1 Monday, 31
3 [Open session]
4 [Appellant entered courtroom]
5 --- Upon commencing at 10.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Appeals Chamber is
7 now in session.
8 Mr. Registrar, will you call the case,
10 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case
11 IT-94-1-A-R77, the Prosecutor versus Dusko Tadic in a
12 matter concerning allegations of contempt against prior
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Do I take it that the
15 appearances are as before? Are there any changes?
16 MR. YAPA: No.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet is not here
18 today but, Mr. Vujin, you are.
19 Mr. Tadic, you can hear me?
20 THE APPELLANT: [Nods]
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Appeals Chamber of
22 this International Tribunal is now sitting to deliver
23 its Judgement in an ancillary matter in this case
24 involving allegations of contempt against a prior
25 counsel of Dusko Tadic, namely, Mr. Milan Vujin of
1 Belgrade, both of whom are in the Chamber today. The
2 Judgement is unanimous.
3 Before giving my comments concerning the
4 case, it is necessary, however, to note for the record
5 that the Appeals Chamber is sitting today with only
6 four of its members, Judge Cassese being unavoidably
7 absent. The Vice-President of the International
8 Tribunal, Judge Mumba, acting in the absence of the
9 President, has authorised the Chamber to deliver this
10 Judgement in the absence of one of its members,
11 pursuant to Rule 15 bis (D) of the Rules of Procedure
12 and Evidence, and an Order to that effect has been
13 filed today. I note that Judge Cassese has heard all
14 of the evidence in this matter and has participated
15 fully in the deliberation and determination of the
16 allegations, including the settlement of the
18 Copies of the Judgement, which is in writing,
19 will be made available by the Registrar to the parties,
20 including the interested parties, towards the end of
21 this sitting. Following the practice of the Tribunal,
22 I shall limit myself to introductory matters and shall
23 not read out the text of the Judgement, save for the
24 operative paragraph. I make it clear that the
25 Judgement is set out in the text to be distributed.
1 This statement is not the Judgement of the Appeals
2 Chamber, except for the reading of the disposition of
3 the Judgement.
4 The allegations arise out of the alleged
5 conduct of Mr. Vujin while he was assigned counsel,
6 that is, paid for by the International Tribunal, in the
7 early parts of the appeal in the case; that is to say,
8 from mid 1997 until the assignment was terminated at
9 the request of Mr. Dusko Tadic in November 1998. The
10 allegations were first brought to the attention of the
11 Appeals Chamber in late 1998.
12 On 10 February 1999, the Appeals Chamber
13 issued a Scheduling Order calling upon Mr. Vujin to
14 answer allegations that he knowingly and wilfully
15 intended to interfere with the administration of
16 justice in this case. Attached to that Order were
17 copies of statements on which the allegations were
18 based. Dusko Tadic and the Office of the Prosecutor
19 were both granted leave to appear as interested parties
20 in these proceedings.
21 The Appeals Chamber has heard much oral
22 evidence in this case. Due to circumstances largely
23 beyond its control, the hearings were spread over a
24 period from March to November of last year. A total of
25 12 witnesses were summoned by the Appeals Chamber
1 itself to testify as to the various events alleged in
2 the statements, including Dusko Tadic and his assigned
3 counsel during the trial, Mr. Wladimiroff. Mr. Vujin
4 called a total of eight witnesses in his defence and
5 also gave evidence himself at the close of his case.
6 Pursuant to Rule 79 of the Rules, much of the
7 evidence was heard in closed session for the protection
8 of certain witnesses who were concerned as to possible
9 retaliation against them and their families. The
10 Orders granting those protective measures provided that
11 the transcripts of the closed session testimony could
12 be released after suitable redaction to protect the
13 identity of those concerned. The Judgement includes
14 Orders that such testimony and the related documentary
15 evidence may be referred to publicly to the extent
16 necessary to enable the Judgement to be comprehensible
17 as a public document.
18 During the hearings, evidence was heard that
19 did not relate directly to the allegations of contempt
20 as set out in the Scheduling Order but which reflected
21 in various ways the events set out in the statements.
22 This was done for the purpose of demonstrating a
23 particular course of conduct or to explain the events
24 that took place within the specified period. Mr. Vujin
25 was at all times made aware of the case he had to
2 The evidence admitted by the Appeals Chamber
3 relates to alleged conduct of Mr. Vujin which may be
4 grouped as follows:
5 (1) putting forward to the Appeals Chamber
6 in support of an application for the
7 admission of additional evidence on
8 appeal ("the Rule 115 application"), a
9 case which Mr. Vujin knew to be false;
10 (i) in relation to the weight to be
11 given to statements made by one
12 Mlado Radic, a person indicted by
13 the Tribunal; and
14 (ii) in relation to the
15 responsibility of another indicted
16 person, Goran Borovnica, for the
17 killing of two policemen of which
18 Dusko Tadic was convicted;
19 (2) manipulating proposed witnesses:
20 (i) by seeking to avoid any
21 identification by them of persons
22 who may have been responsible for
23 the crimes for which Dusko Tadic
24 was convicted; and
25 (ii) by persuading them to lie or
1 withhold the truth when making
2 statements in this connection; and
3 (iii) bribing a witness to lie or
4 withhold the truth.
5 The first allegation arose out of materials
6 submitted in support of the Rule 115 application.
7 Among those materials were two statements from Mlado
8 Radic, who was charged before the International
9 Tribunal on a different indictment. The first of these
10 asserted that it had been made shortly before Mlado
11 Radic was arrested and that it had been made directly
12 to Mr. Vujin in person; the second statement confirmed
13 the first. It was established to the satisfaction of
14 the Appeals Chamber that the first statement was made
15 by Mlado Radic after his arrest, that it was made in
16 the United Nations Detention Centre in The Hague, and
17 that Mr. Vujin was not present at the time. The
18 Appeals Chamber was also satisfied that Mr. Vujin knew
19 the true circumstances surrounding the taking of the
20 statement and that he submitted it intending it to be
21 interpreted as it purported to be.
22 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Vujin did
23 put forward a case in relation to that statement that
24 he knew to be false in material respects.
25 Also in the submission put forward in support
1 of the Rule 115 application, Mr. Vujin emphasised the
2 importance of the fact that one of the Defence
3 witnesses at trial had testified that he had witnessed
4 the killing of the two policemen and that they had been
5 killed, not by Dusko Tadic, but by another accused,
6 Goran Borovnica, who is thought to have since died.
7 Evidence was led that demonstrated to the satisfaction
8 of the Appeals Chamber that Mr. Vujin was aware that
9 the trial witness had repudiated his story as to the
10 person responsible for these killings and that, in
11 connection with the appeal proceedings, that witness
12 now asserted that the killer was a different person.
13 The Appeals Chamber finds that Mr. Vujin did
14 put forward a case in relation to the statement of that
15 witness that he knew to be false in material respects.
16 The second allegation, concerning
17 manipulation of proposed witnesses, is based on claims
18 that certain witnesses were instructed by Mr. Vujin not
19 to name other persons who may have been implicated in
20 the events in which Dusko Tadic was convicted and that
21 certain witnesses were instructed to answer questions
22 when being interviewed by other counsel as indicated by
23 head signals given by Mr. Vujin, who was present when
24 most of the statements were taken.
25 The detailed evidence relating to these
1 matters is described in the Judgement and I will not
2 repeat it here. For the reasons set out in the
3 Judgement, the Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the
4 allegations as to manipulation of witnesses by seeking
5 to prevent names from being named have been made out.
6 The Appeals Chamber finds that the allegations as to
7 the instruction to witnesses to answer questions
8 according to head signals given by Mr. Vujin has not
9 been made out.
10 The third allegation is that of bribing a
11 witness to lie or to withhold information. This
12 allegation is based on the statement of Witness B that
13 he had been paid 100 Deutschemarks, the equivalent of
14 one month's wages, by Mr. Vujin after he gave a
15 statement which did not identify other possible
16 perpetrators of the crimes of which Dusko Tadic was
17 convicted, but that he was not paid any money after a
18 subsequent interview, made in the presence of
19 co-counsel, in which he named one of the other possible
20 perpetrators. Mr. Vujin did not deny giving Witness B
21 money but asserted that the money had been given to
22 help the witness because of the difficult financial and
23 emotional circumstances in which the witness found
24 himself at the time. A professional colleague of
25 Mr. Vujin also testified that a second payment had been
1 made to Witness B at a later time in circumstances
2 unconnected with any interview.
3 The Appeals Chamber does not make any finding
4 of contempt in relation to this allegation.
5 Certain of the allegations of contempt having
6 been thus proved, it is necessary to consider
7 punishment. The Appeals Chamber regards the contempt
8 as serious. Courts and tribunals must rely upon the
9 honesty of counsel in the conduct of cases before
10 them. Counsel are granted various privileges by the
11 law which are justified only if they can be trusted not
12 to abuse them. The conduct of Mr. Vujin in this case
13 strikes at the very heart of the criminal justice
15 The maximum penalty prescribed by Rule 77 of
16 the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and Evidence at the
17 time of the contempt was a term of imprisonment not
18 exceeding six months, or a fine of 20,000 guilders, or
19 both. The Appeals Chamber has considered whether a
20 term of imprisonment should be imposed but has decided
21 that it would not be appropriate in this case.
22 Nevertheless, a substantial fine is necessary to
23 achieve the purposes for which punishment is imposed.
24 There are also additional consequences which
25 may flow from the finding of contempt and which the
1 Appeals Chamber must take into consideration.
2 Under the law of the Tribunal, the Registrar
3 of the Tribunal maintains a list of counsel willing to
4 be assigned to indigent suspects and accused.
5 Mr. Vujin is on that list. In the opinion of the
6 Appeals Chamber, the Registrar has a general power to
7 strike the name of counsel from the list for serious
8 professional misconduct and to report such conduct to
9 the relevant professional body. A direction will
10 therefore be given to the Registrar to consider
11 striking the name of Mr. Vujin from the list and
12 reporting his conduct to the appropriate professional
13 body. The Appeals Chamber has determined the
14 punishment to be imposed on the basis that the
15 Registrar will so act and takes this into account.
16 I shall now read the disposition of the
17 Judgement of the Appeals Chamber. This is as follows:
18 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals
19 Chamber unanimously:
20 (1) finds the Respondent, Milan Vujin, in
21 contempt of the Tribunal;
22 (2) orders him to pay a fine of Dfl 15,000
23 to the Registrar of the Tribunal within 21
24 days, or within such further time as may be
25 allowed upon application by the Respondent to
1 the Appeals Chamber;
2 (3) directs the Registrar of the Tribunal to
3 consider striking the Respondent off the list
4 of assigned counsel kept by her pursuant to
5 Rule 45 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure
6 and Evidence and reporting his conduct as
7 found by the Appeals Chamber to the
8 professional body to which he belongs;
9 (4) orders that copies of the following
10 documents (redacted to comply with the
11 relevant witness protection orders) be made
13 (i) the Decision on Prosecution Request
14 for Orders Regarding Defence Harassment
15 and Intimidation of Witnesses of
16 Potential Witnesses, 4 November 1998,
17 together with the respective pleadings
18 of the parties; and
19 (ii) the Scheduling Order concerning
20 allegations against prior counsel, 10
21 February 1999, but not the statements
22 attached to it; and
23 (5) orders that the material from the
24 evidence given and in the documents tendered
25 during any closed session of the hearing
1 which has been referred to in the Judgement
2 be made public so far as it has been so
3 referred to. Done in both English and French,
4 the English text being authoritative.
5 I will ask the Registrar now to deliver
6 copies of the Judgement to Mr. Vujin and to the
7 interested parties.
8 That concludes this sitting of the Appeals
9 Chamber. The court stands adjourned.
10 --- Whereupon the Judgement concluded at
11 10.25 a.m.