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
23 MR. VUJIN: Good morning, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just a moment. I think
25 I'm now ready. Yes, please.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
21 THE REGISTRAR:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: In that last
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
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
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
1 Ex Parte hearing
2 [Pages 19 to 24 of Ex Parte hearing omitted
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
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.
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
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Did you speak,
22 Mr. Abell, of a revision of the 17th of December,
24 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, yes, revision 14.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Featherstone, do you
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.
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
9 MR. ABELL: That was the publication date.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
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
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)
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
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,
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.
24 Would the Prosecution offer any assistance on
25 this point?
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
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
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
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
1 detriment and, therefore, they could be considered.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Ms. Hollis.
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
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
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
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
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
25 MR. ABELL: Yes. In asking Mr. Tadic
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
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.
24 WITNESS: DUSKO TADIC
25 Questioned by the Court:
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
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 --
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
25 A. At the time, I knew that Mr. Vujin had close
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
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
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
1 assisted if you could prove that someone else did the
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. On whose instructions did you do that, if
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 him the true story linked to the events. I heard many
2 versions of the events but I always asked that they be
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
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,
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
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
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.
1 --- On resuming at 2.34 p.m.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell?
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
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
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
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
23 Q. She is not, is she not,(redacted)
25 A. Yes.
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?
1 MR. ABELL: It is. It is further on in the
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
8 MR. ABELL: It is a little further on in the
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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."
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.
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
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
25 A. If that was during the visit of the Yugoslav
1 delegation to the Hague, then my answer is yes, that is
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
11 Q. In a nutshell, what were you saying to those
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
1 far as you were concerned, were those individuals being
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.
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
1 Defence team, but the first time we saw each other, the
2 first time we met was, I think, on September 4th in
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
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?
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)
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,
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
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
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
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.
1 Would you please help me with this: Did you have a
2 conversation with Mr. Prodanovic during the course of
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
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)
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, what may
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?
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very good.
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
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
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?
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
19 MR. ABELL: Certainly, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I take the
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
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.
15 MR. ABELL:
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
25 A. Yes.
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
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.
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
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
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?
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.
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. I'm merely trying
2 to abbreviate the proceedings.
3 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin?
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
1 the memory of the witness as to the events to which he
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.
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Okay.
9 MR. ABELL: That is my submission of the
10 status of this document. It's not a real piece of
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.
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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 --
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.
16 MR. ABELL:
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
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
24 Q. Do you have it now, Mr. Tadic?
25 A. Yes.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. We have looked at
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
8 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honour, that's it.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The 165 here looks like
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
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just a few minutes after
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
1 dictated that statement to him, he would be lying about
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
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
12 Q. And did Mr. Livingston bring that information
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
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
24 Q. Just a few minutes ago, you indicated that,
25 in fact, Mr. Vujin did submit the submissions in
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
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
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
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
1 him a compliment or were you giving Mr. Vujin
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
1 cannot claim to be able to know what a true fact is.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan --
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
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
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.