Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 34

 1                           Tuesday, 31 January 2012

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 2.19 p.m.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Good afternoon, everybody.

 6             Can we call the case on, please.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

 8             This is case IT-98-32/1-R77.2, the Prosecutor versus

 9     Jelena Rasic.

10             JUDGE MORRISON:  And may I have appearances, please.

11             MR. ROGERS:  Yes, good afternoon, Your Honours.  Paul Rogers

12     appearing for the Prosecution, together with Mr. Kyle Wood.  And our

13     Case Manager today, Ms. Carmela Javier.

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.

15             My name is Mira Tapuskovic.  I appear as counsel for Ms. Rasic.

16     With me is my assistant, Liane Aronchick.

17             Thank you.

18             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you.

19             I note the presence of the accused.  Does the accused hear the

20     proceedings in a language which you understand?

21             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE MORRISON:  And I appreciate there may be submissions later

23     on, but is there anything that needs to be raised at this stage

24     concerning the health of the accused?

25             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 35

 1             The health of the accused can -- and its status can be found in

 2     the report by the duty physician, and there were no significant changes

 3     relating to the status after the report, which preceded it.

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you very much.

 5             I think it's necessary for a short time for us now to go into

 6     private session, please.

 7                           [Private session]

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 36











11 Pages 36-37 redacted. Private session.















Page 38

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13                           [Open session]

14             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

15             MR. ROGERS:  Your Honours, there was a plea agreement that has

16     been signed by the accused, dated the 24th of January, 2012.

17     Your Honours, there's no reason why that document cannot now be made

18     public.  And the Amended Indictment what is attached thereto also to be

19     made public.

20             Your Honour, essentially, the Prosecution and the Defence move

21     you to accept an amended indictment which slightly changes the emphasis

22     of the criminal behaviour of the accused from the original indictment and

23     is one to which she is prepared to plead guilty.  And the amendments are

24     set out in the Amended Indictment.  The factual basis for the

25     plea agreement is not set out separately because the facts upon which she

Page 39

 1     enters her plea, obviously subject also to an opening, but the basic

 2     facts which you would have to satisfy yourself under Rule 62 bis (iv) are

 3     all set out within the indictment itself, and we see that there is no

 4     basis for the plea to be equivocal.  I know that Your Honour will no

 5     doubt deal with Ms. Rasic's understanding in due course, because she

 6     clearly understands the nature of what it is she is doing, so her plea is

 7     informed, it's voluntarily, it's not equivocal, and the fact, and

 8     sufficient are set out, we submit, for you to be able to accept her

 9     guilty plea.

10             In due course I will open the case fully around the indictment as

11     is currently put, the Amended Indictment.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Very well.  I'll just consult with my colleagues

13     as to the acceptance of that indictment.

14                           [Trial Chamber confers]

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, we're unanimous in accepting the proposed

16     Amended Indictment.

17             MR. ROGERS:  Thank you, Your Honour.

18             I don't know whether you would wish to have the indictment read

19     out fully again to the accused.  From our perspective, I don't speak for

20     Ms. Tapuskovic, but we both know that this has been gone through fully

21     with Ms. Rasic and we see that there is no need for the indictment to be

22     put to her again unless Your Honours feel that it is essential, because

23     the plea agreement makes it very clear that she accepts responsibility

24     for all five Counts in the Amended Indictment.

25             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, the Amended Indictment will become a

Page 40

 1     public document.

 2             MR. ROGERS:  Yes, it will.

 3             JUDGE MORRISON:  And therefore it's available for anybody who has

 4     an interest to see it and read it in full.

 5             MR. ROGERS:  Yes.

 6             JUDGE MORRISON:  So for myself, I don't see the need to repeat it

 7     now unless either of my colleagues - no - or the Defence think that is an

 8     essential course.

 9             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree absolutely

10     with your conclusion and my learned friend's position.  Jelena Rasic and

11     I went through the Amended Indictment on a number of occasions in the

12     past few days, not only during the process of drafting the plea agreement

13     but before that as well.  Hence, I believe it is not necessary to go

14     through the procedure of reading out the indictment again.

15             JUDGE MORRISON:  In which case I propose simply to ask the

16     accused in short form whether or not she understands the nature of the

17     Amended Indictment and wishes to change her plea from one of not guilty

18     to one of guilty in respect of each of the five counts.

19             MR. ROGERS:  Yes, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  I address the accused.  Ms. Rasic, I think you

21     have already heard what I said, I hope, in translation.

22             Do you confirm that you now change your pleas from pleas of not

23     guilty to pleas of guilty in respect of each and every one of the five

24     counts of the now-Amended Indictment?

25             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, I plead guilty on all five

Page 41

 1     counts, and I'm ready to meet whatever consequences come my way.

 2             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you.  I now ask the Prosecution to open

 3     the case, please.

 4             MR. ROGERS:  Your Honour, yes, before we do, I think perhaps

 5     Your Honours need to formally enter verdicts of guilty.

 6             JUDGE MORRISON:  You're absolutely right.  We do so.

 7             MR. ROGERS:  I'm grateful.

 8             Your Honours, turning to deal, first of all, with Count 1.

 9             Zuhdija Tabakovic is a former resident of Visegrad in

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  He is a Muslim.  Prior to the war he was a police

11     officer in the Visegrad area.  In the Autumn of 2008, Mr. Tabakovic was

12     unemployed and living with his family in difficult financial

13     circumstances in Sarajevo.

14             In about October 2008, Mr. Tabakovic received a telephone call

15     from a man he knew in Visegrad.  This man said that there was a young

16     woman coming from Belgrade and suggested that he get in touch with her

17     and meet her for coffee as there was a chance that he may be able to earn

18     some money.  Mr. Tabakovic provided the man with his telephone number so

19     that the young woman could contact him.

20             Some days later, around the 18th of October, 2008, he met with

21     this woman, who was the accused, Ms. Rasic.  She was staying in a hotel

22     in the Bistrik district of Sarajevo.

23             When they met, the woman introduced herself as Jelena, they sat

24     down at a table to talk, and she placed upon the table a folder.  At that

25     time, Ms. Rasic was acting as the Case Manager for the Defence team of

Page 42

 1     Milan Lukic in the case of Prosecutor against Milan Lukic and

 2     Sredoje Lukic, which, at the time, was in its trial phase before this

 3     Tribunal.

 4             Ms. Rasic asked Mr. Tabakovic if he knew Milan Lukic, and he said

 5     that he did not.  She asked him if he knew Sredoje Lukic, and he replied

 6     that he did, as they had worked together previously whilst colleagues in

 7     the police in Visegrad.

 8             Ms. Rasic told Mr. Tabakovic that she worked for Milan Lukic, and

 9     she said she had come to Sarajevo because she was looking for people to

10     confirm the statements that she had with her.

11             After some informal discussion, Ms. Rasic pulled from the folder

12     a pre-prepared witness statement for use in the Lukic and Lukic case.

13     She showed it to Mr. Tabakovic and asked him if he would be prepared to

14     confirm, sign, and verify the statement in exchange for 1.000 euros cash.

15     She promised him more money if he came to The Hague and testified in

16     accordance with the statement on behalf of Milan Lukic in the case being

17     brought against him here.  Ms. Rasic clearly knew that the statement was

18     for use in the Tribunal proceedings relating to Milan Lukic.  At the

19     time, she was not aware that Tabakovic was unfamiliar with the events

20     described in the statement.

21             Mr. Tabakovic asked what his total financial compensation would

22     be if he agreed to the statement.  He recalls that she replied he would

23     receive 2.500 euros.  That he would get 1.000 euros immediately after

24     signing the statement, and the rest would follow after he testified here

25     in The Hague.  In addition, he would receive paid travelling expenses for

Page 43

 1     the trip, a new suit, some shoes, and accommodation in The Hague.

 2     Ms. Rasic says that the total sum offered was 2.000 euros; 1.000 to sign

 3     and a 1.000 after testifying.

 4             And, Your Honours, I've mentioned this already to my learned

 5     friend.  For Your Honours information, the average wage in

 6     Bosnia and Herzegovina, average net wage in Bosnia and Herzegovina in

 7     July 2008 was 381 euros, or 763 convertible marks.  And it's -- there

 8     was --

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  Sorry, that's a monthly wage, is it?

10             MR. ROGERS:  A monthly wage, yes.  And there was a similar amount

11     in Serbia at the time as well.

12             Ms. Rasic explained in broad terms to Mr. Tabakovic what the

13     statement was about; namely, that he witnessed the execution of some

14     Bosniaks near Sase village and that some of them survived by swimming

15     across the river.  Mr. Tabakovic read through the statement and saw that

16     it indeed concerned the execution of some Bosniaks by the Drina river and

17     it was about three pages long.

18             Also during the meeting, Ms. Rasic gave to Mr. Tabakovic a

19     hand-drawn map, which is Exhibit P5 in the case.  The map purports to

20     identify the location of the crimes described in the statement that he

21     was to sign, and the place at which Mr. Tabakovic was supposed to be when

22     the events depicted in the map, and about which he was to testify, took

23     place.  Ms. Rasic told him that the map had been drawn by Milan Lukic.

24     And on the back of the map, she wrote her name and her contact telephone

25     number.

Page 44

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's note:  Kindly slow down when

 2     reading for the sake of interpretation.  Thank you.

 3             MR. ROGERS:  Mr. Tabakovic agreed to sign the statement, and it

 4     was arranged that he would meet Ms. Rasic at the Novo Sarajevo

 5     municipality building to complete it.  They met on the

 6     20th of October, 2008, at that municipality building to sign the

 7     statement, have the signature certified, and for certified copies of the

 8     statements to be made.  That statement is Exhibit P2.

 9             After the statement was signed and the signature certified by

10     municipal authority official and certified copies of the statements were

11     produced, Ms. Rasic gave to Mr. Tabakovic 1.000 euros, in twenty 50 euro

12     notes folded in a piece of paper taken from a green folder that she had

13     with her.  She asked if this was all right, and he said "yes."  They then

14     parted.

15             Your Honours, it's perhaps important to understand that the

16     verification process at the municipality does not involve a declaration

17     that the statements themselves are true, but merely confirms the identity

18     of the person signing.  Indeed you can see, if you look at the exhibits,

19     that in fact none of the statements signed by any of the three

20     individuals in this case, Mr. Tabakovic, Mr. X, and Mr. Y, contain

21     actually any declarations of truth.

22             Turning, Your Honours, then to Count 2.

23             At around the same time on the 18th of October, 2008, Ms. Rasic

24     incited Mr. Tabakovic to find other men from Visegrad who had served in

25     the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign similar pre-prepared

Page 45

 1     statements to his own and to offer them the same amount of money to do so

 2     as he had been paid, with an additional promise of more money should they

 3     testify.

 4             She provided to Mr. Tabakovic copies of the statements they were

 5     to sign.  One of those is Exhibit P1.  And that is a copy of the

 6     statement Mr. X eventually signed.

 7             Mr. Tabakovic agreed to find some people, and a few days later he

 8     contacted her again to say that he had found two people.  Those were

 9     Mr. X and Mr. Y.

10             Turning then to Counts 3 and 4, which deal with X and Y.

11             Around the 18th of October, 2008, Mr. Tabakovic arranged to meet

12     Ms. Rasic to introduce her to X and Y.  Tabakovic knew both X and Y from

13     before.  He had previously met with them and asked them if they would be

14     willing to sign a statement in exchange for payment of 1.000 euro.  Both

15     men agreed to sign the statements.

16             Mr. X says that he was approached by Mr. Tabakovic in

17     October 2008.  He had known Tabakovic for about 30 years.  He arranged to

18     meet Tabakovic at a restaurant near the Novo Sarajevo municipality

19     building and Tabakovic told him that he needed to bring identification

20     and go with a woman to the Novo Sarajevo municipality building.

21     Tabakovic told him that he and Mr. X were to testify about some sort of

22     execution that had taken place and that he would be paid 1.000 euros to

23     sign the statement, with more to follow if he testified in accordance

24     with the statement.

25             Mr. Y says that he, too, was contacted by Mr. Tabakovic and asked

Page 46

 1     to go to a cafe near to the Novo Sarajevo municipality building and to

 2     bring with him some identification.  The next day, he went.  At the same

 3     time, at that time, the witness was drinking, that is Mr. Y, was drinking

 4     extremely heavily and said that he really wasn't thinking too much about

 5     what he was doing.

 6             On the 23rd of October, 2008, Tabakovic, X, and Y met together in

 7     a cafe close to the Novo Sarajevo municipality.  Mr. Tabakovic introduced

 8     first Mr. X, then Mr. Y to Ms. Rasic in the municipality building itself.

 9     X and Tabakovic went across to the municipality building and were gone

10     for about 30 to 45 minutes.  They left Mr. Y in the cafe.  When they came

11     back, Tabakovic told Mr. Y not to talk too much and just sign, as there

12     would be something in it for him.

13             At the municipality building itself, the same procedure was

14     followed for both X and Y, but separately.  They were given a

15     pre-prepared statement to sign and have their signatures verified in the

16     same way as it happened with Mr. Tabakovic.  Neither X or Y had ever met

17     or been in contact with Ms. Rasic before this meeting in the municipality

18     building.

19             Mr. X described the process in this way.  He said Ms. Rasic had a

20     laptop with her.  She took some papers from the bag.  She asked him if he

21     was familiar with the paper and had read it.  He said he had, but he had

22     not read the paper.  She asked him his first name and his last name and

23     his date of birth.  She asked him about the dates mentioned in the

24     statement, "Were you there?" and he said yes, although he, in fact, had

25     not read what was written on the papers, as he was just interested in the

Page 47

 1     money.  They waited in line to sign the statement and then certify the

 2     signature.  He confirms that he witnessed none of the events and that the

 3     matters in the statement he signed were false.

 4             At the conclusion of the signing of the statements, he was

 5     provided with a copy of the statement and he left the municipality

 6     building.  He was given 1.000 euros in twenty times 50 denominations by a

 7     man identified by Mr. Tabakovic at that time as a man known as

 8     Dragan Sekaric, and later identified as Sekaric by Mr. X from a

 9     photoboard.  After the payment of the money, Ms. Rasic called Mr. X back

10     to the building and asked for his telephone number.

11             Mr. Y, who had been drinking heavily, was then taken by

12     Mr. Tabakovic to the municipality building, where Tabakovic introduced Y

13     to Ms. Rasic.  Mr. Y then went with her to sign some papers.  Again, he

14     says he didn't read them.  The first time he says he saw the document

15     properly was after it had been signed.

16             Ms. Rasic told him that she was investigating crimes in Visegrad

17     and needed witnesses.  He says she was with two men.  He went with Rasic

18     to the counter in the municipality and signed the statement, and the

19     statement that he signed is Exhibit P8, which, Your Honour, in due course

20     I'll move to place under seal because it identifies him.  After

21     signature, he was given copies of the documents and an envelope by one of

22     the men with Ms. Rasic.  She asked for his telephone number, and he gave

23     her a made up number.  And the girl said something like, We'll see each

24     other if a passport is needed.  Inside the envelope was 1.000 euros in

25     50-euro notes.

Page 48

 1             He says that he guessed that he would be asked to testify in

 2     The Hague, but it wasn't important to him as he was just interested in

 3     the money.  When the witness was shown the statement he signed during his

 4     witness interview and read through it, he stated, This is all news to me.

 5     He was simply signing the papers to make money, and he confirms that he

 6     did not witness any of the events or matters described in the statement

 7     he signed and like Mr. X, this statement was also completely false.

 8             Later, Mr. Y said that he saw Tabakovic about passports but said

 9     by then he, Mr. Y, was starting to drag his feet, stalling, as he really

10     didn't want any more to do with it.  He spoke himself to Ms. Rasic on the

11     telephone, he believed, around Christmas or New Year 2008/2009.

12             Your Honours, it's accepted that Ms. Rasic knew that Mr. X and

13     Mr. Y were to be paid 1.000 euros after signing their statements, with

14     more to follow when they testified in The Hague.  And it is accepted that

15     at the time they signed their statements Ms. Rasic was aware of the

16     substantial likelihood that they were false.

17             Subsequent to the signing of those statements, Mr. Tabakovic had

18     further contact with Ms. Rasic.  Tabakovic says that Rasic told him that

19     Milan Lukic was funding the payments of money through his sister and that

20     the sister could not make any payments without Milan Lukic's approval.

21             Your Honours, Mr. X's statement is almost identical to that of

22     Mr. Tabakovic, which is Exhibit P6.  Again, will be under seal.

23             The signed and certified statements of Mr. X, Mr. Y, and

24     Mr. Tabakovic were sent to the lawyers acting for Milan Lukic.  A summary

25     of each of those statements appeared on the 65 ter witness summaries

Page 49

 1     filed by the Defence for Milan Lukic in his case on the

 2     19th of November, 2008.  They appeared again on the

 3     2nd of December, 2008, and as late as the 5th of January, 2008 [sic].

 4             However, there were problems, there were mistakes in those first

 5     false statements, leading to there having to be new versions of those

 6     statements signed, and that is Count 5.

 7             Sometime at the end of November 2008, or early December 2008,

 8     Ms. Rasic contacted Mr. Tabakovic again and asked him to meet her.  She

 9     needed the statements previously provided by Tabakovic, X, and Y to be

10     corrected and re-signed.  This time, the municipality process was not

11     used.  She met with Tabakovic in Sarajevo and handed to him there the

12     unsigned revised statements for all three witnesses for signature.  At

13     this time, she knew that all three revised statements were false.  She

14     asked him to re-sign his statement and to take the statements for X and Y

15     and get them to sign them.  Tabakovic took them, signed his and returned

16     it, and took the statements for X and Y.  And he returned those

17     statements to her the next day.

18             Your Honours, those are Exhibits P10, for Mr. Tabakovic, and

19     11 and 12 for X and Y respectively.  Those 11 and 12 will need to be

20     under seal.  And we also -- I'll move, in due course, to deal with

21     redacted versions of those.

22             Mr. X spoke to Tabakovic again several times, and in around

23     December 2008 Tabakovic informed X that he needed to provide another

24     signed statement as there was something wrong in the last statement he

25     had signed.  X said that he did not sign the second statement, and Y also

Page 50

 1     said that he had only ever signed one of the statements.  When shown the

 2     revised 5th December statements, Exhibits P11 and 12 under seal, both

 3     Mr. X and Mr. Y said they had never seen them and the signatures on them

 4     were not theirs.  The only statement they had signed had been stamped at

 5     the municipality and was dated the 23rd of October, 2008.

 6             Those revised statements were also provided to the lawyers acting

 7     for Milan Lukic in The Hague.  And on 20th of January, 2009, copies of

 8     them were provided to the Prosecution in advance of those witnesses

 9     coming to testify.  However, on the 23rd of January, the Defence applied

10     to remove all three witnesses from their 65 ter lists and replace them

11     with other witnesses.  They were never called by the Defence.

12             Your Honours, Mr. Tabakovic is the person who revealed these

13     crimes to the Prosecution.  He approached the OTP in the field office in

14     Sarajevo at the end of December 2008 and he was interviewed at length

15     about his involvement in these events and identified Ms. Rasic as a

16     person also involved.  In due course Mr. Tabakovic was prosecuted for his

17     part in what had happened, and he pleaded guilty on the

18     11th of March, 2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, to three counts of

19     contempt.  That's relating to his own statement and obtaining the

20     statements of the other two.

21             He was sentenced on the 18th of March, 2010, to a total sentence

22     of three months' imprisonment by this Tribunal.  It was not part of that

23     agreement that he attend to testify, although did he attend voluntarily

24     prior to the listing of this case and was ready to testify about those

25     matters.

Page 51

 1             Your Honours, can I just deal briefly with the Trial Chamber's -

 2     because it may be relevant to Your Honours - sentencing exercise.

 3             The Trial Chamber's statements relating to Mr. Tabakovic's role

 4     and in how it dealt with him in sentence.  This comes from paragraph 12

 5     of the Tabakovic Sentencing Judgement which is a public Judgement, dated

 6     the 18th of March, 2010.

 7             And, Your Honours, they said this - and, in fact, I think

 8     Your Honour Judge Morrison may recall this, having been part of the

 9     sentencing panel:

10             "In the view of the Trial Chamber, an offence of contempt

11     involving bribery of a potential witness would normally warrant a

12     significant term of imprisonment.  In the circumstances of the present

13     case, however, there are powerful mitigating factors which, in the

14     Trial Chamber's view, weigh heavily in favour of the accused.  First, the

15     guilty pleas themselves.  Secondly, after his signing of a false

16     statement and involving two others of the same conduct, the accused

17     himself appears to have recognised the gravity of what he had done and

18     acted to counter the potential harm of his conduct to the administration

19     of justice.  By notifying the Office of the Prosecutor and co-operating

20     with them in a number of ways, the false evidence contemplated in the

21     statements of the accused and X and Y was not led before the Chamber

22     dealing with the Lukic case.  And by the evidence of Y, the Chamber was

23     informed of the steps taken to adduce the false evidence.  While aspects

24     of the conduct of the accused, especially when he sought financial

25     advantage when first conducting the Office of the Prosecutor, are not to

Page 52

 1     his credit, it is nevertheless clear that at potential risk to himself

 2     the accused's conduct was in the end responsible and calculated to avoid

 3     any risk of a miscarriage of justice."

 4             And at paragraph 14 they deal with his remorse, although the

 5     Chamber recognised that in bringing the conduct to the attention of the

 6     Office of the Prosecutor and his guilty pleas, that those in fact

 7     demonstrated the genuineness of his remorse.

 8             Your Honour, can I turn now to deal with the interview that

 9     Ms. Rasic provided to the Prosecution.

10             Your Honours, Ms. Rasic was interviewed under caution in the

11     presence of counsel on the 3rd of March, 2009, in Belgrade.  And her

12     interview is Exhibit P13, under seal.  Ms. Rasic was born on the

13     19th of April, 1983, and is 28 years of age.  She was nearly 24 when she

14     was employed as the Case Manager of the Milan Lukic Defence team in about

15     March 2008, and she was 25 at the date of these offences.  She is, as far

16     as we can understand, and I know Ms. Tapuskovic has documents to support

17     this, a person of prior good character with no previous convictions.

18             She was approached by the former lawyer of Mr. Lukic, a man

19     called Bojan Sulajic, although she had met Milan Lukic himself some years

20     before in about 2003.  She says that this had been a casual meeting in

21     Belgrade and then she'd acted for a while as a child minder for the Lukic

22     family.  She had contacting with Mr. Lukic for a few months and then she

23     heard nothing more from him until 2007, when out of the blue he called

24     her.  She did not know how he got her telephone number.  She said that he

25     just called her as a friend, despite having had no contact from him for

Page 53

 1     the last four years.  When he called, they just chatted, she said, about

 2     life generally.  And at the time, despite the fact that he was actually

 3     in custody at the UNDU, she said she did not know he was even in

 4     The Hague.

 5             In March 2008, she was initially employed by Mr. Sulajic.  He

 6     left the Lukic Defence team and was replaced by American lawyer

 7     Jason Alarid as lead counsel.  She said that prior to this she had

 8     previously only ever been employed during student vacation holiday

 9     periods and was studying economics, in fact, at the

10     University of Belgrade.  She said that she thought that her job as a

11     Case Manager was concerned with administration.  She was paid two and a

12     half thousand euros per month, approximately, from April 2008.  And the

13     payments came from the Registry.  She said she had received no other

14     income at all from any other source, including Mr. Lukic and his family.

15     But clearly, having regard to the source of the money for the payments of

16     the bribes, this was not true.

17             She said that her salary was meant to cover all her expenses and

18     as a wage.  And Your Honours will note from the mitigating submissions

19     that she accepts that the job was well paid and prestigious.  Despite,

20     however, being hired as a Case Manager, she said she found that she was

21     being asked to go to Sarajevo in order to take witness statements.  She

22     said she had no training as an investigator nor any prior legal

23     experience.  And the first time she was asked to act as an investigator

24     was in March 2008, and the next was when she met Mr. Tabakovic.

25             In relation to Tabakovic, she said she'd been provided with his

Page 54

 1     telephone number by Milan Lukic and to Jason Alarid in The Hague.  She

 2     said she met Tabakovic, interviewed him, typed up his interview notes on

 3     her computer, sent it to the lawyers, and the lawyers put together the

 4     statement.  She now accepts this was not true, as the statements were all

 5     pre-prepared, she says, by the lawyers.

 6             She said that when she first met Tabakovic she took notes.  This

 7     also was not true.  And this was sometime in October 2008.  She said she

 8     got a statement from the lawyers, from Mr. Ivetic, co-counsel.  She said

 9     she printed it, met, showed it to Mr. Tabakovic.  He agreed with it.

10     They then went to the municipality, certified the statement.  And she was

11     told by the lawyers the statements had to be certified.

12             She said that after the statement was certified there was some

13     discussion with Mr. Tabakovic about what would happen next.  She said

14     that the lawyers would get in touch with him, that they would probably

15     meet him in the new year, and she said she may have explained something

16     about a per diem.

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please slow down.  Thank you.

18             MR. ROGERS:  She also agreed that she met with Mr. X.  She said

19     that she got his contact details from one of the lawyers as well.  She

20     arranged to meet him in the city centre, at a cafe in Sarajevo, where she

21     said she took notes.  And she said she took notes during all three

22     interviews which were sent to the lawyers and then a statement came back.

23     Again, this was not true.

24             In the case of Mr. X, she said the statement was sent back to her

25     by Dragan Ivetic, co-counsel.  She said she met Tabakovic on one day and

Page 55

 1     X and Y together on a different day to sign the papers.

 2             She also agreed that she had met with Mr. Y in a cafe, where

 3     again she describes the same process of note-taking.  She said she had

 4     called to meet him in the cafe.  She said when making the arrangements

 5     she told him she was a representative of the Milan Lukic Defence.  He

 6     agreed to meet her.  And she said she'd been provided with his mobile

 7     telephone number by Milan Lukic and Jason Alarid in the The Hague.

 8     Again, this was not true.

 9             She said she called the lawyers after having taken the notes,

10     relayed her notes to them, and on the basis of those notes they put the

11     statements together and returned them to her, and Mr. Ivetic sent the

12     statements back to her within a couple of days.  Again, not true.

13             She then met with Mr. Y at the municipality to sign the statement

14     and certify it.  He read the statement, then it was signed and certified,

15     and she says she explained to him about his entitlement to witness

16     expenses.  Of the manner in which she interviewed witnesses, she said, I

17     asked them to recall what had happened on a certain day and then they

18     were supposed to testify and I was taking notes on the basis of their

19     stories.  These notes were taken on a laptop.  When asked whether the

20     notes were still available, she said the notes were probably not now

21     available, as she had had a virus infect her laptop and they had cleaned

22     up all the hardware.

23             She said that the statements were based on the notes of

24     conversations she had had with the witness.  But this was not true.

25             In the case of Tabakovic, she recalled he'd made no changes to

Page 56

 1     his statement, but later there was a word that needed to be changed and a

 2     second statement was produced and signed, but this one was not certified.

 3             Indeed she agreed that all three witnesses, Mr. Tabakovic, X, and

 4     Y, had to make new statements with word changes.  She said she'd met

 5     Tabakovic three or four times and X and Y twice.  However, X and Y said

 6     they only met her once at the municipality to sign the statements.  And

 7     all three witnesses say they were never interviewed by her.

 8             When asked whether any of the three ever received any money from

 9     her, she said no, not even for a taxi.  She said she may have bought them

10     coffee.

11             When asked if she had ever shown to a witness any document to

12     assist them to jog their memory or any document to help them remember

13     things, she said she was absolutely certain she did not.  In particular,

14     she denied ever providing Exhibit P5, which is the map, to Mr. Tabakovic

15     or any witness, despite the fact she agrees she wrote her name and

16     telephone number on the back of the map document.  Of course, she now

17     agrees that she did in fact provide this document to Tabakovic.

18             When asked at the time if she'd ever seen such a document, she

19     said she had seen similar document when she was with Lukic and the

20     lawyers.

21             She denied ever giving Mr. Tabakovic 1.000 euros, with a promise

22     of more when he came to testify.

23             She denied ever asking Tabakovic to find other witnesses who

24     could testify in the Lukic case.

25             She said she may have given a pro-forma document to Tabakovic to

Page 57

 1     look at in order for him to agree what was written on the basis of an

 2     interview with her, with the witness.  It would have been in this form

 3     because this is how counsel had sent it to her, she said.  But she denied

 4     that it was given to Tabakovic for him to show to another witness to

 5     confirm the events contained in it.

 6             Your Honour, that summarizes her interview.

 7             Your Honour, the Prosecution says that Ms. Rasic occupied a

 8     position of trust, as this Case Manager, whose activities were at a level

 9     above those of Mr. Tabakovic, whilst he was a level himself above Mr. X

10     and Y.  However, we accept that Ms. Rasic cannot be considered as the

11     main organiser or architect of this criminal scheme.

12             Your Honour, can I just deal with a few aspects of my learned

13     friend's sentencing submissions which she I know has -- which she has

14     very kindly provided and she's filed, but she also sent them to me in

15     advance.  Just a few things I just want to touch upon, if I may.

16             First of all, she deals in the submission with co-operation.

17     Your Honours, whilst, of course, she did provide an interview to the

18     Prosecution, the Prosecution does not accept that there can be credit for

19     co-operation in it case because the interview actively misled the

20     investigation on particular key aspects of this case.  So whilst it's a

21     fact it happened, we don't see that it could be used as mitigation in

22     this case.  My learned friend will address you in due course.

23             Secondly, in relation to the guilty plea, at paragraph 13 of the

24     document she refers to the sentencing remarks of the Chamber in

25     Mr. Tabakovic's case.  And, Your Honour, I'm sure it's unintentional, but

Page 58

 1     I'm not sure it quite captures the essence of the fullness of what the

 2     Trial Chamber in the Tabakovic case said.  So I urge you to look at the

 3     paragraph 12 in full, which is one of the reasons why I set it out in

 4     full.

 5             Your Honours, if I might just very briefly go into private

 6     session to just deal with one or two aspects related to medical issues.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes, let's do that.

 8                           [Private session]

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 59











11 Page 59 redacted. Private session.















Page 60

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6                           [Open session]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

 8             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Tapuskovic, can I ask whether or not you

 9     wish to raise any observation as to the factual matters that Mr. Rogers

10     opened to the Court?

11             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

12             I would like to go back to some facts put forward by my learned

13     friend.

14             First of all, what Mr. Rogers pointed out is that the interview

15     the accused gave to the OTP in March 2008 cannot be considered

16     co-operation with the Tribunal.

17             JUDGE MORRISON: [Previous translation continues] ... I'm sorry, I

18     may have mislead you.  I'm simply interested -- I don't stop you from

19     dealing with that in due course when you address us on sentencing, but

20     I'm simply concerned, at the moment, with the basis of plea, the opening

21     of the factual basis of plea as opened by Mr. Rogers.

22             Is there anything that you materially disagree with in respect of

23     that?

24             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] No.  I apologise, Your Honour, I

25     did not initially understand the question you put to me.

Page 61

 1             No, there is no disagreement between the Prosecution and the

 2     Defence in that respect because we worked on that for a number of days,

 3     so there is complete agreement with the factual basis as presented to the

 4     Trial Chamber.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you.

 6             And I now pose the same question to Ms. Rasic.

 7             Ms. Rasic, you've heard what's been said both by Mr. Rogers and

 8     by your own counsel.  Is there anything that you wish at this stage to

 9     raise in respect to the factual basis upon which the Court would proceed

10     to sentence?

11             THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you.

13             Well, noting that, that there is no material disagreement, we

14     find that the accused's change of plea has been made voluntarily and

15     unequivocal and she's been properly informed by her counsel, and that

16     there is a sufficient factual basis for the crimes set out in the

17     Amended Indictment, which are now not the subject of any disagreement,

18     and therefore we confirm the findings of guilt already found, but in this

19     case with the added consideration of all the requirements of Rule 62 bis.

20             We've heard from Mr. Rogers as to what the OTP wishes to say

21     about sentencing.

22             Now, Ms. Tapuskovic, would you like to address us orally on

23     sentencing?  Bearing in mind, that, of course, we've had and read, if I

24     may say so, the full and useful written material.

25             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 62

 1             My only remark would be, although I don't know whether the OTP

 2     and the Trial Chamber may already be informed, late last night we

 3     submitted a corrigendum because paragraph 16 -- in paragraph 16 a

 4     sentence was missing which we have -- which we sought to rectify with

 5     this new submission of ours.

 6             It is not my intention to re-elaborate what has been presented in

 7     our mitigation submission, as I think that we gave good arguments based

 8     on case law to assist the Trial Chamber in its final verdict.

 9             What Mr. Rogers said, that cannot be, that the interview the

10     accused gave in March 2009 to the OTP could not be considered a

11     mitigating circumstance for a number of reasons.

12             If we go back to the stage of the pre-trial brief, the OTP

13     themselves stated in paragraphs 40 and 41, if my memory serves me well,

14     that the accused to a large extent confirmed the allegations of the

15     Prosecutor in the case against her.

16             In paragraph 42, I must point out the OTP presented everything

17     the accused did not confirm but was part of the OTP case.  We refer to

18     the court law from the Vasiljevic, and I would also like to remind you of

19     the Plavsic case where, in the Sentencing Judgement, the Trial Chamber

20     concluded that in case there is no significant co-operation with the

21     Tribunal which can be considered mitigating circumstance, but the absence

22     of such co-operation cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance.

23             Just as in Vasiljevic, such co-operation or what she stated in

24     her interview, which was rather long and went on for most of the day of

25     the 3rd of March, 2009, she stated such facts that confirmed the

Page 63

 1     Prosecution case but, as we mention in our submission, she chose not to

 2     make such statements that would -- that would incriminate herself.

 3             As for the other argument of the Prosecution, before I deal with

 4     that, I would like to go into private session, Your Honours.

 5             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  Allow that be done.

 6         [Private session] [Confidentiality lifted by order of the Chamber]

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in private session, Your Honours.

 8             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 9             The reason why I wanted to be in private session was because I

10     wanted to address the health status of Jelena Rasic, although you have

11     inquired about that during my previous address.

12             We are perfectly clear on the matter that the Bulatovic case and

13     the suspended decision of the Court in that case referred to -- to the

14     health status of Kosta Bulatovic which was far more severe.  And the

15     motion was probably submitted confidentially, therefore we were unable to

16     peruse it.  As the Bench may well know, the conditions in the

17     Detention Unit that she is under at the moment, and she has been under

18     the same conditions for two months prior to her being provisionally

19     released, are in any case unique and in many respects make things more

20     difficult.

21             In the Bulatovic motion, when we referred to it, we did not mean

22     to suggest to the Chamber that the health status of the two accused ought

23     to be compared.  We believe it to be something that is not a necessary

24     exercise.  We simply wanted to use that to illustrate the situation in

25     which there were a number of mitigating circumstances, which will be

Page 64

 1     accorded appropriate weight to by the Bench when considering the whole

 2     case.  The Bulatovic case was made reference to as an example to show

 3     that there is a possibility of such a decision by this Chamber as well.

 4             This would be it, in terms of my submissions for the time being.

 5     We have explained our reasons in the written submission, and I've also

 6     stated my position on the arguments presented by my learned friend from

 7     the Prosecution.

 8             Thank you.

 9             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you for that.

10             Reflecting on what you've just said, Ms. Tapuskovic, is it really

11     necessary for that to be redacted as being in private session?  It's not

12     as if you touched upon any personal matters relating to the accused that

13     are of any great sensitivity.

14             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] I accept that, Your Honour.  I

15     believe it can be made public.

16             The confidentiality remains protected by the submission we filed.

17             JUDGE MORRISON:  Exactly.

18             So we can go back into open session.

19                           [Open session]

20             THE REGISTRAR:  We're in open session, Your Honours.

21             JUDGE MORRISON:  And I take it the -- the principal thrust of the

22     argument as to the effect of incarceration on Ms. Rasic is because, being

23     female, she is not able to be accorded all of the privileges, such as

24     associations, sports, and all the rest, that might otherwise be accorded

25     to a male detainee.

Page 65

 1             I think that's probably the main point, is it not?

 2             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's not only

 3     sport.  It includes communication with other detainees as well.

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  Yes.  So, I mean, effectively, being the only

 5     female in the -- at the moment in the detention centre, she is

 6     effectively in a degree of isolation which she wouldn't be were she male.

 7             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

 8     Thank you.

 9                           [Trial Chamber confers]

10             JUDGE MORRISON:  Well, thank you very much, Ms. Tapuskovic.  You

11     are -- the effect of what you have said orally and the effect of what you

12     have said in writing, you are content that the Chamber now deals with the

13     issue of sentencing upon the mixture of those written and oral

14     submissions?

15             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I am, Your Honour.

16             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you very much.

17             I think now I have to lift the confidentiality of the motion in

18     this case.  The -- which is no longer appropriate.

19             MR. ROGERS:  Yes, Your Honour, we agree.

20             JUDGE MORRISON:  And, indeed, I ask the parties to withdraw any

21     pending and undecided motions that have been filed in this case.

22             MR. ROGERS:  I think that applies to my learned friend.  I don't

23     think -- [Overlapping speakers] ...

24             JUDGE MORRISON: [Overlapping speakers] ... I think so.  That's --

25     they're now otiose and of no effect.

Page 66

 1             Now, I notice that there are some Rule 92 bis documents, and I

 2     think some of those are ...

 3                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

 4             JUDGE MORRISON:  I've just been reminded that I ought to make

 5     observations that the transcript page 28, line 10 to page 29, line 23,

 6     are now in the public version of the transcript.

 7             I was in receipt of a helpful e-mail where the -- concerning the

 8     17 Rule 92 bis documents which were admitted as public exhibits because

 9     you -- at the time there was no request for confidential status, and I

10     think those exhibits should be placed under seal, or some of them, with

11     redacted versions to be admitted.  And the documents in question are P6

12     to P13, P37 to P40, P42, and P45 to P48.

13             MR. ROGERS:  Yes, Your Honour, that's right.

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Let that be done.

15             MR. ROGERS:  Thank you.  And I hope that was of some help to

16     Your Honours, because we can identify the public redacted version exhibit

17     numbers, and if those exhibit numbers can be assigned as per the table, I

18     think we've got everything in apple pie order.

19             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you very much.  That's very useful.

20             My colleagues and I were able to confer before the hearing and we

21     considered the issue as to whether or not we would move straight into

22     sentencing now or whether we wanted to reflect upon the written and oral

23     submissions and the transcript of today's proceedings, and we are

24     unanimous in our conclusion that we wanted to do the latter.  And so we

25     are going to adjourn these proceedings today and re-list this case for

Page 67

 1     sentencing as soon as practicable.

 2             The date that we are envisaging, but I do not fix it for this

 3     date at the moment, will be next Tuesday.  And if it's possible, we will

 4     affix it as soon as possible for next Tuesday.  Unless there are any

 5     known difficulties with either party for that date.

 6             MR. ROGERS:  Not from my perspective, Your Honour.

 7             JUDGE MORRISON:  No.

 8             Ms. Tapuskovic?

 9             MS. TAPUSKOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I cannot recall

10     anything in particular.  Now, hence, I believe have no problems with next

11     Tuesday.

12             JUDGE MORRISON:  Thank you very much.

13                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

14             JUDGE MORRISON:  Ms. Rasic, I hope you have heard and understood

15     everything that has happened.  We are going to adjourn the hearing today

16     and reconvene as soon as practicable, possibly, but I do not say at the

17     moment conclusively, next Tuesday for purpose of passing sentence upon

18     you.  In any event, it will be as soon as we can do so, having had the

19     opportunity for the Judges to meet and convene on these matters.

20             That being said, the case is adjourned.

21                            --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.27 p.m.,

22                           sine die.