Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 7

1 Monday, 26th April, 1999

2 (Rule 77 Hearing)

3 (Open session)

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

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I take it I can be heard

6 by everyone? Yes.

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

8 the list?

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.

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

11 versus Dusko Tadic in the matter concerning allegations

12 against prior counsel.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There is an appeal by

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

15 proceedings have been instituted by the Appeals Chamber

16 concerning certain allegations against prior counsel

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

18 certain interested parties, Mr. Tadic himself, the

19 Prosecution as well.

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

21 anyone appearing for you or are you appearing by

22 yourself?

23 MR. VUJIN: Good morning, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just a moment. I think

25 I'm now ready. Yes, please.

Page 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 my legal assistant, Mr. Vladimir Domazet, speaks

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

9 Serbian.

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

11 course of these proceedings, to be defending myself,

12 together with the help of my colleague, my learned

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

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

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

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

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

18 the defence counsel of this Tribunal as well.

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

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

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, may we

22 compartmentalise the exercise at this stage and confine

23 the present effort to merely recording who is appearing

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

25 you are appearing for yourself but you also consider

Page 9

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

2 MR. VUJIN: Quite so, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Exactly. May I ask if

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

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

6 MR. ABELL: That is right.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: -- who will be in the

8 court at the appropriate time?

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

10 an interested party, present throughout the

11 proceedings, Your Honours. That was my understanding.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I inquire from the

13 Registrar what is the status of Mr. Tadic?

14 Yes. The matter has been explained to me,

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

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

17 of the court is not appropriate.

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

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

20 is going to be very much done before that.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.

22 I turn now to the Prosecution bench. The

23 Prosecution is an interested party also, as well as

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

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

Page 10

1 appear for the Prosecution as an interested party with

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

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

4 officer.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. That concludes the

6 appearances then.

7 Let me say a word about the sitting times of

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

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

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

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

12 one exception. The exception will relate to tomorrow,

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

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

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

16 last week we heard the appeal relating to Tadic,

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

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

19 why it was said, but the Appeals Chamber immediately

20 directed that a copy of the transcript should be sent

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

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

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

24 transcript was sent to the Prosecution.

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

Page 11

1 oversight. I will direct immediately that you be

2 provided with a copy of the transcript.

3 MR. ABELL: I would be very grateful.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I think you should know

5 that the Appeals Chamber considers that what was said

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

7 these proceedings, but I thought I should mention that

8 immediately.

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

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now then I come to the

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

12 1999. It is the order which alludes to certain

13 statements made by certain persons on the basis of

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

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

16 parties to have received copies of all statements

17 attached both to that order and to any other order

18 later made by the Chamber.

19 I will ask the Registrar to read the

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


22 "Considering that the documents appear to

23 disclose grave allegations of contempt of the

24 International Tribunal against Mr. Milan Vujin, lead

25 counsel for Appellant at the time of the events

Page 12

1 complained of, including:

2 (i) telling persons about to give statements

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

4 should not say before they were interviewed by

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

6 to Mr. Livingston;

7 (ii) nodding his head to indicate to

8 witnesses, during witness interviews with

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

10 (iii) interfering with witnesses in a manner

11 which dissuaded them from telling the truth;

12 (iv) knowingly instructing a witness to make

13 false declarations in a statement to the International

14 Tribunal; and

15 (v) paying a person giving a statement money

16 when pleased with the information provided, but not

17 paying him when he did not answer as instructed,

18 all said to have been done between September

19 1997 and April 1998 at the places mentioned in the

20 documents,

21 PURSUANT TO RULE 77 of the Rules of Procedure

22 and Evidence of the International Tribunal,

23 HEREBY REQUESTS all interested persons to

24 assist this Chamber in assembling and presenting

25 evidence concerning the aforementioned allegations of

Page 13

1 contempt, and.

2 ORDERS as follows:

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

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

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

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

7 contempt of the International Tribunal in that he

8 knowingly and wilfully intended thereby to interfere

9 with the administration of justice ..."

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There are other parts of

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

12 all concerned, but I believe it will be appreciated

13 that there is no necessity for the Registrar to read

14 out the remainder of the text.

15 One observation which I will make is that in

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

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

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

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

20 now proceeding with the presence of Mr. Vujin.

21 Mr. Vujin submitted a statement to the

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

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

24 categorically reject all the allegations made by

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

Page 14

1 effect that the allegations were false.

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

3 accused pleads to an indictment. I would merely ask

4 you whether you stand by those statements, whether your

5 position has changed in relation to the allegations set

6 forth in the order of the Appeals Chamber.

7 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours, before I answer

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

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

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

11 federal government on the proclamation of the state of

12 the war because of the shameful aggression of the NATO

13 forces on our country and the decision of that same

14 government to ban the travels of any military recruit

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

16 justified for which we failed to appear at the first

17 hearing in this proceedings.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, I thank you

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

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

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

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

23 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honours.

24 Furthermore, I should like us to clarify a

25 matter of procedure before I repeat my position with

Page 15

1 regard to the allegations made against me. From the

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

3 Chamber, it appears that I am being accused of

4 performing acts which are set out in five points.

5 I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to

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

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

8 discuss today.

9 Bearing this in mind, the changes and

10 amendments to the Rules that were completed on the

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

12 those were the last amendments, as well as the

13 amendments which were completed and enacted on the 10th

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

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

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

17 period concerned.

18 In the sense of the provisions of Article 6

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

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

21 great difference in the responsibility as it is

22 prescribed in Article 77 of the Rules from what was

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

24 amendments were enacted.

25 I should like to stress this fact because if

Page 16

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

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

3 impossible to apply the points of Rule 77 of the

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

5 Then the fifth point of the accusations,

6 unfounded ones, against me cannot be contained there

7 and I cannot be held responsible according to that.

8 So may we clear up this matter of procedure,

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

10 abide by its own Rules and regulations.


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

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

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

15 is one of interpretation, what is meant by the

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

17 of the Rules.

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

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

20 convenient for us to take advantage of this occasion,

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

22 afford to the Registrar an opportunity to make a

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

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

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

Page 17

1 to you? Yes. Yes.

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

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then, Mr. Registrar, is

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

5 point?

6 MR. HEINTZ: Mr. President --

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you like us to be

8 in private session?

9 MR. HEINTZ: I would ask my presentation to

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

11 the Rules, because this is a request relating to

12 certain protective measures regarding a certain number

13 of witnesses.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it also an ex parte

15 application that you're making?

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

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: So you would like it to

18 be in closed session and ex parte?

19 MR. HEINTZ: Yes, I do.

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, at this point the

21 Registrar wishes to make an ex parte application and I

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

23 parties to withdraw for a moment until we have heard

24 the Registrar and then we will proceed.

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

Page 18

1 Ex Parte hearing

2 [Pages 19 to 24 of Ex Parte hearing omitted
























Page 25

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

2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: This session is

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

4 Mr. Registrar?

5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, we are.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now I will merely

7 announce that on application of the Registrar, the

8 Court has granted certain protective measures to

9 certain witness, and the operation of those measures

10 would be apparent as we proceed.

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

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

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

14 amended from time to time. His question was whether

15 the reference to that Rule comprehended amendments made

16 subsequent to the acts which are alleged in the order

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

18 Rule as it stood before the alleged acts were

19 committed.

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

21 your position?

22 Then would there be any arguments on that?

23 Let me follow the sequence we had established. Perhaps

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

25 he wishes to, we will hear him.

Page 26

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

2 understand the position, three stages here. Going

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

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

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

6 "Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent

7 power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt those who

8 knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

9 administration of justice."

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

11 words would cover all the activities alleged against

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

13 when that Rule bites.

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 that.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you speak,

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

23 1998?

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

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Featherstone, do you

Page 27

1 have ...

2 Our oracle here has explained the position to

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

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

5 little mystified a moment ago.

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

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


9 MR. ABELL: That was the publication date.


11 MR. ABELL: Just to repeat the submission I

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

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

14 clearly covers all the activities alleged against

15 Mr. Vujin.

16 Going back in time, the next revision that I

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

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

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

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

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

22 submissions as to when these provisions would bite, it

23 would cover anything from November onwards of 1997.

24 I would invite Your Honours' attention to

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

Page 28

1 inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt

2 those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

3 administration of justice. It is quite clearly

4 precisely the same wording as the current wording of

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

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

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

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

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you say,

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

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

12 inherent jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber?

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

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

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

16 whether Your Honours have a copy of that.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Not at the moment but

18 we --

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

20 a different provision.

21 "Any person who attempts to interfere with or

22 intimidates a witness may be found guilty of contempt

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

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

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

Page 29

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

2 but in my respectful submission, although the wording

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

4 covers the situation of a person who is either

5 attempting to interfere with or intimidate a witness.

6 That must include, in my submission, a proposed

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

8 to appearing as a witness in court proceedings.

9 I conclude my submissions by saying this,

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

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

12 submission.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Should the bench

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

15 subject to your umbrella argument about the Chamber's

16 inherent jurisdiction, the Rule would only apply in the

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

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

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

20 would embrace the alleged acts?

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

22 yes.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.

24 Would the Prosecution offer any assistance on

25 this point?

Page 30

1 MS. HOLLIS: Very briefly, Your Honours.

2 We would submit that, indeed, Rule 77 would

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

4 where the conduct is alleged. We suggest that in

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

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

7 Rules in existence as of 25 July, 1997.

8 If you look at those Rules, beginning first

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

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

11 that the inherent power exists whether mention is made

12 of it or not.

13 In regard to specific prohibited conduct,

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

15 with or intimidate a witness. We suggest that that

16 language is broad enough to include someone whose

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

18 form of testimony; it is a witness statement.

19 As to November of 1997, we again have the

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

21 "Any person who interferes with or

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

23 about to give evidence ..."

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

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

Page 31

1 at sub-part (F):

2 "Nothing in this Rule affects the inherent

3 power of the Tribunal."

4 That language does appear in November.

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

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

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

8 the inherent power of the Tribunal to hold in contempt

9 those who knowingly and wilfully interfere with its

10 administration of justice, we suggest that to the

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

12 applied, should that standard be more strenuous so that

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

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

15 deliberations that resulted in this Rule, that what was

16 meant there was to explain the standard that is

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

18 operate to the prejudice of the accused and that that

19 standard could be used.

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

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

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

23 type of punishment that may be imposed upon a finding

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

25 finding of punishment in existence at the time of the

Page 32

1 conduct would prevail in that instance.

2 Those are the only comments that we have,

3 Your Honours.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Hollis, may I ask

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

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

7 December, 1998.

8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The 17th of December at

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

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

11 The alleged acts were said to have been done between

12 September 1997 and April 1998. Would it be the

13 position that amendments made after that period are

14 excluded?

15 MS. HOLLIS: To the extent that they would

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

17 would. To the extent that they would increase the

18 punishment, we suggest that they would.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: They would, yes.

20 MS. HOLLIS: To the extent that they would

21 create a standard which would operate to the detriment

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

23 words, a standard that would be more difficult against

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

25 that, we suggest they would not operate to the

Page 33

1 detriment and, therefore, they could be considered.

2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Ms. Hollis.

3 Yes.

4 (Trial Chamber deliberates)

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The ruling of the

6 Chamber is that subsequent amendments, those amendments

7 made subsequent to the period within which the alleged

8 acts were said to have been committed, are not

9 admissible if they would introduce a new standard or if

10 they would in any other way prejudice the position of

11 the counsel in question. The matter would be regulated

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

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

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

15 Having disposed of that argument, we will now

16 proceed to take the available witnesses. I understand

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

18 four witnesses. The sequence of questioning was laid

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

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

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

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

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

24 fairest way of ensuring that when he comes to ask

25 questions, he has before him the whole tabula of

Page 34

1 material which would have been elicited meanwhile by

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

3 I suppose this is recognised, but we will not

4 adhere to this scheme rigidly or inflexibly. We will

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

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

7 points in question.

8 Now, the statements of the witnesses would

9 have been served on all interested parties, and the

10 first witness will be Mr. Tadic, yes?

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

12 list.

13 Your Honours, just before we embark upon the

14 evidence --

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I ask Mr. Vujin just

16 to give you a moment to make your statement?

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

18 up behind me.

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

20 mention questions of the admissibility of some of the

21 material that has been placed before Your Honours by

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

23 although I appreciate Your Honours would not be hearing

24 it until later on in these proceedings, not within

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

Page 35

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

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

3 indeed, other witnesses.

4 Your Honour, may I mention briefly those

5 areas about which I am concerned?

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, you put the

7 Chamber in this difficulty: You are asking the Chamber

8 to rule on the admissibility of evidence before it

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

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

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

12 eventuates?

13 MR. ABELL: Yes.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I add this, that

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

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

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

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

19 its interest to examining the witness on one or two

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

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

22 Then the matter will be thrown open to the interested

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

24 suggested.

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

Page 36

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

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

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

4 we can discuss the matter at that point.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then you would also have

6 the right to recall a witness if the circumstances

7 indicate a necessity for that.

8 Yes, Mr. Vujin?

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

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

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

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

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

14 Tribunal and all parties for understanding and,

15 according to the schedule for our work, that you

16 acknowledge and adhere to our request that we complete

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

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

19 granted permission by the authorities to be out of the

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

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

22 this month.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May the position be

24 this, that the Chamber at this stage takes for

25 notification your intervention on this point, and we

Page 37

1 will give it due consideration and will see whether

2 there is any necessity to do anything about it.

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

4 that time in any case.

5 MR. VUJIN: Thank you.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It is now exactly ten

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

8 interested parties consider that this is a convenient

9 moment to take a break? Yes.

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

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

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The sitting is resumed.

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

14 identify yourself briefly, your name, your date of

15 birth, place of birth?

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

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

18 Prijedor municipality, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're the appellant in

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

21 MR. TADIC: Yes. Yes.

22 I solemnly declare that I will speak the

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


25 Questioned by the Court:

Page 38

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

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

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

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

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You have seen the

7 statements which have been served on your side? I

8 believe your counsel would have them.

9 A. You mean the statements that you have just

10 asked me about?

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. The statements

12 which you made.

13 A. Yes. Yes.

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

15 contents of those statements true and correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You adhere, today, to

18 what you said in those statements?

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

20 what I believed to be the truth.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, I will turn to the

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

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

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

25 you a few questions about some aspects of your

Page 39

1 statement.

2 I will turn to that aspect concerning the

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

4 remember saying something about that?

5 A. Yes.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you said Mr. Vujin

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

8 A. Yes.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did he tell you why the

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

11 1998?

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

13 Hague to take the statement of Mr. Radic and

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 man should put in his statement.

21 As far as the date is concerned, the date

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

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

24 problems there about the date.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did Mr. Vujin tell you

Page 40

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

2 the statement personally to Mr. Vujin?

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

4 reasons for that. He considered that that was his

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

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

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

8 separate explanations as to the date.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're referring to the

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

11 which the statement was, in fact, made?

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

13 Hague then at all.

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

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

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

17 You say that Mr. Vujin stressed that you

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

19 why he stressed that?

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

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

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

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

24 this could cause harm to all the proceedings which

25 could appear before the Tribunal in The Hague.

Page 41

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Why did he tell you to

2 watch him?

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

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

5 before such a lot of people, something that

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

7 understand everything.

8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you understand

9 everything?

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

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

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You said you looked in

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

14 Occasionally he shook his head and frowned.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: What impression did you

17 have from all of that?

18 A. I gained the impression that I should be

19 careful what I said, especially those things that were

20 in the interests of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia's

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

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

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

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

25 a mistake.

Page 42

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did he say something

2 about mentioning or not mentioning names?

3 A. Well, there was no mention especially of

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

5 names or important names for that investigation.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you say he also

7 spoke about not wanting to jeopardise some people.

8 What did you understand by that?

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

10 question of individuals who live in the territory of

11 Serbia or who hold important positions in Republika

12 Srpska.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Why didn't you want to

14 show him certain documents?

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

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

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

18 that he might abuse those documents, documents by

19 people who would be willing to speak freely about the

20 events in the Prijedor municipality.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: When he said to you

22 something about your family, to the effect that you

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

24 meaning?

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

Page 43

1 relationships with important police and military organs

2 of the Republika Srpska in Prijedor and that those

3 relationships went straight up to the general staff of

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

5 to be an important, powerful man.

6 On the other hand, I know that he had

7 meetings and close contacts with people who stood

8 behind many who were behind many criminal acts in the

9 Prijedor municipality and who were residing in Serbia

10 either provisionally or permanently.

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you also said, in

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

13 would not allow a new man to be indicted and

14 particularly not a man from Serbia.

15 A. Yes.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Was it your impression

17 that part of your defence would require an allegation

18 to be made against someone else?

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

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

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

22 the events in the Prijedor municipality and Republika

23 Srpska who was at liberty. This was also something

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

25 beginning of 1998, when a delegation from the Republika

Page 44

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

2 said that he respects Vujin because his strategy was

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

4 have achieved nothing if one person were to leave

5 prison in The Hague and another person to enter the

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

7 priority was to protect all those who were still at

8 liberty.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you said something

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

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

12 two policemen?

13 A. On several occasions I received information

14 which indicated that Borovnica had not committed those

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

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

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

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

19 correctness of that information, and I was surprised

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

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

22 that this should be checked out, because he himself

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

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let me ask you one final

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

Page 45

1 assisted if you could prove that someone else did the

2 killing?

3 A. I always insisted upon the truth, upon

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

5 that all this would have any special influence on my

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 great doubt as to this point.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I do have one or two

14 more questions, lamentably, to ask. You recollect

15 something about Mr. Lopicic, the counsellor at the

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

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

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

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

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

21 mistake, and I received information via him that Vujin

22 was conducting an investigation into my case and that

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

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

25 witnesses had turned up during the regular hearing at

Page 46

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

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

3 help of the representative of the embassy.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It would be correct to

5 say that that was your decision to re-employ

6 Mr. Vujin?

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

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

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

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

11 However, Mr. Waldimiroff did not agree to that

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

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

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

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

16 able to bring eyewitnesses for the events that I had

17 been accused of here or that the situation would not

18 change in the future.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you come into

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

21 lady by the name of Mrs. Kalincevic?

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

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

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

25 was the secretary there.

Page 47

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you call her and

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

3 Mr. Vujin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The bench has no other

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

14 put any questions to the witness.

15 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.

16 Questioned by Mr. Abell:

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

18 you some further questions relating to the statement

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

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

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

22 A. You mean since the arrest?

23 Q. Yes.

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

25 Hague.

Page 48

1 Q. Can you remember the date when that would

2 have been?

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

4 it was the beginning of April.

5 Q. Is there any possibility that you had seen

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

7 10th of March?

8 A. No.

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

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

11 previously. When Mr. Waldimiroff held the

12 investigation, we got the information that the man had

13 been killed on the battleground.

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

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

16 certain information as to who the perpetrators of

17 certain offences that you had already been found guilty

18 of actually were. Did you feel that that information

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

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

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

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

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

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

25 the other hand, I was proclaimed guilty for those

Page 49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 from Mr. Radic; is that right?

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

10 throughout the proceedings and also after the Court's

11 decision in the regular proceedings, the Tribunal

12 decided that the bulk of the events that happened in

13 Omarska for which I was declared guilty at the time

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

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

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

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

18 take this statement from him.

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

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

21 the real persons were who were responsible for some of

22 the offences of which you were convicted? Did you

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

24 A. Yes. Yes.

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

Page 50

1 a statement from Mlado Radic?

2 A. I think we talked twice regarding that

3 matter. I'm not exactly sure.

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

5 Mr. Radic?

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

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

8 Omarska camp during the period that acts happened that

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

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

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

12 similar position in the sense that he had provided you

13 with information which could be helpful in your

14 defence?

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

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

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

18 there.

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

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

21 statement himself.

22 A. Yes.

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

24 Mlado Radic?

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

Page 51

1 that earlier, to take statements from key people who

2 were in the municipality of Prijedor, but this

3 proceeded with difficulty. I always insisted that this

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

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

6 these different obstacles.

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

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

9 him?

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

11 statements or Mr. Livingston. I was also interested

12 for a statement to be taken from Kvocka.

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

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

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

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

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

18 correct?

19 A. Yes.

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

21 anyone's?

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

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

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

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

Page 52

1 important points, but he also said what was important

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

3 in his statement.

4 Q. The statement which we have in the bundle

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

6 March in The Hague?

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

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

9 statement? Whose idea was that?

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

11 say in Prijedor that the statement was taken by him

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

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

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

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

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

17 A. Yes.

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

19 in answer to a question of the lawyer Milan Vujin

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

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

22 answers to questions of Mr. Vujin?

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

24 Q. In paragraph 6 of that statement, that

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

Page 53

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

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

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

4 question posed personally by Mr. Vujin?

5 A. May I look at the statement?

6 Q. Yes. I'm sorry.

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

8 allowed to look at it.

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

10 the bundle that the clerk gave you.

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

12 question?

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

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

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

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

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

18 lawyer Milan Vujin ..."?

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

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

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

22 paragraph 6. It was just written in accordance with

23 that demand.

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

25 following the spirit of the instructions that Mr. Vujin

Page 54

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

2 A. Yes.

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

4 you send it to Mr. Vujin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 Kvocka.

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

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

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

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

20 said to you; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

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

23 March bearing that date?

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

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

Page 55

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

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

3 additional statement from Radic in the detention

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

5 together to the Court.

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

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

8 A. Yes.

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

10 statement dated the 10th of March?

11 A. Mr. Vujin.

12 Q. Do you agree that the implication behind

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

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

15 A. Yes.

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

17 statement that you made, the second and longest

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

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

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

21 there?

22 A. Yes.

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

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

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

Page 56

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

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

3 A. Yes.

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

5 A. Yes.

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

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

8 Yugoslav lawyer that those further interviews were

9 going to take place; is that correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

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

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

13 interviews?

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

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

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

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

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

19 under some kind of pressure just by the presence of

20 those people from Yugoslavia, from Republika Srpska.

21 The second problem was that after I found out

22 that Mr. Mladic and Mr. Karadzic were thoroughly

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

24 investigators, after which, some members of my family

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

Page 57

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

2 several times and there was an attempt to mobilise him

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

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

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

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

7 angry at me.

8 Q. Who criticised you?

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

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

11 indicated that they were not satisfied by my conduct at

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

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

14 contrary to what he believed in.

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

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

17 not satisfied with your conduct in the interview, do

18 you mean just answering the questions that were put to

19 you?

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

21 that was discussed.

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

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

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

25 saying?

Page 58

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

2 that I received returned information after that

3 questioning that my acts here were not all right.

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

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

6 testimony before the Tribunal here so that I got

7 messages that they were not satisfied, and this was

8 conveyed to me by him.

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

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

11 A. No.

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

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

14 statement, during those interviews at which he was

15 present?

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

17 that I could say many more things that the Prosecution

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

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

20 couldn't --

21 Q. Because of whose presence?

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

23 Mr. Simic.

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

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

Page 59

1 before your trial commenced and that a list of

2 witnesses that you and Mr. Wladimiroff had agreed

3 should be interviewed in connection with your defence

4 was prepared; yes?

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

6 Q. You say that that was confidential

7 information?

8 A. Yes.

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

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

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

12 say that you discovered that that list had found its

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

14 the hands of Mr. Drljaca; yes?

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

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

17 were surprised. Because of that action, they thought

18 that irreparable damage was inflicted on my defence.

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

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

21 A. I was sure that they would prevent anybody

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

23 persons. The peripheral witnesses could have been

24 available to these people, but those people who were

25 involved in the conflict in the municipality of

Page 60

1 Prijedor and especially the camps of Omarska and

2 Keraterm, that these people were not available. This

3 was the main obstacle.

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

5 terms of your witnesses, witnesses you wanted?

6 A. Yes.

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

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

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

10 stand by that?

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

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

13 told me that they had an interest in defending me

14 honestly before this Court, and they were not concerned

15 about any eventual witness, whether the witnesses would

16 bring damage to anybody else from Republika Srpska by

17 their testimony. It was especially important that when

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

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

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

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

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

23 was done by Mr. Vujin.

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

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

Page 61

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

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

3 anything like that to you?

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

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

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

7 prepared were extremely important and that they knew a

8 lot about the events in the municipality of Prijedor,

9 so that statements by these people would harm the head

10 people in the police, people who held positions of

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

12 prevent people from telling the truth.

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

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

15 behind your back and contrary to your wishes?

16 A. Yes, absolutely.

17 Q. And contrary to your interests in your

18 defence?

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

20 had the information which was pretty important that

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

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

23 he was returned to a lower ranking position in

24 Prijedor, exclusively in order to block any truth from

25 coming out that would lead to important people in the

Page 62

1 municipality in Prijedor, including himself.

2 So that the list of those people was

3 something that I felt really influenced my ability to

4 defend myself before this Court, because none of the

5 eyewitnesses from Omarska or Keraterm could not have

6 appeared before this Court after that, nor ones from

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

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

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

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

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

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

13 representing you or him, Mr. Vujin representing with

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

15 the same team with him any more?

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

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

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

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

20 because they believed that he was not working in the

21 interests of my defence.

22 Mr. Wladimiroff also said that he was more

23 interested in defending Yugoslavia, Serbia, and the

24 people who are close to the authorities.

25 Q. Who said that, sorry?

Page 63

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

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

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

4 were more interested in defending the state?

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

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

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

8 the investigation in the territory of Yugoslavia and

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

10 others from the team were foreigners but, obviously,

11 this did not work.

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

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

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

15 that Mr. Wladimiroff was referring to?

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

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

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

19 dispense with the services of Mr. Vujin shortly before

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

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

22 appeals process; is that correct?

23 A. Yes.

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

25 anybody who you considered might be an eyewitness, a

Page 64

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

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

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

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

5 with the Minister of Justice of Republika Srpska. They

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

7 Minister of Justice, brought this problem before the

8 government of Republika Srpska, but the problem was he

9 was also replaced from his position because he urged

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

11 the authorities over there.

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

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

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

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

16 two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 would always promise me, give me promises to that

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

25 At one point, Mr. Lopicic started suggesting

Page 65

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

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

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

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

5 necessary consultations in the Republika Srpska which

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

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

8 point.

9 I discussed this with Mr. Wladimiroff on

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

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

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

13 There was no other motive, just that.

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

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

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

17 influence on you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 said something or if he promised anything that it was

25 something that could be believed, that it was the

Page 66

1 truth.

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

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

4 was making inquiries and getting hold of key witnesses

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

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

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

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

9 getting key witnesses to come forward?

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

11 Mr. Wladimiroff on several occasion and asked him to

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

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

14 of seven or eight witnesses who were eyewitnesses of

15 the events. I asked Wladimiroff whether that would be

16 important, and he said that would be exceptionally

17 important but that it was difficult to believe in this

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

19 him that he was working to my own detriment.

20 However --

21 Q. These seven or eight people that you and

22 Mr. Wladimiroff identified might have been really

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

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

25 from any one of them?

Page 67

1 A. No.

2 Q. You comment on the types of statements that

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

4 statement, saying that they were prepared in a rather

5 simplistic and unprofessional manner and simply dealt

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

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

8 all?

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

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

11 evidence and eyewitnesses to the events was because

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

13 The Hague and showed me documents which were

14 confidential in nature, and these were documents that

15 he either got in Prijedor or Bijeljina on the

16 investigations conducted there during the events of

17 1992, the investigation that was conducted under the

18 supervision of the Prijedor police.

19 Most of those documents were signed by

20 Drljaca and other investigating organs of the Prijedor

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

22 true that some other documents might be in existence

23 which could help me before this Tribunal, who would

24 tell the truth about the events.

25 The documents that he brought me were such

Page 68

1 that they were investigations taken against alleged war

2 criminals in the municipality of Prijedor, crimes

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

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

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

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

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

8 hoping for?

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

10 was that upon my great insistence, he would sometimes

11 contact somebody who we thought could be an important

12 witness, but that individual was asked nothing in

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

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

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

16 was indicted for here.

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

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

19 order to try to compel certain witnesses considered to

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

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

22 beginning, I still thought that Vujin would fulfil his

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

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

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

Page 69

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

2 the impression this was a normal minimum which he would

3 fulfil, but he protracted and procrastinated from

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

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

6 engaged somebody from abroad who would try to do

7 something for me.

8 Q. Did that person turn out to be

9 Mr. Livingston?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At some stage after Mr. Livingston became

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

13 decision taken to seek the help of the Tribunal in

14 order to compel relevant witnesses for your defence to

15 come forward and make statements?

16 A. Yes.

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

18 in the order seeking those witnesses to come forward?

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

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

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

22 because he said that he would have everything

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

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

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

Page 70

1 power and in the power of the Tribunal to reach

2 witnesses who could make a vital contribution to

3 knowledge of the events that had taken place in the

4 region.

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

6 help to compel those witnesses to come forward, was

7 that done on your instructions and in accordance with

8 your wishes?

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

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

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

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

13 what he did.

14 Q. Who was involved in selecting which witnesses

15 should be interviewed?

16 A. Myself and Mr. Livingston sorted those

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

18 preparations of that order.

19 Q. Did you give any instructions as to who

20 should actually ask the questions to physically take

21 the statements from those witnesses?

22 A. I always insisted that that be exclusively

23 done by Mr. Livingston, only him.

24 Q. Why was that?

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

Page 71

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

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

3 wanted was to ask everything of importance for my case

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

5 was a correct and upright man working in the correct

6 fashion.

7 At first it was a little difficult, because

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

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

10 facts that were important for a high Tribunal of this

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

12 an international conflict, whether they were camps or

13 not camps, whether it was international or not

14 international, that for this high Tribunal, that was

15 not as important as the facts themselves.

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

17 specifically about what happened at Prijedor police

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

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

20 mentioned, towards the bottom of page 5 of your

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

22 moment to find the place. Reference to Gavranovic.

23 Firstly, at this time were you satisfied or

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

25 your behalf in seeking to track down witnesses and

Page 72

1 evidence?

2 A. I was satisfied with the idea and his

3 involvement and the efforts he made to track all this

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

5 unbelievable what he encountered in the Republika

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

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

8 and all parties regardless of the ethnic structure. So

9 his investigation was exclusively based on arriving at

10 the truth and tracking down witnesses and eyewitness

11 who could help me in front of this Tribunal.

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

13 statement, that you remember that Mr. Vujin called

14 Gavranovic several times asking her not to meet

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

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

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

18 Mr. Vujin attempted to prevent contacts of this kind

19 from taking place with Mr. Livingston.

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

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

22 he wouldn't allow her to testify about anything

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

24 stand by that?

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

Page 73

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

2 controlling the behaviour of that woman, because he had

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

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

5 was provisional. So there was always the possibility

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

7 he had almost complete control over that man and that

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

9 in secret, as far as I know.

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

11 Their Honours in relation to Borovnica, and your

12 understanding as to whether that person had committed

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

14 your belief at the time of the trial?

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

16 that in view of the fact that other rumours circulated

17 relating to the event, and particularly so because that

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

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

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

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

22 that the man took part in the event.

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

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

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

Page 74

1 this part of the case.

2 Now, can we understand this? The thrust of

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

4 that you were not responsible for any of the incidents

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

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

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

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

9 would take over the affair, and that he would

10 investigate the affair and prove the truth of the

11 affair.

12 Q. In your defence, would you have been

13 interested in evidence which tended to prove that you

14 were not the person responsible even if it tended to

15 identify who really was responsible?

16 A. I always asked that all the evidence be

17 presented, both written evidence and eyewitnesses,

18 particularly those two individuals. It was normal that

19 the people in Prijedor knew everything about the event,

20 because they were employed in the police force.

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

22 their workers and members were doing. It was no

23 explanation that they did not.

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

25 his contacts with Jankovic. He said that Jankovic told

Page 75

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

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

3 checked.

4 But since April 1998 onwards, Mr. Vujin and

5 Mr. Livingston, because of the facts that

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

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

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

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

10 situation, especially because Mr. Vujin insisted that

11 he take over the investigation and look into the events

12 in Kozarac.

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

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

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

16 evidence to disprove your conviction, even if it meant

17 implicating other people in the crimes that you were

18 accused of?

19 A. Yes, absolutely so.

20 Q. Was Mr. Livingston interested in pursuing

21 that line?

22 A. Yes, he was.

23 Q. What about Mr. Vujin?

24 A. He exclusively stuck to his own strategy,

25 that everybody outside, especially those who had moved

Page 76

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

2 connection with the Tribunal in The Hague.

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

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

5 words, not wanting to implicate any third parties.

6 A. No. Everything that I know through

7 Mr. Livingston's investigation and the investigation

8 led personally by my brother and the knowledge that he

9 arrived at in the previous period, I conveyed that

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

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

12 true, and to present the witnesses before this

13 Tribunal, regardless of the consequences, regardless of

14 who was in question, myself or anybody else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 Do you stand by that?

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

23 as that in the meantime I received information that he

24 personally had helped many others to move to Serbia and

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

Page 77

1 were controlled.

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

3 during this argument, that he and everyone at the

4 Prijedor police -- in the Prijedor police knew very

5 well that Borovnica did not kill the two policemen that

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

7 do you stand by that?

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

9 told me at that time.

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

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

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

13 towards the bottom half of that page, with another

14 discussion with Mr. Vujin where you say he repeated

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

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

17 completely clear when he told me that he would never

18 allow any evidence to be submitted in my case that

19 could jeopardise anyone who was at liberty in

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

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

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

23 protect them. How did you take that warning,

24 Mr. Tadic?

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

Page 78

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

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

3 of Republika Srpska, and that the greatest danger for

4 their sojourn there were individuals who could be

5 uncovered by the investigating organs in The Hague.

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

7 part, considered that once I was proclaimed guilty,

8 they would all be free and that they could continue

9 their lives as they had lived them hitherto.

10 Apart from that, many of those people I knew

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

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

13 contact with people that had already been arrested here

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

15 everything taking place in and around my case.

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

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

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

19 ask him some questions relating to the material that

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

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

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

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, I was looking at

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

25 you would find it possible to indicate how much further

Page 79

1 time you might need to complete your examination.

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

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

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

5 me to it to the minute.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: One appreciates that

7 very readily, Mr. Abell.

8 MR. ABELL: Of course, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then would it be

10 convenient if we resumed at 2.30?

11 The Court stands adjourned accordingly.

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














Page 80

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


3 MR. ABELL: Thank you, Your Honours.

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

5 to the material which has been submitted in this matter

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

7 do this: Obviously, listen very carefully to the

8 questions I ask and try to just answer the questions

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

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

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

12 everyone.

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

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

15 March headed "Submission of the Written Statements of

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

17 165, if that assists.

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

19 can be supplied with it if need be.

20 A. I would like a copy, please.

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

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

23 goes from 139 to 146.

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

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

Page 81

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

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

3 now?

4 A. Yes.

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

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

7 me as to what your understanding is of the relationship

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

9 any link between them?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And that is what, please?

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

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

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

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

16 close family ties.

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

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

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

20 Just answer "Yes" or "No."

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

22 statement.

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

24 (redacted)

25 A. Yes.

Page 82

1 Q. And she is employed where?

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

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

4 page --

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would you

6 give me the page number?

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

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

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It seems to be in

10 reverse order.

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

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

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

14 "Defence Counsel's," and it's 145 in the manuscript at

15 the top.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. You say that that

17 is the statement of?

18 MR. ABELL: That is the statement of Djordje

19 Lopicic. It begins at page 1 --

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, but you were

21 talking of his daughter, were you?

22 MR. ABELL: Only in passing, just to mention

23 the fact --

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're not asserting

25 that her statement is before us, are you?

Page 83

1 MR. ABELL: It is. It is further on in the

2 bundle.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: At what page number?

4 MR. ABELL: Would Your Honours bear with me

5 for a moment?

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Thank you very

7 much.

8 MR. ABELL: It is a little further on in the

9 bundle.

10 Q. I'm looking now at page 145 of Dr. Djordje

11 Lopicic's statement. He says that he discussed matters

12 with you. Firstly, do you agree that there were

13 occasions when you and the ambassador would speak?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. He says on that page, "I know for a fact that

16 at that time Milan Vujin was very professionally,

17 conscientiously, and expertly doing his work on the

18 defence of Dusko Tadic." Do you accept that statement

19 or not about the quality of Mr. Vujin's work on your

20 behalf?

21 A. What I saw through my case, I thought it was

22 not professional.

23 Q. How often would you discuss with the

24 ambassador, Dr. Lopicic, the details of your case and

25 the conduct of it?

Page 84

1 A. Well, the details from the defence case, we

2 didn't discuss them much. It all boiled down to one in

3 the same thing, the need to enable me to have an

4 insight into all the written documents and the bringing

5 in of the witnesses who were vital to my case. We

6 didn't discuss any other details much, so the

7 discussion was of a general nature mostly.

8 Q. On your meetings with Dr. Lopicic, did you

9 always discuss the details of your case or were there

10 other topics that would be discussed?

11 A. We discussed my physical state and quite

12 different matters, questions that were not related to

13 my case before this Tribunal at all.

14 Q. On the same page lower down, about six or

15 seven lines from the bottom, he says: "Mr. Vujin, on

16 several occasions, visited the highest state

17 authorities and personalities in the Republika

18 Srpska." As far as you know, Mr. Tadic, when he did

19 that, did he ever bring with him any foreign lawyer

20 from the team, either Mr. Livingston or

21 Mr. Wladimiroff, at the various stages, or Mr. Kay?

22 A. He usually came alone. He did not like to

23 contact the foreign lawyers much.

24 Q. I'm now on page 3, page 144 at the top, where

25 Dr. Lopicic deals with his finding out that you had

Page 85

1 dispensed with the services of Mr. Vujin. It came as a

2 great surprise to him, he says. He then says this:

3 "The only thing that I mentioned to him was that it

4 was not convenient that in his defence team there was

5 not a single defence counsel, a Serb either from FRY or

6 from the Republika Srpska." Do you agree that he just

7 restricted himself to saying it was not convenient or

8 did he say more than that?

9 A. He said far more than that.

10 Q. Give us, please, the gist or a precis, just a

11 summary of what he said to you when you decided to

12 dispense with Mr. Vujin's services shortly before the

13 trial.

14 A. Well, we talked about cooperation between the

15 authorities of Yugoslavia, the Republika Srpska and the

16 court in The Hague and the possibility of bringing

17 witnesses to the Tribunal who would be defence

18 witnesses, and he expressly said that I would get

19 nobody if I -- it was in that context, that I shouldn't

20 be stubborn because Yugoslav interests were at stake,

21 far more important interests than my own and mine

22 myself. So we had a much more lengthy conversation in

23 that direction, and everything boiled down to the fact

24 that my case was not only a case of me personally but

25 that many more important things were at stake. He said

Page 86

1 that there was a case against Yugoslavia and a

2 complaint from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and when it was a

3 case of an international armed conflict, that this

4 could have a serious effect and that I must take care

5 what I did.

6 Q. Mr. Tadic, you were the man in the dock or

7 about to be put in the dock on this trial. Who were

8 you concerned with, your own position or the position

9 of the state?

10 A. I was exclusively interested in my own

11 defence and not anybody else's, especially not the

12 defence of the state or important individuals who were

13 at the head of that state. They all knew that very

14 well. Everybody knew that, especially the foreign

15 lawyers.

16 Q. What impression did you get from what

17 Dr. Lopicic was telling you in that conversation?

18 A. Everything boiled down to the fact that

19 unless I had people from Yugoslavia, that is to say,

20 from Serbia, the Republika Srpska, on my defence team,

21 that I wouldn't get defence witnesses, that I would not

22 have access to material that could help my case. Quite

23 obviously, this was held under the control of my

24 defence team. Mr. Wladimiroff very often said that he

25 wasn't interested in the defence of Yugoslavia and

Page 87

1 Serbia, that he was only working for my own interests.

2 This very often irritated Ambassador Lopicic, and he

3 would criticise me for that, reproach me for it.

4 Q. Now, about two-thirds of the way down page

5 144, page 3, Dr. Lopicic says: "I most strongly refute

6 the allegations that I was telling Tadic at the time

7 that he would end up without a single important witness

8 from either FRY or the Republika Srpska." Do you agree

9 or disagree with that statement from this man?

10 A. I do not agree with his statement. I think

11 that it was quite the opposite. He raised his voice

12 when talking to me, and he clearly let me know that I

13 would end up as I have ended up. He made use of the

14 people who knew me and contacted Mr. Lopicic, and they

15 all came to visit me to tell me that I should listen to

16 his advice. He even called my wife up for that

17 purpose. He tried to exert influence on her, for her

18 to tell me that I was making a mistake.

19 Q. Did she speak to you about that, your wife?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. From your conversation, how did she react?

22 What was her impression of what was being said to her

23 about getting you to change your mind?

24 A. The whole time after I was arrested, I tried

25 to keep my wife and children apart, because they had

Page 88

1 had a very difficult life and were finding it

2 difficult. I was very sorry that anybody had asked her

3 to use her influence with me. She was angry, and she

4 said that she wouldn't have come to visit me in The

5 Hague had she known they were going to do so. It was

6 her first visit.

7 She knew me very well and, of course, she

8 knew that nobody could influence me, that I would do

9 how I saw fit and how I thought that I should proceed.

10 My wife and I have known each other since we were 15

11 years old.

12 Q. You say or, rather, I'm sorry, I draw your

13 attention to the very bottom of that same page. "At

14 the time Tadic was simply obsessed," is the word used,

15 "with his Defence counsel Mr. Wladimiroff and his

16 team." Do you agree that you were obsessed with them

17 or were they simply your legal team?

18 A. I never had any dealings with a Court before,

19 and the way in which Mr. Wladimiroff and his associates

20 behaved towards me and my problem, the case that I was

21 being tried for, was something that I was exceptionally

22 satisfied with. There was no personal sentimentality

23 of any kind.

24 I was very satisfied with the professional

25 relationship that they displayed and, quite simply, he

Page 89

1 didn't find it difficult to travel to Republika Srpska,

2 and even the most remote village to check out some

3 things, whereas other lawyers found it very difficult

4 to go even 20 or 30 kilometres away and always found

5 reasons why they should not go. But he did not find it

6 a burden to go from Holland, or Steven Kay from London,

7 for example, and that was something that I was

8 extremely satisfied with, their approach.

9 Q. So they would take the trouble to go out to

10 your country and make investigations. Did they find it

11 easy, though, to get hold of the people they were

12 trying to get hold of?

13 A. It was very difficult, and I was -- really

14 marvelled at the courage they showed because, you know,

15 in 1995 there was a war waging in the area, and I know

16 that Mr. Wladimiroff spent some time in Prijedor when

17 the territory was being bombed, in fact. There were

18 also problems of entering the Republika Srpska from

19 Yugoslavia, the acquisition of visas and so on.

20 Everything was very difficult.

21 Q. All right. I'm going through the page now,

22 page 143, top right, he says this, this is Dr.

23 Lopicic: "Tadic informed me by telephone that he had

24 withdrawn his authorisation to Wladimiroff, and he

25 wishes again to engage Milan Vujin."

Page 90

1 Firstly, the stage at which you decided to

2 re-engage Mr. Vujin was after the trial -- after the

3 evidence, but before the judgement; is that correct?

4 Just putting it in context.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. You have, to some extent, already dealt with

7 this in your two statements that we dealt with this

8 morning, but do you accept and agree with that

9 statement by Dr. Lopicic, that you telephone him just

10 to tell him you changed your mind? Did it come about

11 like that?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did Mr. Lopicic see you again before you

14 changed your mind?

15 A. He visited me, sometimes more frequently,

16 sometimes less, but we always talked about the fact

17 that I should include Mr. Vujin into the Defence team

18 regardless of the stage at which my trial was at. He

19 said that Mr. Vujin had exceptional relations with

20 those people down there, and that he disposed of

21 evidence which could significantly change the situation

22 at the trial. Then I informed Mr. Wladimiroff of this

23 and we discussed it at some length.

24 Q. You've dealt really with the detail of that

25 in your statement. I'm not going to ask you any more.

Page 91

1 So your case is that you were advised and told to hire

2 Mr. Vujin again rather than your just telling Dr.

3 Lopicic to do that; is that correct?

4 A. I was expressly given to understand that I

5 would be able to -- that key witnesses would be brought

6 and that Mr. Vujin had evidence in his hands, he had

7 been in the field, and that it would be a great pity if

8 I rejected this offer from him. I never made a secret

9 of this. I discussed it quite openly with

10 Mr. Wladimiroff, because it was in the interests of

11 showing the truth before this Tribunal.

12 Q. Now, I think you saw, going further into the

13 statement, page 140, page 7 you may have it as,

14 Mr. Tadic, I'm sure, towards the end, he said the last

15 time he saw you was on December the 18th of '98?

16 A. I haven't got that here but it doesn't

17 matter.

18 Q. Do you remember the occasion? Can you

19 remember the conversation?

20 A. Would you repeat your question, please?

21 Q. Yes. I think you saw Dr. Lopicic on the 18th

22 of December, which he says was the last time you met

23 him. Would that be right, the 18th of December last

24 year?

25 A. If that was during the visit of the Yugoslav

Page 92

1 delegation to the Hague, then my answer is yes, that is

2 so.

3 Q. Yes, it was. He said he was in the

4 delegation of the Yugoslav Federal Minister of

5 Justice. Was there a conversation on that day between

6 you and Dr. Lopicic?

7 A. I talked to the head of the delegation, the

8 Minister of Justice. I think his name was Knezevic,

9 and Mr. Lopicic only partially took part in the

10 conversation.

11 Q. In a nutshell, what were you saying to those

12 people?

13 A. I told them -- I presented my impressions and

14 knowledge linked to the work of Mr. Vujin and my

15 Defence team. I particularly told them that some of

16 the perpetrators of the crimes for which I was

17 convicted were located in Yugoslavia. I even told them

18 the addresses of those people and asked them to check

19 them out, to check the exactitude of that information

20 linked to those individuals.

21 I told them quite openly that Yugoslavia was

22 protecting the criminals that had escaped from the

23 Republika Srpska. They didn't like hearing that.

24 However --

25 Q. For a moment, Mr. Tadic, at whose expense, as

Page 93

1 far as you were concerned, were those individuals being

2 protected?

3 A. Well, most of those people made a lot of

4 money in an infamous way in the Republika Srpska, and

5 then --

6 Q. A misunderstanding perhaps in the

7 translation. When I say "at whose expense," I mean who

8 suffered by those people being protected, whoever was

9 protecting them? Who was suffering?

10 A. My own expense, first and foremost.

11 Q. You say they didn't like it when you told

12 them that. Can you remember anything significant that

13 any of them said about that?

14 A. Well, Mr. Knezevic, when I gave him some

15 information, said, "Well, where do you get the idea

16 that we're protecting someone from? If we are

17 protecting them, then we're protecting the three

18 officers that the International Tribunal is looking

19 for." He told me that quite openly.

20 Q. You mean to say he was accepting that some

21 people were being protected?

22 A. I'm quoting. "If I am protecting somebody,

23 then I am protecting those three officers."

24 Q. That's all I want to ask you about Dr.

25 Lopicic's statement.

Page 94

1 Could we please go now to the statement of

2 Zarko Nikolic, which is at page 135? I may be able to

3 deal with this individual quite quickly with you,

4 Mr. Tadic, whilst the statement is being obtained.

5 He's counsel of a defendant Kos, Mr. Kos, and he speaks

6 of accompanying Mr. Vujin to make some inquiries

7 relating to what he calls the research centre at

8 Omarska. Did, as far as you know, Mr. Vujin take any

9 foreign lawyers with him on that visit?

10 A. No. In that period, I remember that

11 Mr. Vujin told me that they had made the decision that

12 never again will anybody from abroad participate in the

13 defence of any person from Republika Srpska, and that

14 they would decide that amongst themselves, resolve that

15 amongst themselves.

16 Q. As far as you were concerned, did anything

17 useful or helpful, from your point of view, emerge from

18 that visit?

19 A. No. These are just two statements of maybe

20 some ten lines each but without any kind of relevant

21 information, meaningless.

22 Q. Would you please be shown the statement of

23 (redacted), at page 138, top right. Was he a

24 legal assistant of Mr. Vujin?

25 A. I know that (redacted) was part of the

Page 95

1 Defence team, but the first time we saw each other, the

2 first time we met was, I think, on September 4th in

3 1998.

4 Q. I'm looking at the second or the middle

5 paragraph in his short statement, when he speaks of

6 that meeting. Did you ever see him apart from that

7 day?

8 A. No, I didn't see him. We just exchanged --

9 Mr. Vujin introduced us, and I asked him how was it in

10 the work, how was it going. He said, "I don't know.

11 I'm just participating as a matter of form."

12 So then I concluded that that man wasn't

13 really doing anything. He even said he had come as a

14 tourist. Then I told him, "Well, if it's like that

15 then you don't need to come tomorrow or the next day."

16 So for the next two days he didn't even turn up at all,

17 even though the visit was scheduled.

18 Q. So that we understand, was a visit to last

19 three days. Mr. Vujin saw you on three days, but on

20 the first day he brought this gentleman along,

21 Mr. Kolesar, but not on the second or third day; is

22 that right?

23 A. Yes. Yes.

24 Q. Thank you. Did he appear to have any real

25 knowledge of your case?

Page 96

1 A. Well, he said he had no idea. He said that

2 he was only participating as a matter of form. So

3 that's why I said there was no need for him to come at

4 all. I had no use for him.

5 Q. Did you say to him, is as suggested here,

6 that you told him you were more than satisfied with the

7 appeal and other work that Mr. Vujin was doing?

8 A. We didn't really discuss my case at all. He

9 had said he had no idea about the case.

10 Q. Now, can I please move on to the statement of

11 (redacted) at page 134? Just to put her

12 statement in context, (redacted)

13 (redacted).

14 Now, she suggests, towards the bottom of the

15 first page of her statement, page 134, "All this time I

16 personally contacted Mr. Dusko Tadic, who in each of

17 our conversations told me he was very satisfied with

18 the works of Mr. Vujin, and asked me to tell Mr. Vujin

19 to do his best to get as much witnesses as possible

20 from the investigating centre Omarska."

21 Firstly, as far as -- firstly, do you agree

22 that you did speak to her during the course of the time

23 that Mr. Vujin was acting as your lawyer?

24 A. Yes. We probably spoke occasionally, but she

25 conveyed messages to Mr. Vujin or from Mr. Vujin to me,

Page 97

1 so the topic of discussion that she mentioned never

2 took place. This is the first time that she said that

3 Mr. Vujin worked only on my case, which is absolutely

4 untrue. I know that he also had some other five or ten

5 cases alongside with mine. So he didn't exclusively

6 deal with my case.

7 Q. Did you take the opportunity on each and

8 every occasion you spoke to say to her that you were

9 very satisfied with the works of Mr. Vujin?

10 A. No. No. She is the one who would sing

11 Vujin's praises, saying he was a wonderful man. She

12 would always give some attributes in connection with

13 him and his work, saying that he had a good heart.

14 Then she would always criticise Mr. Livingston,

15 especially as far as the work on-site was concerned.

16 She always said that Mr. Livingston -- it was his fault

17 because Mr. Vujin could not develop his strategy. So

18 she used to say that often, and then she would say that

19 it was his fault that he couldn't do more for me.

20 Q. Did you accept that or not?

21 A. I made no comments. I just felt that this

22 was not true, but I was not in a position to enter into

23 any kind of discussion with anybody, especially to talk

24 about the policy regarding Yugoslavia.

25 Q. May I ask you this: On the bottom line of

Page 98

1 that page, page 134, she uses the phrase, quoting as if

2 they're your words, "investigating centre Omarska." Is

3 that the phrase that you would have chosen to use

4 yourself, Mr. Tadic?

5 A. No. I always used the term "camp." Only

6 upon the insistence of Mr. Vujin and other Yugoslav

7 attorneys we needed to make the correction into the

8 "investigative centre." They would even correct text

9 where it said -- if Mr. Livingston wrote the text he

10 would use the term "camp," but this was then corrected

11 by Mr. Vujin and his associates.

12 Q. Okay. Mr. Tadic, we'll probably deal with

13 that when (redacted) gives his evidence.

14 If you'll just bear with me for a minute. If

15 we could please go to page 108, the statement of a

16 Mr. Slobodan Ivanovic, doctor from Belgrade.

17 Firstly he says, towards the middle of that

18 statement, that he visited you and examined you, but on

19 that occasion you spoke about -- you spoke the best

20 about attorney at law Milan Vujin, and about his

21 professional skills, and his generous work and help

22 that he gave to your family. Did you speak about

23 Mr. Vujin to him? Can you remember?

24 A. There was no mention. That man had nothing

25 to do with the case. He was interested exclusively in

Page 99

1 the health of people, and especially connected to

2 events related to the death of Mr. Kovacevic and

3 Mr. Dokmanovic.

4 So I read that text. The majority of that

5 text is absolutely untrue. What is true is what I

6 wrote. He gave me a piece of paper, and I wrote down

7 that he knows the readers of the Sunday Telegraph and

8 that he likes painting. Because I wrote that, I began

9 to receive copies of the Sunday Telegraph for free.

10 That is all.

11 It is true that he got in touch with my wife

12 and that he promised her a job, but he never did manage

13 to get her a job.

14 Q. Are you referring now to what is near the top

15 of his statement about his medical clinic Anlave?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Very well. Could we now go to the statement

18 of Mr. Prodanovic? I'm just looking for the reference

19 number.

20 MR. ABELL: Forgive me, Your Honours. I'm

21 just trying to find the reference number.

22 Q. Now, this is the statement, 137, of

23 (redacted), another attorney.

24 A. (redacted).

25 Q. I'm sorry. (redacted). Forgive me.

Page 100

1 Would you please help me with this: Did you have a

2 conversation with Mr. Prodanovic during the course of

3 1998?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Did that conversation concern one of your

6 brothers, Ljubo, I believe he's called, Ljubo Tadic,

7 and does he live back in your country?

8 A. Yes, he lives in Banja Luka. The

9 conversation was about the information that my brother

10 Ljubo from Banja Luka provided which I tried to check

11 through Mr. Prodanovic because he happened to be the

12 lawyer of Mr. Kunarac from Foca.

13 My brother had received information that

14 there was somebody in Foca among the people who had

15 taken part in the conflict in Kozarac, and they had

16 told him that they were ready to discuss the events

17 which could have an effect on my case because they were

18 very familiar with my case. These were the people from

19 the group of Sigara Danovic (phone) a well-known

20 fighter from that area who were from Foca. I tried,

21 through Mr. Prodanovic, to check whether these people

22 were there in prison in Foca, and he sent me a message

23 saying yes, that they were in prison.

24 Q. Pause for a moment, Mr. Tadic. If need be,

25 you can go into a very lengthy explanation. Did you

Page 101

1 consider, from the information that you had, that these

2 would be people that it would be very useful for one or

3 more of your lawyers to interview with a view to obtain

4 some evidence that might assist you?

5 A. I believe that these were exceptionally

6 important people, and I insisted that Mr. Livingston

7 travel to Foca.

8 Q. Were those your instructions, that

9 Mr. Livingston should go over there and try to hunt

10 down this person and take a statement from him?

11 A. Yes. These people were there. I had

12 received information, so it was just a matter of --

13 technically, it was a question of time for

14 Mr. Livingston to go there and to take the statements.

15 Q. Was Mr. Livingston able to take the

16 statements or did that not happen?

17 A. Mr. Livingston left for Banja Luka with a day

18 or two in delay, I'm not sure, but when he went to

19 Banja Luka, I think that at that time Vujin had left

20 hastily to Foca and had allegedly already taken the

21 statement from that person.

22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, just one

23 moment, please.

24 MR. ABELL: Of course.

25 (Trial Chamber confers)

Page 102

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You may proceed,

2 Mr. Abell. For the moment, we have a problem, the

3 nature of which should become a little clearer later

4 on, but for the moment, I think we can find a

5 solution.

6 MR. ABELL: Thank you very much.

7 Q. Really all I want to ask you is this,

8 please: Mr. Livingston tried to contact this witness,

9 wasn't able to. You say you believe Mr. Vujin had been

10 there and had already taken a statement; did you ever

11 see that?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Was it helpful at all?

14 A. No, not at all, and I said right away that

15 this was not the statement that I wanted, and I asked

16 that Mr. Livingston take the statement. Later, he

17 brought me a second statement, but before that, they

18 returned that prisoner from Foca to Banja Luka. We

19 took the statement from him; however, that was even

20 worse than the first statement.

21 Q. Who took the first and who took the second

22 statement from this person?

23 A. Mr. Vujin as well. He was not accessible for

24 Mr. Livingston then. There was simply no way for him

25 to meet with the witness.

Page 103

1 Q. The reason I ask you those questions is to

2 come back to what I started on with this statement of

3 Mr. Prodanovic. Did you and Mr. Prodanovic ever speak

4 on this topic?

5 A. After Mr. Livingston's visit to Banja Luka,

6 when he left with the intention of visiting the

7 prisoner in Foca, and when all of that was over, I met

8 Mr. Prodanovic in The Hague, in the detention unit, and

9 that's when we discussed these events.

10 Q. What did Mr. Prodanovic say to you about that

11 episode?

12 A. The problem was that Mr. Livingston had

13 travelled to Banja Luka and he was expecting my brother

14 to pick him up at the hotel and to take him to certain

15 places so that he could interview witnesses, but my

16 brother did not come to pick him up. Only when I spoke

17 with Mr. Livingston, who said he was waiting at the

18 hotel and he didn't know why my brother did not come to

19 pick him up, I called my brother on the phone and asked

20 him why didn't he go to pick up the attorney Livingston

21 so that he could complete his work on the ground. Then

22 he said that Mr. Prodanovic had called him on the

23 phone --

24 Q. This is Ljubo, is it? This is Ljubo who told

25 you this?

Page 104

1 A. Yes, and that Prodanovic had told him not to

2 go and pick up Mr. Livingston and to avoid any contacts

3 with him, not to meet with him. He said that that was,

4 in fact, a message from Mr. Vujin that he was conveying

5 to him. I was surprised because of all of that. I

6 know that I always insisted for him to contact and

7 cooperate with all the attorneys working on my case,

8 and then I told him to go to the hotel and to be

9 available for Mr. Livingston and that it wasn't okay

10 for this man to have given him this message. So I

11 asked Mr. Prodanovic about all of this here in The

12 Hague --

13 Q. Let's pause. That's what I want to ask you.

14 That's what I want to ask you. Did you put that

15 suggestion, that information that you heard from your

16 brother Ljubo, did you put it to Mr. Prodanovic when

17 you met him in the U.N. detention centre here in The

18 Hague?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What did Mr. Prodanovic say to you about it?

21 A. He laughed. He said, "Well, I just conveyed

22 what Mr. Vujin told me to convey to your brother but I

23 don't know what the background for that is," and I told

24 him that it wasn't okay for him to interfere in my case

25 and that he had made a mistake and not to do that again

Page 105

1 in the future.

2 Q. Let's pause. Was he saying to you then that

3 he agreed that he had rung up your brother Ljubo?

4 A. Yes, that he had called my brother and told

5 him not to meet Livingston.

6 Q. Did Mr. Prodanovic tell you who had

7 instructed him, Mr. Prodanovic, to ring up your brother

8 and tell him not to pick up Mr. Livingston?

9 A. He told me that Mr. Vujin had told him that.

10 So he had given him my brother's telephone number

11 because Mr. Prodanovic had no way of getting my

12 brother's telephone number. This is what

13 Mr. Prodanovic told me in the detention unit, and he

14 even apologised and told me that in the future he would

15 not interfere in such matters.

16 Q. Very well. That's all I want to ask you

17 about the witnesses. Just wait there for a moment,

18 Mr. Tadic.

19 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, I'm sorry that the

20 time estimate was a little inaccurate. I apologise. I

21 hope it won't be repeated. May I just indicate this:

22 There are two other topics that I would ask about.

23 Does Your Honour remember that this morning I said I

24 took exception to the admissibility of certain

25 matters? May I just explain briefly what they are? If

Page 106

1 we need to have a debate about that now, so be it.

2 Firstly, Mr. Vujin has put in an article, a

3 newspaper article from Slobodna Bosna, a newspaper, and

4 I would object to the admissibility of that.

5 Secondly, Mr. Vujin has put in on Friday of

6 last week in English, late on Friday -- at about, I

7 don't know, half past six English time I received it --

8 a file of correspondence between him and Mr. Tadic and

9 vice versa. Again, I take exception to

10 the admissibility of those documents on the grounds of

11 relevance and, indeed, any questions of privilege would

12 arise.

13 I'm merely in Your Honours' hands. If it's

14 going to be admissible, I would ask Mr. Tadic what he

15 has to say about that now. If it's not to be

16 admissible, I needn't ask any questions. If

17 admissibility is decided against me later, then I would

18 seek the leave to recall Mr. Tadic to deal with those

19 matters. Alternatively, if admissibility is decided in

20 my favour later, again, I needn't recall him to deal

21 with those points. I'm merely in Your Honours' hands.

22 I know that if those matters are admissible,

23 Mr. Tadic has a diary which he's only been able to show

24 me over the weekend, because it only became relevant

25 over the weekend, in which he says he has put down his

Page 107

1 true thoughts about Mr. Vujin as and when events

2 occurred which are consistent with the evidence he has

3 been giving.

4 I'm very much in Your Honours' hands as to

5 whether I proceed to ask those questions now or leave

6 it until we determine the admissibility.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, I also have a

8 dossier of papers presented by Mr. Vujin and which I

9 have seen only latterly, but tell me, you speak of

10 professional privilege as between Mr. Vujin and

11 Mr. Tadic; am I right?

12 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honours.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Whose privilege is

14 that?

15 MR. ABELL: It would, in my submission, be

16 Mr. Tadic's privilege.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: He is before the Court

18 and he is a kind of virtual complainant, is he not?

19 MR. ABELL: He is a witness in relation to

20 contempt proceedings. His evidence is important, of

21 course, but his background sets for context within

22 which the real allegations, those five allegations, are

23 said to have occurred, and so his evidence is obviously

24 important from that point of view, yes.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Can it be argued, I

Page 108

1 don't take a position on this, that Mr. Tadic by

2 agreeing to testify has impliedly agreed to waive any

3 privileges between him and his counsel, more so in view

4 of the fact that his counsel is defending himself

5 against certain allegations? How do you respond to

6 that hypothesis?

7 MR. ABELL: I look at the Rules in relation

8 to privilege, and, of course, I understand the point

9 about waiver privilege. I'm looking, if I may, at Rule

10 97 which is at page 74 of the 14th revision, the

11 current Rules, and I see the way in which it is phrased

12 there. It looks as if privilege, for the purposes of

13 this Tribunal, Your Honours, is differently stated than

14 perhaps we are used to in our own domestic

15 legislation. I would submit if one applies that

16 Rule:

17 "All communications between lawyer and client

18 shall be regarded as privileged, and consequently not

19 subject to disclosure at trial, unless:

20 (i) the client consents to such disclosure;

21 or

22 (ii) the client has voluntarily disclosed the

23 content of the communication to a third party ..."

24 It would be my situation that neither of

25 those two situations has arisen.

Page 109

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, suppose it is

2 said that the word "consents" in Roman (i) should be

3 construed in the context of the transactions of the day

4 and that if the client is in the position of making or

5 supporting allegations of professional misconduct

6 against his counsel, he is to be understood as

7 impliedly consenting to waive any privilege which might

8 otherwise stand in the way. How do you react to that?

9 MR. ABELL: Well, I react to that in this

10 way: Perhaps in our various domestic legislations,

11 that might well be understood to be the case. One

12 consents by or the client consents by the client's

13 conduct, if I can put it that way, by giving evidence

14 in this way. All I would say -- all I can say is that

15 that is not what the words on the page say. It would

16 mean a very wide and liberal construction, indeed, of

17 that Rule to bring that about. That's the way that I

18 would respond, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, then shall we hear

20 from your learned friends on the point?

21 MR. ABELL: Certainly.

22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: First the Prosecution

23 and then Mr. Vujin.

24 MR. KEEGAN: Excuse me just a second, Your

25 Honour.

Page 110

1 Your Honour, the Prosecution would agree with

2 the interpretation which you just immediately proposed

3 for two principal reasons: One, the actual

4 applications thus far with regard to this matter

5 clearly indicate that Mr. Tadic has been involved as a

6 principal in bringing this complaint. The nature of

7 his testimony, his assertions here today that Mr. Vujin

8 was, in fact, obstructing his defence certainly only

9 reinforces that point.

10 Second, it should be considered that

11 Mr. Tadic should not be able to use this device, in

12 essence, a shield for protection, as a sword against

13 his former attorney and at the same time deny Mr. Vujin

14 his only possible avenue of defence in many instances

15 by being able to withhold documents which might assist

16 Mr. Vujin in his defence.

17 Thank you.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Keegan.

19 Mr. Vujin, would you like to respond?

20 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honours. Just

21 briefly, I think that as a defence counsel dealing with

22 criminal law for the past 30 years, I have very rarely

23 been in the position of agreeing with the Prosecution.

24 I would have nothing to add, however, to the position

25 presented by the Prosecution. I think that we are on

Page 111

1 the same position, as is the Trial Chamber, that that

2 is precisely the way of allowing me to defend myself

3 from the construed allegations that have been made

4 against me.

5 (Trial Chamber confers)

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The bench is in the

7 pleasant position of agreeing both with the Prosecution

8 and with Mr. Vujin, and that pleasure could be extended

9 also to learned counsel for Mr. Tadic because although

10 he took a point which counsel could take, I did not

11 have the impression that he affixes great strength to

12 his submissions. The submission is overruled.

13 We have the reference to the newspapers.

14 We're not quite clear about that, Mr. Abell. Would it

15 be possible for you to proceed with your examination on

16 the basis of our partial ruling, and perhaps when we

17 return after the break, we would be in the position to

18 resume consideration of that limb of your submissions?

19 MR. ABELL: Certainly, Your Honours.

20 Q. Mr. Tadic, is this the position, first of

21 all, with the new bundle: Was the first time that you

22 saw it yesterday afternoon when I came to see you in

23 the U.N. detention centre?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did I bring with me the only copy that I had

Page 112

1 which was a copy in English?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Did I give that to you to look at as best you

4 could overnight?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And you handed it back to me this morning?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Is this the position: Your only recent

9 sighting of these letters has been in English and in a

10 very hurried situation; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Nonetheless, do you feel in a position to

13 deal with the matter in general terms?

14 A. Yes, we can. There's no problem there --

15 Q. Very well.

16 A. -- although I didn't understand 50 per cent

17 of it.

18 Q. There are in this bundle certain letters from

19 you to Mr. Vujin which don't contain complaints from

20 you to him; yes? Do you agree?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Would you explain why you didn't, in writing,

23 tend to express complaint about the way in which he was

24 conducting himself on your behalf?

25 A. Well, quite simply, over a long period of

Page 113

1 time when I contacted Mr. Vujin, had contacts with him,

2 I became convinced that criticisms of him and his

3 conduct and work had no meaning. His household friend,

4 Mr. Lopicic, and other friends that came to visit, such

5 as Ivanovic and the rest, who knew him very well, they

6 all prevailed upon me and said that the only useful

7 thing for me to do was to give him compliments, and if

8 I complimented him, his work would be better. I became

9 convinced of this myself because I criticised him on

10 several occasions over the phone, and he openly said

11 that I wasn't to speak to him in that manner.

12 Afterwards, I had no way of doing anything, except for

13 trying to compliment him for what he had done and then

14 to get more from him than I would otherwise have got

15 and for him to do more than he did do.

16 Q. Did you ever put pen to paper and say in

17 writing to him formally that you were, as it were,

18 angry or dissatisfied with the way in which he was

19 conducting your defence?

20 A. I think that the first and last time I did

21 that was on the 28th of July, 1998 when I asked him to

22 withdraw the motions he had presented to the Tribunal,

23 that he was to inform Mr. Livingston of the contents of

24 those motions and that afterwards we should decide

25 together whether we were going to use that or not.

Page 114

1 However, I received a reply from him in which he

2 refuses to withdraw the motions and in which he said to

3 me that if I was dissatisfied, I should sever ties with

4 him as counsel, and I have both those letters here with

5 me.

6 Q. And is the position that they are in your

7 language and they haven't been translated because we

8 only saw this bundle of correspondence which has been

9 relied upon by me on Friday evening and you on Sunday

10 afternoon; is that right?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. So that's a letter from you to him in July of

13 '98 complaining about his submissions and the way he

14 was putting things in your appeal?

15 A. Yes, because I thought that it was natural

16 for him to inform me of the contents of those

17 submissions. I had no insight into what he was doing.

18 Mr. Livingston didn't know what he was doing either,

19 because he had no contacts.

20 Q. Was that Mr. Livingston's doing or

21 Mr. Vujin's doing?

22 A. Mr. Vujin quite simply refused to contact

23 Mr. Livingston and there were no contacts between them

24 since April 1998.

25 Q. What, if anything, was Mr. Vujin's reply to

Page 115

1 that letter?

2 A. I would just like to read out something

3 briefly that is perhaps vital.

4 Q. Is this in his letter to you or yours to

5 him?

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would it be

7 your intention to put in these two texts?

8 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, I was hoping to,

9 yes. You appreciate it only just comes to light

10 because of the way in which the bundle has been

11 served.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There is a way of doing

13 it if you don't have translations.

14 MR. ABELL: I'm afraid not, at such short

15 notice.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Are they lengthy texts?

17 MR. ABELL: I believe one is two pages and

18 one is one page. The two-page one is in manuscript and

19 quite close written but they're not lengthy.

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, would it take a

21 long time to get them translated?

22 MR. ABELL: I hope not, if the court can

23 assist us to providing some translation overnight

24 perhaps.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, what may

Page 116

1 be the position?

2 (Trial Chamber deliberates)

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I'm advised, Mr. Abell,

4 that translations could be made available in the course

5 of tomorrow sometime, so what I suggest is that you may

6 proceed with your examination on the basis of

7 particular excerpts of the document, it being

8 understood that the translated text will be available

9 for tendering in evidence at some later point.

10 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful for that, Your

11 Honour. May I just mention that, on the same topic,

12 I'm going to ask Mr. Tadic to refer to certain extracts

13 from his diary. On the same basis may he refer to that

14 as well?


16 MR. ABELL: I'm very grateful.

17 Q. Mr. Tadic, you have the only copy of the

18 letter. You understand you're going to be asked to

19 refer to the part to which you want to refer to on the

20 basis that it will be handed over and an official

21 translation will be prepared hopefully during the

22 course of tomorrow. Do you understand?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. The same will apply to your diary. Do you

25 understand?

Page 117

1 A. Yes. Could I just read one sentence from the

2 letter that I wrote to Mr. Vujin? I think that it is

3 the crux of the matter. It is on the first page where

4 it says -- I am addressing Mr. Vujin and say, "You

5 independently and without my agreement and knowledge,

6 in the past few days, submitted an answer to the

7 complaint made by the Prosecution, and in the contents

8 of the text and your intentions, nobody was informed,

9 none the lawyers. Mr. Livingston was not informed

10 either."

11 So that would be the gist of the sentence and

12 what was the important point.

13 He responded by answering the following -- he

14 says that he does not agree fully with the way in which

15 attempts were being made of contacting the organs of

16 the Republika Srpska. "I am informing you that I'm not

17 going to withdraw a single line of what I, as the lead

18 counsel, wrote and signed."

19 Then in one other portion he says, "You are

20 authorised as a -- as your lawyer that I can

21 withdraw -- that you can withdraw your power of

22 attorney to me."

23 Q. You say that on the telephone you would have

24 discussions from time to time about the way things were

25 progressing. Is that right?

Page 118

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Were they always conducted, if I can put it

3 this way, quietly or not?

4 A. Well, for the most part, I endeavoured to

5 control myself. As far as criticisms, Mr. Vujin did

6 not like any kind of criticism. If I were to criticise

7 anything, he would say that he -- he would not allow me

8 to talk to him in that way. That's what he would say.

9 Then everything would end there.

10 So I avoided criticising the work of

11 Mr. Vujin in any way, and I considered that

12 Mr. Livingston would be able to use anything that could

13 be advantageous to my defence.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, suppose we

15 proceeded for another five minutes.

16 MR. ABELL: Yes.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then we could have a

18 break.

19 MR. ABELL: Certainly, Your Honour.


21 opportunity to ask, consideration might be given to the

22 actual allegations made in the order of the Court.

23 Perhaps you could bear that in mind in determining to

24 what extent the testimony is really pertinent to those

25 allegations.

Page 119

1 MR. ABELL: I understand exactly. May I

2 simply say this, that I feel that given that this

3 material has been put in, Mr. Tadic needs to have an

4 opportunity, albeit briefly and in general terms, to

5 make his position on it clear. That's why I'm asking

6 these questions about these documents, but I fully

7 understand the point.

8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I appreciate that, but

9 you will understand there's another dimension of the

10 matter as to whether or not certain evidence should

11 have been pursued and should have been presented either

12 before the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber. I

13 rather think, though there may be a connection, the two

14 things can be separated. Thank you.


16 Q. Mr. Tadic, can I ask you this, please -- just

17 before we have the break, I'm going to ask you, please,

18 to have a look at this diary. Would you?

19 Now, I know that there are several references

20 that you would wish to refer to. Can I ask you -- a

21 number of them can be translated, but can I ask you

22 specifically to look at certain pages?

23 Firstly, before we do that, is this your

24 diary?

25 A. Yes.

Page 120

1 Q. For what year is it?

2 A. I started writing it in 1996.

3 Q. It has daily entries in it; does it not?

4 A. Well, not every day always. From time to

5 time I write about the essential points. So I kept my

6 diary at that time. In some places it is rather

7 illegible, in other places better, but I read through

8 the diary again because the diary was with

9 Mr. Wladimiroff and I received it after a couple of

10 months.

11 Q. You understand by referring to this diary it

12 can be taken away and parts of it translated? You

13 understand that; don't you?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And you wish to refer to it?

16 A. Yes, although there are many entries there.

17 I just made note of what I thought was important at

18 this particular moment in the case.

19 Q. Mr. Tadic, don't worry. I'm certainly not

20 going to ask you to recite to Their Honours the whole

21 of 1996. Just, please, to give us the flavour. Would

22 you please turn, for example, to page 35?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Is that in February of '96?

25 A. Yes.

Page 121

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would it be

2 your strategy to enter the diary in evidence? You're

3 referring to a specific page. Are you relying on the

4 diary itself for any evidential force?

5 MR. ABELL: The only force of the diary is

6 that it is a memory refreshing document for him to

7 assist this Court with what he says his true feelings

8 were at the time. So I'm not introducing the diary as

9 a piece of real evidence, but it is a means of his

10 being able to refresh his memory as to what his true

11 feelings were at the time.

12 Also, of course, because he says he wrote it

13 either on the day or within a few days of the date in

14 the diary, it is evidence that that was what he was

15 thinking, if the evidence is accepted, of course,

16 subject to that. It is evidence that that is what this

17 man was thinking at the date in the diary.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You appreciate that your

19 colleagues may have something to say on the point.

20 MR. ABELL: I appreciate, but that's a matter

21 for them, if they wish to make submissions. While I'm

22 on my feet, may I indicate that my submission is that

23 given that letters, correspondence between him and

24 Mr. Vujin are in evidence, that he be entitled to show

25 what he says his true feelings were about Mr. Vujin at

Page 122

1 the time which -- if I may just conclude the sentence,

2 forgive me -- which he would say, as you have heard in

3 his evidence, he chose to phrase himself carefully in

4 his letters to Mr. Vujin, because he wanted Mr. Vujin,

5 if possible, to give him results, and he felt flattery

6 was the best option.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Yes. I understand

8 that. We will hear from your colleagues whenever they

9 indicate a desire to be heard.

10 I see Mr. Keegan on his legs.

11 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour. We

12 would, in fact, suggest that the complete diary should

13 be submitted to the Appeals Chamber for its review of

14 what information may be relevant in addition to the

15 particular passages which Mr. Tadic would like to refer

16 to.

17 In addition, of course, we would like actual

18 copies of the passages he does intend to refer to in

19 his submissions, but we believe that the whole diary

20 should be reviewed by the Appeals Chamber to determine

21 what other entries may be relevant to this general

22 matter, including the testimony of this witness.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You're proposing that

24 the diary in its original form be put in evidence or

25 would a photocopy suffice?

Page 123

1 MR. KEEGAN: I would suggest, as a matter of

2 practicality, Your Honour, that at the time that

3 certainly it will have to be translated. Experience

4 dictates that the Translation Unit will probably need

5 the original to ensure that the photocopies are, in

6 fact, of sufficient quality for them to be able to

7 interpret before the document could be returned to

8 Mr. Tadic, but our submission is that the entire

9 document should be made available to the Chamber for

10 its review.

11 Both sides, Mr. Vujin and the Prosecution,

12 should, at a minimum, be given copies of whatever

13 particular sections that Mr. Tadic intends to refer to

14 in his submissions during the proceedings.

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But you visualise that

16 translations would be necessary not in respect of the

17 diary in its entirety but only of any particular parts

18 which any party wishes to put in evidence; is that it?

19 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, again if I can only

20 say from practical experience, that at some point

21 perhaps a member of the Chamber would be assigned to

22 review the entire document with somebody from the

23 Translation Unit to determine what entries may be

24 relevant in addition to those being referred to by

25 Mr. Tadic.

Page 124

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. I'm merely trying

2 to abbreviate the proceedings.

3 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.


5 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours, with respect to the

6 diary as evidence, I am going to leave it up to the

7 Trial Chamber to make a decision, and I shall accept

8 any decision, because I am sure that I am not

9 interested in any notes that the witness has made.

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, we propose a break

11 at this point, and then we should be in a position to

12 give you a decision on this point. So we will resume

13 at quarter past four.

14 --- Recess taken at 3.58 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, the ruling of

17 the Chamber is it depends on the purpose, naturally,

18 for which you have made reference to the diary. If the

19 reference is purely for the purpose of refreshing the

20 memory of the witness, then the diary need not be

21 tendered in evidence and made available. If, however,

22 you are relying on the document for its own evidential

23 force, then another course will commend itself to us.

24 So can you tell us very briefly what your

25 position is? Are you just using this diary to refresh

Page 125

1 the memory of the witness as to the events to which he

2 speaks?

3 MR. ABELL: It is a memory-refreshing

4 document, in my submission. If I can put it in this

5 way: Part of that, obviously, includes the date on

6 which it was written, from which the witness refreshes

7 his memory by looking at the date.


9 MR. ABELL: That is my submission of the

10 status of this document. It's not a real piece of

11 evidence.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very good. Then you may

13 proceed on that basis.

14 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, I'm grateful. There

15 has been some discussion. The course I propose to take

16 is to ask Mr. Tadic now, so that Your Honours have a

17 flavour of some of the entries, I'm going to ask him to

18 deal with three entries, but over the course of the

19 next day or so a slightly larger selection, perhaps

20 half a dozen or so, will be translated so the court can

21 have that in due course, if that assists, a translation

22 of what he has said.

23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, that makes me a

24 little uneasy. You would be putting in the

25 translations for their inherent evidential force.

Page 126

1 MR. ABELL: No, Your Honours. It's my

2 mistake. Perhaps I didn't phrase myself properly. I

3 understood the idea, I may have misunderstood it, would

4 be that there would be some objective translation of

5 what Mr. Tadic is going to refer to in the diary.

6 I'm quite content that Mr. Tadic merely reads

7 out those extracts, translating himself from his own

8 language. I don't mean by saying that a written

9 translation would be put in what I'm relying on is a

10 piece of real evidence. Does Your Honour follow?

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it your present

12 proposal that Mr. Tadic should be reading out text of

13 his diary?

14 MR. ABELL: As a memory-refreshing document,

15 yes.

16 (Trial Chamber confers)

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, the position

18 is this: Once the witness is going to read out the

19 text of his diary to the Court, then the Court will be

20 disposed to take the view that the witness is

21 introducing those texts for their own evidential

22 force. In those circumstances, the ruling of the

23 Chamber will be this: The whole of the document will

24 remain available to the Appeals Chamber. The Appeals

25 Chamber, mindful of the peculiarities of the case, will

Page 127

1 itself go through the diary and determine whether there

2 are any particular pages which should be translated.

3 If it decides that those pages will be translated, they

4 will be made available to the interested parties for

5 such use as they may wish to make of it. Is that

6 understood?

7 MR. ABELL: I understand, Your Honour.

8 Q. Mr. Tadic, I don't know whether you yourself

9 follow what has happened. I, on your behalf, am quite

10 content if you merely look at your diary to remind

11 yourself of what your feelings were on a particular

12 day; do you understand me? If, however, you wish to

13 read word for word entries in your diary, then the

14 Appeals Chamber will take that as the whole diary being

15 put in evidence, and it can be looked at by the Appeals

16 Chamber, every single page of it if they wish.

17 Now, I can do no further than explain to you

18 what the situation is. If you use your diary simply as

19 a prompter, as it were, to remind yourself what your

20 feeling was on a particular day, that's one thing. If

21 you choose to read out entries word for word from it,

22 then the whole diary can be seen by other people. Do

23 you understand the difference?

24 MR. ABELL: All right. I hope I have put it

25 in layman's terms for Mr. Tadic.

Page 128

1 Q. For my part, but it's a matter for you,

2 Mr. Tadic, for my part, I'm quite content if you use it

3 as a memory-refreshing document. In other words,

4 simply use it just to remind yourself what your

5 feelings on a particular day were. Do you follow me?

6 A. Yes, but I think that I would like to quote

7 some parts, and I don't have anything against anybody

8 using the entire diary. I don't have anything to hide.

9 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic, but that is obviously a

10 matter for you. I wanted you to understand, make sure

11 that you understood the position before you committed

12 yourself to that course; do you follow?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Very well. Would you look, for example,

15 please at page 35 of your diary?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Is there an entry there which relates to

18 February of 1996?

19 A. Yes, February '96.

20 Q. Is there anything in that that you would wish

21 to refer to first of all?

22 A. I wrote down what I was feeling at that time

23 in relation to the relationships that were prevalent in

24 that time in the preparation of my defence.

25 Q. Will you help me, please? What is the date

Page 129

1 of the entry?

2 A. I said February '96. I don't think there is

3 a specific date.

4 Q. How soon after -- all right. So you would

5 have written it when, in February of '96?

6 A. I can't remember exactly but, yes, February

7 1996. I don't know the exact date. I would have to

8 read the whole thing in order to find the exact date,

9 but I would like to quote just one part.

10 Q. Please do.

11 A. I'm quoting: "Judging by things, it seems

12 that Vujin has taken a partial role of Simic from Banja

13 Luka formally participating in my defence but only to

14 such an extent that my case does not cause broader

15 consequences for the true participants in the events

16 there from 1992, especially for somebody who is in

17 Serbia at this time."

18 Q. And "Simic" is a reference to whom?

19 A. That's a lawyer from Banja Luka who, at the

20 time of my arrest in the beginning, was

21 participating -- was part of the defence team. That's

22 a lawyer from Banja Luka.

23 Q. Would you look now, please, at, for example,

24 page 58?

25 A. Yes. This is March of 1996, and it says in a

Page 130

1 part: "Vujin is convincing in every conversation, but

2 the practice and the facts speak against him. It is my

3 impression that he is part of my defence only in order

4 to prevent the events from being uncovered relating to

5 Omarska, and this is easiest for him to do by making it

6 more difficult to investigate and by blocking the

7 investigation, the questioning of witnesses, and the

8 accused from Omarska."

9 Q. By referring to "blocking the investigation"

10 and "the questioning of witnesses," whose investigation

11 were you talking about and whose potential witnesses

12 were you talking about, Mr. Tadic?

13 A. I'm talking about the investigation which was

14 being conducted at that time by Mr. Wladimiroff and his

15 associates and I'm talking about potential witnesses

16 that we had intended to use in my defence before the

17 Tribunal in The Hague.

18 Q. In other words, blocking the investigation

19 being conducted on your behalf by the other lawyers in

20 your legal team, apart from Mr. Vujin?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When you use the phrase "preventing the

23 events from becoming uncovered," again, do you mean

24 preventing the other members of your legal team, apart

25 from Mr. Vujin, from uncovering the true facts to

Page 131

1 assist in your defence?

2 A. Yes. That is precisely what I was thinking.

3 Q. And that was March of '96; yes?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Written in or about March of '96 or in March

6 of '96?

7 A. In March '96. The month is correct.

8 Q. Would you look, please, to two more

9 references, perhaps? Page 64.

10 A. Yes. This is text that I wrote in March as

11 well.

12 Q. March of '96?

13 A. Yes, March '96. I said: "By telephone, I

14 spoke to Vujin, and he told me that a few days before

15 he visited Bijeljina where he met with Minister Kijac.

16 He did not go to Banja Luka and Prijedor

17 which means that he lied to me again. I don't know how

18 many times that is. I don't know the reasons why he

19 did not go, but in any case, he says that he has

20 obtained assurances that seven or eight guards from

21 Omarska would testify in some way." Then further, I

22 also state: "Vujin claims that a number of guards will

23 testify for sure."

24 Q. Did any guards testify in the final event in

25 the trial?

Page 132

1 A. No, never.

2 Q. Finally, look at page 80.

3 A. Yes. The text was written in April 1996, and

4 I wrote then: "Vujin is manipulating with my name, and

5 he's coming out with a series of untruths, and he's

6 making it known that all of my witnesses would be

7 arrested in The Hague, even if these are ordinary

8 civilians, ordinary people. This is a part of an

9 interview that he gave to a Yugoslav newspaper."

10 Q. Where did you get that information from, so

11 that we're clear, that he was giving the story that any

12 potential witnesses of yours or some potential

13 witnesses of yours would be arrested if they came to

14 The Hague?

15 A. This was information from the newspaper, from

16 an interview that he gave to a Yugoslav newspaper.

17 Q. Now, that's by way of an example. I'm sure

18 you have many, many other examples, but I hope,

19 Mr. Tadic, that that's perhaps a reasonable

20 representation of, can I put it this way, your

21 misgivings during the first half of 1996 about

22 Mr. Vujin's representation of you? Is that sufficient,

23 as far as you're concerned, from your diary?

24 A. Well, perhaps I would like to quote -- to

25 read one more piece of text. It's something --

Page 133

1 Q. Very well, Mr. Vujin (sic). I'm not going to

2 prevent you. If you want to read one more, go on.

3 A. It's something that's important. It's a text

4 written in 1996 in which I state the following --

5 Q. Could you give us the page number?

6 A. Page 79, side B, and I wrote --

7 MR. VUJIN: I must intercede here. There has

8 been a lapse. "Very well, Mr. Vujin. I'm not going to

9 prevent you." It should state "Mr. Tadic" not

10 "Mr. Vujin."

11 MR. ABELL: If I said "Mr. Vujin," I meant

12 "Mr. Tadic."

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The correction has been

14 accepted by Mr. Abell.

15 MR. VUJIN: I have not been making a diary.


17 Q. Mr. Tadic, go on. If I called you Mr. Vujin,

18 I apologise.

19 A. Page 79, in April 1996, I wrote down my

20 remarks based on the information I got from Mr. Vujin,

21 and the text goes: "I also informed Wladimiroff about

22 the oral statement made to me by attorney Vujin as told

23 to him by Zoran Zigic --" this is one of the accused

24 "-- in connection with the events in the municipality

25 of Prijedor. A) That for the first two months, he was

Page 134

1 the main warden of Keraterm. B) That he went to

2 Omarska while he was drunk to beat prisoners together

3 with Dusan Knezevic, Vlajic, Saponja and Kondic.

4 C) That he was an intelligent man but that he

5 did all of these things while he was drunk. D) That

6 the story about not being in full control of his mind

7 has been contrived for the purposes of defence."

8 Q. Mr. Vujin told you that?

9 A. Yes. Yes.

10 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'd like, please, to refer you

11 just to one or two of the letters in the recently

12 received bundle, the one you saw yesterday from

13 Mr. Vujin, of correspondence. Would you look, please,

14 at page 535?

15 A. I don't have that.

16 MR. ABELL: I wonder if he could be supplied

17 with the bundle.

18 A. I don't have it but perhaps I don't need it.

19 Q. Well, if it's possible, I would rather you

20 had it.

21 MR. ABELL: Do Your Honours have the letter?

22 It's page 533 to page 535. It would be in the recent

23 bundle.

24 Q. Do you have it now, Mr. Tadic?

25 A. Yes.

Page 135

1 Q. This is a letter from you to Mr. Vujin dated

2 July the 15th, 1997.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. The original, no doubt, is hand-written?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. We can see, just summarising it, that you

7 refer to a meeting which had taken place with him in

8 the detention unit in The Hague, and you were referring

9 to a written text in relation to the appeal; is that

10 right? In the second paragraph, you point out various

11 mistakes and you list them.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You then, towards the bottom of the first

14 page, say: "With no regard to the opinion of some

15 members of the team for my defence, Mr. Livingston is a

16 good and respectful lawyer and not a beginner." What

17 is that a reference to?

18 A. Mr. Vujin always stressed that Mr. Livingston

19 was young and inexperienced and that he was not up to

20 this case, so that I wanted to tell him that he should

21 not really be thinking in that way --

22 Q. In your opinion -- I'm sorry. I cut you off

23 then. Did you want to say something else?

24 A. Yes. I thought he was a valuable and an

25 experienced attorney. At the beginning, of course, he

Page 136

1 didn't know my case very well, but later on when he was

2 familiar with the case, I think he knew about it much

3 more, and he knows more about the case than anybody

4 else.

5 Q. In your opinion, which of the two,

6 Mr. Livingston or Mr. Vujin, was the most effective in

7 getting at the heart of what a particular witness could

8 say or could not say in your defence?

9 A. The fact that Mr. Vujin maintained good links

10 and had an exceptional position in Republika Srpska,

11 Yugoslavia, and the municipality of Prijedor, that was

12 a fact. But as far as the facts that were relevant to

13 my defence, I don't know that he found any relevant

14 facts by himself and that he presented any kind of

15 crucial evidence with which he could help me before

16 this Tribunal.

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, the Court

18 allows considerable latitude to the parties, and we

19 place our trust in you. There is, however, a relevance

20 between this limb of your examination and the specific

21 charges?

22 MR. ABELL: Well, Your Honours, I put it this

23 way: This bundle has been put in, no doubt, so that

24 the comment can later be made, "Well, Mr. Tadic had no

25 complaint about Mr. Vujin; he had a complaint about

Page 137

1 other counsel," and this letter and one more shorter

2 letter are the only ones I'm going to refer to in any

3 detail, and then I'm going to move on.

4 In my submission, as this bundle has been put

5 in, it is important to understand just one or two

6 aspects of what Mr. Tadic felt about the way he was

7 represented. I'm going to turn now, in fact, to page 3

8 of this letter and deal with the specific paragraph. I

9 assure Your Honours that I have in mind what the five

10 charges are, but as this bundle has gone in, it is my

11 submission that Mr. Tadic must have an opportunity to

12 say certain things about the contents of it.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You wouldn't propose any

14 faith in the ability of the Appeals Chamber to deal

15 with this aspect in the course of your final

16 submission?

17 MR. ABELL: I have every faith in Your

18 Honours, of course. I just feel that my comment ought

19 to be based, even just briefly, on some evidence.

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We wouldn't wish to give

21 you the impression that we are, in any artificial way,

22 endeavouring to limit the scope.

23 MR. ABELL: I don't feel that at all. I'm

24 very conscious of the fact that we must keep our eye on

25 the ball here, if I may say so.

Page 138

1 Q. Mr. Tadic, can I just come to the third page,

2 page 533? You put in this letter, the paragraph

3 beginning "because," "Because of all this and your

4 personal role in the team for my defence, I suggest you

5 not dissemble my intentions but disclose it all clearly

6 in Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska and, also, your

7 obligation to carry out my wish with no regard to your

8 patriotic feelings for our common country and people."

9 Why did you feel the need to write that

10 sentence in a letter to Mr. Vujin in July of '97,

11 Mr. Tadic?

12 A. This part relates to a concrete issue. It

13 was about the fact whether it was necessary for my

14 Defence to oppose the Prosecutor's demand whether there

15 was an international conflict or not following after

16 May 19th, 1992. It was thought that I should not

17 really deal or oppose such demands, because I would not

18 feel the consequences of any such decision. So that is

19 what I stated here.

20 As far as feelings, Vujin always stressed

21 that it was important for him to represent the

22 interests of the people that he belonged to, regardless

23 of my position.

24 Q. Finally on this bundle, I'm looking now at

25 page 555, which is a letter from you to Mr. Livingston

Page 139

1 dated February of 1988 -- I'm so sorry, 15th of

2 February of 1998. It is a letter which is critical of

3 Mr. Livingston. What do you say about that letter?

4 A. I can't quite remember all the details, but

5 the letter is the result of a series of

6 misunderstandings that took place prior to it, that is

7 say, prior to my contacting Mr. Livingston, because his

8 engagement and involvement in my defence, up until

9 April 1998, relations between him and Mr. Vujin were

10 abnormal, in my opinion. They were not normal

11 relations. I had occasion to attend joint meetings,

12 and there were heated discussions during those

13 meetings. So in some way, I was brought into a

14 situation in which I had to take sides, to choose one

15 lawyer above the other. I didn't really know what to

16 do, what was the right course to pursue.

17 So the letter is the product of the pressure

18 exerted on me by Mr. Vujin and which he, on several

19 occasions -- he on several occasions criticised me for

20 Mr. Livingston's behaviour. Letters of that kind and

21 telephone conversations, I sent many letters of that

22 kind to Mr. Livingston, because I thought he would

23 understand them as a positive criticism and that he

24 would work better for having known them.

25 Q. Now, in terms of documents, the final thing I

Page 140

1 want to ask you about, if it's relevant, and I turn to

2 Your Honours again, it's at page 167 of the bundle. It

3 is a newspaper article, 166, 167, 165. The translation

4 is at 165.

5 I mentioned earlier that I challenged the

6 relevance and admissibility of this document.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The document headed

8 "Slobodna Bosna"?

9 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, indeed. Dated the

10 5th of December of 1998.

11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. I have page 165

12 before me. It's the only page we seem to have here on

13 the rostrum.

14 MR. ABELL: That is the only relevant page.

15 The other pages would appear to be the foreign

16 language, a photocopy of the article itself. That

17 won't assist Your Honours.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. The view of the

19 Chamber -- yes, Mr. Abell, do help me.

20 MR. ABELL: Yes.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: It's not page 169.

22 MR. ABELL: No, Your Honour. I have it as

23 165.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. We have looked at

25 165.

Page 141

1 MR. ABELL: If it assists in identifying it,

2 it's contained in a bundle dated the 22nd of March of

3 this year. That is the --

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let us turn to the exact

5 document which I have. This is entitled second line,

6 "Slobodna Bosna newspaper of December 5, 1998, page

7 21."

8 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honour, that's it.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The 165 here looks like

10 105.

11 MR. ABELL: If I may say so, I may

12 sympathise. I have had similar problems. That's not

13 being critical of anyone, of course, but I have had

14 problems with the photocopy.

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The bench has looked at

16 this document and the bench is of the opinion that it

17 is not admissible as it stands. If a formal document

18 were to be presented, we might be able to review that

19 decision. At the moment, the document as it stands is

20 not admissible, so you need not prefer any examination

21 to that.

22 MR. ABELL: I am very grateful to Your

23 Honours for that, which means I have very nearly

24 concluded.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just a few minutes after

Page 142

1 the half an hour that you indicated a little earlier.

2 MR. ABELL: For which I present, please, my

3 profound apologies. Not intentional. I am perhaps not

4 the best estimator of the time that the courts have

5 ever known, I'm afraid. Please bear with me for one

6 moment whilst I find the relevant part. I'm sorry.

7 Q. Yes. In a document dated the 19th of

8 March -- the bundle dated the 19th of March, Mr. Vujin

9 makes a short statement. I'm looking at page 89 -- 88,

10 89, in which he states at page 2, and I can simply read

11 it out, Mr. Tadic: "As always before, the interest of

12 my client, therefore, the interest of Dusko Tadic was

13 above and beyond everything, but up to the limit of

14 establishing facts in connection with his indictment

15 and establishing the truth in this respect."

16 He is saying, Mr. Vujin, that his interest in

17 you, his client, was above and beyond everything, and

18 he wished to establish for truth in this respect. Do

19 you accept or not that assertion made by Mr. Vujin,

20 Mr. Tadic?

21 A. No.

22 Q. You have said, in your statements and in your

23 evidence, that he has been a party to obstructing your

24 defence and the gathering of material that could be

25 useful in your defence. Is that right?

Page 143

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you know even to this day the extent to

3 which that exercise occurred, how much your case was

4 obstructed and at what stages? Do you know for sure?

5 A. I consider that it was exceptionally

6 important and that Mr. Vujin, through his acts and the

7 acts of his associates, contributed to the fact that

8 this Tribunal did not gain a proper image of my role in

9 the course of the war in 1992, and that because of that

10 I was not able to present a series of other evidence

11 which might have had an impact, might have influenced

12 this Tribunal.

13 Q. Mr. Tadic, that is all that I am going to ask

14 you. Thank you.

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, the diary

16 would be made available to the court?

17 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, certainly.

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would it be given an

19 exhibit number?

20 MR. ABELL: Certainly, Your Honour.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: And the parties are

22 entitled to inspect it. The court, in the meanwhile,

23 will make its own arrangements to peruse the diary and

24 will be providing copies of the relevant pages to the

25 parties. In addition, the parties are free to inspect

Page 144

1 the diary if they so wish.

2 Mr. Keegan?

3 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

4 Questioned by Mr. Keegan:

5 Q. Mr. Tadic, you indicated earlier in your

6 testimony that in response to the binding order, you

7 gave instructions that only Mr. Livingston was to take

8 witness statements. Do you recall that?

9 A. Yes, I recall that.

10 Q. If that was so, then why is it that you asked

11 Mr. Vujin to take the statements from Mr. Radic and

12 Mr. Kvocka in April 1998 at the detention unit?

13 A. I, first of all, insisted that this be done

14 by Mr. Livingston, and every time when there were

15 important witnesses, I always asked Livingston to take

16 part. I did not wish to exclude Vujin either, but I

17 had more confidence in Mr. Livingston doing it, except

18 when it was not possible. Then I suggested that

19 Mr. Vujin should do it.

20 Q. Are you indicating that Mr. Livingston

21 refused to take those statements for you?

22 A. No, I did not say he refused.

23 Q. Or is it that your position was simply being

24 consistent with your letter of November 16, 1997, where

25 you state that Mr. Livingston will question the

Page 145

1 witnesses, and I'm referring now to pages 536 of those

2 documents: "Mr. Livingston questions the witnesses to

3 whose statements he will refer in his part of the

4 appeal, and Mr. Vujin should question all witnesses to

5 whose statements we will refer in his part of the

6 appeal."

7 A. That was partially correct. However, it was

8 during a period in which Mr. Livingston and Mr. Vujin

9 could not agree on working together. Then I remember

10 very well they decided what part of the defence each

11 one would undertake. This agreement, however, fell

12 through later on.

13 Q. In your statement of 7 November, 1998, you

14 state that you conveyed the message to Mr. Radic that

15 you were following the instructions from Mr. Vujin in

16 giving that statement. What exactly were those

17 instructions?

18 A. I said that Radic, a few days before that,

19 had publicly talked about me in front of everybody in

20 the detention unit, and I discussed this with

21 Mr. Vujin. Then, as I said, I asked him and Mr. Kvocka

22 whether they would be willing to make written

23 statements. When he agreed, I conveyed this to

24 Mr. Vujin by telephone, and he suggested more or less

25 what would be important for him to answer, to answer

Page 146

1 what questions. I mean, the questions that would be

2 important to have an answer to.

3 Q. Mr. Radic states that you, in fact, dictated

4 the entire contents of that statement to him and he

5 simply wrote down what you told him to put in the

6 statement, although he says that other than the date

7 and the references to Mr. Vujin, of course, that the

8 information was true. Is that, in fact, what

9 happened? Did you dictate the entire statement to

10 him?

11 A. No. There was an intermediary. Another

12 detainee intervened, because we did not have direct

13 contacts. I would just enter his room from time to

14 time. When he had finished, he handed it in via

15 another detainee, Mr. Kunarac.

16 Q. Yes, in fact, Mr. Radic states that the

17 initial contact was initiated by you through

18 Mr. Kunarac and that the statement was, in fact, taken

19 in Mr. Kunarac's cell with you present, Mr. Radic

20 present, and Mr. Kunarac present. Is that correct?

21 A. From time to time I did enter the cell, that

22 is correct, but I did not dictate the text to him. I

23 just read out the questions that my Defence counsel

24 were interested in.

25 Q. If Mr. Radic indicates that you, in fact,

Page 147

1 dictated that statement to him, he would be lying about

2 that?

3 A. I think he was lying in that case, yes,

4 because they were not the answers that I would have

5 hoped to have got, and that is why I was dissatisfied

6 and insisted Mr. Vujin come once again and take an

7 expanded statement by Mr. Radic. I did expect a much

8 more extensive statement and a more serious one.

9 Q. Earlier you told the Judges that you had no

10 idea why Mr. Vujin wanted the date of March 10 on the

11 statement or why he wanted to indicate that he, in

12 fact, took the statement. Do you recall that?

13 A. Yes, I recall that.

14 Q. Now, your other counsel, Mr. Livingston, in

15 his submissions, asserts that Mr. Tadic thinks that

16 this latter suggestion, that is, in reference to the

17 date of 10 March, may have been made so as to avoid any

18 suspicion of Mr. Tadic having contact with Mr. Radic.

19 Would that, in fact, be an accurate statement of why

20 the date was fabricated?

21 A. That is the opinion of Mr. Livingston. I can

22 only suppose, but I really don't know. I personally

23 think that it was a period when Mr. Vujin was in

24 Prijedor, and probably whether he had proof that he was

25 there or not, I don't know, but I think that around

Page 148

1 that date he did go to Prijedor. Later on I thought

2 about that date, and I think that that is what it was

3 about and not anything else.

4 Q. You also stated, and you just referred to it

5 again here earlier, that in addition to Mr. Radic, you

6 also approached the accused, Kvocka, to give a similar

7 statement but that he, in fact, refused you. You

8 stated --

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. You stated that when he -- he refused to give

11 you a statement unless Mr. Vujin took it, that

12 thereafter you called Mr. Vujin and he, in fact, came

13 to The Hague and took a statement from both Mr. Kvocka

14 and Mr. Radic.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. If that was the case, then why was it that

17 Mr. Vujin refused to come to take the first statement?

18 A. Well, I don't say that he expressly refused.

19 He said that he had no time at that particular moment

20 and that everything was under control.

21 Q. So you endeavoured yourself to take that

22 statement from Mr. Radic?

23 A. That's what Mr. Vujin told me to do.

24 Q. You knew that the date placed on that first

25 statement, March 10th, was incorrect; isn't that true?

Page 149

1 A. I didn't think about that. Yes, it's true.

2 Q. So too did Mr. Radic know that that date was

3 a lie; isn't that true?

4 A. He probably did know. He was at liberty at

5 the time.

6 Q. You also knew that the information in that

7 statement, wherein it referred to the fact that it was

8 being given to Mr. Vujin, was also a lie; isn't that

9 correct?

10 A. I proceeded according to what Mr. Vujin had

11 told me, and he told me that that was not my problem.

12 Apart from that, I said that I was dissatisfied and

13 that I insisted that he come again and take an

14 extensive statement. I did not insist that that

15 statement be sent to the Tribunal because I personally

16 was dissatisfied with it.

17 Q. Mr. Radic also knew that that information,

18 that is relating to it being given to Mr. Vujin, was a

19 lie as well; isn't that true?

20 A. I can only suppose that it is. I don't want

21 to enter into the text, but as far as the date and

22 place are concerned, it is true.

23 Q. You then submitted that statement to your

24 counsel so that he could submit it to this Tribunal; is

25 that not true?

Page 150

1 A. I submitted it to Mr. Vujin, and I did not

2 insist that it be further submitted, but I insisted

3 that he take an extensive statement, an expanded

4 statement, and the statement given to me by Radic

5 didn't represent anything very important, in my

6 assessment, particularly with respect to the events

7 that took place in the hangar, and that is what I had

8 the most objection to in the Omarska camp.

9 Q. Now, it's your testimony that Mr. Radic, in

10 his explanation about the taking of that statement to

11 members of this Tribunal, is also a lie?

12 A. I don't know what he said, what he said as to

13 the statement, but the statement was given to me in the

14 U.N. detention unit. He gave it to me personally, and

15 I proceeded, according to the instructions of my lawyer

16 from Yugoslavia, without knowing the way in which he

17 would use that and how he would use that, whether as a

18 basis for further investigation or whatever but, in any

19 case, I was dissatisfied with the statement. I

20 expected a more expansive statement about the events,

21 and I thought that he could testify about the events in

22 Omarska camp, in particular, and the hangar of the

23 Omarska camp, and I said this to Vujin. But in the

24 second statement, once again, the hangar is just

25 mentioned.

Page 151

1 Q. Mr. Radic wasn't willing to give you that

2 information directly either, was he?

3 A. Radic said that quite openly. He talked

4 about the events in Omarska quite openly but always

5 said that he did not know who the second participant in

6 the events was.

7 Q. Speaking of additional statements submitted,

8 let's move to the statement by Zoran Zigic, and the

9 statement by (redacted), submitted in

10 November -- excuse me, October of this year.

11 He states that -- that would be the statement

12 dated 29 October, 1998, and the reference is on page

13 5307 of the record, Your Honour.

14 (redacted) states that, "Vujin also told me

15 that Zigic would give a statement that he took Amir

16 Karabasic, Jasko Hrnic, Alic, and Harambasic to

17 Keraterm and Vujin and all of us knew that that

18 statement was not true."

19 (redacted), of course, also told you this,

20 did he not?

21 A. No. The information that you are talking

22 about I heard for the first time personally from

23 Mr. Zigic in the detention unit, because he maintained

24 that he was my principle witness and I maintained that

25 he was not. That is why we quarrelled.

Page 152

1 Q. So the state of the evidence then is this,

2 Mr. Tadic: Your counsel, Mr. Vujin, has submitted two

3 statements, one that you know has information which was

4 a lie on it, and a second one that your brother asserts

5 has information that's a lie on it. Is that the case?

6 A. As far as the statement of Mr. Radic goes, I

7 cannot say what he wanted to say by giving his answers,

8 whether he gave them honestly or not. I can't say

9 anything as to the exactness of those statements. I

10 just say that I was not personally satisfied with the

11 answers.

12 As far as Mr. Zigic is concerned, I

13 personally consider that after talking to Zigic, when

14 he came to The Hague, that he was used by Mr. Vujin to

15 defend somebody else, because what he testified in his

16 statement did not influence my defence at all.

17 You know full well what I was accused of, and

18 this had nothing to do with the testimony that Zigic

19 made, but it was an occasion to defend somebody else,

20 to prove that there were no dead people in Omarska.

21 That was the defence priority of all the people in

22 Omarska.

23 Q. Mr. Tadic, these conversations you had with

24 Mr. Zigic, you had these conversations at the same time

25 that you were under an order prohibiting contact

Page 153

1 between you and Mr. Zigic in the detention unit; isn't

2 that true?

3 A. True. However, Zigic did not sleep on our

4 floor, and he is a man who entered my cell and, in that

5 way, addressed me, and I said that to Mr. McFaden in a

6 letter to Mr. McFaden in December 1998 and explained

7 the manner in which contact between us occurred and

8 asked him to prevent it from happening, after which he

9 was transferred to the third floor, because these

10 conversations with Mr. Zigic were far from pleasant.

11 Q. Mr. Tadic, you indicated in your testimony

12 that Mr. Vujin told you, in part, that he would never

13 jeopardise any individual who had his liberty in

14 Yugoslavia or in Republika Srpska?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. If that statement is true, how do you explain

17 the filing submitted by Mr. Vujin on your behalf in

18 January and February and May of 1998 in which he

19 extensively refers to others who allegedly committed

20 the crimes of which you were convicted, including

21 approximately six different individuals who apparently

22 look like you?

23 A. It was at my insistence. I insisted that the

24 truth be brought to the light of day, but you could

25 note that Mr. Vujin never names anybody who is at

Page 154

1 liberty or who is alive. It was usually individuals

2 either who were dead or who had been arrested, the

3 individuals that he mentions in his statements, or even

4 if he does quote some individuals, he does not say

5 where they reside but gives a different place of

6 residence. For example, he took some statements in

7 Belgrade, whereas he states that the statements were

8 taken in Prijedor to keep their place of residence

9 confidential. Mr. Jankovic gave the statement in

10 Prijedor but he said that the statement was made in

11 Budapest, and that was the practice that Mr. Vujin

12 resorted to. I asked him about this practice, and he

13 explained to me that this was through the express

14 demand of those particular individuals.

15 Q. You also referred to a woman who Mr. Vujin

16 said he would never allow to testify; do you recall

17 that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Again, do you have any explanation for why

20 then that woman is clearly identified in the

21 submissions filed by Mr. Vujin on your behalf in which

22 he refers to her evidence relating to the commission of

23 the crimes of which you were convicted by others?

24 A. It was a generally known part of the

25 testimony which the Court, the regular Court, that is

Page 155

1 to say, the first defence did not consider to be honest

2 and sincere. Mr. Wladimiroff contacted the woman and

3 he had this information, and Mr. Livingston was the

4 only one who learned something new from the woman. But

5 Vujin was against having that particular testimony,

6 which represented a new element, to be presented before

7 this Tribunal, and her testimony linked to Omarska was

8 a generally known fact, and he agreed to it for that

9 reason because it did not bring any fresh elements to

10 light, but what Mr. Livingston detected was a fresh

11 element.

12 Q. And did Mr. Livingston bring that information

13 forward?

14 A. You know that that woman asked for protective

15 measures for her to be able to talk about key facts

16 before this Tribunal, and she asked for protective

17 measures because after contact with Mr. Livingston --

18 you must know one thing, that Mr. Livingston arrived at

19 key information through his meeting with that woman and

20 Miroslav Tadic. He had the meeting with the woman

21 secretly. He was cautioned and invited by the police

22 for investigation.

23 You know that she was threatened and her

24 first husband was killed at Omarska. As I say, her

25 husband was in prison in Belgrade, and Vujin helped set

Page 156

1 him free, and in that way, he was able to control that

2 woman. She had agreed to go to testify to the key

3 events in Kozarac only if she was assigned protective

4 measures to come to The Hague and not to return to

5 Omarska anymore, because she thought that she would be

6 subjected to maltreatment if she returned.

7 Q. The relevance of whether she was granted

8 protective measures, since her evidence was not

9 accepted, the point is the information that she had was

10 brought forward to this Appeals Chamber by one of your

11 counsel; is that not, in fact, correct?

12 A. Well, this is again a procedure upon which

13 Mr. Vujin insisted. I was in such a position, and I've

14 already said that from April 1998, Mr. Livingston and

15 Mr. Vujin did not have any contacts. All of their

16 contacts went exclusively through me, so I was in the

17 position of accommodating either one or the other.

18 Vujin always insisted that all the exchange of papers

19 and everything always goes through him, and he was

20 right because he was the counsel in chief.

21 Mr. Livingston insisted he would ask me to make

22 requests to Mr. Vujin. So in a way, this is how it

23 worked.

24 Q. Just a few minutes ago, you indicated that,

25 in fact, Mr. Vujin did submit the submissions in

Page 157

1 accordance with your directions; is that not true?

2 A. I don't know which submissions you mean.

3 Q. When I asked you the question regarding the

4 submissions filed by Mr. Vujin on your behalf in

5 January, February, and May of 1998 and asked you to

6 reconcile the information contained therein in

7 comparison with the allegations you've made, you

8 indicated that Mr. Vujin had filed those submissions,

9 had included that information regarding these supposed

10 others who committed offences at your direction.

11 A. I was not involved directly in those things.

12 The only thing that I was interested in in principle

13 was what Mr. Livingston insisted on, and I tried to

14 help him in order to obtain new facts. At no point in

15 time did I see, in anything that Vujin presented and

16 what he tried to present to me, that this represented

17 any new fact. I always consulted with Mr. Livingston

18 about each one of those things, and I simply was not in

19 the position to assess what was useful and what was

20 not. I couldn't. I didn't particularly insist on what

21 should be submitted. I just insisted on the things

22 that should not be submitted. This was regarding the

23 motion responding to the request of the Prosecution.

24 Q. Earlier, you testified to questions from

25 Mr. Abell that your wife, in fact, knew that no one

Page 158

1 could influence you and that you would do how and what

2 you saw fit and how things would proceed in your

3 defence; do you recall that?

4 A. I don't think that she knew much about the

5 manner of my defence. This referred to that part.

6 Q. I'm not asking you whether she knew about

7 your defence. I'm asking if she knew about you and

8 your character.

9 A. She knows my character, that I am a man who

10 tried to make decisions independently without anybody's

11 influence. But in the position that I was in for more

12 than five years, very frequently, I was not in the

13 position to be able to evaluate what was good or what

14 was bad for my defence. So I generally consulted with

15 my lawyers or other lawyers, and these were mostly

16 people from abroad about whom I believed that they were

17 independent, who could give me useful advice.

18 Q. I would like to turn now just briefly to

19 these letters which you sent to your counsel which, on

20 examination by Mr. Abell, you indicated you wrote

21 letters to Mr. Vujin that were only complimentary

22 because that was the only way you felt that his work

23 would improve; do you recall that?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Let's look at some of these complimentary

Page 159

1 letters. I begin with the first letter, which is dated

2 March 4, 1997. That would be pages 556 and 557.

3 Looking at the second paragraph, the third full

4 sentence in the translation -- well, first let's talk

5 about the first sentence. The translation indicates

6 you said: "First of all, I have to tell you that a few

7 weeks ago I got in touch with the high persons in

8 Republika Srpska. I did it in a direct or indirect way

9 and at the same time had consultations with

10 Mr. Wladimiroff."

11 The translation goes on to say:

12 "Mr. Wladimiroff knows me very well, and he does not

13 try to make any influence on my future intentions

14 regarding my defence. I mention this to make you

15 understand that I am, after three years, capable and

16 ready to take my decisions by myself and based only on

17 my experience and well valuation." I presume that's

18 "evaluation."

19 You go on to say: "I do not have any

20 questions in that regard and am ready for drastic

21 changes. It is a question of a strategy, reasons, and

22 in that regard, there is no place for my sentimentality

23 where everything is directed towards my struggle for my

24 bare life."

25 By that language, were you intending to pay

Page 160

1 him a compliment or were you giving Mr. Vujin

2 directions?

3 A. I do not recall how I felt at that time. In

4 any case, I don't think that there's any compliment

5 here. I think it was just a matter of exchanging

6 information. I don't think that I was always paying

7 him compliments. I had more important things to do.

8 Q. Let's just go to the second page of that same

9 letter. It's a continuation of a paragraph from the

10 prior page, and it begins at the end of the seventh

11 line: "I am interested only in new evidence, papers,

12 and witnesses. Because of all this, I want you to be

13 active in the further work on the preparation for the

14 appeal before the higher Chamber and particularly in

15 the request concerning new evidence."

16 Again, were you intending to give him

17 directions on how to proceed in your defence?

18 A. I was purely letting him know. I was

19 expressing my opinion, what was important, in my

20 opinion, to continue the proceedings in my defence,

21 particularly in light of the consultations that I often

22 had with other attorneys from abroad about what would

23 be good and what would not be good. Of course, I was

24 not able to then, and I'm still not able today, to

25 evaluate facts, what this Court believes are facts. I

Page 161

1 cannot claim to be able to know what a true fact is.


3 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: -- it's coming up to

5 5.30. Would you like to indicate how much longer you

6 would be?

7 MR. KEEGAN: Given the prior experience this

8 afternoon, Your Honour, I would be a little reluctant

9 to peg a specific time, since I can't always account

10 for how long the potential answers may be, but I would

11 suggest that I should be able to conclude within an

12 hour tomorrow morning.

13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Well, you're not

14 erring on the side of generosity, are you? May I

15 suggest, without wishing to curtail the proceedings in

16 any way, that we might try to make the most efficient

17 use of the resources of the Chamber and of the

18 available time by interrogating ourselves on the

19 question of how really relevant some of the material is

20 to the five specific allegations which have been made?

21 As you go through your field of inquiry,

22 perhaps you might like to ask yourself, "How does this

23 bear upon one of these five allegations?" I do

24 understand that relevance is not always to be judged by

25 reference to how directly it impacts on the issue, but

Page 162

1 on the other hand, there can be a question of taking

2 the view that some material, is only peripherally or

3 subliminally of relevance to those issues.

4 Perhaps you could consider that overnight as

5 we take the adjournment now until 10.00 in the

6 morning.

7 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

8 5.31 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

9 the 27th day of April, 1999 at

10 10 a.m.