fact, they dedicated more or less an entire
12 session to those arguments. Never at any time during that discussion did
13 any of the Judges, did any of the Prosecution, did any of the Defence ever
14 use Van Kuijk's name. There was no discussion that his name should be
15 used, so it's very clear from the record that by their actions everyone in
16 that courtroom was protecting his identity. And what's more, it can never
17 be left to third parties to decide what was the real intent and parse out
18 what is protected in closed-session testimony. It has to be a clear,
19 simple principle that whatever is in closed session has to be protected.
20 That would be the OTP's submission on the issue of identity.
21 And then last, going to the 2000 order --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Akerson, would your point be that the
23 integrity of the protected testimony could be jeopardised if the witness
24 testifying is not also protected, if the identity of the witness is not
25 also protected? And would you be able to -- if that is your position,
1 would you be able to identify any circumstances in which the disclosure of
2 the witness's identity would jeopardise the security of the protected
4 MR. AKERSON: I think it would be our argument that if there is
5 ambiguity in a record, in a transcript, that unless there is a clear
6 expression that parties can use the witness's identity, that it has -- it
7 has to be protected. In this particular case you don't have that because
8 it's very clear the parties, by their actions, were protecting this
9 witness. But if there is ever ambiguity -- for instance, here today where
10 there was some ambiguity about the witness that we discussed, whether or
11 not his identity was protected, we went into closed session.
12 I think the position has to be a clear and simple one that unless
13 the Chamber has clearly enunciated that you can use the witness's
14 identity, that it has to be presumed to be protected because --
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: I could think of another argument. My mind isn't
16 made up on this issue, but one would start from the basic consideration
17 that there's a right to a public trial, and that right is a fundamental
18 human right and in accordance with generally accepted principles which
19 have been set out by the European Court of Human Rights and other bodies.
20 Any derogation from such a right must clearly be set out in a law, and the
21 derogation must be proportionate to the -- to the particular measure that
22 is being sought.
23 Now, following that, I think it would -- it would contradict your
24 argument that if there is any ambiguity, you would interpret the matter as
25 favouring protection. I think that general principle would probably lead
1 to the other conclusion, that if there is any ambiguity, you would
2 interpret the matter as favouring publication because of the general right
3 to a fair trial. And in that regard, it is significant that it is the
4 Statute itself which authorises the derogation from the right to a public
5 trial. The Statute itself authorises the Tribunal to make provisions for
6 the protection of victims and witnesses, and one protective measure is
7 closed session.
8 So as I said, my mind isn't made up on it, there are arguments
9 either way, but I would like you to take that into consideration.
10 MR. AKERSON: I guess I should clarify when I say "ambiguity" in
11 the record. If you have the situation where a witness testifies in closed
12 session and his identity is never revealed in open session and the
13 arguments were put forward only pertaining to the content of his
14 testimony, you're now left with a situation with a newspaper gets that
15 transcript, and what do you want them to do? Do you want them to go ahead
16 and, because it was never clearly enunciated that his identity was
17 protected, go ahead and publish that witness's identity in a newspaper, or
18 is there a less extreme option that would be available to the newspaper,
19 such as contacting the press office, the OTP spokesperson, an attorney at
20 the OTP, somebody from Chambers who can refer somebody where they can make
21 an application to the Court to find out whether or not his identity is
23 I agree with you that there is a compelling interest in having
24 fair and public trials. The identity of a witness is only a small part of
25 a public trial, but it also is counter-balanced by the difficulty in
1 bringing witnesses into, as you're well aware from the Milosevic trial,
2 very dangerous circumstances, oftentimes for their family and people they
3 know, and for there to be a principle that a witness's identity can be
4 revealed by a third party in the presumption that the identity is public
5 unless stated to the contrary I think is very dangerous to these
6 proceedings, and I think that the better principle should be that if
7 anyone has some doubt about whether or not an identity is protected, they
8 need to make application to the Court for a determination on that basis.
9 I'm happy at this point now to go on to what would be the last
10 submission, which is the 2000 order, unless Your Honours have any
11 questions about the identity issue.
12 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please continue. We'll give the opportunity to
13 briefly respond to the Defence. So please go on, Mr. Akerson.
14 MR. AKERSON: The Appeals Chamber in this case -- and I think it's
15 clear from the transcript of Mr. Van Kuijk, that he's a protected witness.
16 In 2000, the Blaskic Trial Chamber experienced two newspapers at that time
17 who had published confidential information, and they issue the order for
18 immediate cessation of violations of protective measures for witnesses,
19 dated 1 December 2000. And it is specifically directed at those two
20 newspapers, neither of which is Hrvatski List in this case. And the
21 applicable provision is right after -- there is no page number in this
22 order, unfortunately, but it's the second to last page. And if Your
23 Honours can turn on the screen, we have a screen shot in Sanction that has
24 the applicable provision of the order.
25 And if I could ask you to direct your attention to the very last
1 highlighted provision. The Blaskic Trial Chamber orders that: "The
2 publication of statements or testimonies of the witness concerned, and
3 generally of any protected witness, shall cease immediately ..." and
4 states that: "Any publication of these statements or testimonies -
5 statements or testimonies - shall expose its author(s) and those
6 responsible to be found in contempt of the Tribunal ..."
7 So there is a question, one, whether -- a factual question to be
8 determined in this trial, whether or not the accused in this case had
9 knowledge of this order, because Rule 77 requires that they knowingly
10 violated this particular order, which we believe we can establish. And
11 then secondly, by the terms of this order, does it apply to them? And we
12 think it's very clear that if they have knowledge of it and they see this
13 provision which says "the publication of statements or testimonies
14 generally or of any protected witness must stop" clearly applies to what
15 they did. And it would apply to both Mr. Marijacic and Mr. Rebic because
16 it applies not only to the person who publishes but anyone else who is
17 responsible and they clearly admit in the article that they're both
18 participating in the decision. Mr. Rebic delivers the material,
19 Mr. Marijacic publishes it, they do this hand-in-hand and cooperatively,
20 so we think that this provision applies to both of them equally well. And
21 that would be our legal submission on the application of the December 1,
22 2000 order.
23 Of course it all stems from the closed session -- oral orders to
24 move into closed session, right? It has to start with Van Kuijk as a
25 protected witness, which the Appeals Chamber has ruled.
1 JUDGE KWON: So it goes back to the closed-session order.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, yes, the Appeals Chamber stated that this
3 added nothing. Now, I wonder if they were considering this question, but
4 that presupposes that they considered the closed-session order granted
5 protection to witness statements.
6 MR. AKERSON: My interpretation of that provision in the Appeals
7 Chamber order yesterday, we had asked them to lift the witness protections
8 on Mr. Van Kuijk, and we cited the June 6, 1997 order, we cited the
9 December 1, 2000 order, and we cited the oral orders in the transcript.
10 They determined that the oral orders had protected him, and they
11 lifted those, and then they looked at the December 1 order and had to
12 determine did they need to do anything to modify the terms of that order
13 in order to lift the protection on Mr. Van Kuijk. And I think what
14 they're saying here is that once they lifted the protections that were
15 granted in the oral orders of the transcript, he's no longer a protected
16 witness. When he's no longer a protect witness, the December 1, 2000
17 order doesn't apply because it only applies to protected witnesses. So
18 what we're saying here is when we lift the protected witness status of
19 Mr. Van Kuijk, we don't have to do anything to the 2001 -- 2000 order
20 because he is no longer a protected witness. That's my interpretation of
21 that provision.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: If you look at page 4 of the Appeals Chamber's
23 order, the first noting on that page says that: "Noting that in its order
24 of 1st December, the Trial Chamber generally ordered that the publication
25 of statements or testimonies of any protected witness in this case should
1 cease immediately or otherwise be found in contempt of the International
2 Tribunal but that the Trial Chamber did not grant any additional
3 protective measures therein."
4 Does that not presuppose that they understood the closed-session
5 order to grant protection to the statements, or where else did they think
6 that that protection came from?
7 MR. AKERSON: Your Honour, could I have a moment? I want to just
8 take a moment to review these passages again, if that's okay.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Akerson.
12 MR. AKERSON: I've read the two provisions that you had referred
13 to, and I think I agree with what you had stated, that they did presuppose
14 that the closed-session testimony, as I had earlier submitted, protects
15 the content of what the witness testified to, and that includes the
16 statement if it covers the same material. That's exactly what they're
17 saying here.
18 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson. And I wonder, the
19 Prosecution has responded to the Defence allegation that either the closed
20 session order or the order of this 1st of December, 2000, were not -- was
21 not directly directed to these accused. Have you --
22 MR. AKERSON: I will address that point, Your Honour. Thank you
23 for bringing that to my attention.
24 It would be our position that this -- if you can put the order
25 back on the screen, if Your Honours have the December 1, 2000 order in
1 front of you.
2 The bottom provision is a general term. On its terms, it says
3 publication of statements or testimonies of any protected witness, and
4 states that any publication; not just the publication by those two
5 newspapers but any publication.
6 Now, what's key about this is not who it is directed at, because
7 it's clearly directed very broadly. The key is who has knowledge of this
8 order. And in this hearing we will -- the Prosecution will establish that
9 these gentlemen would have had knowledge of this order and therefore it
10 would apply to them.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Akerson.
12 I will hear briefly from the Defence on these issues.
13 Mr. Ivanovic.
14 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all I would
15 like to refer to the last order the Prosecution invoked. I would like to
16 stress its contents that has been quoted on a number of times here, which
17 says that any publication must cease. I am interpreting this as read in
18 Croatian, but I believe it's the same in English, French, and all the
19 other official languages. It must cease.
20 The text in the Hrvatski List newspaper was published three years
21 later. That means that, ipso facto, this order cannot apply to this
22 specific case. That is precisely what we have been trying to avoid all
23 this time. We want to limit discussion in this case to the specific text
24 that has been published.
25 How can an order that was made by the Trial Chamber in the Blaskic
1 case -- and the Prosecution provided us with a number of specific
2 individual orders applying to various Croatian media, including Hrvatsko
3 Slovo, Globus, Vjesnik, Vecernji List; all these are media in the Republic
4 of Croatia. The Trial Chamber in the Blaskic case always issued specific
5 individualised orders.
6 In this specific case, there is not a single order referring or
7 directed at Hrvatski List or Mr. Marijacic as its editor-in-chief.
8 Therefore, extracting individual provisions from various orders without
9 reading the whole order, without interpreting the spirit of the hearing in
10 the Blaskic case is inappropriate, because the Trial Chamber in the
11 Blaskic case always issued separate orders. The orders quoted by the
12 Prosecution here do not refer to this protected witness we are discussing.
13 They refer to the honour due to Trial Chambers' orders in other cases,
14 other instances.
15 Another issue: Why isn't Van Kuijk's name on the witness list?
16 Whether he would have been a public, open witness or protected witness is
17 another matter. There's no need to discuss it here. But he was not on
18 the witness list. That is clearly a requirement. He was called as a
19 witness as an afterthought. That's why his name is not even on his
21 Let me go back to the previous issue. In order for a violation of
22 a Trial Chamber's order to exist, this violation must be wilful and
23 knowing. How could Mr. Marijacic know about an order issued in a closed
24 session? In the article that he published, there is no indication of
25 protection or confidentiality or anything like that. His alleged
1 culpability derives from another case, from another testimony, from a
2 decision made by the Trial Chamber to apply to a different witness.
3 We can move into private session to name that witness that I'm
4 talking about so that everything could be absolutely clear.
5 JUDGE KWON: But, Mr. Ivanovic, I don't think we need to go into
6 private session to name all those witnesses. Before that, Judge Bonomy
7 has --
8 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I know, this particular
9 witness still enjoys protection. But if the Court doesn't mind, I can
10 name them.
11 JUDGE KWON: No. Judge Bonomy has one question. Could you --
12 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think we're listening to your whole
13 argument at this stage, Mr. Ivanovic. We're just trying to understand
14 what requires to be proved in the course of the trial. And one question I
15 do have in that regard, the statement of the witness Van Kuijk, which you
16 say hasn't -- his name doesn't appear on it at any place, I take it from
17 your earlier submissions that your position is that what's available to
18 the Trial Chamber as his statement is in fact a statement, and when you
19 compare it with the transcript, they're different. Is that your position?
20 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, yes.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So you're not suggesting that there's any question
22 over the authenticity of the statement. You accept the statement that
23 exists, and you say, but the content of that wasn't published -- sorry,
24 the content that was published was quite different from what was part of
25 the trial.
1 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] And what is protected by the Trial
2 Chamber's order.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. Thank you. You see, it seems to me the
4 issues, as it has seemed to me for many months, that this case has endured
5 is much simpler than any of the parties are prepared to concede, but I'm
6 grateful for that concession. Thank you.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ivanovic, do you have anything further to say?
8 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No. No, thank you.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Krsnik.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] To begin with, I will say that I am
11 completely in agreement with the judgement of Judge Bonomy. I was afraid
12 to put it in so many words, but I have thought many times in this
13 courtroom, Why are we wasting all this time when the matter is very clear?
14 But I am familiar with the practice of this Tribunal, where I have worked
15 as Defence counsel for five years, and I understand that we need to be
16 cautious. If we let a piece of evidence slip, then it will reappear
17 somewhere else. But the matters are very simple here: Where can the
18 Prosecution find proof that Mr. Rebic disclosed the material to Mr.
20 Second, if the Prosecution is adamant about claiming that it was
21 done, what statement was that? What type of statement? Where was it
22 given, and where did it come from, and where did they find the right to
23 claim that it left the boundaries of this Tribunal?
24 I don't know how the Prosecution will prove that, but I do know
25 how much time will need to be wasted if they attempt to.
1 Who says that this statement was not obtained through intelligence
2 work on the ground in Central Bosnia and has nothing to do with the
3 proceedings in this Court?
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Krsnik, that means that your case seems to be
5 that the newspaper have published false material because they have a clear
6 statement of a communication between Mr. Ivanovic and Mr. Rebic. Ivanovic
7 is named as an editor-in-chief --
8 JUDGE KWON: Marijacic.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Excuse me. Mr. Marijacic and Mr. Rebic. Marijacic
10 is named as editor-in-chief and Rebic is named as a member of the board or
11 editorial board of the magazine.
12 Now, my tendency in a contempt case, I have to say, being a person
13 who tends to apply common sense, is that that's on the face of it an
14 indication of what happened, unless the two of you are at odds with each
15 other. And that's what we're trying to find out, I think, at the moment
16 before we embark on the trial.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think there is a
18 problem in communication, but in terms of common sense - and I thank you
19 for supporting me in this - let us give it some thought. Do newspapers
20 everywhere always publish only the truth, or are they pursuing
21 sensationalist writing in order to make copy?
22 Just a little patience, please. I'll respond.
23 I only meant to stress where we are being led, I believe, by the
24 Prosecution if they try to prove certain things. I was not trying to say
25 that there was a problem in our internal communication.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Krsnik.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] With your leave, I would like to
4 The sacred right of journalism and democracy that we as a young
5 state are learning from you - and you see what has happened to us 15 years
6 ago - is the right to inform the public. How will the Prosecution prove
7 what statement that was, who gave it to the journalist, and whether the
8 journalist is bound by a generally worded order?
9 The order was made in a closed session concerning a closed
10 session, and it will be very curious, once this Tribunal closes its doors,
11 what lawyers will say, historians, legal institutes, if the Prosecution
12 continues to view things in this manner. I do not think that this order
13 can be linked with our case. It cannot be linked to any person outside
14 the courtroom unless that person is acting knowingly and wilfully.
15 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE KWON: So that concludes the legal submission in the first
18 stage. And shall I deal with some housekeeping matters in relation to
20 On 13th of January, 2006, the Chamber issued a written decision on
21 a Prosecution's motion for judicial notice and admission of evidence. By
22 this decision, my understanding is that the Chamber admitted some 11 items
23 into evidence prior to the commencement of the trial. If the Registry
24 could please give the numbers to those items.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. I shall be brief.
1 I will just refer to the P numbers given by the OTP in their submission
2 dated December and will allocate, if you kindly agree, a Registry number.
3 The first number is referenced by OTP as P40, will get the number
4 OTP number 1, with an English translation reference as OTP 1/E.
5 The second exhibit number is referenced by OTP as P48, and will be
6 allocated the reference number OTP 2, with an English translation
7 referenced as OTP 2/E.
8 The third exhibit is referenced by OTP as P9 and will be assigned
9 the reference number OTP 3. There will be a B/C/S translation of this
10 document referenced as OTP 3/B/C/S.
11 The fourth exhibit number is referenced by OTP as P11 and will be
12 assigned the reference OTP 4, with a B/C/S translation referenced as
13 OTP 4/B/C/S.
14 The fifth exhibit is mentioned by OTP as P13, 1-3, and will be
15 assigned the reference OTP 5, with a B/C/S translation referenced as
16 OTP 5/B/C/S.
17 The sixth exhibit is referenced by OTP as P14 and will be
18 allocated the reference number OTP 6.
19 The seventh exhibit is referenced as P15 and will be referenced as
20 OTP 7.
21 The 8th exhibit is referenced by OTP as P35 and will be assigned
22 the reference OTP 8. There is a B/C/S translation of this exhibit which
23 will be assigned the reference OTP 8/B/C/S.
24 The 9th exhibit is referenced by OTP as P41 and will be referenced
25 as OTP 9, with a B/C/S translation referenced as OTP 9/B/C/S.
1 The tenth exhibit is referenced by OTP in their submission as
2 P4-3, P43, and will get assigned the reference OTP 10, with a B/C/S
3 translation referenced as OTP 10/B/C/S.
4 Finally, the last exhibit is referenced by OTP as P37 and will be
5 assigned the reference OTP 11, with a B/C/S translation referenced as
6 OTP 11/B/C/S.
7 This completes the list of exhibits, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Registrar. And as for all the other
9 documents, we will deal with their admission when it arises.
10 And we come to the witnesses. Is it the Prosecution's position
11 that they would lead all of the three witnesses as proposed?
12 MR. AKERSON: No, Your Honour. We will only be calling two
13 witnesses; Terry Cameron and William Tomljanovich.
14 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. And we'll hear only the accused from the
15 Defence. That wraps up the -- Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, for me it depends on what we
17 hear from Prosecution witnesses, rather, whether we will be calling the
18 witnesses mentioned a moment ago. In the contrary case, I will gladly
19 drop all my witnesses.
20 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Mr. Akerson.
21 MR. AKERSON: I just have one matter for the Pre-Trial Conference
22 as well, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE KWON: Yes, please.
24 MR. AKERSON: Which is that William Tomljanovich is going to be
25 called as a witness in this case, and we would also like him to sit in the
1 courtroom during the testimony of the accused, if they so choose to
2 testify, because he is an expert of the documentation of Croatia and the
3 archives of, in particular, Mr. Rebic, and it would be helpful for him to
4 assist us.
5 JUDGE KWON: After he has testified.
6 MR. AKERSON: After he has testified, yes.
7 JUDGE KWON: Yes, that -- I'd like to hear from -- Mr. Krsnik has
8 anything to say on this?
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I have already had problems in other
10 times where I acted as Defence counsel, with Mr. William Tomljanovich
11 whose role was never quite clear to me nor was the position of the
12 Prosecution, because the man is an historian. He now, as I see, appears
13 as an investigator. In other case he's introduced as politician, a Ph.D.
14 from Yale. In yet another case he appears for the Prosecution as an
15 expert in a certain chapter of Croatian history. But as for this case
16 today, I'm absolutely opposed to his presence in the courtroom apart from
17 the time where he is testifying as a witness.
18 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of Mr. Marijacic
19 absolutely subscribes to the position expressed by Mr. Krsnik.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE KWON: Rule 90(C) says: "A witness, other than an expert
22 ... who has not yet testified shall not be present when the testimony of
23 another witness is given." So I don't think Mr. Tomljanovich will be
24 sitting before he gives testimony, and what the Defence has mentioned, it
25 goes to the weight of the testimony of that witness.
1 Unless Defence is able to identify specific reasons why he should
2 not sit after he has given his testimony, I don't think there's any
3 problem for Mr. Tomljanovich --
4 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] We must have misunderstood, because
5 we thought he would be sitting in the courtroom, and that's the idea we
6 are opposed to. We thought that after leaving the witness box, he would
7 join the Prosecution on their bench, but if he's sitting at the gallery,
8 it's all right.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: That is the proposal. But what's actually wrong
10 with that? They could have a secretary sitting beside them, helping them
11 to work their way through the papers. What is the problem about a person
12 who assists after he has given his evidence? That's what I don't
13 understand at the moment.
14 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] But he will be heard as a witness.
15 That is as an independent party on the same matter, and then he will go on
16 to assist the Prosecution.
17 JUDGE KWON: So the Chamber would allow him to sit with the
18 Prosecution after he has given his evidence.
19 So for the sake of time saving, unless there's anything for the
20 parties to raise during the Pre-Trial Conference, we'd like to go directly
21 to the Prosecution's case.
22 MR. AKERSON: I would just like to point out that we had prepared
23 a ten-and-a-half minute opening statement which sets forth the factual
24 grounds in this case. I would still prefer to go ahead and do the
25 opening, but I understand the Court's concern and that you want to get
1 right to the evidence.
2 JUDGE KWON: I announced we would not have opening statements but
3 I would like to consult with my colleagues.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber is of the view doing without it is
6 enough. We can do it at closing argument. So please call the witness.
7 MS. GRAHAM: The Prosecution calls witness Terrence Cameron.
8 Terry Cameron.
9 Your Honours, while the witness is coming into the Trial Chamber,
10 we have prepared a demonstrative version of Exhibit P40, which is, I
11 think, admitted Exhibit 1, which is the 18th of November edition. It just
12 sets out the translation of text next to the actual pages.
13 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Graham, just a minute.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE KWON: I was just advised from the -- I was advised that --
16 [B/C/S on English channel].
17 JUDGE KWON: We are not hearing from the English booth. I think
18 it's been corrected.
19 I was advised from the technical booth we need to take a break
20 right now to change the tape. So we'll break for 15 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 11.16 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.36 a.m.
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE KWON: Let the witness take the declaration.
25 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
1 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
2 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. If you could take a seat. Ms. Graham.
3 WITNESS: TERRENCE CAMERON
4 Examined by Ms. Graham:
5 Q. Mr. Cameron, just before we begin I just want to inform you that
6 yesterday evening the protective measures on Witness Van Kuijk were
7 lifted, just so you know that we can refer to his name during the
8 testimony. However, there may be other witnesses that you need to refer
9 to, and those witnesses, if you could just refer to them as protected
11 A. I will.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I'd like to have distributed to the
14 Court a demonstrative exhibit that we've prepared. It's a version of P40.
15 If the usher could assist, that would be great. I'm also just passing out
16 for Your Honours -- I've prepared just a list of the exhibits that I'm
17 going to be dealing with during the testimony of this witness, just to
18 assist for everyone to be able to follow.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. Yes. You may begin, Ms. Graham.
20 MS. GRAHAM:
21 Q. Witness, while this is being handed out, some preliminary
22 questions for you. What is your work history?
23 A. I was a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's
24 federal police force, for 25 years, retiring at the rank of staff
25 sergeant. I immediately came to work for the OTP. I've been here as a
1 senior investigator since June of 1998. During my service with the Royal
2 Canadian Mounted Police, I conducted many, many interviews of suspects and
3 witnesses, obtained witness statements, prepared trial briefs, testified
4 in court. I had occasion to analyse many documents for most of my cases
5 and submit reports based on those.
6 During my service with the RCMP, or the Royal Canadian Mounted
7 Police, I also served two tours with UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia.
8 In 1992, I was station commander in Grubisno Polje in Croatia, and in 1994
9 I was station commander in Gorazde, Bosnia. During my time with the UN, I
10 also had an opportunity to conduct investigations and interview witnesses
11 in relation to crimes that had taken place in the former Yugoslavia.
12 During my time at the Tribunal, I have travelled extensively to
13 the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, and during my duties conducted,
14 again, many interviews, obtaining witness and suspect statements,
15 collecting exhibits, analysis of documents, and reports based on that.
16 Q. Witness, what was your role in the investigation related to
17 Marijacic and Rebic?
18 A. I was brought into this investigation on the 17th of December,
19 2004. I was briefed on the outline of the case, and I was asked to
20 conduct an investigation and collect and analyse whatever relevant
21 documents that I could find in relation to this.
22 Q. Witness, can you have a look at the demonstrative exhibit that
23 you've been provided with.
24 MS. GRAHAM: And, Your Honours, this is also visible on the
25 computer evidence channel, if you'd like to view it that way.
1 Q. Witness, what is this document?
2 A. This document is a copy of the Hrvatski List article, or I should
3 say publication, published on the 18th of November, 2004.
4 Q. And if I can identify it for the record, this is what has been
5 identified as P40 and admitted as OTP Exhibit 1.
6 Witness, does this edition of Hrvatski List identify on the cover
7 the protected witness Van Kuijk?
8 A. Yes, it does.
9 Q. Can you just quickly identify where he's named?
10 A. On the top right-hand corner -- I'm sorry, the top left-hand
11 corner. Part of it is hidden under the word "Tajni," and the second line
12 down, I believe it is, is where the name would be, and you can see
13 portions of that name. You can see the A, you can see the U and I.
14 Q. Thank you, Witness. Is it identified -- is he identified in any
15 place outside the statement?
16 A. Yes. If you look underneath the words "Carla Del Ponte," you will
17 see at the bottom of that particular page where it says "Johan Van Kuijk"
18 and "Ramal Goonewardene."
19 Q. Thank you. Witness, have you reviewed the statement that appears
20 on the front of Hrvatski List?
21 A. Yes, I have. The original statement was taken in English and
22 translated into B/C/S by qualified translators of the OTP. I've made a
23 comparison of the B/C/S version of the Van Kuijk statement with what is
24 portrayed here on the front page of this article, of this publication.
25 Q. And can you confirm that portions of the statement are reproduced
1 on this page?
2 A. Yes, I can.
3 Q. Moving on to page 2 of the demonstrative exhibit, having looked at
4 the cover --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Before -- just before you do that, does it follow
6 from what you've said that where it's claimed that on the 2nd of August
7 the witness stated in his testimony before The Hague Tribunal that he had
8 been approached two years previously by Bralo, that in fact that was not
9 part of the transcript at the trial?
10 MS. GRAHAM: Yes.
11 Q. Witness, maybe I can clarify that for His Honour. The front page
12 here refers to the testimony of Van Kuijk. Did Van Kuijk testify in
13 August 1997?
14 A. 2nd of August, I believe it was. I'm sorry, no. If I may refer
15 to my statement, I can give a correct date for his testimony.
16 MS. GRAHAM: Would Your Honour mind if the witness referred to his
17 statement briefly?
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Yes, he can.
19 MS. GRAHAM: If the usher would assist.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 16th of December, 1997 was the
21 date that Mr. Van Kuijk actually testified at the Tribunal.
22 MS. GRAHAM:
23 Q. Okay. From your review of documents, why has the -- has Hrvatski
24 List referred to his testimony as being in August on the cover, which is
25 of December?
1 A. This is a representation of his witness statement and not his
2 court transcripts.
3 Q. Thank you, Witness.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Does that mean, then, that the issue of the
5 surrender of Bralo didn't come up in the course of the trial, at least in
6 the course of Van Kuijk's evidence in the trial?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not clear as to this matter. Are you saying
10 that the witness statement says what is written here on the 2nd of August,
12 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, perhaps I can have the witness shown
13 Exhibit P11, which is the statement of Witness Van Kuijk, and he can
14 explain what is portrayed on the cover of the edition.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I just be clear that we need this evidence, or
16 are you not going to present the documents and tell us in submissions what
17 they say? The witness so far is causing confusion, but it's obviously a
18 matter for you, but do we need this?
19 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, I just really wanted to deal with this
20 demonstrative exhibit very briefly because Your Honour is correct, this is
21 a matter for argument more than anything else. So maybe I'll leave the
22 demonstrative exhibit there with the witness. We'll leave the front cover
23 there with the witness and we can go on to the next subject matter.
24 Q. Witness, as part of your investigation, have you reviewed editions
25 of Slobodna Dalmacija?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Why have you reviewed those editions?
3 A. As part of the investigation, it came to my attention that there
4 were previous publications of protected material in the Slobodna Dalmacija
5 which had a relevance to this case.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ivanovic.
7 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Ivanovic.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
9 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I object, because there is no link
10 between the text published in Slobodna Dalmacija newspaper and the
11 allegations against Mr. Marijacic and Mr. Rebic. I would appreciate it if
12 we could concentrate on the charges in the indictment.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. If Ms. Graham could explain to us the
15 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, one of the issues that was discussed
16 this morning in the Pre-Trial Conference was the dissemination of the 2000
17 -- the December 2000 order and the awareness that the accused had of this
18 order. The testimony that this witness is about to give goes to this
19 matter directly. He's going to talk about the dissemination of this order
20 and about the awareness that the accused, especially the accused Ivica
21 Marijacic, had of this order. And he's conducted a detailed review of all
22 of these editions and can quite quickly explain to Your Honours how
23 Exhibit 36, which is the exhibit containing all of this material, works,
24 the contents of that exhibit.
25 JUDGE KWON: We will allow the Prosecution to lead the evidence.
1 MS. GRAHAM:
2 Q. Witness, can you just briefly explain what was published in
3 Slobodna Dalmacija in November and December 2000.
4 A. In November of 2000, Slobodna Dalmacija published excerpts of the
5 witness statement of a protected witness. That was followed by an order
6 by the Blaskic Trial Chamber to cease and desist.
7 During December of 2000, Slobodna Dalmacija continued, despite the
8 order, to publish 22 separate segments of the verbatim trial transcripts,
9 the closed-session trial transcripts of the protected witness.
10 Q. And, Witness, did Slobodna Dalmacija publish the 2000 order?
11 A. Yes, they did.
12 MS. GRAHAM: Before we get to that, maybe I can just have the
13 witness provided with a copy of Exhibit 36 in the binder.
14 Q. Witness, can you explain how the Prosecution came into possession
15 of this material?
16 A. The original material came to us by way of Zagreb field office.
17 The normal course of action is our people in Zagreb would review the local
18 publications for matters of interest. Upon seeing this, then they would
19 contact the particular trial attorney - in this case it was the Blaskic
20 trial team - and relay that information down, usually by way of fax.
21 Q. Okay. Witness, just looking at tab 1 that you have in front of
22 you there. Quickly looking at the B/C/S version we have.
23 JUDGE KWON: It's in binder 3.
24 MS. GRAHAM: It's in binder 3, yes, Your Honour. Exhibit P36 in
25 binder 3, yes. There's a series of, I think, 28 tabs under that exhibit
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
3 MS. GRAHAM:
4 Q. Witness, down the bottom of the page on tab number 1 appears the
5 date 24 May 2005. Can you explain why that date's there?
6 A. Yes. During the course of investigation, I also, as an
7 investigative tool, use the Internet. I accessed Slobodna Dalmacija's
8 Internet archives, where I located a series of publications, or
9 reproductions of the publications for the dates in question for November
10 and for December 2000, those publications containing, in November, the
11 witness statement of the protected witness and, in December, a copy of the
12 court order as well as the closed-session trial transcripts of the
13 protected witness.
14 Q. So to clarify, Witness, this document is one that you downloaded
15 from the Internet.
16 A. This B/C/S document, yes, from the Internet.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: So where are the ones -- where are the ones that
18 were faxed to the office? Because there will now be an issue over whether
19 the Internet is publishing identical material to the actual physical
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't have those before me, Your
22 Honour, but the original ones that were sent down by Internet were used by
23 the Blaskic Prosecution in their motions of November of 2000 which led to
24 the Blaskic Trial Chamber's order.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We're now talking about the post-order,
1 post-December 2000 order publication of the 22 segments of the verbatim
2 trial transcripts. Now, why haven't we got the published material?
3 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, for this edition we have the initial
4 version of Slobodna Dalmacija, which I was going to propose showing
5 quickly to the witness for him to explain how the material is reproduced.
6 So if I can have the witness provided with the first 27.
7 And, Your Honours, appearing on the computer evidence channel is
8 also a scan of this image which might be easier to see visually.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Which tab is that particular edition?
10 MS. GRAHAM: This tab it tab 1 of the binders. It's the 27th of
11 November 2000 edition.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: So that's in the first volume of the binders.
13 MS. GRAHAM: No. This is all in volume 3 of the binders. In
14 volume 3 of the binders --
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Mine starts at 33 in volume 3. 36.1 is an article
16 of the 27th of November 2000, which isn't the one that we're about to deal
18 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, that is what we're dealing with at the
19 moment. I just wanted to clarify with the witness and get him to
20 correspond as an example how the material published in Slobodna Dalmacija
21 on the -- what we have in the binders, the B/C/S in the binders
22 corresponds with the original version.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: This is before the -- this is material before the
25 MS. GRAHAM: This is before the order, yes, Your Honour.
1 Q. Witness, can you just explain what's shown on the cover of this
2 edition of Slobodna Dalmacija.
3 A. Yes. On the top portion, there's a photograph of the courtroom
4 setting, and it's titled "Transkripti iz Haaga"; "Transcripts of The
6 Q. And can you identify from the cover where the article appears in
7 the edition?
8 A. On page 7.
9 Q. And turning to page 7 now, and if we can bring up page 7 in
10 Sanction as well.
11 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, can I just ask that this material not
12 be broadcast outside the courtrooms, this -- what's being shown on the
13 Sanction screen at the moment, because this relates to a witness who has
14 not had protective measures.
15 JUDGE KWON: I'm afraid it has been already. It was on the ELMO?
16 No, it was not.
17 MS. GRAHAM: It appears before you in the courtroom but not
18 appearing outside of the courtroom.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
20 MS. GRAHAM:
21 Q. And, Witness, if you can just turn to the B/C/S translation of --
22 so leaving page 7 on the ELMO --
23 JUDGE KWON: It is an open session but we're not revealing the
24 content or identity of the protected witness.
25 MS. GRAHAM: That's exactly right, Your Honour, yes.
1 Q. Witness, if --
2 JUDGE KWON: But I'm afraid the ELMO is not working. So why don't
3 we use the computer evidence.
4 MS. GRAHAM: Yes, if you use the computer evidence channel. I
5 think the ELMO is just assisting the witness to be able to turn the pages
6 of the paper at the moment.
7 JUDGE KWON: So let us go on.
8 MS. GRAHAM:
9 Q. So, Witness, if you can have a look again in tab 1, in the paper
10 copy that you've got there, and have a look at the B/C/S version there.
11 A. This is an accurate reproduction.
12 Q. Thank you, Witness.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I come back to the question of what kind of
14 order this is. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that
15 somebody's actually managed to pick up the identity of the witness that is
16 the subject of protection. What order would prevent publication of that?
17 MS. GRAHAM: Of the material the witness is discussing at the
18 moment, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
20 MS. GRAHAM: That witness is protected by the 6th of June
22 JUDGE BONOMY: There's already an order --
23 MS. GRAHAM: Exactly. There is an order in force, Your Honour,
24 yes, which hasn't been listed at the moment, so ...
25 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. I'd like to make sure whether Defence
1 is able to follow in the computer evidence. You are able to see the
2 monitor through the --
3 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, we can see the
4 computer channel.
5 JUDGE KWON: How about -- how about the accused? Are they able to
6 follow? I see them nodding. Yes, please go on.
7 MS. GRAHAM: Okay. If I could have the 27th of November edition
8 removed from the witness. We've finished dealing with that edition now.
9 JUDGE KWON: I was confused with the date which appears on the
10 right bottom of the B/C/S version. That's the date of a downloading.
11 MS. GRAHAM: Yes. That's what the witness just said, so I was
12 just corresponding for Your Honours how what the witness downloaded
13 matches what is located the editions of Slobodna Dalmacija.
14 Q. Witness, maybe I could just add to that. Where did you locate
15 this material on the Internet?
16 A. This was through the website of Slobodna Dalmacija. There's a tab
17 where you can click to go to their archives, and you can check the
18 archives by date.
19 Q. And, Witness, is this material still on the website of Slobodna
21 A. As far as I am aware, no. Once I located this material, I
22 contacted the former editor of Slobodna Dalmacija and asked him to
23 voluntarily remove it, which he took steps to do so, and I believe it was
24 the 11th of June was -- it was gone.
25 Q. And just to clarify, you showed us in the example a minute ago of
1 tab 1. Can you clarify whether the other tabs in Exhibit P36, where
2 there's Internet printing, whether they match what's in the physical
3 editions of Slobodna Dalmacija.
4 A. Most of the other ones are not taken from the Internet. The
5 others ones have been taken from the motions, material that the OTP
6 Blaskic trial team would have received from Zagreb. If you look at the
7 28th of November, you'll see that the B/C/S was part of the initial motion
8 in order to obtain the order. You'll see -- in the top you'll see the
9 case -- the case number.
10 Q. And, Witness, have you reviewed all of the tabs in this binder?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. And have you reviewed all the physical copies available to the
14 A. I have.
15 Q. And can you confirm that what's in the binders is a true and
16 accurate representation of what's in the papers?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge, it is.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask two questions. First of all of you:
19 Does the article that's the subject of the case not acknowledge knowledge
20 of the orders?
21 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, yes, it does acknowledge knowledge of
22 the orders.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask Mr. Ivanovic a question. Does
24 Mr. Marijacic dispute that he knew about all three orders?
25 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The order in
1 question was issued in closed session. None of the orders here pertains
2 to the matters -- the matter of this case. They do not refer to the
3 protection of the identity of Van Kuijk. They do not pertain to Hrvatski
4 List. None of these orders specifies the name of Mr. Marijacic.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not my question, Mr. Ivanovic. If you would
6 listen to the question carefully.
7 Do you dispute -- does Mr. Marijacic dispute that he knew of the
8 existence of the three orders? It's a separate question who they apply
9 to. Did he know of the existence? Does he dispute that?
10 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: He does.
12 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we dispute that, Your Honour,
13 because the orders were issued in closed session. Mr. Marijacic could not
14 have knowledge of them.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: At the time of publication he disputes knowledge of
16 these orders.
17 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] The order of the 6th of June was
18 not known to him. It was issued on an ex parte basis, in a closed
19 session. Likewise, he was not aware of the oral order from December 1997,
20 and he was also unaware of the order from 2001.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
22 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Except through the media.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: So he did know through the media, which is what the
24 Prosecution at the moment are trying to prove.
25 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] As any other person who had access
1 and read the papers. I don't know how we are going to prove whether he
2 actually read or did not read the papers. However, of course once the
3 orders were made public, appeared publicly, yes, he was aware of their
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's what I thought, and I just have to ask
6 myself what all this evidence is about.
7 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree with you, Your
8 Honour. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case.
9 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Graham.
10 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, it sounds, as Judge Bonomy just noted,
11 that the accused -- we weren't aware that they agreed to this particular
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I don't think you can read that into it,
14 Ms. Graham, but that depends how you read all that's gone before in the
15 case. But I don't think the position's as clear cut as to divert you from
16 the course of action you've decided to take. It's a pity that this is
17 necessary, but I think it is.
18 MS. GRAHAM: Yes, and thank you very much, Your Honour, for
19 clarifying that this is definitely an issue, and I'll try to make this as
20 brief as possible. I'll go now to the, I think, potentially crucial tab
21 of P36, which is P36, tab 5, in the binders. And if the witness can just
22 turn to that in his copies as well.
23 Q. Just going through this piece by piece, Witness, can you just
24 explain what is produced on pages 1 to 7 of the English translation of
25 this exhibit.
1 A. Page 1 to 7 are excerpts from the trial transcript in the Blaskic
3 Q. And then what appears after that?
4 A. It goes into private session, and this is where the trial team
5 requests closed session for the protective witness.
6 Q. And that's a different protected witness from Van Kuijk?
7 A. It is.
8 Q. Yes. And so after sections of the transcript is set out, what is
9 contained in the article after that?
10 A. On pages 8 to 11 in the English is a copy of the December 1, 2000
11 cease and desist order issued by the Blaskic Chambers.
12 Q. Maybe at this point we could just bring those up on the Sanction
13 computer in B/C/S firstly, that is pages 8 to 10 on Sanction, of the B/C/S
14 version of Exhibit P36, tab 5.
15 So if you -- Witness, are you looking at the computer evidence on
16 your screen at the moment?
17 A. I only see the transcript of this case.
18 Q. Okay. Looking at the bottom of the page -- right. Okay. Oh,
19 excellent. I see.
20 And what can you see now?
21 A. I can see the issue of -- the B/C/S issue.
22 Q. And what appears on the bottom of the screen?
23 A. At the bottom of the screen is the B/C/S version of the court
24 order I just mentioned.
25 Q. And maybe if we can just quickly show pages 9 and 10 of the B/C/S
1 version in Sanction too. Does the order continue on these pages?
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. These bold headings, are they part of the order?
4 A. No, they're not. I believe these would have been inserted by the
5 publication itself.
6 Q. Okay. Apart from those headings, though, is all of the 3rd -- is
7 all of the 1st of December, 2000 order reproduced in this edition of
8 Slobodna Dalmacija?
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. If I can now have -- Witness, if you could now turn to tab 6 in
11 your documents, which is P36, tab 6. And if we can just show the B/C/S
12 quickly in Sanction. And if, Witness, you can have a look at the English
13 version. And maybe we can show actually in Sanction now the second page
14 of the English translation.
15 Witness -- actually, we'll show the first page of the English
16 translation as well first. Witness, can you explain what appears in this
17 edition of Slobodna Dalmacija?
18 A. This is an article headed by Bisera Lusic, and it is entitled "The
19 Hague Sues Slobodna Dalmacija," and the subject is "Position of Slobodna
20 Dalmacija Editor-in-chief Josip Jovic regarding the Tribunal's order to
21 stop publication of" the protected witness's testimony.
22 Q. And then what's appearing if we go to the second page of the
23 English? What have we got on this page?
24 A. It appears to be a quote from Josip Jovic: "I have no moral
25 obligations to The Hague."
1 MS. GRAHAM: And if I can just have the witness shown the hard
2 copy edition of this version of Slobodna Dalmacija.
3 Your Honours, I have actually made photocopies for the Court of
4 this relevant pages of this edition of Slobodna Dalmacija. I would have
5 made copies for the 3rd of December edition but we don't have that within
6 the Prosecution. I think it will assist if I --
7 JUDGE KWON: Just a minute. Mr. Krsnik.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is exactly the
9 concern that I expressed during the Pre-Trial Conference when I agreed
10 with your position and the position of His Honour Judge Bonomy. Just look
11 at where this is going, where we are being led. What is sought to be
12 proved? We're going to discuss testimonies of other protected witnesses.
13 We're going to debate statements of other journalists, other editors.
14 Why? For the Prosecution to prove that Mr. Marijacic was aware of the
15 order of 2000? Or is it their assumption that he read the papers and that
16 he must have read this in the papers? We are going to waste a lot of
17 time, and this is exactly what I was afraid would happen to us when I told
18 you that I was even prepared to drop my witnesses, because I thought the
19 matter was quite simple, and it really involved one single legal issue.
20 However, this is not what we are going to do today, and with all
21 due respect, I see that the Court is allowing the OTP to conduct -- to
22 lead evidence which, in my humble opinion, is not what the matter is all
23 about. The matter is rather simple, and that is whether the contents of
24 the testimony were protected and whether it was the content of the
25 testimony that was published by the accused or not.
1 Having said that, Your Honours, I'm fully prepared to abide by any
2 decision that Your Honours intend to make on the issue.
3 JUDGE KWON: I understand the Defence position. The Defence
4 position would be that the third order, of 1st of December in 2000, is not
5 applicable to these accused, but it is the Prosecution's case it is still
6 applicable to this case and it is open for them to prove that accused were
7 aware of this order unless the Defence concede that they were aware of
8 this -- the existence of this order. So please go on --
9 JUDGE BONOMY: The problem here is not one from, I think,
10 principally for Mr. Rebic. It's one for Mr. Marijacic, because it's
11 claimed in the pre-trial brief by the Prosecution that Mr. Marijacic was
12 actually working for this newspaper at the time these publication -- these
13 articles were being written. And, you know, common sense again would
14 suggest that it's a fair inference that he would be reading his own
15 newspaper. But if that can't be agreed, then obviously the Prosecution
16 have got to prove it.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] By all means, Your Honour, on the
18 assumption that everybody's acting on their common sense. I am inclined
19 to think that the majority of people are not always acting on their common
20 sense, and moreover, they're not aware of the legal applications involved
21 in this matter.
22 I don't know if it is necessary for us to engage in the
23 psychological or psychiatric discussion whether those who read these
24 articles necessarily understand the intention, and so on and so forth. We
25 also need to -- in that case we need to decide whether the position is the
1 same now as it was in 2001. And then we also would have to take into
2 account the case law of this Tribunal then and now, and so on and so
3 forth. It is my opinion, Your Honours, with all due respect, that this is
4 not relevant. However, if it is your decision to allow this evidence to
5 proceed, then I fully respect it.
6 JUDGE KWON: Unless the Defence is ready to agree with the fact
7 that Defence were -- the accused were aware of the existence of this
8 order, the Prosecution has to prove it. But please go on. You can deal
9 with it very briefly.
10 MS. GRAHAM: Yes, Your Honour. This really won't take much
11 longer. But I would like to have the witness shown the hard copy edition
12 for the 4th of December, and I also have copies for the Trial Chamber of
13 what -- the relevant sections of this edition, as well as a translation of
14 those relevant sections.
15 And can I confirm, Your Honours, that Sanction is not being
16 broadcast for this portion of the evidence, for everything dealing with
17 P36, Exhibit P36.
18 JUDGE KWON: Technical booth should have noted that.
19 MS. GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 And, Usher, I have copies for Their Honours and the other parties
21 in the courtroom as well. And if the witness can also be given a copy of
22 the translation as well. And if I can have Sanction display the cover of
23 this edition for the 4th of December, but not broadcast outside the
25 Q. Witness, can you just explain what appears on the cover of this
1 4th of December edition of Slobodna Dalmacija without identifying any
2 protected witness.
3 A. On the top right-hand corner there's a banner that says
4 "Slobodnoj Dalmaciji Sitze Haaska Tuzba," which is "Slobodna Dalmacija
5 --" "The Hague Sues Slobodna Dalmacija," and it shows that the article is
6 to appear on page 2.
7 Q. So turning to page 2 of the exhibit. Is what is shown on page 2,
8 does that match what we were looking at a moment ago?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness.
11 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my apologies, but I
13 have to do what I'm supposed to do here. If you have the English version
14 of this text and of this cover page, you will understand my question.
15 What is the link between these two texts? Here we have a weekly that is
16 called Globus, and then we have the daily Slobodna Dalmacija. Two
17 editors. One is saying, "I have no moral obligation towards The Hague,"
18 and the other is saying something similar. What is the link between this
19 and Mr. Marijacic and in particular Mr. Rebic? Where is the connection
20 between the two and where is this going?
21 My position is that Mr. Rebic did not read Slobodna Dalmacija,
22 this particular issue for sure, because he does not read Slobodna
23 Dalmacija. But there is another very dangerous thing. We are not allowed
24 to publish the name of a protected witness published here in this paper,
25 however, the order was in the paper, and it is argued, it is alleged that
1 they were able to see and read the order in the paper. Whether this was
2 published or not, when was this downloaded from Internet? I am completely
3 at a loss here. I don't know where this is going. We're not allowed to
4 mention anything contained in this article, yet --
5 JUDGE KWON: That goes to the weight of this witness's evidence.
6 It is for the Defence to argue, to challenge later, during the
7 cross-examination or in one way or another.
8 MR. KRSNIK: Okay. Okay. I understand. Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Judge Robinson has a point.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Graham, can you just say what you're seeking
11 to establish by this.
12 MS. GRAHAM: Certainly, Your Honour. I'm seeking both to show the
13 extent of coverage that was given to this order and discussions of this
14 order, which is I think relevant to both accused in this case, especially
15 as will be established in argument later in relation to Mr. Rebic and the
16 role that he was performing at that time, but also as His Honour Judge
17 Bonomy noted before, we have alleged in the indictment that Marijacic was
18 a journalist working for Slobodna Dalmacija, and I'm about to get to the
19 extent of his involvement in the paper after showing very briefly two
20 further editions such as Your Honour has just seen which show the
21 prominence given to this issue in Slobodna Dalmacija.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Very well, yes. Move on.
23 MS. GRAHAM: Can I have the witness --
24 Q. Witness, can you turn to tab 6 in your documents there.
25 MS. GRAHAM: And while the witness is looking at -- actually,
1 we've just looked at tab 6. I mean tab 7 in your documents. And if while
2 the witness is looking at that I can have distributed a copy of the 6th of
3 December edition of Slobodna Dalmacija as well as copies of the front --
4 of the relevant pages for Their Honours and the parties and a translation
5 of the bits in addition to the articles.
6 Q. Witness, just while this material is being distributed, can I ask
7 you to turn to page -- can I ask you to just quickly identify what appears
8 on pages 1 to the top of page 6 of the English translation in tab 6 -- tab
10 A. This is excerpts from the court testimony of the protected witness
11 -- [B/C/S on English channel].
12 Q. We just appeared to have interference from the B/C/S line. Maybe
13 if you could start again, Witness.
14 A. These are excerpts of the transcripts from the Blaskic trial in
15 relation to a protected witness.
16 Q. And turning to page 6 of the translation, and 7, what appears on
17 these two pages?
18 A. This is an insert entitled "Six Reasons Why Slobodna is Publishing
19 Testimony of the Protected Witness."
20 Q. And who is the author of that excerpt?
21 A. Josip Jovic, the editor-in-chief of Slobodna Dalmacija.
22 Q. And the next article after that, is it related to what appears
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 Q. Thank you, Witness.
1 If we can now have shown on Sanction the cover of the edition for
2 the 6th of December. And, Witness, looking at your translation, and just
3 to make sure once again that this isn't being broadcast, can you just
4 explain what is advertised on this cover.
5 A. You see a large photo with three people in it and the headline is
6 "Slobodna Reveals The Hague Secret."
7 Q. And turning to the next page in Sanction. Does this correspond
8 with what we were just looking at in tab 7?
9 A. Yes, it does.
10 Q. Thank you, Witness. Just moving on now to the final -- well,
11 actually before -- before we move on to another tab, Witness, I have now,
12 if we can distribute to the Court, I have a chart that you have prepared.
13 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, this is just a demonstrative exhibit to
14 assist the witness to quickly explain some other key points in relation to
15 this material.
16 Q. Witness, can I first ask you, how did you prepare this document?
17 A. As part of the process of identifying in what publications and in
18 what format, whether it be the original publication or whether it be in
19 electronic archives, what material, whether it be the witness statement or
20 the closed-session trial transcripts of the protected witness have been
21 covered in those issued. In addition to that, it was also to determine
22 how often articles appeared that were authored by or attributed to
23 Mr. Marijacic.
24 Q. And looking at the fourth column along, entitled "Article by
25 Marijacic," these are all the articles that you identified?
1 A. Yes, they are.
2 Q. Just looking between -- for starters, I note that this starts on
3 the 31st of October, 2000. Can you just explain why there's some editions
4 there before the 27th of November?
5 A. It was to establish that Mr. Marijacic had association to Slobodna
6 Dalmacija both prior to and after the publications of the protected
7 material. In other words, so that we could definitively say it wasn't
8 just several articles during that time period but before and after as
10 Q. And, Witness, I note that there's some date gaps in there, like
11 between the 16th of November, 2000, and the 27th of November, 2000. Can
12 you explain why there's such a big gap there?
13 A. The issues prior to the 27th were taken at random.
14 Q. Thank you, Witness. And also, as you can see from the exhibit
15 number, there is on occasion some tabs missing. Like, for instance, tab 5
16 there's nothing between the 30th of November and the 4th of December 2000.
17 Can you explain why there's a gap there?
18 A. Because I did not have access to the material.
19 Q. Thank you, Witness. Now, just looking at the period between the
20 27th of November and the 29th of December, which is the period you've
21 identified when Slobodna Dalmacija was publishing protected material, how
22 many times during that period did you identify articles written by
24 A. Nine.
25 Q. Witness, if I can have you now turn, on the chart here -- on the
1 chart for the 7th of December, 2000, which corresponds with Exhibit P36,
2 tab 8, of the binders, I note that the article by Marijacic appears on
3 page 2 and the trial transcript's reproduced on pages -- on page 3. If we
4 can turn to what is tab 8 in the binders for the 7th of December.
5 MS. GRAHAM: And if while we're turning to that once again I can
6 ask for the assistance of the usher to provide the hard copy version and
7 also copies of the cover and translation to the courtroom.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Graham, I'm not sure whether we gathered in
9 what capacity were these articles by Marijacic written.
10 MS. GRAHAM: I'll clarify that with the witness if Your Honour
11 would like. Would that be of assistance? Yes.
12 Q. Witness, did you identify whether Marijacic held a position at the
13 paper Slobodna Dalmacija during this period?
14 A. He was associated to Slobodna Dalmacija. I don't have his exact
15 position, but he was associated to that.
16 Q. So, Witness, he was writing for the paper? Would that accurately
17 describe what you observed?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
19 Q. Thank you, Witness. Maybe, Witness, also to assist Their Honours,
20 you could turn -- you could just have a quick flip through the edition to
21 see if there is a reference to position holders at Slobodna Dalmacija. It
22 might be the case that they don't have a headnote like the Hrvatski List
23 edition does.
24 It's okay, Witness. We'll leave that.
25 A. I don't find any.
1 Q. Thank you. If you can just have a look at what once again appears
2 in tab 8 of the hard copies you were given separately and just identify
3 what appears on pages 1 to 8 of that translation in English.
4 A. This is the transcript from The Hague, confidential testimony of
5 protected witness before the court in The Hague, 1998.
6 Q. And what -- what commences on page 8 of the translation?
7 A. There is an article by Mr. Marijacic entitled "Defenders,
8 officers, and Croats from BiH, possible assassins of protected witness."
9 Q. Just to clarify, Witness, the person who Marijacic is writing
10 about, is it the same person whose transcript is printed above?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Thank you. If I can now just show on the computer evidence
13 channel, but not broadcast, the front cover of the 7th of December edition
14 for Slobodna Dalmacija.
15 Witness, once again can you just explain what appears on the cover
17 A. The main headline, under the words "Slobodna Dalmacija," is
18 "Transcripts from The Hague, secret testimony of the protected witness
19 before the courts in The Hague in March 1998."
20 Q. And moving to the next page of the edition and the page after, is
21 this the article by Marijacic we were just looking at?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. And on the page after that? What do we have published there?
24 A. This is excerpts from the closed-session transcripts of the
25 protected witness in the Blaskic case.
1 Q. Thank you, Witness.
2 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, that was all I was going to cover with
3 Exhibit P36 in the binders. I would ask if the tabs of that binder could
4 be admitted into evidence.
5 JUDGE KWON: These six tabs.
6 MS. GRAHAM: Well, Your Honours, the six tabs are the crucial
7 tabs, up to tab 8, but I would ask that, on the basis that the witness has
8 reviewed all the material and has confirmed that the remainder of the
9 articles set out additional publications of protected material, that
10 without going through each tab they could be admitted and given whatever
11 weight Your Honours would seek to give them.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Has the review of the others been done simply of
13 the Internet pages or was there some comparison in these cases also with
14 the actual newspaper.
15 MS. GRAHAM: Maybe I can ask the witness, based on his chart, to
16 establish that.
17 Q. Witness, we've looked at editions up to the 7th of December 2000.
18 Just looking at the rest of the chart there to the 29th, have you all of
19 the -- all of the tab numbers identified here, have you reviewed all of
20 those editions in either hard copy or in the archive?
21 A. Yes, I have, and they're all consistent.
22 Q. Okay. And you've also reviewed the material in the binders for
23 tab 36 and compared it with that material?
24 A. Yes, I have, and it's consistent.
25 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, on that basis I would ask that it be
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE KWON: The Chamber will admit them all.
4 MS. GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE KWON: I wonder if it is an appropriate time to take a break
6 for technical reasons.
7 MS. GRAHAM: Certainly, Your Honours. I apologise.
8 JUDGE KWON: For ten minutes.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.38 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.56 p.m.
11 JUDGE KWON: The exhibit we just admitted shall be given a number,
12 one number with the same number of tabs. That will be OTP 12. Thank you.
13 MS. GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honour. I've just got three more
14 documents to ask this witness about.
15 Q. Firstly, Witness, can I ask you to take Exhibit P38, which is in
16 your pile of documents there.
17 MS. GRAHAM: And for the Court, that's -- I think that's in the
18 start of binder 4 potentially. Yes, that's correct. It's at the start of
19 binder 4. And I can put the cover of this edition on Sanction, but this
20 is another article that can't be broadcast outside of this courtroom for
21 reasons of witness protections in place in relation to a person discussed
22 in this article.
23 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
24 MS. GRAHAM:
25 Q. Witness, you're now looking at Exhibit P38. Can you identify this
1 for the Court?
2 A. Yes. This is an edition of Slobodna Dalmacija for the 28th of
3 February, 2001.
4 Q. And how did the Prosecution obtain this document?
5 A. This came in through the Zagreb field office to the Office of the
6 Prosecution, the Blaskic and Kordic trial teams.
7 Q. And, Witness, who is this article by?
8 A. The article is attributed to Ivica Marijacic.
9 Q. And what does it relate to?
10 A. It relates to the testimony of a protected witness. This is a
11 different protected witness, Your Honours.
12 Q. Does the article identify that protected witness?
13 A. Yes, it does. The headline is "Mitko Naumovski, Kordic's Defence
14 lawyer, on the controversial testimony of a protected witness."
15 Q. And is that -- is the witness identified in other places in the
16 article as well?
17 A. Yes, throughout the article, both on -- if you look at the English
18 version, it's named several times on page 1 and again on page 2.
19 Q. And, Witness, just turning to your chart for a moment, just to
20 make the correlation here, the demonstrative exhibit that you created, is
21 this referred to on your chart?
22 A. Yes, it is. This was from the electronic archives.
23 Q. So to clarify, you've looked at this both in the electronic
24 archives and in this form faxed from the Zagreb field office?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. And do the versions in the -- the version from the Zagreb field
2 office, is it a fair and accurate representation of what you saw on the
3 website as well?
4 A. Yes, it is.
5 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, I'd ask that be admitted into evidence,
6 Exhibit P38.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: This -- this is obviously designed to establish a
8 different point from the point that we've been dealing with so far, I take
9 it. This is to do with a previous different trial. Now, is this not like
10 trying to say that because somebody assaulted a person on one occasion
11 he's likely to have assaulted them on another occasion? Is this relevant
12 to whether the orders that we're concerned with were breached?
13 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honour, my primary purpose in referring to this
14 article was just that it's included on the document that the witness
15 created, it's part of his review of editions and showing how the accused
16 Marijacic was publishing articles both during the period when Slobodna
17 Dalmacija was publishing excerpts from protected material and before and
18 after, that he had a continuing role with Slobodna Dalmacija.
19 As to the point that Your Honour has made about this witness being
20 a protected witness in another case and it potentially having an impact on
21 the way that the Court would view this case, I would -- I would submit
22 that that is a point for argument and that the document, its main purpose
23 in being admitted is just to show that this witness was publishing at that
24 time and that he did publish an article that related to another protected
25 witness at this time. As to whether -- we're not at this moment making
1 submissions. That will be for closing, any discussion about those other
2 matters. So if Your Honour would accept it into evidence on that basis.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE KWON: That can be admitted.
5 MS. GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE KWON: And that can be given the same -- consecutive number,
7 but the previous one, the OTP 12, and this should be OTP 13, both of them
8 should be under seal due to the protected --
9 MS. GRAHAM: Yes, definitely, Your Honours. Thank you for
10 reminding me about that.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 MS. GRAHAM:
13 Q. Turning briefly now to Exhibit P39, which is the next exhibit in
14 Your Honours' binders. And, Witness, if you can identify that in your
15 pile there. Have you got that before you?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Witness, can you identify this article?
18 A. Yes, this was a Slobodna Dalmacija publication on the 2nd of
19 March, 2001. You'll notice that the B/C/S is a copy taken from the
20 Internet archives on the 22nd of May, 2005.
21 Q. Did you take it from the archives?
22 A. I did myself, yes.
23 Q. And is this -- is this a fair and accurate representation of what
24 you printed off the website, what's in the binder?
25 A. Exactly.
1 Q. Yes. Thank you. And can you identify who the article is authored
3 A. On page 3 of the English, the article is attributed to Ivica
5 Q. And once again, if we can have this version in Sanction just
6 showing, but this can't be broadcast for either because -- for the same
7 reasons that P38 can't be broadcast, this one can't be broadcast either.
8 And, Witness, can you just briefly explain what this article is
10 A. The article is headed "Kordic did not attend any meetings re the
11 attack on Ahmici." The text in the article refers to the second protected
12 witness that we've referred to in this testimony. His name is predominant
13 numerous times on page 3 of the English version and again on page 4.
14 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I would ask that this exhibit also be
15 admitted into evidence for the same reasons as P38 was admitted.
16 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
17 MS. GRAHAM: So maybe that can be numbered OTP 14. Would that be
19 JUDGE KWON: Under seal. Under seal.
20 MS. GRAHAM: Under seal, absolutely, yes. Thank you.
21 Q. The last document that I would like the witness to look at is
22 Exhibit P44. It should still be in that 4th edition, the fourth binder
23 that Your Honours have open at the moment.
24 Have you identified that document, Witness?
25 A. Yes. Again as part of the investigations, I checked the Internet
1 quite often and I came across this article, which I printed off in the
2 B/C/S version in relation to Mr. Rebic.
3 Q. And can you identify where you found this article?
4 A. It was on a website www.index.hr/clanak.
5 Q. And do you know that website, Witness?
6 A. I don't know who holds the website, however, it is a
7 Croatian-based website to the best of my knowledge.
8 Q. Have you found other material on that website before?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What types of material is located on that website?
11 A. It's mostly news articles from various publications.
12 Q. And can you identify who this article was written by?
13 A. It was attributed to HINA. It doesn't -- it doesn't give a name
14 of an author.
15 Q. And do you know what HINA is?
16 A. HINA is a news agency.
17 Q. Have you come across articles by HINA before?
18 A. Many times.
19 Q. And, Witness, what is this article about?
20 A. It appears to be an interview with Mr. Rebic, done by whoever
21 authored this article, in relation to the contempt charges issued by the
23 Q. And if we could maybe just show the English version on Sanction
24 now, and if we could highlight the highlighted text there.
25 If you can just explain what's discussed here on the screen at the
1 moment. Have you got the computer evidence channel? If you just press on
2 the computer evidence channel. Can you see on the screen some highlighted
4 A. Yes, I can. This appears to be a quote from Mr. Rebic: "As for
5 revealing the secret identity of the Netherlands SFOR officer, it was
6 Rebic's opinion that 'there was never any danger for him, neither then nor
7 now, which is confirmed by the fact that nothing has happened to him.'
8 "He stressed that during the publication of the questionable
9 article in Hrvatski List newspaper, he wrote that he was 'aware of what he
10 was doing, but certain that he was doing a service to both Croatia and
11 himself, because he was showing that it was not true that the State of
12 Croatia and him were involved in harbouring Bralo.'"
13 Q. Thank you, Witness.
14 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I would ask that that article, this
15 article in P44 be admitted.
16 JUDGE KWON: Mr. Krsnik.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to intervene
18 most strenuously. I think it is absolutely inadmissible to suggest that
19 this should be introduced into evidence because this is -- I hope the
20 interpreters will manage this -- a very creative piece of work. Anybody
21 can access the Internet, write some sort of address and publish whatever
22 they like in whatever way they like. We all know that.
23 There is no visible authorship, and anybody can put H-I-N-A, HINA,
24 in brackets. This proves absolutely nothing, and this absolutely useless
25 piece of documentation could not possibly be admissible.
1 Until now they have at least been trying hard comparing the
2 Internet publication with the original. Now they're going a step further.
3 There is no proof of authenticity. I would say this is pure forgery. Do
4 they have evidence that it isn't? What are they going to compare this
6 Of course I can deal with this in cross-examination, and we will,
7 but I think it is absolutely inadmissible to suggest even that this could
8 be put into evidence.
9 JUDGE KWON: Are you saying, Mr. Krsnik, that Mr. Rebic had never
10 given an interview to this HINA agency to this effect?
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I don't know whether he has given any
12 interviews to HINA, and I cannot talk about that, but I'm absolutely
13 certain that HINA does not publish its articles on this website but on its
14 own website. HINA is the state news agency. They have their own website,
15 their own Internet pages, and if they had written this article, they would
16 have published it on their own website. We don't know whose website this
18 Why would HINA publish its articles on a different address when it
19 has its own?
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: It is a question of authenticity that you're
21 primarily concerned with. You would concede that, if it is authentic, it
22 does have material that would be relevant.
23 JUDGE KWON: We would like to hear from -- yes. You have
24 further --
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I maintain that authenticity is
1 questionable because I live in a very small state and I know it very well.
2 HINA is the official news agency of that state, and it publishes its
3 articles on its own website. That's why I said from the beginning that I
4 question everything, not only authenticity.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
6 Ms. Graham, you agree that this site is not official site of HINA
7 news agency?
8 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I wouldn't agree that. I'm not sure
9 whether the witness might be able to help us on the relationship between
10 the Index website and the HINA website. We certainly -- we could adduce
11 evidence, if Your Honours wanted, through an additional witness to explain
12 that, and I can explain it to you, if you would like, but -- but basically
13 Index is a website that indexes a lot of news services in Croatia, as we
14 understand the position, and so HINA -- HINA is a big Croatian news
15 agency. Things are broadcast, and there are other servers where things
16 are accessible from.
17 JUDGE KWON: So that's all you can respond to the submission of
18 the Defence.
19 MS. GRAHAM: Well, that's not all. As to the reliability of this
20 document, I've explained how this witness came to find it on the website,
21 that he knows about HINA as a Croatian news agency, and that what we have
22 in the binders is exactly what he's printed off, and that he's found other
23 material previously of this sort, and so it's not, you know, some unusual
24 and far-fetched and likely-to-be-forged type of document.
25 So, Your Honours, I would say that on those grounds that the
1 points being raised really by Mr. Krsnik about interpretation by
2 newspapers, these types of matters are questions of weight and they're not
3 questions of the admissibility of this document, and that the document
4 should be admitted and he can make those submissions in argument if he so
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I take it from the fact that it's not been
7 addressed that no attempt was made to check with HINA whether this was
9 MS. GRAHAM: If Your Honours would just give me a moment just to
10 confer with my colleague.
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I can't add anything to that at this
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, just -- If you would allow me just to
17 make one more point.
18 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Graham, you would share something else?
19 MS. GRAHAM: Yes. If Your Honours would like, we can try and
20 track down an original HINA version overnight, if that would be
21 preferential, and we can provide that version as well as the version from
23 JUDGE KWON: Having heard that, can we not defer the determination
24 of admissibility until tomorrow?
25 MS. GRAHAM: Certainly, Your Honour, yes. That concludes
1 everything I wanted to ask this witness about, so ends his testimony.
2 Just one more thing, though, Your Honours. I do have a second
3 demonstrative exhibit like the one I provided to you at the beginning of
4 this witness's testimony for the 18th of November, 2004, Hrvatski List
5 edition. I've also got one for the 5th of May, 2005 Hrvatski List
6 edition, which Your Honours have also admitted as Exhibit P48, once again
7 just correlating the translation in English against the B/C/S, and if Your
8 Honours would be assisted by that, I can have that distributed.
9 JUDGE KWON: Thank you for that. And now for the Defence to
11 MS. GRAHAM: Sorry, Your Honours, I've just got one more question
12 for you, I apologise. But just -- the demonstrative exhibit that the
13 witness created, the chart, I'm wondering if that could be moved into
14 evidence as it pertains to his testimony and helps to explain the evidence
15 he's given on the transcript.
16 JUDGE KWON: Speaking for myself, can it not work as a kind of
18 MS. GRAHAM: Certainly, if Your Honour would prefer, it could be
19 an aide-memoire, yes.
20 JUDGE KWON: Okay. The Chamber will admit it.
21 MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE KWON: It can be given a number of OTP 15.
23 Who shall begin? Mr. Ivanovic, yes.
24 Cross-examined by Mr. Ivanovic:
25 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
1 introduce myself to the witness.
2 Q. My name is Marin Ivanovic. I am representing Mr. Marijacic in
3 these proceedings. I will be much briefer than my learned colleague was.
4 First of all, I would like to ask you, have you read all the
5 writings of Mr. Marijacic for that period?
6 A. No, I haven't read all of them. The articles that were found in
7 my sampling, those were compared to what was in the papers that we did
8 have. The ones that were relevant for the case that were translated into
9 English I did read, but by no means did I read each and every article that
10 he's presented in Slobodna Dalmacija.
11 Q. In those articles that you have read, did Mr. Marijacic make a
12 single mention of Mr. Van Kuijk and his testimony?
13 A. Not that I'm aware of, no, and that's one thing I looked for.
14 Q. Did he ever mention the testimony of another protected witness?
15 A. Not in that context, no.
16 Q. Has he ever written about any testimony given by protected witness
17 Van Kuijk?
18 A. Not that I'm aware of, no.
19 Q. Has he ever written, in those articles that you have read, about
20 the testimony of the person we are here referring to as the second
21 protected witness?
22 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. None that I've seen.
23 Q. Have you read the order of this Tribunal concerning the protection
24 of identities of the 1st of December, 2000?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. Does it refer to any person, any protected witness by name?
2 A. May I see the order, please?
3 JUDGE KWON: That can be handed over to the witness.
4 MS. GRAHAM: Yes, that's Exhibit P36 in the binder. If that could
5 be handed to the witness. It's P35 in the binders, just immediately
6 before P36.
7 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question, please?
8 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Does this order refer to any protected witness by name?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Does this order invoke any earlier decision of this Tribunal?
12 A. It takes into consideration the Chamber's decision of June 6,
14 Q. Does this order mention any media in the Republic of Croatia by
15 name, and which?
16 A. In mentions Globus and Slobodna Dalmacija.
17 Q. Does it refer to any journalists and reporters to whom this order
18 is addressed by name?
19 A. Yes. From Globus it refers to Mr. Anton Masla [phoen], and Bisera
20 Lusic on behalf of Slobodna Dalmacija.
21 Q. Does it refer again to Mr. Ivica Marijacic?
22 A. No, it does not.
23 Q. At that time when this order was issued, that is the 1st of
24 December, 2000, was the testimony of Mr. Van Kuijk or any other witness
25 mentioned -- sorry, published?
1 A. Not in this regard, no. Just one -- if I understand correctly,
2 it's regarding one protected witness, not Mr. Van Kuijk.
3 Q. Can you please read to me from -- or, rather, I will read from
4 this order one excerpt, and I hope it will be interpreted. "... orders
5 that the publication of statements or testimonies of the witness concerned
6 and generally of any protected witness shall cease immediately."
7 Does -- can you read this in the order?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Can something cease immediately if it is happening four years
11 JUDGE KWON: I don't think it is for the witness to answer.
12 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise then.
13 Q. Does this or any similar order refer to Hrvatski List or Mr. Ivica
14 Marijacic? Was it received by them?
15 A. It had no bearing on either Mr. Marijacic or Mr. Rebic, this
16 particular order, by name.
17 JUDGE KWON: That question was not properly answered, but I
18 wondered if that question can be properly answered by the witness. Let
19 us --
20 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Correct. Absolutely correct.
21 MS. GRAHAM: This witness isn't being called as a legal expert or
22 anything of that nature and can't really provide testimony about the
23 interpretation of Trial Chamber orders. So I wonder about the utility of
24 asking him these questions.
25 JUDGE KWON: All right. Thank you. Let us move on.
1 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] These questions are very helpful
2 and our learned friends from the Prosecution, when they explained why they
3 were introducing this material, said that they had to establish the
4 connection with Mr. Marijacic and Mr. Rebic. I have to prove that there
5 is no link whatsoever with Mr. Rebic or Marijacic or the incriminated
6 event that would allow this to be included into evidence.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: You can put that in legal argument, but I don't
8 think this witness can help you on that.
9 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I can reformulate my question. I
10 can rephrase.
11 JUDGE KWON: Very well.
12 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. As an investigator for the OTP, have you ever in the course of
14 your work come across an order that refers directly and precisely to
15 Mr. Ivica Marijacic and Hrvatski List?
16 A. Not by name, no.
17 Q. Have you ever as an investigator for the OTP come across an order
18 that refers by name to the Globus publication?
19 A. The 2001 order that I'm holding mentioned Globus.
20 Q. As an investigator for the OTP, have you ever come across an order
21 that would refer by name to Hrvatsko Slovo?
22 A. Not until 2004.
23 MR. IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have no
24 further questions for this witness.
25 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, Mr. Ivanovic.
1 Mr. Krsnik.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know whether it
3 makes sense for me to begin, because it's already half past one and I saw
4 in the schedule that we are supposed to finish at a quarter to two. Maybe
5 you would allow me to begin my cross-examination tomorrow.
6 JUDGE KWON: How long do you expect your cross-examination to run?
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly more than 15 minutes. That
8 much is true. So to avoid stopping today and continuing --
9 JUDGE KWON: Let us try.
10 MR. KRSNIK: Okay.
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon. My name is Kresimir Krsnik. I'm
13 appearing for the accused Mr. Markica Rebic here today.
14 Mr. Cameron, you do recall your statement made on the 31st October
15 2005? If you don't remember it, I can place it in front of you. I know
16 my colleagues have a copy and will be good enough to provide it in
17 English. It's the 31st of October.
18 JUDGE KWON: Do we have it in the binder?
19 MS. GRAHAM: Your Honours, I don't think, have a copy. I can
20 check and see if we have copies available. Just one moment.
21 Your Honours, we have one, maybe two copies with us at the moment,
22 if that would assist.
23 JUDGE KWON: Let us get on with it. Please move on. Or we can
24 put it on the ELMO, the English version.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Then please put the first page on the
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this statement contains
3 the mention of a protected witness.
4 JUDGE KWON: Now I understand, but it would not be broadcast.
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] If you let me conduct my own
6 cross-examination, I will take care, because I know what's in the
7 statement. I kindly asked you to put page 1 on the ELMO. There is no
8 reference to any protected witness there. Have you placed it on the ELMO?
9 I can't see it. I would like to clear up --
10 JUDGE KWON: It should be the second button, video evidence.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I would like to clear up right at the outset one thing that is not
13 quite clear to me, if you could assist. I know from experience that
14 witness statements are taken according to a certain procedure by the OTP.
15 We have witness information listed here. Your name seems to be Terrence,
16 last name Cameron; is that correct? And now look at the fourth line from
17 the bottom. Names of all persons present during interviews. It says
18 interviewer - interviewer - and then it says "Terry Cameron." Would I be
19 wrong in understanding this as you having conducted your own interview, or
20 is Terry Cameron a different person?
21 A. No. It's common practice within the OTP that when an investigator
22 provides a statement, he writes a statement out in the same format he
23 would for any other witness, but it's done without an interpreter or
24 another investigator as there's no need.
25 So to respond to your question, this is my statement. I'm the
1 person being interviewed, but I'm the person that's giving the statement
2 and signing for it.
3 Q. So you actually wrote your own statement in your own hand without
4 actually talking or being interviewed by anybody?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. Isn't it the practice of the Office of the Prosecutor when
7 conducting an investigation to call witnesses for an interview and then
8 warn them of the consequences of making false statements? Isn't it the
9 practice to caution witnesses? You haven't obviously been able to do that
10 since you were the one who wrote the statement.
11 A. The vast majority of the witnesses that OTP investigators deal
12 with are either from the former Yugoslavia or elsewhere, and we have a
13 certain preamble we use for those individuals. However, as stated
14 earlier, when an investigator is providing his or her own statement,
15 that's not deemed necessary.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, this is what is -- it is this practice that
17 the counsel is questioning. I don't quite understand it myself. Why
18 should it be any different? But proceed.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. In my eyes, a witness is a witness. I have no reason to presume
21 that he is different from another one.
22 Let me just check. On page 3, there are names of certain
23 protected witnesses, so we won't put it on the ELMO. Rather, take it in
24 your hand. It's page 3 of your statement, paragraph 3V. Can you follow
25 me? It's the third line from the top. "The order stipulates -" and what
1 is meant is the order of the 6th of June, 1997 - "The order stipulates
2 that the accused, his Defence counsel, and their representatives shall not
3 disclose to the public or the media the names of witnesses or any other
4 identifying information."
5 Is that part of your statement?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. My question now would be: Did the Defence team honour the order
8 of the Trial Chamber and provide a list of all persons that constituted
9 the Defence team?
10 A. That's beyond my knowledge. That was the Blaskic trial team a
11 number of years ago. Who or what was provided in terms of Defence or
12 Defence team I'm not aware of.
13 Q. Well, you are the investigator. You were the investigator, and
14 you were given the task of investigating the content -- sorry, the
15 contempt case. And my learned friend Mr. Akerson must have told you that
16 what is needed is to establish the link with Mr. Rebic and the Blaskic
17 Defence team. I suppose that you have all the documents relevant to that.
18 But you don't seem to have come across the one that I'm asking you
20 Did the Blaskic team honour the order of the Trial Chamber and
21 provide a list of all persons making up the Defence team? The order says:
22 "And their personnel --"
23 JUDGE KWON: Did the witness not answer the question? He said he
24 didn't know. So let's get on with the evidence. Please move on,
25 Mr. Krsnik.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree with you, of
2 course, but he's testifying here precisely as a person who was assigned to
3 conduct the investigation. I'm just checking. He's free to say, "I don't
4 know," and I will accept it. I can only make my own conclusions. I don't
5 know exactly how he proceeded with his investigation in that case, and I
6 am precisely trying to say that he was trying all this time to establish
7 the link with Mr. Rebic and the Defence team.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Reserve your comments for your closing arguments.
9 JUDGE KWON: Please move on.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. Of course
11 you are correct.
12 Q. Witness, this is not a real cross-examination, as you can see,
13 because I'm asking you questions as if we were in examination-in-chief.
14 Do you know what Markica Rebic was doing, and did you establish in the
15 course of your investigation what he was doing on the 4th of December,
16 2000, 6th December 2000, and 7th December 2000? What was he doing on
17 those days, where he was, and if he occupied any position, what position
18 that was?
19 A. You're talking about 2001?
20 Q. 2000.
21 A. 2000.
22 Q. We are precisely talking about the dates of publication of
23 Slobodna Dalmacija. The 4th December 2000, 6th December 2000, and 7th
24 December 2000.
25 A. To answer your question, I don't know.
1 Q. Do you know, generally speaking, what positions Mr. Rebic occupied
2 and how?
3 A. The only positions that I'm aware of is I believe an assistant
4 minister in the Croatian government, and after that, in regards to
5 Hrvatski List, I believe he's an editor, on the editorial staff.
6 Q. During the investigation did you establish what "assistant
7 minister" means? Did you mean assistant minister of defence?
8 A. As far as I'm aware, it was assistant minister of defence. I'm
9 not totally sure. In charge of SIS.
10 Q. But which sector?
11 A. I'm sorry?
12 Q. Could you explain to the Honourable Court what SIS means?
13 A. It means for security and intelligence, I believe.
14 Q. Do you know, can you tell us that first, do you know what SIS
16 A. I can't give you the literal translation of it, but my experience
17 at the Tribunal is that it's an intelligence agency.
18 Q. Yes. That's why I'm asking you. Did you -- in fact, you did
19 provide a wrong translation. That's why I'm asking you if you know. If I
20 tell you that this is a counter-intelligence service rather than an
21 intelligence service, what would your answer be?
22 A. I couldn't answer that.
23 Q. Do you know the powers of that security agency within the security
24 system, its competencies?
25 A. I wouldn't -- I have no personal experience on that. I don't know
1 what the total competencies would be.
2 Q. Sorry. Do you know of the acronym H-I-S, HIS?
3 A. I've heard it, yes.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I think our time is up, Your Honour.
5 I would have another 15, perhaps 20 minutes of questioning. You see how
6 fast I'm proceeding. I will continue tomorrow.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The hearing will be adjourned until 9.00
8 in the morning tomorrow.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 18th day
11 of January, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.