1 Wednesday, 8th September, 1999
2 [Open session]
3 [The appellant enters court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: This sitting is
7 Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case
9 IT-94-1-A-R77, the Prosecutor versus Dusko Tadic in a
10 matter concerning allegations against prior counsel.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The next witness is not
12 a protected witness, I believe.
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed,
14 the next witness is not a protected witness. It is
15 Michail Wladimiroff.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you have him
17 called into court, Mr. Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] It has been
19 done already, Your Honour. He's been called.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Wladimiroff, I
22 believe you are no stranger to this setting.
23 THE WITNESS: I hope not, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Will you take the
25 solemn declaration, please.
1 THE WITNESS: I will. I solemnly declare
2 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and
3 nothing but the truth.
4 WITNESS: JONKHEER MICHAIL WLADIMIROFF
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Please be seated.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, we have gone over
8 the part about your name. Your name is Michail
10 THE WITNESS: That's right, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you state the date
12 and place of your birth?
13 THE WITNESS: I will. I'm born on the 10th
14 of January, 1945, in The Hague, The Netherlands.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Where do you live now?
16 THE WITNESS: I live in The Hague.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Your profession is that
18 of an attorney?
19 THE WITNESS: That's right, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Now, you made a
21 statement, a written statement, dated 6 April 1999?
22 THE WITNESS: As far as I remember, yes, Your
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Mr. Registrar, may
25 the witness be shown the statement.
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The statement
2 will be marked Exhibit 35.
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is that your statement,
4 Mr. Wladimiroff?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: When you made it, the
7 contents were true and correct?
8 THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection,
9 Your Honour.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You still say so today?
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Then unless there
13 are any objections, this statement is admitted, and it
14 has been marked, as the Registrar suggested, 35.
15 Mr. Wladimiroff, will you kindly take some
16 questions from Mr. Abell, who is counsel for an
17 interested party, Mr Tadic.
18 Questioned by Mr. Abell:
19 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, I'm not going to take you in
20 detail right through the statement that you have made
21 and which is now Exhibit 35, because you have adopted
22 it as being the truth in relation to your dealings with
23 this case and Mr. Vujin. Firstly, that is right, isn't
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. I'd like to just ask, if you can, to assist
2 with one or two aspects of your statement, please.
3 If we go to paragraph 4 of your statement,
4 you mention -- five lines down, you say this: "During
5 my assignment on the case, the Registrar never assigned
6 Mr. Vujin as co-counsel to Mr Tadic."
7 A. Yes. I've never been aware of any
9 Q. As far as you were aware during your time
10 when you were assigned by the ICTY to represent
11 Mr Tadic, was Mr. Vujin, so far as you were aware, ever
12 receiving any payment for his assistance from the
14 A. Not as far as I was aware.
15 Q. Were you aware of any means by which
16 Mr. Vujin was receiving any payment in relation to his
17 work; any fees, that is, in relation to his work on the
19 A. Not as far as I was aware. As I mentioned in
20 this statement, I paid for travel expenses on
21 occasions, but I've never been aware of any payments in
22 terms of fees paid to Mr. Vujin by the ICTY.
23 Q. Thank you. From your statement, he worked in
24 the case whilst you were in it for many months, did he
1 A. Yes. Essentially one year; April '95 up to
2 April '96, if I'm right in dates.
3 Q. Yes. You say, in paragraph 6, that witness
4 statements that Mr. Vujin presented to you were of very
5 poor quality, "in that none of them provided any
6 information that I was looking for." Again on the same
7 topic, in paragraph 7 on page 3, third line down, you
8 said that you explained to Mr. Vujin again "what I was
9 looking for by way of evidence; that is, full and
10 detailed statements of people who had direct knowledge
11 of the movements of Mr Tadic at the material time, and
12 no statements of people who could only testify about
13 his," that is, Mr Tadic's "character. Despite this, I
14 later received more statements which were of no use to
15 the Defence." That's true, is it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you think of any really useful statement
18 that came from Mr. Vujin or from the two investigators
19 whom he suggested you employed, Mr. Kostic and
20 Mr. Drazic; can you think of any really useful
21 statement that was provided either by Mr. Vujin or by
22 his two investigators during your time in the case,
23 Mr. Wladimiroff?
24 A. Talking about Mr. Kostic and Drazic, I do
25 remember statements that were useful -- there were only
1 a few, but there were. I can't remember any name, but
2 I do remember that some of them were useful indeed.
3 And as far as Mr. Vujin is concerned, I can't remember
4 any specific statement, because as far as I remember,
5 he did not sign any statements, or I'm not aware who
6 was the author of -- who made up the note about the
7 interview. So I can't answer that last question.
8 Q. Very well. Did you consider that Mr. Vujin,
9 given where he lived and given that there were two
10 investigators, Mr. Kostic and Mr. Drazic, did you
11 consider that Mr. Vujin ought to have been in a more
12 advantageous position than you to get at the evidence,
13 to get at the facts and to get the witnesses?
14 A. In my assumption, in 1995, yes. In 1996, I
15 got this feeling of having ties with people which were
16 not in the benefit of the Tadic case in terms of being
17 familiar with them. And then it became extremely
18 difficult for me to understand what he could or what he
19 could not.
20 Q. When you say "having ties with people," who
21 did you have the feeling was having ties with people,
22 to use your phrase, which were not in the benefit of
23 the Tadic case?
24 A. Well, he knew people -- again, it's very
25 difficult for me now to remember names, but he knew
1 people who were in power in those days in the Republika
2 Srpska as well as in Yugoslavia. And again, I feel
3 sorry not being able to provide you with any name, but
4 it's a general feeling of feeling uncomfortable about
5 his knowledge, his ties, as I described it, with people
6 who are in power. So it became, as I said, extremely
7 difficult, because I was not there, but I learned about
8 these ties. I remember, for example, the youngest
9 brother of Mr. Tadic telling me about this. This is
10 knowledge I pass to you I have not been able to check
12 Q. Just so that we know who you're talking
13 about, are you talking about somebody by the name of
14 Ljubomir Tadic?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. Yes, I see.
17 A. I couldn't remember his name.
18 Q. Don't worry. And try to remember what he
19 said to you about this, as best you can, the gist of
21 A. At the beginning he was -- and then I'm
22 referring to 1995 --
23 Q. Yes?
24 A. -- he was boasting about the ties of
25 Mr. Vujin with the authorities. Later on, in 1996, up
1 to March, because then I fell ill -- and later on I saw
2 him again, but then we didn't discuss that matter
3 because Vujin was already exited -- at the beginning of
4 1996, he was complaining about it, and that's what I
5 remember. I can't pass to you any contents of that
6 complaint, but it supported my feeling of feeling
7 uncomfortable about these ties. And I tried to express
8 that in the statement by saying that we did not want to
9 confront Mr. Vujin; we simply tried to sideline him,
10 not to have any clash. Because we were not able to
11 understand what these ties were, so we didn't want to
12 run any risk in that respect.
13 Q. Does it come to this: You were concerned
14 that if there was a confrontation with Mr. Vujin, that
15 that could do damage to the Defence case for Mr. Tadic?
16 A. That's what we thought. It never happened.
17 Q. It never came to a confrontation, as such?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. Now, can I please go to paragraph 8 of your
20 statement, where you refer to September of 1995, when
21 you returned to Bosnia. You say that on one occasion
22 whilst you were there, you travelled by bus to Banja
23 Luka with your interpreter to test whether you could
24 cross the border without the assistance of Mr. Vujin,
25 and he arrived the next day with his own car.
1 Firstly, were you able to cross the border
2 without the assistance of Mr. Vujin?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. "He arrived the next day with his own car.
5 We did some interviews together. On one occasion which
6 I remember very clearly, he interrupted a witness I was
7 interviewing and told the witness what to say. My
8 interpreter told the witness simply to answer my
9 questions and to ignore Mr. Vujin. He did not like
10 this, and he verbally abused her. This was the first
11 very clear example of Mr. Vujin trying to interfere
12 with the evidence a witness could give by telling the
13 interviewee how to answer a question."
14 Firstly, that's a true recollection of the
15 events, is it?
16 A. It is. It is on videotape.
17 Q. Right. And I'm going to ask if we can see,
18 in just a moment, a piece of video, and see if it is
19 the incident you're speaking of or not. Do you follow
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Was there a video or was there a programme on
23 Dutch television in relation to the Tadic case which
24 featured you to some extent, Mr. Wladimiroff?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. Is that the programme that you are speaking
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And let me see if we have identified or not
5 identified the correct passage in the video.
6 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, there should be
7 with the Court a transcript of certain sections of this
8 video recording, which I believe the clerk has, which I
9 have down as Exhibit 8A, [Realtime transcript read in
10 error 8PA] because at one point it was shown briefly on
11 an earlier occasion when we were sitting in the
12 upstairs court, Court 3. I don't know whether the
13 Court has copies or whether they could be handed over.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: What exhibit is that?
15 MR. ABELL: Well, I have on the top of mine
16 Exhibit 8A.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: 8A?
18 MR. ABELL: 8A.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Because the transcript
20 says 8PA. 8A?
21 MR. ABELL: 8A.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We'll have to see if the
23 Registrar has-- yes.
24 Would you require the video to be played?
25 MR. ABELL: Yes. It should be set up in the
1 correct position, if, from what I did this morning --
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Have the arrangements
3 been made, Mr. Registrar?
4 MR. ABELL: It should be in the video booth,
5 Your Honour. It may be of assistance if Your Honours
6 have the translation first of all, and we'll find out
7 from Mr. Vujin if this is the incident he recollects or
9 THE REGISTRAR: Before we move on to the
10 actual recording, I'd like to tell you that I do not
11 have Exhibit 8A. What I suggest to you is that we give
12 a number for the videotape; it will be Exhibit 36, and
13 the transcript of that cassette will be Exhibit 37.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Any objections?
15 MR. ABELL: No objections.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No objections; it is so
18 MR. ABELL:
19 Q. Just before it's played, Mr. Wladimiroff, can
20 you assist us as to approximately when this programme,
21 of which we are going to see a recording of excerpts,
22 was made?
23 A. I guess, because I certainly can't give you
24 exact dates, in the beginning of '97, as far as I
1 MR. ABELL: Thank you. Well, now I'm going
2 to ask that the excerpt from the video at 1531 be
3 played, please. If you watch it with us,
4 Mr. Wladimiroff, once it's over, tell us if this is the
5 passage you are speaking of.
6 May I take a seat, Your Honours, while this
7 is played?
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
9 [Videotape played]
10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] Doesn't matter.
11 This is the lawyer from Holland. He wants to
12 ask you a few questions, that you brought coffee here
13 and so on. Did you?
14 Yes. I would take it out and get coffee for
15 everyone, and for Dusko Tadic, too.
16 I couldn't care less what he's going to say.
17 MR. ABELL:
18 Q. Firstly, is that the passage -- is that the
19 incident that you are recollecting in the tape,
20 Mr. Wladimiroff?
21 A. That's right.
22 MR. ABELL: I'm just wondering. No
23 disrespect of Madam Interpreter who was interpreting,
24 but it may be easier -- we have a transcript. May I
25 suggest that we play it again, but without Madam
1 Interpreter giving an interpretation, and then we can
2 hear what's been said.
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I have a difficulty, and
4 I don't know if it is shared by colleagues on the
5 Bench. The interpretation seemed to be a truncated
6 form of the version which appears in print. I'm not
7 sure whether my impression is correct or not.
8 MR. ABELL: Does Your Honour mean the verbal
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter
12 apologises. We didn't have the transcript, so we
13 didn't know what we were supposed to do, whether to
14 translate from what we heard or not. I'm sorry.
15 MR. ABELL: We quite understand that. The
16 suggestion I'm going to make is I simply ask
17 Mr. Wladimiroff to identify the relevant people, and
18 then perhaps if Your Honours agree, we'll play that
19 excerpt again without Madam Interpreter interpreting
20 verbally, and we can follow, if we wish, on the
21 transcript, which I understand translates both Dutch
22 and B/C/S as and when necessary. However, I believe
23 this is all in B/C/S.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I better hear the
25 parties on that, because I think what the Court would
1 be interested in is to learn, through the interpreters,
2 what exactly was being said in the video clip. We have
3 no assurance that the typed document presented to us in
4 fact reflects what is being said in the video.
5 MR. ABELL: May I make two points on that? I
6 entirely understand. I understand that the Court, in
7 fact, translated these excerpts on an earlier
8 occasion. That is my understanding.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see.
10 MR. ABELL: Secondly, it may be that Your
11 Honours will be reassured as to the accuracy of this
12 translation if a copy of it is given to Madam
13 Interpreter, and she can perhaps follow it through in
14 the booth while it's being played again, if that is a
15 satisfactory course.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: On this basis, that what
17 we are to be guided by is the interpretation we receive
18 from the booth. The booth can undoubtedly look also at
19 this typed script to check, against the typed script,
20 the accuracy of what they are interpreting. But I
21 think we would want to know the interpretation placed
22 by the booth on what is now being said by the parties
23 in the video clip which we will now be seeing or have
24 now seen.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could the booths please be
1 given copies of that transcript, please.
2 MR. ABELL:
3 Q. Just whilst that documentation is being
4 handed to the interpreter, could I, Mr. Wladimiroff --
5 if you need to see it to remind yourself, do so, but
6 could we just, Your Honour, identify the personnel we
7 see on the video?
8 There is yourself in, if I may put it, a
9 light-coloured jacket in the video; is that correct?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Mr. Vujin we can recognise, obviously. There
12 is a fair-haired lady with short, fair hair. Was that
13 an interpreter who was with you?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. There is a dark-haired lady who appears to be
16 the person which you are trying to interview?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Just remind us where it was again.
19 A. Outside of Prijedor, as far as I remember
20 well, at a checkpoint near the road -- it was a
21 checkpoint at the road, and we interviewed a farmer's
22 wife near that checkpoint at her farm.
23 Q. What information were you hoping to elicit or
24 discover from interviewing her?
25 A. First, whether she had seen Mr. Tadic at the
1 material time and whether she could substantiate that
2 by more detail; dates, type of days in the week, whom
3 he was with, whether she was familiar with those others
4 who were also there, where he slept, because I was told
5 there was a house near that checkpoint where those who
6 were on guard could sleep; whether she would serve them
7 coffee or provide them with food, such kind of
9 MR. ABELL: Perhaps now would be an
10 appropriate moment to replay it.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
12 MR. ABELL: Perhaps simply listening to what
13 the video itself says.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Do the interpreters
15 interpret verbally or just follow the transcript?
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Judges would like
17 you to interpret for them what you will be hearing on
18 the video. You may use the transcript to check the
19 accuracy of your interpretation, if you so wish. But
20 what we want to know is the interpretation which you
21 now place on what is being said in the video. Can you
22 do that?
23 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour,
25 [Videotape played]
1 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] It doesn't
3 This is the lawyer from Holland. He was
4 wondering whether he could ask you a couple of
6 He's my husband. He can. He can also.
7 We were told that the gentleman that you --
8 well, that you took them coffee and so on.
9 Yes. I gave them as much coffee as I had. I
10 would take it out to them here.
11 But you took the kit to Dusko Tadic as well?
12 Yes, yes. He was out there too. Uh-huh,
13 yes. I know well what he doesn't say. I couldn't care
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, is there some
17 more to be played?
18 MR. ABELL: Yes. My only concern is that
19 there is, on the transcript, a little more translated
20 than we heard.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: This indeed tallies with
22 my initial observation, and that is why I suggested
23 that we should see the tape again.
24 MR. ABELL: Could we just see the next part,
25 just to see if there's more after this in relation to
2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like
3 to say that whoever was listening to the tape must have
4 listened to it more carefully and in greater detail and
5 several times over to have got everything down in the
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you. We
8 understand that.
9 Yes, Mr. Domazet.
10 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I
11 think that there is less in what the interpreters told
12 us here, that there is less that is being said,
13 especially when Vujin said something, because we
14 believe that the written translation -- that the
15 transcript we received is absolutely accurate, that it
16 contains everything that is contained in Exhibit 35.
17 Especially, I do not see at all the words, "I
18 want to say what I want," because Mr. Vujin said that
19 towards the end, before he said, "I don't care about
20 what he has to say," later. He believed that Mr. Vujin
21 said the words that can be found in the translation, in
22 the translated transcript in English, the one we have
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, perhaps we
25 could listen to you further in the course of your
1 summation at the end.
2 MR. ABELL: If I understand Mr. Domazet
3 correctly, he is admitting, on behalf of his client,
4 Mr. Vujin, that the written transcript which the Court
5 prepared is an accurate one. That is the admission
6 which is being made.
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, is that
8 your position?
9 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is that the position of
11 all parties?
12 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we did receive this
13 transcript. It's our understanding that it was
14 completed by the translation section at the Tribunal.
15 We certainly have no doubt that they listened very
16 carefully to the tape, as often as they needed to, and
17 gave an accurate translation.
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, the Court receives
19 the written translation, by consent of parties, as an
20 accurate rendition of what was, in fact, said in the
22 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, I'm grateful. May I
23 make the suggestion I made a little earlier, which is
24 this: that the interpreter now doesn't interpret
25 verbally, that now we know that this is an accurate
1 translation by consent of all the parties, that we have
2 a translation in front of us and merely listen to the
3 voices on the video, simply so we get a flavour of the
4 sounds that are being made? That would be my
5 application: we play it again.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You consider that is
7 necessary, that we should run the tape a third time?
8 MR. ABELL: Simply so -- because all we've
9 heard so far is the interpreter's translation, and one
10 can't really hear the voices very well on the actual
11 tape. That's all it is.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very well.
13 MR. ABELL: I'm grateful. Could that please
14 be done, then.
15 [Audiotape played]
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We're not getting the
17 image on the computer before us.
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Do you want
19 both images -- the image and the sound, or do you want
20 the image and no interpretation, or --
21 MR. ABELL: Image and sound from the video,
22 no interpretation.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: That is what I would
24 have thought.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MR. ABELL:
2 Q. We can see there, can't we, that the
3 interpreter in the field, the lady with the short, fair
4 hair, appears to be turning to Mr. Vujin, and as we can
5 see from the transcript, effectively saying, "Hang on,
6 I won't ask questions until -- unless he tells me to,"
7 referring to you, Mr. Wladimiroff; is that right?
8 A. That's right. I note, however, that I would
9 have only been aware of the translation in Dutch as was
10 accessible to me by the Dutch subtitles, so the last
11 page of the three pages you gave to me were familiar to
12 me. I have never heard it in so detail as I've done
14 Q. Yes. Again, it may be too obvious to say,
15 but we should have it in evidence. It looks as if on
16 that occasion there was a cameraman literally at your
17 and Mr. Vujin's elbow whilst this conversation was
18 going on?
19 A. Yes. On that occasion, that was the case,
20 and the procedure was first to select who would have
21 any direct knowledge and then later on to do the
23 Q. Yes. Was that video there for the purposes
24 of making a documentary or for the purposes of giving
25 you a video recording of any useful leads you might
1 come across during your investigation?
2 A. There was a third purpose too. The first two
3 were right. The third purpose was to provide a form of
5 Q. I see. Security because you're making
6 investigations in the field?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. I see. Now, you say in your paragraph that
9 you regarded what Mr. Vujin did on that occasion as the
10 first very clear example -- I'm looking at the last
11 three lines, the last sentence of paragraph 8 of your
12 statement. This was --
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Excuse me, Mr. Abell.
14 Mr. Wladimiroff, would you like to go back to
15 your reference to one of the purposes of the camera
16 arrangement was to give you a form of security? What
17 did you mean by that?
18 A. As long as you are in the field with a camera
19 team, your risk of being arrested are less. That's
20 what I assumed in those days.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see. Thank you.
22 Yes, go ahead.
23 A. May I also add to the Court, just to be
24 precise on this matter, the condition of the cameraman
25 being there was that it could only be broadcasted if I
1 agreed to what would be broadcast or not after the
2 verdict and the sentence.
3 MR. ABELL:
4 Q. Very well. You say that this was the first
5 very clear example of Mr. Vujin trying to interfere
6 with the evidence a witness could give by telling the
7 interviewee how to answer a question. Firstly, is that
8 how you regarded that incident that we've just seen on
9 the video?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Secondly, on that particular occasion, and
12 indeed on all occasions when you were in the field with
13 Mr. Vujin, who was the person who was in charge?
14 A. I was in charge.
15 Q. You were lead counsel, weren't you?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Although one tries to be as collegial as one
19 can be, but yes, I was in charge.
20 Q. Yes. And thirdly, were there other examples,
21 as your investigation on behalf of Dusko Tadic, your
22 then-client, went on, were there other examples that
23 you witnessed of Mr. Vujin seeking to interfere with
24 evidence by telling the interviewee how to answer a
25 question, or by some other means?
1 A. Well, again, it's very difficult to give
2 further detailed examples. It's more or less a pattern
3 of -- a tendency with him to react to what witnesses
4 say, either to correct them or to advise them. So as a
5 patron, I do remember that I taught him -- "Please, let
6 me ask the questions; don't interfere. I would rather
7 prefer, myself, having the evidence coming in freshly
8 from the witness and not having you tell the witness
9 what to tell."
10 It's not one or more specific occasions I can
11 pass to by giving you names or dates. It's more or
12 less a pattern. It happened on several occasions.
13 Q. And again, presumably, if and when Mr. Vujin
14 interrupted, it would be in his own language?
15 A. Yes. So I may have missed more occasions
16 than I'm aware of, but sometimes my -- I -- well, I
17 heard him talking, of course, and then I asked my
18 interpreter what he was saying, and I would frankly
19 say, without making any problem, "I would rather prefer
20 to do it myself."
21 Q. Yes. Were you concerned about what the
22 interpreter was telling you was being asked by
23 Mr. Vujin on these other occasions?
24 A. Well, it grew. At the beginning, I regarded
25 it as his willingness to (indiscernible) and well
1 done. Later on, I understood that it was a habit. And
2 then, much more later, one understands that he was more
3 or less directing witnesses, and then I got this
4 feeling of -- this is not right; he is manipulating
6 Q. Yes. And you've obviously been a lawyer of
7 many years' standing, which this Court don't need to be
8 told; they know. You use a stronger word in paragraph
9 9 of your statement: "There were further instances of
10 this sort of behaviour which, it became apparent, could
11 only be described as manipulations of the witness."
12 No doubt you considered carefully before you
13 put that sentence in your declaration, Mr. Wladimiroff;
14 is that what you thought --
15 A. At the end.
16 Q. By the end?
17 A. Yes, as I said, at the end, that's -- if you
18 look back, that's how I see it.
19 Q. It may be obvious, but did that situation
20 cause you grave concern?
21 A. It worried me so much that later on, when the
22 others made their own observations -- and I'm referring
23 to Mr. Orie, co-counsel, and Mr. Kay, co-counsel --
24 that they really urged me -- I was more -- I was more
25 willing to let it go and try to correct things myself,
1 but they were very strong in their views, we should get
2 rid of him.
3 Q. And putting it bluntly, because they
4 considered his conduct to be, frankly, improper?
5 A. Not professional.
6 Q. Yes. Now, can you help me, please, with
7 this: Mr. Stephen Kay is a barrister from England?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Since his involvement in the Tadic case, it's
10 within your knowledge that he has been appointed as
11 Queen's Counsel in England?
12 A. Later on.
13 Q. Later on, since his involvement?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And Mr. Orie, just so that we have it in
16 evidence, he --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down
18 for the interpreting? Thank you.
19 MR. ABELL:
20 Q. Mr. Orie, he's a lawyer from where?
21 A. He was partner in my firm, and now he is a
22 judge in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.
23 Q. He's now a judge, but what sort of seniority,
24 if I can put it in that way? In England we call it
25 "when was he called"; in other words, when was he
1 admitted as a lawyer?
2 A. Right. First he was a senior researcher at
3 the University of Leiden, and in 1980 he became a
4 partner in our law firm.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, can you assist me about
6 this, please. I think you told us earlier -- you used
7 the phrase "sideline." You decided to try to
8 "sideline" Mr. Vujin with the investigations, and I
9 think you said earlier that you were anxious to avoid a
10 confrontation. Do you mean that if he had been told
11 point blank that he was off the case, if I can put it
12 that way, because his behaviour was unacceptable to the
13 other lawyers, were you concerned what the
14 repercussions might be to the Tadic defence?
15 A. We could only guess, but since we had all
16 that problems with authorities who were not willing to
17 cooperate with us, we felt that if we would make him a
18 declared enemy, and since he had these specified ties
19 with the authorities, we were convinced that it would
20 not be in the benefit of Mr. Tadic, so we have chosen
21 for the policy of -- just let it fade away.
22 Q. Now, I'd like to deal, please, with what you
23 say in paragraph 14. Dealing now with Mr. Drljaca, the
24 then-chief of police at Prijedor police station, did
25 you have some dealings with Mr. Drljaca?
1 A. Yes. I have met with Mr. Drljaca.
2 Q. What -- and indeed you deal with it to some
3 extent in paragraph 10, but I'm trying to, as it were,
4 be as brief as I can in asking you to expand on your
5 statement -- what was your assessment of the attitude
6 of that gentleman, Mr. Drljaca, to the investigation of
7 people charged with committing war crimes?
8 A. It would be an understatement to say that he
9 was not amused. In fact, he was the -- as far as I
10 remember, the man in absolute power in that area in
11 those days. He considered my appearance in the area as
12 interfering with domestic affairs I had nothing to do
13 with. He had very strong views on the Tribunal, in
14 terms of they should not be here; they should not
15 interfere; they should not send people. In sum, he did
16 everything he could to block what I was doing.
17 Q. And again, put in simple terms, were you
18 seeking to establish evidence to support Mr. Tadic's
19 contention that he was an innocent man?
20 A. I was looking for evidence that could
21 substantiate his claim that he was elsewhere.
22 Q. Yes. And even if that involved bringing
23 up -- bringing in the names of other people who may
24 have been involved?
25 A. Well, to put it very bluntly, I'm not
1 concerned with the interest of other people. I'm only
2 concerned with the interests of Mr. Tadic. So I was
3 looking for those people who could supply me with
4 relevant evidence, whatever the consequences for
5 themselves could be. If those consequences were within
6 the reach of the authority of the Tribunal to protect
7 them, I would advise the Tribunal to protect them
8 within the possibility of the Tribunal. That's all I
9 could do.
10 Q. I'm sure we're all familiar with the
11 concept. You're representing your client; you're going
12 to do everything you can to present his case in its
13 best possible light?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. If establishing that he was elsewhere
16 involves other names being mentioned and other people
17 possibly being implicated, that's not your concern;
18 your concern is representing your client?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. What I want to ask you is this: Mr. Drljaca,
21 in your assessment from your dealings with him, was he
22 at all sympathetic to the idea of other people's names
23 being dragged into it and possibly implicated in war
25 A. Well, I would say obviously, but not
1 specifically -- he did not specifically say that, but
2 his whole attitude was, "Don't interfere in my reign
3 here." He acted like the local king. So a part of
4 that attitude was that he didn't want me to meddle in
5 anything that happened there, whatever it was. He
6 simply didn't want me to be there.
7 Q. As far as you were concerned, was it obvious
8 from Mr. Vujin's position that he realised what
9 Mr. Drljaca's attitude was in relation to war crimes
11 A. Yes. I took it that he was more familiar
12 with the situation there and what has happened in terms
13 of what -- where Mr. Drljaca came from, as he travelled
14 more in the area than I did. I took it for granted
15 that he knew exactly who Mr. Drljaca was. I had to
16 learn the man; he knew already who he was.
17 Q. Yes. Indeed, as you say in paragraph 10,
18 Mr. Vujin had seen Mr. Drljaca before you, I think in
19 September 1995, and indeed had reported to you that
20 Mr. Drljaca didn't want to see you?
21 A. Yes. I was waiting outside the police
22 station with, I think, one of the brothers of
23 Mr. Tadic, because Mr. Drljaca did not want to see me.
24 That's what I had been told. Then Mr. Vujin went into
25 the police station. He talked to Mr. Drljaca -- at
1 least, that was told to me. Now, later on he came
2 back, and I was told that Mr. Drljaca didn't want to
3 see me.
4 Q. So if I can put it this way, Mr. Vujin's
5 meeting with Mr. Drljaca, did it open any doors for
6 you, or, put bluntly, did it close some doors in your
8 A. It did not open the door. And later on, I
9 was a little bit surprised that the next time I was
10 there, I had this easy access to Mr. Drljaca. So,
11 jumping to conclusions, I would say why didn't that
12 happen in September?
13 Q. But in terms of getting hold of witnesses,
14 did Mr. Vujin's visit with Mr. Drljaca open doors or
16 A. It's very difficult to say what could have
17 happened if something had happened.
18 Q. I won't ask you to speculate, then.
19 A. All right.
20 Q. Let's concentrate on paragraph 14. A list of
21 Defence witnesses had been prepared, had it not --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- by the Defence team: by yourself,
24 Mr. Kay, and Mr. Orie?
25 A. That's right. I prepared the list.
1 Q. Yes, and these were potential Defence
2 witnesses, people whom, in your estimation, on
3 Mr. Tadic's instructions and from your investigations,
4 could be useful people to interview --
5 A. That's right.
6 Q. -- and possibly to call to support
7 Mr. Tadic's defence at his trial?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Did you want Mr. Drljaca to see that
11 A. No.
12 Q. You tell us there that you discovered, when
13 you went to the Prijedor police station in -- I believe
14 it would have been approximately April of '96,
15 thereabouts, that you saw that list on Mr. Drljaca's
17 A. I don't think it was April, because at that
18 time I was in the hospital.
19 Q. Forgive me. You tell us the time.
20 A. Yes. As far as I remember well, it should
21 have been somewhere in February.
22 Q. Very well.
23 A. I think.
24 Q. Forgive me. Very well. Forgive me.
25 A. I saw it on his desk, yes.
1 Q. Did that come as a surprise?
2 A. Yes, I was really surprised indeed.
3 Q. How did you feel about it, Mr. Wladimiroff?
4 A. I wondered how that thing ended up on his
6 Q. Did you feel that the presence of that -- did
7 you feel that that list being put into Mr. Drljaca's
8 hands was going to assist or hinder your preparation of
9 Mr. Tadic's defence case at trial?
10 A. Let me put it this way: At that moment, I
11 had an answer to the question that crossed my mind
12 earlier, why were people visited by the police not to
13 contact me, not to speak to me, not to see me, who I
14 never approached before, how come that exactly those
15 people were approached? And that was the answer. He
16 had the list.
17 I remember a lawyer in Prijedor who had been
18 approached by the police, and I was really
19 flabbergasted that they picked this lawyer out to
20 approach, that the person should not speak to me.
21 Q. Forgive me: Who had picked this particular
22 lawyer out to --
23 A. Well, the lawyer was approached by the
24 police, that the lawyer should not speak to me, not see
25 me. The lawyer was very afraid to do so. So when the
1 lawyer was contacted later on, we learned that. And I
2 was really surprised. How come that they contacted
3 that lawyer?
4 Q. So for how long would you say, before you
5 actually saw the list on the chief of police's desk in
6 Prijedor police station, had you had this feeling that
7 people you were trying to get hold of were already
8 saying, "No, no, I don't want to see you"?
9 A. That's very difficult to say. I can't put
10 that in time. I really can't.
11 Q. Did it frustrate your attempts to obtain
12 witnesses to support what Mr. Tadic had to say?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Paragraph 15, you say that you spoke to
15 Mr. Vujin about the list and how it got onto
16 Mr. Drljaca's desk, and you tell us that he admitted
17 that it was he who gave that list to Mr. Drljaca.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And sought to explain that he thought it
20 would help in tracking down the witnesses. You say you
21 regard that as downright absurd --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. -- given that Mr. Vujin must have been as
24 aware as you were, and probably more so, of
25 Mr. Drljaca's attitude to your investigation. Can I
1 put it this way: Did you believe Mr. Vujin's
2 explanation as to why he said he gave that Defence
3 witness list to Mr. Drljaca?
4 A. It would be extremely naive, so I didn't view
5 it in that way. I felt it was highly improper.
6 Q. It may be too obvious to ask, but did he, to
7 your knowledge, ask you, Mr. Kay, or Mr. Orie,
8 permission to do such a thing as that?
9 A. No.
10 Q. If he had asked you, Mr. Orie, or Mr. Kay,
11 for permission to do it, what would you have said?
12 A. No. But I would also have asked him why he
13 was asking so.
14 Q. Mr. Kay and Mr. Orie, what was their feeling
15 when they learnt from you the news about this Defence
16 witness list finding its way onto the chief of police's
17 desk at Prijedor, pre-trial?
18 A. They felt the same as I just expressed
20 Q. How big an impact did that have on your
21 Defence team?
22 A. I can only guess. It's very difficult to
23 say, but as far as I experienced, it was more difficult
24 to approach people who were on the list. And some of
25 them never turned up or I couldn't find any more.
1 Q. You mentioned a witness called "U," who was
2 given the letter "U," who made certain admissions in
3 relation to what had happened. Can you just expand
4 that a little bit for us, please?
5 A. Well, that might be a little bit difficult.
6 I have written, in fact, and later on, I thought I
7 should have written, as far as I remember --
8 Q. Yes?
9 A. I remember one witness, and I thought it was
10 Witness U, who made the reference in evidence before
11 the Trial Chamber about being harassed by the police,
12 and I took it that that was an example of a witness who
13 had been harassed by the police on the instruction of
14 Mr. Drljaca, because he was aware that person was a
15 potential witness. No one told me that the police were
16 instructed by Mr. Drljaca, but I took it as an
18 Q. Yes. You deal with, at paragraph 16, with it
19 being impossible to gauge how large an extent that
20 interference with the witnesses had. You can tell us
21 that you know it has an effect, but the speculation, I
22 suppose, is to say how large it was. You'll never know
23 the extent of it, I suppose.
24 A. But the reason why I wrote it down was to
25 show that there's a blank area here we can only
1 speculate about, but it must have been there.
2 Q. And you say, "Without, therefore, being able
3 to point to any particular witnesses with whom there
4 was successful interference, I'm quite certain it
5 happened and was probably widespread amongst the
6 witnesses such as police officers, military officials,
7 and civil servants who might have been in a position to
8 give most assistance to me in my enquiries." Do you
9 stand by that?
10 A. Yes. That's how I feel it.
11 Q. You give an example, in paragraph 18, of some
12 potential witnesses you were trying to track down?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Meakic, Mr. Milorad Tadic. Pausing there,
15 that's not a relative of Mr. Tadic, is it, just a
16 similar surname? And Mr. Milorad Danicic?
17 A. Yes. Mr. Meakic never showed up.
18 Mr. Danicic was a person who was described to me as a
19 lookalike of Mr. Dusko Tadic. And Mr. Milorad Tadic,
20 the name, it's obvious --
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, are we
22 perhaps straying a little from the main lines of the
23 charges presented in the scheduling order?
24 MR. ABELL: I'm not going to go into this in
25 too much detail. The reason I'm dealing with it is
1 because I come back to what I said in my written
2 submissions as to why Mr. Wladimiroff's evidence should
3 be admitted.
4 It goes very much to the question of
5 Mr. Vujin's motive in these actions, and his motive can
6 be gauged and assessed by the effect of his acts. I
7 don't want to develop again the point I've made about
8 the pattern of conduct in this case of behaving against
9 one's own client's interest, of which the specific
10 allegations, if this Chamber finds are proved, are
11 examples. This background enables the Court to see
12 those specific allegations in their context, in my
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you then be good
15 enough to treat the background with the limitations
16 which are appropriate for background material?
17 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, indeed I will, and
18 forgive me if I take too long on it. I will be brief.
19 Q. Let me deal with it this way,
20 Mr. Wladimiroff: Did you consider those to be
21 important people to speak to to try and run Mr. Tadic's
22 defence to its best advantage?
23 A. Yes, they were important.
24 Q. Were your efforts, after the witness list had
25 been placed into Mr. Dracula's [sic] hands -- I'm
1 sorry, I keep saying that. Drljaca's hands. Forgive
2 me. Did you consider that your efforts to get hold of
3 them were hindered?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you consider, in your experience, that
6 the account that they gave you, when you finally
7 managed to speak to them, those you could speak to, two
8 out of the three, I believe -- yes?
9 A. That's right.
10 Q. Did you consider that they were giving you an
11 honest and frank account of what they had to say?
12 A. Not at all. I had a very strong feeling that
13 they were well prepared and launched to show me that
14 they were totally irrelevant, I was looking for the
15 wrong persons, and I was stupid to ask for their names.
16 Q. Did you get the feeling --
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, I'm not too
18 certain of the connection between this and the charges
19 presented against Mr. Vujin with which the Appeals
20 Chamber is now concerned. This goes rather to the
21 question as to whether the conviction was sound.
22 We are concerned with certain allegations
23 against Mr. Vujin to the effect that he deliberately
24 manipulated certain evidence, to use the phrase which
25 the witness has used. I think that's a good phrase, in
1 the sense that that goes to the meat of the matter.
2 MR. ABELL: If I can put it this way without
3 repeating everything I just said, and it really is the
4 last question on this particular topic and it's
5 concentrating on the last sentence in paragraph 18,
6 that the point is that once these witnesses' names have
7 got into the other camp, if I can put it that way, once
8 they had been put into the hands of the chief of
9 police, that it's this witness's feeling not only did
10 those witnesses lie but they appeared to be singing
11 from the same hymn sheet, as if someone had coached
12 them or choreographed, to use Mr. Wladimiroff's word,
13 in what to say, and that may be very important because
14 again it is against the interests of Mr. Tadic, and --
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would you
16 kindly ask that last question?
17 MR. ABELL: I will.
18 Q. Why did you feel that the evidence that they
19 were giving you was carefully choreographed?
20 A. We asked verification questions, and they
21 were able to produce immediately, at the spot, the
22 documents to support that, each of them. I was really
23 surprised they had all these documents ready at their
24 pockets. It really struck me.
25 Q. Is that something you had encountered before
1 in your interviewing other people before you got the
2 list, that they were, as it were, ready and prepared
3 with all the answers?
4 A. Some may have one document, but these people
5 were extremely well prepared. That was totally
7 Q. Thank you. You then make a comment in the
8 paragraph 19, and I ask you, without reference to it:
9 As you came -- as the months went by and you came to
10 see the full picture of what was going on, I ask you
11 bluntly, did you trust Mr. Vujin?
12 A. I lost trust in him.
13 Q. In whose interests, having worked alongside
14 Mr. Vujin -- and I'm looking now at paragraph 24 --
15 having worked alongside with Mr. Vujin for the period
16 of time that you tell us you did, in whose interests
17 did Mr. Vujin appear, in reality, to be working?
18 A. Sometimes I had this feeling that he was only
19 working for himself, because as I told you at the very
20 beginning, he popped up in the case. He was never
21 assigned, but still he was there, making himself -- how
22 do you say in English -- necessary. Later on, I
23 changed that mind into trying to be helpful and naive,
24 not very professional, and that changed it to someone
25 who is taking control of the case for different aims.
1 And I was leading the case, and that whole change of
2 feelings added to a feeling of we should get rid of him
3 because he's not taking care of the interests of
4 Mr. Tadic; he is also taking care of someone else's
5 interests. It might be the authorities, it might be
6 other people, I don't know, but he is not the right
7 person in this case, that we should get rid of him.
8 Q. Did you consider he was working in the
9 interests of his client, Mr. Tadic?
10 A. Sometimes he did, and as I wrote in the
11 statement, then it coincided with other interests. But
12 on many occasions later on, I felt this is very
13 counter-productive, this is not in the interests of
14 Mr. Tadic.
15 Q. When Mr. Tadic's own personal interests
16 conflicted with the interests, if I can put it this
17 way, of the State, the Serbian State, in whose interest
18 did you assess Mr. Vujin was working in?
19 A. Well, I can only answer that question if I
20 take into account what I've been told by Mr. Tadic
21 later on, when, excuse the phrase, my team was sacked
22 by Mr. Tadic. Then he told me that Vujin told him --
23 so this is really hearsay evidence -- that Vujin told
24 him that if he would have the case, then Mr. Tadic
25 would have the full cooperation of the authorities of
1 the Republika Srpska, the right witnesses and the right
2 documents; and that, in my feeling, was the right
3 answer to how we looked at Mr. Vujin at the very end.
4 Q. You say, towards the end of paragraph 24,
5 "His interests," that is, Mr. Vujin's, "seems to me to
6 have been to defend the Serb cause and to protect other
7 people from becoming involved in Mr. Tadic's defence"?
8 A. That's an observation that I made at the very
9 end, yes.
10 Q. Do you stand by that still?
11 A. I have a very strong feeling that that is a
12 right observation.
13 Q. Thank you. We may hear, in due course, some
14 evidence that Mr. Milan Vujin was very professionally,
15 conscientiously, and expertly doing his work on the
16 defence of Dusko Tadic. I just ask you this: Did you
17 agree with that or not?
18 A. It did not meet the standards I was looking
20 Q. Thank you. Just a detail. You had
21 interviewed various people during the course of your
22 investigations. Were there examples of Mr. Vujin going
23 to see those people and interviewing them after you or
24 another member of your team had done so?
25 A. I have no evidence of that, but again I've
1 been told by the youngest brother, Ljubomir, of
2 Mr. Tadic, that he travelled in the area at occasions
3 when we were not there, which is very easy because we
4 were only there on a few occasions, talking to people
5 amongst whom also people we have been spoken to.
6 Again, I'm terribly sorry, I can't give you any name or
7 date because I simply don't remember, but that's what
8 I've been told by the youngest brother.
9 Q. Had you asked Mr. Vujin to go and see
10 witnesses again after you or Mr. Kay or Mr. Orie had
11 already interviewed them, that you can remember?
12 A. No, but if I'm fair, he could have understood
13 that as all being in the game, being a member of the
14 team in those days. But I gave no specific
15 instructions whatsoever.
16 Q. Very well. I would just like to ask you
17 this: The circumstances of Mr. Vujin's leaving the
18 team, all right, just in a few words, did Mr. Vujin
19 leave because he wanted to do another case or something
20 like that, or what was it that caused him to leave the
22 A. Well, actually, it was Mr. Orie who did
23 that. I was in the hospital in those days because I
24 was ill in March and April '96. I had a herniated
25 disc. As far as I remember well, there was also a
1 story of Mr. Vujin taking another case, and we felt
2 that the interests of that client -- I don't know the
3 name -- might also be a potential conflict of interest
4 with the case of Mr. Tadic. And then Mr. Orie, in one
5 other way -- I've not been there, so I simply remember
6 what I have been told -- told Mr. Vujin that we should
7 separate, and he used that other case, as far as I
8 remember, as an excuse to soften the message.
9 Q. I see. So if it's put this way, he was
10 tactfully told that he would be better to leave this
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The Tadic case?
14 A. Yes, that's what I've been told, yes.
15 Q. I just want to show you, please, a letter.
16 Would you see that, please?
17 MR. ABELL: There are some copies for Your
19 Could you distribute those copies? Give that
20 to the witness, and distribute those copies.
21 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] This will be
22 Exhibit 38.
23 MR. ABELL:
24 Q. This is a letter that's some time after the
25 event, in English, it's an English translation, and in
1 B/C/S at the back. Do you see it, Mr. Wladimiroff, I
2 think signed by yourself?
3 A. That's right, yes.
4 Q. We see it's dated the 12th of May, '97?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It's after the conviction, I think, at trial,
7 12th of May, '97. It's to Mr. Tadic's brother, Ljubo
8 Tadic. What I particularly want to deal with: "Thank
9 you for your fax. I'm very sorry that cooperation with
10 Dusko has ceased, since" -- and I believe that "Steven"
11 is inserted there in handwriting -- "Sylvia, and I did
12 not want to cooperate with Vujin, and in view" --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Can you slow down for the
14 interpreters? Thank you.
15 MR. ABELL: Sorry.
16 "I'm very sorry that cooperation with Dusko
17 has ceased since Steven, Sylvia, and I did not want to
18 cooperate with Vujin, and in view of the experience
19 from the past, I do not need to explain why we think
21 Q. Do you see where I am in the first paragraph?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Is that first paragraph a reference to the
24 difficulties which you, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Orie had
25 experienced with working professionally with Mr. Vujin?
1 A. That's a very short reflection of that, yes.
2 Q. That's what that paragraph was dealing with?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You didn't wish to go into the detail, but --
5 A. Certainly not write it down on an open fax.
6 Q. You wanted to make clear where you all stood?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Did you want to stay in the case if Mr. Vujin
9 was going to come back into it?
10 A. No, that we made that clear to Mr. Tadic.
11 Q. Is that because of the matters which you've
12 been telling us about this morning --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- and have put in your declaration?
15 A. That's right.
16 Q. May I just ask you about this? Again, we
17 heard a little bit of evidence about it. I think you
18 gave an assessment to Ljubo that the case could have
19 resulted, in the end, in a sentence of something like
20 four to five years?
21 A. Let me read that again.
22 Q. Of course, right at the end, simply so that
23 we know that that information was passed to Ljubo Tadic
24 by way of a letter.
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. ABELL: Thank you. The last thing I'd
2 wish to do -- there are two more excerpts, Your
3 Honours, from the video which we saw this morning, and
4 the copy of a transcript that I have includes those
5 two. I don't know whether Your Honours' transcript is
6 the same, but it's the one that I understood to have
7 been exhibited on the last occasion, two passages which
8 relate to Mr. Wladimiroff speaking to a commentator.
9 Do Your Honours have that?
10 In the copy that I've been provided with by
11 the Court, after the passage that we've just had
12 translated, there's a passage that begins "002125".
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We're a little
14 handicapped here, Mr. Abell. We see the document to
15 which you made reference earlier this morning in
16 English and, I believe, in B/C/S also, and then there's
17 a third page. That is a document headed -- I think
18 it's the same thing. It's the same thing. It's all
19 the same thing.
20 MR. ABELL: I believe that's dealing with the
21 Dutch subtitles, I believe.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
23 MR. ABELL: But, Your Honour, as I say, this
24 was provided by the Court, and it appears to be a
25 segment of what was provided on the last occasion to
1 the Court.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: If you call it an
3 exhibit number, perhaps the Registrar may be able to
4 ferret it out.
5 MR. ABELL: Well, I believe it was given the
6 number Exhibit 8A on the last occasion, when it was
7 shown to Mr. Livingston. But because Mr. Livingston
8 couldn't recognise the video, we never got to the other
9 two passages. And I know, and I know Ms. Hollis knows,
10 that there are two other passages which were
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, can you
13 locate that to us?
14 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I have two
15 other excerpts of that same video cassette, videotape.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Could those be made
17 available to the Bench and to the parties?
18 MR. ABELL: I'd be grateful.
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes. I will
20 give you a copy of the excerpt. You mentioned that it
21 was at 2125, Mr. Abell. It will be marked 39, and the
22 excerpt of 252227 will be marked 40.
23 MR. ABELL: Well, I'm grateful, and may I say
24 this is my last topic.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Do you think we
1 might conveniently conclude with your last topic before
2 the commencement of the coffee break?
3 MR. ABELL: I hope so. This should be a
4 matter of minutes, this video.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, would you
6 like a copy of this to be provided to the
8 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honour, please, and
9 perhaps they can satisfy themselves that it is accurate
10 whilst it's being played, and of course to
11 Mr. Wladimiroff as well.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Of course.
13 MR. ABELL: Mr. Wladimiroff, as you can
14 perhaps see when you are given the document, what we
15 are dealing with is a couple of passages in the video
16 where you are being interviewed by the commentator.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We're in your hands,
18 Mr. Abell.
19 MR. ABELL: Yes. Could, please, the video be
21 THE REGISTRAR: As we said earlier, the two
22 transcripts that we have just distributed are not
23 within or taken up within the cassette, the videotape.
24 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, it was our
25 understanding -- I see Ms. Hollis and I both looking
1 puzzled -- that that was with the Court. It was our
2 understanding that that cassette had both these
3 segments on it as well. I have got a complete video,
4 but it's not turned to the relevant portion, I'm afraid
5 to say.
6 Can I try and deal with it in this way, Your
7 Honours? Can I try and deal with it in this way?
8 Q. You have in front of you, Mr. Wladimiroff, a
10 A. Yes. Two of them.
11 Q. Two of them. One of them is yourself
12 speaking to an interviewer about Mr. Tadic.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, I see
14 Mr. Domazet on his legs.
15 MR. ABELL: Yes.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Perhaps we had better
17 hear from him.
18 MR. DOMAZET: If I understood well, Mr. Abell
19 has the whole tape. As far as we know, it lasts some
20 20 minutes. We are in agreement with this, and we
21 suggest that the entire tape be shown, of course
22 including these two excerpts, but we think it might be
23 good to see the entire tape.
24 MR. ABELL: Well, with respect, that's a
25 matter for Mr. Domazet, if he wish to do that, but I'm
1 really trying to deal with what appears to me to be
2 relevant, bearing in mind this is a documentary. I'm
3 not going to object if he wants to play the entire
4 tape. I think it may be a little longer than 20
5 minutes, with respect, but there we are.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: All right. Mr. Domazet,
7 you may have the tape played in its entirety during
8 your case. At this stage, we suggest Mr. Abell should
9 proceed in the way that he wishes. He is managing his
10 case, so to speak.
11 MR. DOMAZET: Very well, Your Honour.
12 MR. ABELL:
13 Q. May I just deal with it in this way,
14 Mr. Wladimiroff: You can see there --
15 A. Could you give me the time portion? Because
16 there are two documents here.
17 Q. Yes, I was just going to: 00:21:25, and the
18 first line is "Michael Wladimiroff: He says that he
19 didn't do anything.
20 "Interviewer: Do you believe that?"
21 And you're being asked questions there about
22 Mr. Tadic, obviously, aren't you? And then after that
23 conversation -- firstly, do you remember having that
24 conversation with the interviewer? I'm trying to get
25 you to identify it, you see.
1 A. Yes, but if I'm right in thinking, that
2 portion was taken at the very beginning. It may have
3 been somewhere in August or September or October 1995.
4 Q. Yes. And you -- yes. You there appear to be
5 being asked the classic lawyer's question about --
6 "Well, what do you think?" And you're saying, "Well,
7 my job is" -- you're effectively saying, "My job is, as
8 a lawyer, not to let that clog up my work; I get on
9 with defending"?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Yes. And then over the page, at least on my
12 copy it's over the page, the commentator says, "A month
13 later, a peace agreement has been reached in Dayton" --
14 that's a reference, obviously, to the Dayton agreement;
15 that would be December of '95 -- "A month later, a
16 peace agreement has been reached in Dayton, but
17 Wladimiroff has not made an inch of progress with his
18 investigation. He is cross with his Yugoslav
19 colleague, Vujin. He makes a secret flying visit to
20 Karadzic, during which he does not want to take along a
21 camera crew."
22 Do you remember that part of the video as
24 A. That's the --
25 Q. The commentary?
1 A. Yes. And I'm not sure when that was written
2 or thought of, but anyhow, it has been put together
3 later on, somewhere by the second half -- perhaps even
4 later; the first month of 1997. So I don't know when
5 he made up that comment.
6 Q. Very well. Just this part --
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Are you saying to the
8 Court you remember saying these things, and in your
9 recollection, these things should appear in the video
10 to which reference has already been made? Is that your
12 A. Well, my position is that I can vouch for
13 what I have said. As far as I'm quoted, I cannot vouch
14 for the commentator. It's his impression of what he
15 heard me saying over the months, over two years' time.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I appreciate that
17 qualification, yes. Thank you.
18 MR. ABELL: Can I just ask you this, that the
19 statement "He's cross with his Yugoslav colleague,
20 Vujin" -- not made directly by you, but made by the
21 commentator -- does that broadly agree or disagree with
22 your views about your colleague, Vujin?
23 A. I have no doubt that I made it utterly clear
24 to him that I was cross with Vujin.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, the last passage should be
1 Exhibit 40, 00:25:22 to 00:27:00. Do you have that,
2 Mr. Wladimiroff?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Thank you. Again, it appears to be the
5 commentator first of all, and then yourself. "The
6 Commentator: February '96, Wladimiroff has to go to
7 Bosnia for a third time; as usual, via Belgrade. His
8 colleague, Vujin, is not doing a good job."
9 And then you're quoted: "It's becoming ever
10 more awkward, because he is not keeping his promises,
11 and we are increasingly getting worried about his
12 role. This means that we are wondering whether he
13 should still have a place in this team, because we are
14 increasingly faced with the question of whether this is
15 co-operation, or lack of co-operation, or even worse.
16 Perhaps he is pursuing goals which we are not
18 Now, that's you, isn't it --
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. -- speaking on camera of Mr. Vujin?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. What did you mean when you said, "... lack of
23 co-operation, or even worse. Perhaps he is pursuing
24 goals which we are not pursuing"?
25 A. Actually, that's reflecting what I just told
1 you, my development in mind, how to look at Vujin. And
2 I think it reflects quite accurately that we could not
3 exclude that he would have been counterproductive to
4 the case, so we should get rid of him.
5 Q. Yes. In other words, not pursuing your goals
6 of putting forward Mr. Tadic's defence in its best
7 possible light?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. And then the commentator speaks of your team
10 operating in Banja Luka, and that being seriously
11 sabotaged by the chief of police. Is that a reference
12 to what you told us about the Defence witness list and
13 the fallout, if I can put it that way, from that
14 Defence witness list being put in the hands of
15 Mr. Drljaca?
16 A. I have no doubt that I must have given him,
17 the commentator, the impression of what he has said
18 here on the basis of saying things I told you here, but
19 more in details, because my memory was fresh at that
20 date, on that day.
21 Q. And then we have a discussion between
22 yourself and Mr. Orie, which I'm not going to read out,
23 and the commentator referring to Milosevic?
24 A. Yes. I'm a little bit surprised to read
1 Q. I'm really asking you about your comments
2 there, and Mr. Orie's. Does that accord with your
3 recollection of what you said on camera?
4 A. You refer to what I have said and what
5 Mr. Orie --
6 Q. What you and Mr. Orie have said.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Not the commentator. We understand you can't
9 speak for him.
10 A. I do remember that, yes.
11 Q. Thank you. So although there's a little
12 hiccup about the actual playing of the video, having
13 seen the transcript of it, you are satisfied,
14 Mr. Wladimiroff, that that's a transcript of what you
15 had to say during that documentary about Mr. Vujin?
16 A. Yes. That portion that you referred to,
17 myself speaking with Mr. Orie, was in Belgrade after we
18 had spoken to Mr. Kostic, who was an investigator we
19 retained. On the basis of what he has told us, we were
20 very worried about the role of Mr. Drljaca, because he
21 threatened Mr. Kostic. That's what I remember very
23 Q. Kostic told you that Drljaca had threatened
25 A. Yeah.
1 Q. In relation to the obtaining of evidence?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. So Mr. Drljaca had been obstructing your
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. That's what Kostic told you?
7 A. That's exactly what he told us.
8 Q. And the last question: The passage about
9 lack of co-operation by Vujin, "... or even worse.
10 Perhaps he is pursuing goals which we are not
11 pursuing," can you put a date and a place on your
12 saying that to the camera?
13 A. No. I have not any specific recollection,
14 but I have no doubt that I have said it, because it is
15 consistent to the way I thought in those days, and
16 those days must have been somewhere at the beginning of
17 1996. But I don't remember where it was recorded.
18 Q. So early '96?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Yes. Pre-trial, in other words, before this
21 man, Dusko Tadic's, trial --
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. -- had started?
24 A. Yeah.
25 Q. And those were your concerns about the man
1 who had been working with you for --
2 A. Right.
3 Q. -- nearly a year?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. Thank you, Mr. Wladimiroff.
6 MR. ABELL: I have no more questions.
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very good of you,
8 Mr. Abell.
9 Perhaps I had better make an announcement
10 which I should have made at the very beginning this
11 morning, and it concerns our working arrangements for
12 Friday. We will begin at 9.00 and terminate at
13 1.30 p.m. for the day.
14 Thank you very much. Well, we'll suspend now
15 for 20 minutes and resume, say, at 12.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 11.35
17 --- On resuming at 12.05 p.m.
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The sitting is resumed.
19 Who will speak for the Prosecution?
20 Ms. Hollis has the floor.
21 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you.
22 Good day, Mr. Wladimiroff.
23 Questioned by Ms. Hollis:
24 Q. Sir, when was it that you and your team were
25 formally removed from the Tadic case?
1 A. I think it was in April 1997.
2 Q. There have been various documents submitted
3 in these proceedings, including what appear to be
4 letters from Mr. Tadic to you. I would at this time
5 like to show you three of what appear to be these
6 letters received by you from Mr. Tadic and ask you to
7 look at them and to tell the Chamber whether, indeed,
8 these were letters that you did receive from
9 Mr. Tadic.
10 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, I have sufficient
11 copies for the Registrar, the Bench, and the parties.
12 Perhaps these could be marked as one cumulative
13 exhibit. The first letter is dated February 9, 1997;
14 the second letter is dated March 17, 1997; and the
15 third letter is dated April 7, 1997.
16 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] These letters
17 will be marked 41 -- 41A for the letter of February
18 '97, 42 for the second letter, and 43 for the third
19 letter. Sorry, it's 41A for the first letter, 41 --
20 41/1 for the first letter, 41/2 for the second letter,
21 41/3 for the third letter.
22 MS. HOLLIS:
23 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, if we could take those in
24 chronological order, beginning with the February 9,
25 1997 letter?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you recognise that as a letter -- at least
3 an English version of a letter you received from
4 Mr. Tadic?
5 A. I have no specific recollection of this
7 Q. Then if you could look at 41A -- I'm sorry,
9 I'm confused, Your Honour. I apologise.
10 41/2 is the letter of 17 March 1997.
11 Sir, would you read that and tell us if you
12 recognise that as a letter you received from Mr. Tadic?
13 A. Let me read it carefully.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. Can a copy of
15 it be placed on the ELMO for the interpreters, please?
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, can that
17 be done?
18 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Of course,
19 Your Honour.
20 MS. HOLLIS:
21 Q. Do you have a recollection of receiving that
23 A. Again, not a specific one, but I suppose that
24 I have seen them in Serbo-Croat and they have been
25 translated to me. I don't recognise the type face of
1 it, but I do remember such kind of letter, yes.
2 Q. Now, that is true of the 17 March 1997
3 letter. Is that also true of the February 9, 1997
5 A. I don't know. I simply don't know.
6 Q. All right. Thank you. If I could ask you to
7 look at the April 7, 1997 letter. That would be 41/3.
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, are they
9 so marked?
10 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your
11 Honour. I shall repeat for the sake of clarity.
12 The letter marked 41/1 is that dated February
13 '97, the letter marked 41/2 is the letter dated for
14 March '97, and 41/3 dates from April '97.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very good.
16 A. Yes, I do remember this letter, and I'm
17 referring to 41/3.
18 MS. HOLLIS:
19 Q. The April 7, 1997 letter?
20 A. That's correct.
21 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, since
22 Mr. Wladimiroff has indicated he believes that he may
23 have received a letter in Serbo-Croat that would
24 correspond to 41/2, and he does recognise 41/3, we
25 would ask that those two letters be entered as exhibits
1 at this time. He has indicated he has no recollection
2 of 41/1. Therefore, we do not ask, at this time, that
3 that be entered.
4 A. May I add that the Exhibit 41/1, I do not
5 recognise the type of the letter, the face of it, but I
6 do remember the contents, as such. I can't remember
7 whether that was in the letter or otherwise received by
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Are you then moving the
10 admission of all three documents on the bases as stated
11 by the witness?
12 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, Mr. Vujin.
14 MR. VUJIN: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I
15 was just trying to assist in order for Mr. Wladimiroff
16 should perhaps also be shown letters in the original
17 Serbian version. These are only translations.
18 My apologies now. These have been exhibited
19 by all numbers, D277 to D276 and D275. I'm sure that
20 the Registry still has it. I have it in my file. They
21 can be found, and if they can be found now, they could
22 perhaps be collated, because these are just
23 translations of the original that we have. I do not
24 insist on it, but it may be just useful to have them
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I understand, Mr. Vujin,
2 you are trying to assist, but Ms. Hollis is conducting
3 her own case and it's up to her to determine whether
4 she needs to reach out for that sort of documentation.
5 I take it you're referring to the Rule 115
6 proceedings, is it?
7 MR. VUJIN: [Interpretation] No. These are
8 the letters which I have sent to the Tribunal in my
9 response and that when I requested to be allowed
10 correspondence with Mr. Tadic.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, in examining the
12 witness, you may put that correspondence.
13 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 [Interpretation] My apologies.
15 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you recall when it was
17 that you first met Mr. John Livingston?
18 A. I have seen him for the first time when I was
19 in the public audience when the sentencing hearings
20 were conducted, and I'm not sure whether I met him at
21 that time.
22 Later on, I was approached by him or his
23 leader. I think I got a letter from his lead counsel,
24 who contacted me, and then later on Mr. Livingston and
25 lead counsel visited me, and then later on I spoke to
1 Mr. Livingston separately. And the first time in that
2 recollection I saw him must have been somewhere at the
3 beginning of this year, but I have some doubt in my
4 mind about have I seen him before in '97. I'm not
5 sure. It's very difficult to remember that.
6 Q. All right. So you think it's possible that
7 at the sentencing proceeding, which I believe was in
8 July of 1997, you --
9 A. I have seen him.
10 Q. -- may have seen him at that time?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. He never worked with you on the case while
13 you were involved in it?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You mentioned a Ljubo Tadic, the younger
16 brother of Dusko Tadic. Did Mr. Ljubo Tadic assist you
17 during your efforts in the Tadic case?
18 A. He did.
19 Q. He assisted you in locating witnesses and
20 transporting those witnesses for you?
21 A. He was transporting me, and sometimes he was
22 transporting witnesses.
23 Q. During the time that Mr. Ljubo Tadic was
24 assisting you, did he actually sit in on your witness
25 interviews with you or members of your team?
1 A. Partly. We had this procedure that no family
2 would be allowed to be inside unless there was a
3 specific reason to do so, and it may have happened once
4 or twice. But as a rule, no.
5 Q. On the occasions you may have been with
6 Mr. Vujin, interviewing witnesses, to your recollection
7 was Mr. Ljubo Tadic ever present with you during those
9 A. As I said, as a rule, he was not. But some
10 occasions, he was, but I can't remember whether those
11 occasions were the occasions where Mr. Vujin was
12 present too. I can't tell, I'm afraid.
13 Q. Thank you. You've indicated, in your
14 testimony, that there was some sort of evolution of
15 your thinking about Mr. Vujin and his participation.
16 As your thinking was evolving on this during that
17 period of time, did you express your concerns about
18 Mr. Vujin to your client, Dusko Tadic?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. On how many occasions did you express those
22 A. That's a very tough one. I think I started
23 to express myself on this issue when I was at a later
24 stage of this evolution of thinking of Mr. Vujin, not
25 at the very beginning. It's very difficult to put that
1 in time. Let me try to do so. I think that must have
2 started somewhere either by the end of 1995 or the
3 beginning of 1996, when I felt sure enough to express
4 my doubts.
5 Q. During this time that your thinking was
6 evolving about Mr. Vujin, did you also express your
7 concerns about him to Ljubo Tadic?
8 A. I think it was the other way around. I think
9 it was Ljubo who started to bring this issue up, and he
10 may have well understood from me that I shared his
12 Q. In paragraph 8 of your statement, you have
13 had your attention drawn to the portion that says, "On
14 one occasion, which I remember very clearly, he" --
15 referring to Mr. Vujin -- "interrupted a witness I was
16 interviewing and told the witness what to say." We
17 have been shown the videotape where I believe that was
18 the incident where that occurred.
19 A. Umm-hmm.
20 Q. I know that you were working through an
21 interpreter. Can you remember at all what that
22 interpreter told you Mr. Vujin had told the witness to
24 A. The funny thing is that I have not a specific
25 recollection of what he said at that occasion. It is
1 the incident, as such, that he was interfering, that is
2 in my mind, while we were waiting outside.
3 The questions that had been put to me by
4 Mr. Abell triggered my memory, because I do remember
5 another occasion now, it just crossed my mind, an
6 interview we had with Mrs. Tadic at her house. And
7 there again when I was putting questions there, I was
8 sitting in that room, together with Mr. Vujin, the
9 interpreter, and myself, and of course the witness, the
10 potential witness. And then I do remember now that he
11 was sometimes, when I put the question, telling her
12 what to say, at least that's what my interpreter told
13 me, and I do remember myself saying to him that he
14 shouldn't. I can't reproduce what he was saying to her
15 because I can't remember the question I was putting,
16 but as a pattern, he was interrupting or at least
17 advising her what to answer.
18 Q. All right. Thank you for that additional
20 Going back to paragraph 7 again, the question
21 that I had asked you is, "Do you remember what the
22 interpreter relayed to you that Mr. Vujin had told the
23 witness to say?" The reason I ask you that question is
24 that the transcript that we have been provided does not
25 appear to contain anything from Mr. Vujin telling the
1 witness what to say, so I wondered if there was
2 something additional that was not captured on the
4 A. Yes. My memory must stem from the whole
5 event, as such. I noticed with you that only this
6 incident was recorded, at least broadcast here, on the
7 basis of the reaction of Mr. Vujin to the interpreter.
8 I do remember, however, that during the interview that
9 followed, other interruptions of a more material or
10 substantial basis were there, but again I can't
11 remember exactly what he said or what was the reason
12 why he said so. But the pattern, as such, is very
13 clear in my mind.
14 Q. When you say "the interview that followed",
15 you mean an interview with some other person or the
16 continuation with this person?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. And your recollection at that time is that
19 there were more material interruptions?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. And the interpreter indicated to you that he
22 was actually telling the witness what to say?
23 A. That occasion, she told me later, but I
24 noticed that something was going on between them and I
25 asked her what was going on there, because sometimes
1 she didn't translate to me when she was talking to
2 Mr. Vujin. And later on, she told me the incident, and
3 then I understood for the first time the context of
4 what was going on.
5 Q. The lady with whom you were speaking, the
6 lady to whom Mr. Vujin was, according to your
7 interpreter, giving instructions as to what to say, are
8 you able to tell us her name in open session?
9 A. Oh, yes, no problem about it. Zorica Antic.
10 Q. Now, in paragraph 9 of your statement, you
11 indicate that there were further instances of this sort
12 of behaviour, which could only be described as
13 manipulations of the witness. Again, to the best of
14 your recollection, do you recall what it was Mr. Vujin
15 was telling these witnesses to say or what instructions
16 he was giving the witnesses?
17 A. I can only reproduce, to the best of my
18 recollection, the extent of it. The extent of it was
19 that he was advising witnesses to say specific things,
20 "Tell him so and so and so," or, "Say so and so and
21 so." At least that is what has been told to me by the
22 interpreter. Before the witness could answer my
23 question, he interrupted and said to the witness things
24 like, "Tell him so and so," or, "Say so and so." That
25 was the pattern of what happened.
1 Q. Do you have any recollection of how many
2 witnesses Mr. Vujin engaged in this type of conduct
3 with? To your knowledge.
4 A. Of course. First of all, I have to select
5 for myself where he was present, and then I have to
6 select for myself what occasions, and I hesitate to
7 give any number, because that would be really
8 guessing. It is more or less in my mind as a pattern,
9 reason why not having him present at later occasions.
10 So it must have been somewhere in the period of
11 September, the September visit, and the February
13 How many witnesses were here in that period
14 of time? My guess would be perhaps nine or ten, but
15 I'm really guessing here. I shouldn't do that.
16 Q. All right. And you mean September 1995 to --
17 A. 1995 and February 1996.
18 Q. -- February 1996? These were two different
20 A. Yes. Yes.
21 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. No
22 further questions.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin? Or
24 Mr. Domazet?
25 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honour, before I ask my
1 further questions --
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: May I say this to you
3 with every courtesy: I know that you are trying to
4 assist the Appeals Chamber by speaking in the French
5 language, but I want to tell you that if you would be
6 more comfortable speaking in B/C/S, please do so, by
7 all means. The translators will be able to pick it up
8 from there. So just make yourself as comfortable as
9 you would like.
10 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, especially if
11 Mr. Wladimiroff doesn't speak French, it might be
12 better to put the questions in B/C/S. Thank you.
13 Your Honour, before I start asking questions,
14 I would suggest that the integral videotape be
15 introduced; that is, the tape of which we only saw
17 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation
18 continues] ... translation, Your Honour; so far I only
19 hear Serbo-Croat. Maybe I can be advised about --
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would it help you to
21 read it off the monitor?
22 THE WITNESS: No, let me go to 4.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
25 MR. DOMAZET: If necessary, I can repeat what
1 I have just said, for the benefit of Mr. Wladimiroff.
2 Or did he read it off the transcript?
3 THE WITNESS: I did.
4 MR. DOMAZET: At the same time, we would also
5 suggest that the translation service be put in charge
6 of retranslating the entire tape so that we could add
7 it to the tape. Mr. Abell just told me that he was in
8 possession of the tape and that it was here.
9 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, may I say I have
10 the tape, and I believe it to be the same tape. I have
11 never seen the two of them in one room together, but I
12 believe it to be the same tape; and if it assists, I'm
13 perfectly happy, Mr. Domazet may have it if he wishes
14 to play it all.
15 If it assists, there does exist -- I have
16 asked to be done, some time ago, an English translation
17 of the tape. I haven't photocopied it because I wasn't
18 intending to play it all, but it does exist.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Has Mr. Domazet seen
21 MR. ABELL: I haven't had a chance to show
22 him, because I believe he was making his mind up over
23 the break as to whether he did want to play it or not.
24 But I'm simply saying I have a translation, and I'm
25 more than happy for the Court --
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, the
2 position is this, that your colleague has in his hands
3 a text, and that is at your disposal. So it's a matter
4 for you to decide.
5 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour. I have
6 nothing against this text being copied and used, but I
7 would like the tape to be played and then entered in
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: At what stage would you
10 like the tape to be played? Now?
11 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honour, if technically
12 this is not a problem, I would like to have it played
13 before I start the questions. However, if it is a
14 problem, then perhaps after the break.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would there not be a
16 problem unless those who see the tape being played were
17 at the same time in possession of the transcript, so as
18 to enable them to follow the tape? Or would it be
19 sufficient if the interpreters interpreted the language
20 as it was spoken on the tape?
21 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honours, I believe that it
22 would be sufficient if we had the translations at the
23 time when the tape is being played, in which case the
24 interpreters would not have to actually interpret it
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, Mr. Registrar?
2 THE REGISTRAR: Can I ask Mr. Abell where the
3 translation of the videotape comes from?
4 MR. ABELL: Firstly, I've given it already to
5 the usher to photocopy. The translation comes from a
6 lady who indicated to me that she was an interpreter.
7 Her name is Mrs. Metselaar. And I have somewhere, not
8 to hand, I have somewhere a short statement from her
9 indicating that she translated it. She knows B/C/S and
10 Dutch and English; those languages are --
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is she employed by the
13 MR. ABELL: I believe she has been employed
14 by the Tribunal in relation to -- I don't know if as a
15 court interpreter, but she has certainly, I understand,
16 been employed on prison visits to act as an interpreter
17 for lawyers and defendants at the United Nations
18 Detention Centre.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let us see if
20 Mr. Domazet will accept it as a proper translation.
21 MR. ABELL: Of course.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, what do you
23 say? Do you want the tape played with the support of
24 the text which Mr. Abell is making available?
25 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, Your Honour. Yes.
1 THE REGISTRAR: If you so wish, Your Honour,
2 what we can also do is ask the text to be translated by
3 our translation services, but this would be admitted
4 into evidence at a later stage, if you wish that to be
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: That seems reasonable.
7 MR. DOMAZET: Well, we are also in agreement,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, will you
10 proceed, then? You would like the tape to be played
12 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, can you
14 put that in hand? Is it practicable?
15 THE REGISTRAR: The tape will be numbered 42,
16 and the transcript given by Mr. Abell will be marked
17 43. 43 bis will be the number given to the translation
18 to be done by our translation services.
19 MS. HOLLIS: Excuse me, Your Honour. Perhaps
20 I misunderstood, but I thought from the translation I
21 received that Mr. Domazet would prefer that people have
22 the translations in front of them.
23 Wonderful; here they are. Thank you.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just so, Ms. Hollis.
25 It's being done.
1 I have ten and a half pages of transcript
2 before me. Do you think that the tape could be
3 conveniently played in its entirety between now and,
4 say, a little after 1.00? Yes?
5 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Okay. Go ahead.
7 [Videotape played]
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, it looks as
9 if the tape will continue to be played for some time
10 further. Then may I suggest that we adopt Judge Hunt's
11 suggestion; we put a Post-It, as it were, at the place
12 where the tape stopped, if that is possible, and we
13 adjourn the sitting until, say, about 2.35. Would that
14 be agreeable?
15 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
16 it is convenient, and my apologies, because I had
17 believed that that tape was shorter. But it is very
18 convenient to continue after the adjournment.
19 MR. ABELL: As I said before, Your Honours,
20 my recollection of this tape, as I said earlier, is it
21 is considerably longer than 20 minutes. I believe it
22 is over an hour is my recollection. I'm simply warning
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, Mr. Domazet, you
25 may wish, over the interval, to give some thought to
1 the question whether you need the tape to be played in
2 its entirety.
3 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, Your
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you. Then until
7 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.05 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.39 p.m.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: This sitting is
4 Mr. Domazet, would you like to take the floor
5 and say anything about the tape which is in the course
6 of being played?
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I
8 should like to propose and to request that we look at
9 the tape to the end.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Just so, then. Will the
11 playing of the tape be resumed. Thank you.
12 [Videotape played]
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, I believe
14 we have come to the end of that tape.
15 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Questioned by Mr. Domazet:
17 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, today in your testimony, you
18 mentioned the behaviour -- you talked about the
19 behaviour of Mr. Vujin, his conduct, while you were in
20 Bosnia, investigating the case together and
21 interviewing the witnesses. In your statement, you
22 describe one particular case which you recognised in
23 part of the film, where there was a verbal conflict
24 between your interpreter and Mr. Vujin.
25 Throughout this tape that we had all looked
1 at here together, did you come across any other case --
2 any other instance of Mr. Vujin's conduct which was not
3 correct in any way?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Thank you. I hope that you remember the
6 particular portion of the tape when there was this
7 verbal conflict. So I would like to ask you, if you
8 remember, to tell us, apart from those you recognised
9 -- yourself, Mr. Vujin, your interpreter, and the
10 woman who was being asked the question -- who the other
11 two males were who can be seen on the tape.
12 A. Let me think. I remember having seen one,
13 and I assume that the other -- I can't remember at this
14 very instant -- must have been the husband of the
15 potential witness. The one I remember having seen is,
16 if I'm right in thinking, one of the brothers of
17 Mr. Tadic.
18 Q. Yes, that's correct. In the film, talking
19 about the defence of Mr. Tadic, at one point you say,
20 and I quote, that you express concern, and I quote to
21 you, "... what the Yugoslav lawyers would do." Can you
22 explain what you had in mind when you made that
23 particular statement, and what was it that the Yugoslav
24 lawyers should have done, in view of the fact that, as
25 you explained to us, you were the lead Defence counsel
1 and had two British lawyers on your team?
2 A. At the time when I made that statement which
3 was broadcasted on that tape, I only had one British
4 lawyer, a junior barrister who at that time was not yet
5 admitted to address the Court, so she was more or less
6 a researcher, Mrs. de Bertodano. The other barrister
7 came later. So at that time it was Mr. Orie,
8 co-counsel, and myself, assisted by Mrs. de Bertodano.
9 When I made that statement, I did not explain
10 to the person who interviewed me there what exactly
11 crossed my mind, because I did not feel that
12 appropriate. I only felt that I could express my
13 concerns in the context of that documentary. But
14 actually the same issues, concerns, worries, and
15 tendencies and patterns as I told the Court in my
16 evidence this morning crossed my mind when I made that
18 Q. In that same portion of the film, I recall
19 another statement made by you, that the object of the
20 Yugoslav lawyers was that they could be of assistance
21 in collecting witness statements.
22 A. They tried.
23 Q. In this way, did you consider it to be the
24 only role and object of those lawyers, to be, in fact,
1 A. Well, I think I made that statement in July
2 1995, and we should keep in mind here that when I was
3 assigned to Mr. Tadic in April 1995, in those days
4 there was this Rule by which I had to file all
5 pre-trial motions within 60 days. There was no
6 precedence, no case law, no nothing, so I had to do the
7 whole thing in these 60 days.
8 I'm not a scholar, nor experienced in
9 international humanitarian law, so I really had other
10 concerns on that day -- in those days. So I felt
11 someone else should do investigations on location who
12 speaks the language, who is familiar with the area, so
13 a Yugoslav lawyer can do much more than I can do. That
14 was the very reason I was very glad with the assistance
15 of Mr. Vujin at that stage of the proceedings, and that
16 was the task I had in mind.
17 Q. I do believe that you got to know Mr. Vujin
18 and that you learned, at least in your talks with him,
19 that he is a lawyer who dealt in criminal cases mostly,
20 with many years of experience to his credit, almost 30
21 years of experience, and many cases throughout that
22 time. So did you really think that he personally would
23 be of use in a case of this kind only to collect
24 information, in view of his knowledge of the language
25 used in those regions?
1 A. Well, there were several considerations.
2 First of all, taking evidence in the field is
3 a very delicate issue, specifically when you may expect
4 that the local authorities are not willing to
5 cooperate, you do not speak the language, you hardly
6 have any legal instruments to make people talk to you
7 or to provide you with the right evidence. What you
8 need is an experienced lawyer who knows his way within
9 the legal system on location and who has, let's say, a
10 trust of the people he speaks to to get access to the
11 kind of information we were looking for. So again, I
12 was very glad that I had Mr. Vujin to do this. At that
13 stage, I felt he was appropriate to do it.
14 Now, the other part of your question, yes, I
15 had been told by Mr. Vujin, confirmed by others partly,
16 that he is a very experienced lawyer, had dealt with a
17 lot of criminal cases, even war crime cases in the
18 former Yugoslavia, but I noticed very quickly -- that
19 started somewhere in July, I think, if I remember well,
20 July 1995 -- that the Yugoslav tradition of how to
21 practice was totally different to what I felt would be
22 appropriate in this international court, and what I was
23 looking for was information that would assist me in
24 examining witnesses in court and witnesses who would
25 provide information that would hold during
1 cross-examination, and it was very clear to me that
2 Mr. Vujin had not this insight in how that would
3 function in court. He followed the traditional
4 European continental system of, "As long as you've got
5 a statement on paper, you are there."
6 So by experiencing that he did not quite
7 understand the taste of how things work in a different
8 kind of court on an international footing, I felt he
9 was not appropriate to do the job. But at that time, I
10 totally thought that that was due to lack of experience
11 of working in an international setting and lack of
12 experience working in a common-law setting. Working in
13 a common-law setting.
14 Q. We all know that this was the first case, the
15 Tadic case was the first case to be tried by this
16 Tribunal, so that it was probably a new experience for
17 everybody, yourself included, and not only for
18 Mr. Vujin.
19 A. That's right. The only difference there is
20 that I have been practicing, in my normal practice,
21 that is, for more than ten years; 1995 -- yeah, that
22 would have been about ten years -- in Europe, in the
23 United States, as well as in Canada, so I had some
24 experience in working in an international setting. And
25 I had a knowledge of common law, although I had not the
1 experience, as I felt later on, to do a job just by
2 myself, and for that reason I asked for the assistance
3 of an English barrister.
4 Q. This experience gained in courts in the
5 United States and Canada, was this in criminal cases or
6 in other cases?
7 A. [Previous translation continues] ... deal
8 with criminal cases since I started to practice. To be
9 precise, my practice concerns only fraud cases, and
10 these fraud cases are mostly border-cross cases.
11 International law in terms of EC law.
12 Q. Although you have just told us of the cases
13 you dealt with, I'd like to ask you whether you had any
14 cases of murder, rape, or any similar crimes.
15 A. Yes. Before I specialised, I had a general
16 practice of criminal law.
17 Q. In Holland, at the beginning of your career?
18 Or are you talking about the United States and Canada?
19 A. The international experience was on the basis
20 of my -- what I would call white-collar-crime cases.
21 Q. I'd like to dwell on the film for a little
22 while longer, Mr. Wladimiroff, while it's still fresh
23 in our minds, and particularly that portion towards the
24 end of the tape, you will recognise a gentleman with a
25 dictaphone lying on a bed, and you can hear a voice
1 coming out of the dictaphone. Could you tell us who
2 that is?
3 A. That person is Mr. Orie, co-counsel in those
5 Q. Can you explain to me, what was on that
6 dictaphone, what was taped on it, the conversation that
7 can partially be heard on the tape itself?
8 A. As you may have noticed while watching the
9 videotape, we were told by one of the brothers of
10 Mr. Tadic that this tape represented his voice and the
11 voice of someone else. The name has been mentioned on
12 the videotape, so I take it it will be in the
13 transcript, and we can hear what they exchanged in that
14 telephone conversation because it is written verbatim
15 in the transcript. And that's all I knew.
16 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you know if that
17 particular conversation was taped covertly or publicly;
18 that is to say, with the consent of that other person?
19 If you know, of course.
20 A. I have no clue.
21 Q. From that conversation, did you personally
22 come to understand that that particular witness, that
23 is to say, that individual, was an important witness
24 for your defence case?
25 A. I always maintained the standard that I only
1 present issues in court when I am convinced, myself,
2 that it will hold; there is something in it, and it is
3 worth bringing to the attention of the Judges. So when
4 I got that tape, I understood that it might be of vital
5 importance, but I felt we had to investigate that
6 matter before bringing it out. And that's what we
8 Q. Thank you. I should like to ask you to
9 explain to me what you did, because I suppose that you
10 had a talk with that witness, or took down his
12 A. We tried to track him down, and that was one
13 of the persons I referred to in my earlier testimony.
14 It was Mr. Danicic, first name Milorad, something like
15 that, and he was one on the list. And he was the one
16 who was produced by Mr. Drljaca, and he was one of
17 those two persons I described as well prepared,
18 launched, well orchestrated, when they at last popped
19 up at the police station of Prijedor where I was
20 allowed to speak with them.
21 Q. I take it, Mr. Wladimiroff, from that, that
22 Mr. Drljaca enabled you to have that talk?
23 A. Yes. From the list, he understood that we
24 were looking for this man. So it took some time, and I
25 can't remember how long, but anyhow, at the end of the
1 period, we were looking for this man, he was offered to
2 us, and then we got this very polished story.
3 Q. You're speaking about Mr. Danicic?
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. If I have understood you correctly,
6 Mr. Wladimiroff, you consider that Danicic is the
7 individual with whom the brother of Dusko Tadic had a
8 telephone conversation and whose conversation was
10 A. No, he was the person they were talking
11 about. That's what I understood. The person his
12 brother was talking to, we never could track him down.
13 Q. You never talked to that individual; yes, I
14 understand. Thank you.
15 Mr. Danicic, as we saw from the film, is the
16 individual whose photograph was shown on the tape, and
17 it was shown to a woman who was introduced as a former
18 prisoner in the Omarska camp?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Who was this woman?
21 A. I'm hesitant to give you her name in open
22 court. I only remember her first name. She was not
23 called after all, for very specific reasons, but still
24 I have my doubts whether it would be in her interests
25 to give her name in open court. I have no problem in
1 writing it down, if you like.
2 Q. No, Mr. Wladimiroff, we know full well what
3 the name was, and it was mentioned in the case. I'm
4 not going to repeat it, because I see that you know
5 very well who the woman was, and so do we. However, I
6 see that you, too, consider that it was an important
7 witness, and according to the film, she spoke about the
8 fact that Dusko Tadic was never in Omarska camp. Can
9 you tell us why you did not endeavour to use her as a
10 witness at the trial?
11 A. I've got two reasons. One of the reasons, I
12 think, is part of my professional privilege, so I have
13 to consider my position on that. And the other one I
14 think I can disclose in this court, and the other one
15 is that she told us three stories that were totally
16 inconsistent. The stories were different, and I'm not
17 prepared to call a witness who tells me three different
19 Q. You didn't believe her for that reason, I
21 A. Well, maybe one of the three was the truth,
22 but how to decide which one? And maybe if you call her
23 she will tell a fourth story, or a fifth one, and that
24 would ruin other witnesses. So I prefer to call
25 witnesses when I do believe that they will provide
1 evidence that will hold in court.
2 Q. If those stories of hers were different, as
3 you said, did it bring into question the participation
4 of Dusko Tadic, any one of those stories of hers?
5 THE WITNESS: I prefer to take the
6 professional privilege here, Your Honour.
7 MR. DOMAZET:
8 Q. Very well.
9 When it comes to Mr. Danicic, you mentioned
10 something -- that is to say, you said that you did not
11 wish to enter into any proceedings with -- that is to
12 say, you did not want to enter into the theory of the
13 double, if I understood you correctly?
14 A. Well, the commentator said, if I remember
15 well, that I did not want confusion for the only sake
16 of confusion, and I think that's a fair representation
17 of how I thought in those days. I'm not here to
18 confuse the Court; I'm here to defend Dusko Tadic.
19 Q. Nevertheless, did your client, Dusko Tadic,
20 expressly ask you that Mr. Danicic be a witness in
21 order to try and prove that he was a double; that is to
22 say that Danicic was in fact the individual in Omarska
24 A. We discussed the matter, as far as I
25 remember, more than one time, and again, I take
1 professional privilege here. The outcome was clear:
2 We didn't call him.
3 Q. Did you discuss this with Dusko Tadic's
4 brother, Ljubomir? Did he insist upon this same fact?
5 A. Well, what the brothers had in mind should be
6 a matter of consideration to pass to Dusko Tadic and to
7 discuss the matter with him, but it is the client who
8 is the relevant person here for decisions to make, not
9 the brothers. And I do remember that one of the
10 brothers, the youngest one, strongly believed that this
11 one was the double, but this belief was not, in my
12 appreciation of what I knew at those days, sufficiently
13 substantiated to a standard that I felt confident to
14 bring this witness to a Court. And on top of that, it
15 would have been a -- how to say in English -- an
16 unfriendly witness.
17 MR. ABELL: Hostile.
18 THE WITNESS: Hostile; that's correct. Thank
19 you very much.
20 MR. DOMAZET:
21 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, I value your professional
22 opinion, of course, and do believe me that I would not
23 ask you that question because I thought that it was
24 your professional privilege and your stand in the
25 case. Had there not been a lot of talk about that in
1 this particular case, although I don't think it was
2 necessary, but by Dusko Tadic and especially his
3 brothers, his two brothers, who insisted that Danicic
4 was an individual who should have been heard, and one
5 of them even said that he was a killer. And this was
6 something for which Mr. Vujin was criticised here,
7 although he did not take part in the trial. So thank
8 you for your explanation.
9 When you spoke, Mr. Wladimiroff, about the
10 beginnings of your co-operation with Mr. Vujin, and you
11 said that you went to the Republika Srpska together
12 with him in his car, you say in your statement at one
13 point that you decided to go on your own on one
14 occasion. And that is what you did; you went by bus,
15 in fact, in order, as you say, to test and see whether
16 you could go without him, go to the Republika Srpska
17 without him, to Banja Luka. Did I understand you
18 correctly to say that?
19 A. You understood me correct, because the first
20 time, if I remember well, must have been July 1995. It
21 took much effort by Mr. Vujin to have -- to have me to
22 have access to the area.
23 Q. Do you remember when this second trip took
24 place, in which month?
25 A. September, I think. September '95.
1 Q. Before you set out to take the second trip,
2 did you ask Mr. Vujin's assistance to perhaps provide
3 some kind of permit or travel document for you to
4 travel to the Republika Srpska?
5 A. He knew we were arriving, so I must have
6 contacted him before. There's no doubt about it. Of
7 course, there was this coordination. But that's just a
8 general issue I can remember. I have no specific
9 recollection of telephone calls or letters, but I take
10 it I have -- gave him notice by letter, or I even may
11 have phoned him. I can't remember.
12 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you perhaps remember
13 whether he had provided for you some kind of a permit
14 for travel and that you had this document on you when
15 you set out?
16 A. The first time, yes, I can remember that.
17 The second time, I'm not sure, I'm not sure, because I
18 remember the interpreter going out the bus at the
19 border, making arrangements for the visa, paying for
20 that. I can't remember anything -- let me phrase it
21 very carefully. I cannot exclude that we had some kind
22 of letter of recommendation, but I can't recall that,
23 and I certainly know that the visa were done by Mrs.
25 Q. I understand you. You paid for visas at the
1 border. But did you pay for them before, when you had
2 travelled with Mr. Vujin?
3 A. I don't know, because he arranged it. I
4 don't know. It may be, it may be, because if I -- I'm
5 just trying to recall. It's a very funny way of
6 recalling it, but what was in the request for payment
7 by the Tribunal, was the visa on it or not? I may have
8 paid it, but it's very easy to check because it's in
9 the files of the Tribunal; the financial files, that
11 Q. You said that you gave a list to your
12 investigator, Mr. Kostic; is that correct?
13 A. Let me think. Yes. When I saw him for the
14 first time in January, I think it was, 1996, I gave him
15 a copy of the list. Yes, that's correct.
16 Q. Is this the list which you mentioned which
17 you saw on Mr. Drljaca's desk?
18 A. It's very difficult to say, because this list
19 was ongoing; names were dropped off, names were added,
20 spellings were corrected. So essentially it was the
21 same list, but I don't know which version it was.
22 Q. So it was one list which kept being updated,
23 if I understand you correctly.
24 A. Yes, it was a kind of grass list. Everything
25 was put on it we felt should be investigated.
1 Q. Do you recall what kind of order, if you gave
2 any order to Mr. Kostic of that kind, what kind of
3 order that was?
4 A. Well, we instructed him on the kind of
5 information we were looking for. We had, of course,
6 priorities, because it was such a substantial, long
7 list, that we told him whatever preference there was.
8 I recall instructions like pointing out to
9 him the stronger areas of the defence of alibi and the
10 weaker parts, and we wanted to strengthen some periods
11 of time, so we instructed him to look more specifically
12 for specific names on that list. We had been told that
13 they could vouch for that period of time we were
14 looking for. That kind of instructions we gave to him.
15 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, did this list contain the
16 complete addresses of these witnesses, or were only
17 their first and last names included, or perhaps not
18 even complete, full names?
19 A. In most cases, family name as well as given
20 name. Some versions, and I don't know which version we
21 are talking about here, also the place where they
22 lived; that is, no street or number, only the place.
23 For example, Omarska or that kind of information.
24 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you think that it would
25 have been possible to find all these witnesses without
1 some kind of help or assistance of the police or some
2 other organs, taking into account the incomplete
3 information, the lack of addresses, or -- and I
4 apologise for asking this, but did you give specific
5 instructions to your investigators not to contact the
7 A. Yes, I understand your question very well,
8 because that was a concern we had in mind.
9 One of the reasons why we leaned so much on
10 the relatives of Mr. Tadic was because we felt we
11 should not approach potential witnesses through the
12 assistance of officials; that is, the police officers.
13 We felt that it was more appropriate in our case to
14 approach people on an informal basis and first test
15 what the extent of their knowledge was and then make
16 the interview.
17 We had very good reasons to believe that if
18 you approach people through the assistance of police
19 officers, then you run the substantial risk that when
20 they say things the police didn't like them to say,
21 that they will not tell us that they found them --
22 maybe I'm paranoid on this, but that's what I strongly
23 felt in those days -- or may instruct them to tell
24 different things. So we felt no police should be
25 involved here unless the people were policemen
1 themselves. That was a different position, of course,
2 because you could not approach a policeman without the
3 consent of his superiors.
4 Q. While we're at it, Mr. Wladimiroff, you still
5 did request the assistance of Mr. Drljaca, of whom we
6 also believed that he really did not wish to cooperate
7 and help. But still you did get his help in order to
8 be able to secure interviews with Milorad Danicic and
9 Mr. Tadic called Brk, who, as far as I know, were not
10 police officers. But still, through the assistance of
11 Mr. Drljaca, you were able to get in touch with them?
12 A. We have to separate here between two issues:
13 My visit to Mr. Karadzic as an effort to
14 break the attitude of Mr. Drljaca to block anything I
15 did, so one effort was aimed to have him out of my way,
16 not to assist me but to have him out of my way, to stop
17 him to block what I did or to tell people not to talk
18 to me and anything that goes with it.
19 The other issue is that I could only speak to
20 police officers when I had the consent of their
21 superiors, and the ultimate superior was Mr. Drljaca.
22 I could also only speak to military people on the same
23 level with the consent of superiors. If I remember
24 well, also that matter was referred to Mr. Drljaca.
25 Civil servants, the same.
1 In my recollection, any official person ended
2 up with the name of Drljaca. If Drljaca was fine, then
3 he was fine. If Drljaca did not consent, it was
4 useless to approach the person because he would not
5 talk to us, nor cooperate.
6 So if I say "cooperation," well, what he did
7 at the end of the day was he still obstructed a lot of
8 what we did there, despite his phone call with
9 Karadzic. Secondly, he only produced two witnesses --
10 that is, these two witnesses that surrounded me, or
11 were launched at me, or whatever you call it, at the
12 police station -- and I accepted that at that stage
13 because I had experienced that I could not find them, I
14 could not track them down.
15 Once, for example, Meakic, I was told he was
16 there, and I travelled there. He was gone. When I
17 travelled there, he was gone.
18 So, yes, I thought it better to speak to them
19 through Drljaca than not speaking to these people at
20 all. Two people, that's all he gave me.
21 Q. Those two are Milorad Tadic, Brk, and Milorad
22 "Miso" Danicic; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Did you, at that time, take their written
25 statements? In other words, did you request and did
1 you take statements from them?
2 A. No. I spoke to them. As I said, I had this
3 procedure of first testing what they knew before really
4 going into the matter, and it was very clear from the
5 very beginning that they were just telling me a
6 rehearsed story. So they were totally useless.
7 Q. Right. Mr. Wladimiroff, my understanding is
8 that you did not take statements because you deemed
9 that it was useless for you. That is what they were
11 A. I may have made notes for myself, I have no
12 doubt about it, but I did not take a statement.
13 Q. Right, because this is what you stated in
14 your statement, that these two witnesses provided no
15 significant information.
16 Was Mr. Vujin with you at the time?
17 A. I don't know. It may have been Mr. Vujin.
18 It may have been Mr. Orie. It may have been -- no,
19 Mr. Kay was not there, I think, at that stage. I can't
20 tell. I don't know.
21 Q. Did you know that Mr. Vujin had taken written
22 statements of those two witnesses subsequently? Are
23 you aware of that?
24 A. Maybe. I have no specific recollection of
25 that, but if there were statements by Mr. Vujin and if
1 they were handed over to me, apparently my judgement
2 must have been that they did not add anything to the
4 Let me add to this, to what I said, this:
5 The normal procedure was when we went out to see
6 potential witnesses, and if they would be able to
7 provide helpful information, we interviewed them,
8 indeed, and then took the notes. Every day, we
9 concluded by discussing what we had done, because we
10 separated the lawyers in most cases, and then we
11 decided what to do with witnesses we felt were
13 So when I say that Mr. Danicic and Mr. Tadic,
14 Brk Tadic, was useless, I have no doubt in my mind that
15 I must have discussed that matter with the other lawyer
16 or lawyers, and apparently later on, if I've seen that
17 other statement -- I can't remember it, but if I had
18 seen it, apparently it didn't add anything to our
19 assessment of the situation.
20 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, when did you give the list
21 of potential witnesses to Mr. Vujin?
22 A. The first version I may have given him in
23 July, but I do not exclude the possibility that it may
24 have also been in August or September; in August by fax
25 or mail, September, handing it over.
1 And further versions, I have no specific
2 recollection, but I may have sent him or faxed him or
3 may have used the visit in -- when was it -- November,
4 I think it was, 1995, to Karadzic, to hand him a new
5 version. I can't give you a specific occasion. It was
6 more or less a policy of once you have updated, you
7 would send it out or give it to him.
8 Q. What was Mr. Vujin supposed to do with this
9 list which you gave him?
10 A. I kept him informed of possible witnesses,
11 and I would welcome any suggestion to add or to change
12 names on the basis of potential relevancy, also to --
13 and that was certainly the case, I think, if I have
14 given it in July, to assist in knowing what people I
15 was looking for. And that may also be true with August
16 and perhaps also in September.
17 But later on, I think I already made clear to
18 him that I rather preferred him to do such
19 investigations when I was present. Later on, it became
20 clear that I would rather prefer to do it myself.
21 Again, here is an evolution of thinking.
22 Q. Do you remember giving an order to have this
23 list sent to the attorney Krstan Simic in Banja Luka
24 and to Mr. Tadic's brothers?
25 A. Well, Mr. Simic might be a problem, because
1 he didn't speak any other language than Serbo-Croat,
2 and in those days I did not send -- well, that's not
3 true. I did send him some typed letters through the
4 assistance of the interpreter in July, August,
5 September, but I can't remember having sent him,
6 because I thought that Mr. Vujin would liaise with him
7 because it was Mr. Vujin who introduced Mr. Simic to
9 Now, the brother, I will not exclude the
10 possibility that I may have given a copy at a certain
11 stage to Ljubo, because Ljubo had a very strong view
12 about Drljaca as being the enemy. As I told you, we
13 leaned on the relatives of Tadic to find people, so
14 it's highly likely that I also may have given him
15 updates. But at this stage, I have no reason to
16 believe that he ever misused the trust I put on him. I
17 have no indication whatsoever. On the contrary, I
18 would say.
19 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, I also said nothing about
20 the abuse of privilege. I was just asking whether you
21 had ordered that these documents be sent to Mr. Simic
22 and Mr. Tadic's brothers.
23 I would now like you to look at this fax with
24 the heading of your law offices and ask you whether you
25 recognise the signature. I have a sufficient number of
1 copies for the Appeals Chamber and for all the
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The document
4 will be numbered 44.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the counsel,
7 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, did you recognise this
9 facsimile, this transmission?
10 A. I have a problem here. The front page, no
11 doubt about it. And as I already indicated, I may have
12 done so in July, August, September, and it appears that
13 I sent in August a letter to Mr. Vujin.
14 What is attached to it, I have a problem. My
15 problem is this: First of all, it is Dutch, and I
16 can't remember ever sending Dutch documents to people
17 who don't speak Dutch.
18 The second problem I have is that somehow, in
19 my mind, I believe that I started to make such a
20 chronological survey at a later stage than August 1995,
21 because in August 1995, I knew little. It seems a
22 little bit odd to me, because I could imagine myself
23 starting to make these kind of summaries late 1995, but
24 not in August, because I just had one -- made one visit
25 in July 1995 and I did not have all that kind of
1 information I'm seeing here.
2 I'm a little bit confused here. The
3 handwriting on it, on the other hand, when I carefully
4 look at it, the word "Svedok", "Witness", I think it's
5 my handwriting, so perhaps I may have sent ones [sic].
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Look at the letterhead
7 of some of the --
8 A. Sure, there is no doubt about it that I have
9 typed it or my secretary has. There's no doubt about
10 it. But I'm really confused that I had this
11 information already in August 1995. My confusion about
12 language may be wrong, as I said, because it's my
13 handwriting, putting "Svedok" on it, so I think it
14 might be possible that I have sent this out by
15 indicating to the person who received it that I lacked
16 any evidence. For example, if you look at page 4, on
17 Thursday, May the 7th, 1992, because there's a question
18 mark there, as a clear indication, are there any
19 potential witnesses who could help us out for that
21 But I still am confused about the extent of
22 detail and knowledge at that stage of August, and I
23 can't understand that. It's very odd, very odd.
24 Anyhow, that's all I can say.
25 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Could you please look at the last page of the
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting on this last
5 page, the top part of it?
6 A. Yes, well, as far as I can read it, I
7 recognise the last two lines, between -- sandwiched
8 between the two signatures. They are no doubt of
9 Mr. Vujin, as far as I remember his handwriting, or --
10 that's what I think at this moment. The handwriting on
11 top of it --
12 Q. Yes, that handwriting.
13 A. The word "Svedok," I think, is my
14 handwriting. What is written after that, I don't
15 know. I do not recognise it as my handwriting, but I
16 will not exclude of it -- it seems highly unlikely that
17 I wrote it. It may be my interpreter; it may be
18 someone else. The second word --
19 Q. Yes. Do you think that perhaps your
20 interpreter, Mrs. Zorica, did it?
21 A. Might be. I can't --
22 Q. Thank you.
23 A. All right.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, would this
25 be a convenient time to break for 15 minutes? We must
1 think of the interpreters as well.
2 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Judge Hunt would like to
5 ask one question.
6 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Domazet, this document on
7 some pages seems to have what is called a fax header.
8 It isn't on almost all of them, though. For some
9 reason all of the pages have been cut off at about the
10 stage where Mr. Wladimiroff's phone name would appear.
11 Have you got the original from which this document was
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the counsel.
14 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] The original
15 should be at Mr. Wladimiroff, who was the person who
16 sent the fax. Mr. Vujin is telling me that he has no
17 other copies, because after he was dismissed by
18 Mr. Tadic, he returned the complete file.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: May I assist the Court in this,
21 Your Honour? The word "returned" is not quite
22 appropriate. I handed over the whole file to
23 Mr. Vujin, and I take it that he handed over the file
24 to the next lawyer, so it was not returned to me.
25 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation]
1 Q. No, Mr. Wladimiroff, if you understood that
2 it was returned to you, you're right, it wasn't. But
3 we assume, since you had originally sent the fax, that
4 you must have the original copy in your office. But
5 no, it was not returned -- the file was not returned to
6 you because you no longer represented Mr. Tadic. But
7 we could --
8 MR. ABELL: Please forgive me for
9 interrupting, but on that topic, whilst it's fresh in
10 our minds, the document which should have the date upon
11 which that fax was sent should be the received fax to
12 the person to whom it was sent, which on the first
13 sheet, fax header, is Milan Vujin. In other words, it
14 should be the documents that came out of Mr. Vujin's
15 fax machine that bear the date upon which all of those
16 documents were faxed.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We take note of that.
18 Mr. Domazet, would this be a convenient time,
19 do you think?
20 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I just
21 wanted Your Honour to say that it is clear on the front
22 page that this fax transmission contained 17 pages in
23 total, and this is exactly the number of pages, 16
24 plus 1.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Very well. The Court
1 will rise for 15 minutes. Thank you.
2 --- Recess taken at 4.05 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The sitting is resumed.
5 Mr. Domazet?
6 MR. DOMAZET: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, you were the Defence counsel
8 for Mr. Dusko Tadic until the end of the court case
9 which was completed, and after that, your services were
10 no longer required?
11 A. That's correct. Up to April 1997.
12 Q. After that, the Court decision came about;
13 that is to say, the counts for which Dusko Tadic was
14 found guilty and the charges of which he was
15 acquitted. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And this was done, without the participation
18 of the lawyers, that is to say, after the conclusion of
19 the case?
20 A. The decision was handed down with the
21 presence of the new Defence team, in the presence of
22 the new Defence team.
23 Q. Yes, without any Court hearings later on;
24 there was discussion later over the sentence, the
25 procedure, there were proceedings with regard to the
1 sentence, and you didn't follow the course of that
3 A. No. I only was present when the judgement
4 was handed down, and I was present when the sentencing
5 hearing -- one of the sentencing hearings, one of the
6 afternoons of the sentencing hearings, and that's all I
7 have ever seen of the case.
8 Q. In the letter you sent to Mr. Ljubomir Tadic,
9 the letter which is in the B/C/S language and has been
10 submitted here as an exhibit in its translation, you
11 write to him and say that you considered that you would
12 succeed in having his brother Dusko get four to five
13 years' imprisonment had you been on the case after
14 that. Did you have in mind the proceedings after the
15 court case with regard to the sentence, or in the
16 appeals as well? Did you refer to the appeals, or did
17 you have something else in mind?
18 A. Let me first say that lawyers should never
19 write that, and I did it, and I regret I did. But my
20 opinion at that stage was this: I was in the midst of
21 research, what happened after the Second World War with
22 those people who were not tried in Nuremberg but were
23 tried by domestic German courts. And that stage I had
24 not completed it, but at that stage it became utterly
25 clear to me that if you analysed all the sentences of
1 these German courts, the flavour of it was that if you
2 compare the --
3 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, I apologise; I wanted an
4 answer to the following question, and in fact you have
5 partially answered it, that you should not have written
6 something like that. I accept that, and I don't ask
7 for any further explanation. I accept your answer.
8 Do you recall --
9 A. Well, let me add, nevertheless, it had
10 nothing to do with the fact, but it had to do with an
11 analysis of a possible sentence.
12 Q. Yes, I understood you. I understood you,
13 Mr. Wladimiroff.
14 MR. ABELL: Again, I'm sorry to interrupt,
15 but I understand that what Mr. Wladimiroff is seeking
16 to do, having said that perhaps in hindsight it's
17 something he would rather not have written in a letter,
18 he is seeking, and he ought to be allowed to seek, to
19 justify why he wrote it. And I believe -- I may be
20 wrong -- that Mr. Wladimiroff was in the middle of
21 doing that.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, and I don't think
23 Mr. Domazet will object, but a brief answer will
24 suffice. I understood the witness to be saying that he
25 should not have done it, but he did it because of his
1 analysis of comparable cases within the German domestic
2 jurisdiction; is that right?
3 A. Absolutely right, Your Honour.
4 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] And that is
5 sufficient for us.
6 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, do you recall the testimony
7 of witness Seferovic, Nihad Seferovic, at the trial?
8 A. I'm afraid I'm not very good at names. I
9 don't know. Who is this man?
10 Q. Let me assist you, Mr. Wladimiroff. It was a
11 witness, as far as I know, the only witness who
12 testified that he had personally seen Mr. Dusko Tadic
13 killing two Muslim policemen.
14 A. Where?
15 Q. In the church in Kozarac.
16 A. Ah, the church case. I remember the event,
17 but I can't picture anyone giving evidence about it.
18 That is the problem.
19 Q. Yes, well, precisely. The problem is that I
20 wanted to ask you whether you remember that you
21 explained to Mr. Dusko Tadic that on the basis of the
22 testimony of one particular witness, he cannot be found
23 guilty for that crime, because it was the only witness
24 who testified to that effect.
25 A. I do not remember that I have said that to
1 Mr. Tadic. We discussed a lot, and I have no doubt in
2 my mind that I have also discussed with him the
3 continental Europe tradition of unus testis nullus
4 testis, and the different position of the common law on
5 that issue. It's a matter of a handbook; on page 1,
6 you can read about it.
7 So what will this Tribunal do? I have no
8 doubt about it that I discussed that with him, and I
9 also have passed him my opinion on that, that given the
10 uncertainties of these type of cases, specifically the
11 first case, not getting used to the pattern of what
12 witnesses say, it's highly risky to establish a
13 judgement on one witness only. And I may also have
14 explained to him if -- it may be different if the same
15 event, though different persons, different day, but the
16 same type of allegation has happened in the same period
17 of time, because that might be some kind of
19 And he may have followed in the court a
20 discussion I remember with Judge Ninian about this
21 issue. I remember explaining to the Court how we view
22 this problem in the Netherlands, as well as in Belgium
23 and France, and he was well aware that this was an
24 issue for debate; it's not a fact. I can't imagine
25 that he at one stage would have understood that one
1 witness is not sufficient. He was aware of the
2 problems attached to this issue.
3 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, I really don't want
4 to pop up like a jack-in-the-box every five minutes
5 this afternoon. The reason I am doing so is this: I
6 don't want to shut out any relevant question at all.
7 We all want to get to bottom of this case, I'm sure, as
8 speedily as possible. The reason I am on my feet is
9 because I'm just wondering at the moment what the
10 relevance of the last few questions to the issues this
11 Court has to decide actually is. We seem to be getting
12 into a territory of what advice Mr. Wladimiroff gave as
13 to the strength or weakness of the evidence at trial,
14 what the Judges ruled at trial about the strength or
15 weaknesses of the evidence.
16 What we're really concerned about is the
17 interrelationship, I would submit, between
18 Mr. Wladimiroff and Mr. Vujin whilst they were working
19 together, not what Mr. Wladimiroff may or may not have
20 thought or advised during the trial which he undertook
21 thereafter. And that's why I object.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, Mr. Abell, I'm
23 comforted to have such strong reinforcement of a
24 position which I had repeatedly taken on behalf of my
25 brother Judges and sister Judges on the Bench. That is
1 exactly how we see it. I do thank you for agreeing
2 with that position, and I would counsel Mr. Domazet to
3 give some thought to it as he proceeds.
4 Perhaps you are finished with this particular
6 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes, I've
7 finished, Your Honour. But there's one thing: First
8 of all, it was a question of why Mr. Vujin was let go
9 from the team, and in view of the fact Mr. Vujin was
10 dispensed with by Mr. Wladimiroff, that is why these
11 questions were asked in that way.
12 But as the witness does not remember that
13 very important -- who we feel to be a very important
14 witness in the case, I have just one more question to
15 ask him in that regard, if you will allow me to do so:
16 Does he remember Dusko Tadic's remark that the witness
17 should be discredited as somebody who is sick and
18 incapable of testifying, and does he remember that in
19 any light? And then I won't ask any more about that
21 A. As a general issue, if we had any critic on
22 the witness, we would do that through
23 cross-examination, and I trust we have done so in this
24 case. And since I have no specific recollection of
25 this witness, I cannot answer your question, whether we
1 had specific instructions by Mr. Vujin.
2 A. Thank you. Thank you. I understand.
3 Did Mr. Vujin have any influence -- wield any
4 influence on you in the course of the case once you
5 left the Defence team until the end of the court case?
6 A. When I came out of the hospital, Mr. Vujin
7 already left the team, and I date that somewhere in
8 April 1996. There was no professional contact between
9 us. I may have seen him on occasions, but we never
10 discussed the case any more.
11 Q. Thank you. In your written statement, I
12 think it is paragraph 22, you state that you had
13 knowledge that Mr. Vujin, after leaving the Defence
14 team, on several occasions travelled to the Republika
15 Srpska and Banja Luka, and you express your surprise,
16 in a way. Did you know at the time, or do you know
17 now, that Mr. Vujin had other cases to attend to and
18 other clients whose counsel he was and whom he
19 represented in the Republika Srpska and Banja Luka, and
20 that that perhaps was the reason for his travels?
21 A. I totally accept that, of course, but what I
22 have aimed to say here is that I was told by relatives
23 of Mr. Tadic that they had seen Mr. Vujin in the area.
24 And if I remember well -- and I'm really concentrating,
25 if I can give you an example -- I'm afraid I cannot.
1 But anyhow, the type of information was that
2 he was travelling in the area and that he met persons I
3 also had met. I can't give you any number, whether it
4 was one, two, or three persons, or even more. I can't
5 give you names. But that's what I had in mind when I
6 gave evidence about this issue.
7 Q. Very well; thank you. You mentioned
8 Mr. Drljaca several times as an individual who
9 obstructed your work and the work of your team, right
10 up until the moment -- that is to say, after the visit
11 to Karadzic. Was Mr. Vujin dissatisfied with the
12 relationship of Mr. Drljaca towards you and to the
13 other people working on the case?
14 A. What he said, one could say, yes, he was
15 worried about that too.
16 Q. Do you know whether, in oral form or in
17 writing, there were criticisms about Mr. Drljaca
18 written to higher instances, higher authorities?
19 A. Well, what I remember is, and I think the
20 source of it must have been Mr. Vujin, is that in the
21 bosom -- however you say in English -- in the hearts of
22 the Republika Srpska authorities, there were different
23 factions, and one faction would not agree with what the
24 others would say. Let's say as far as I learned about
25 these kinds of tensions between groups, it was that
1 some were more liberal.
2 For example, I remember the name of
3 Mr. Neskovic, who for a certain period of time was
4 either Deputy Minister of Interior or Deputy Minister
5 of Justice, I forget what it is, but he seems to be a
6 more liberal type of person, allowing us more room to
7 manoeuvre than others, tough ones like Drljaca. Again,
8 I remember Mr. Vujin at a certain stage, it must have
9 been somewhere in September 1995, I guess, expressing
10 his worries about that, but that's all I can say.
11 Q. Thank you. Do you recall, Mr. Wladimiroff,
12 that Mr. Vujin gave you the findings of court experts
13 that he employed, that is to say, of the medical
14 profession, and that their conclusion was that it was
15 impossible to cut off testes with one's teeth?
16 A. Right, I do remember that. In Dutch, we say
17 you can't walk on one leg. So I had also someone else
18 look into the matter, someone else who is not only
19 experienced in, let's say, giving an opinion about the
20 substance of the matter but who is also experienced to
21 be an expert witness in a court under common law and to
22 be cross-examined. I felt that I should also value
23 such an approach to test what would hold in court. And
24 on the basis of the other expertise I got, the team
25 decided not to pursue that issue.
1 Q. So you did not deal with that matter at the
3 A. I did not call that Yugoslav expert.
4 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, you said, about your visit
5 to Karadzic, and please put me right, it was just one
6 visit, was it not? I understand that you went to visit
7 Radovan Karadzic on only one occasion.
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. Thank you. So I understood you correctly.
10 But you said, on several occasions, "I went to
11 Karadzic," but you did not say whether Mr. Vujin was
12 with you or not, and the the interpreter as well.
13 A. Mr. Vujin was there. Mrs. Antic was there.
14 Mr. Vujin drove me from Belgrade to Pale and backward.
15 Q. He was at the meeting, together with you,
16 with Mr. Karadzic?
17 A. He was present there.
18 Q. Thank you. Mr. Wladimiroff, I should like --
19 A. I should add perhaps, because I think I wrote
20 it in the statement and I think I should tell this, the
21 initiative and the contact was made by me with
22 Mr. Karadzic.
23 Q. Yes, we agree with you that it was your
24 initiative but that you went together and took the
25 meeting together.
1 Mr. Wladimiroff, I would like to show you
2 eight letters bearing your signature, or at least I
3 would like you to confirm that this is your signature
4 and that it came from your office, seven of which were
5 written in English in the original and one to Mr. Simic
6 in B/C/S. Would you please confirm that these are your
8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] I have enough
9 copies for all the parties, and, Your Honours, this
10 will conclude my questions. This will be my last
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Perhaps I'll put one or
13 two little questions. Mr. Abell, I believe you are
14 still seated. You're not about to make an
15 intervention, are you?
16 MR. ABELL: No.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN:
19 Q. Mr. Wladimiroff, this may embarrass you, but
20 should I take it, from all that has been said, that you
21 are now in the position of a leader at the criminal bar
22 of The Netherlands?
23 A. I'm chairing the criminal bar of The
24 Netherlands, yes. Sorry, up to recently. I have to
25 adjust my mind again. It changed two weeks ago, I
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Should I also take it
3 that you decided, in your professional judgement as a
4 Defence counsel, not to pursue, in the Trial Chamber,
5 two sets of representations which had been made to you;
6 one, that a certain crime had been committed by a
7 double of Mr. Tadic; two, that it was not possible to
8 cut off the testes with the teeth?
9 A. That's right, Your Honour. The first one, it
10 never passed the level of rumour. The second one, the
11 other information was confusing to understand the first
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: So it isn't that the
14 representations were not made to you. They were made
15 to you?
16 A. Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But you decided, in your
18 responsible professional judgement, not to follow them
20 A. That's exactly right, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, you remember the
22 incident relating to the quarrel, I think I can use
23 that term, between your interpreter and Mr. Vujin?
24 A. That's right, yes.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, now, I've been
1 looking at two sets of transcripts relating to that
2 incident, and I have been trying to harmonise them.
3 One, I think, is either Exhibit 39 or 40. It begins,
5 Mr. Registrar, what is that? What number is
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The
8 transcript is numbered Exhibit 37, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: 37. And the transcript
10 numbered Exhibit 43, I believe, the last big transcript
11 of the full tape. May I invite the witness to look at
12 those two transcripts and to see if, in relation to
13 this incident, they are speaking of the same thing.
14 Witness, do you have before you the big
15 transcript, Exhibit 43?
16 A. Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then I'm at page 3.
18 A. I've got it in front of me.
19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Right. Do you have
20 Exhibit 37 before you?
21 A. Not yet.
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Just look at the
23 little portion relating to the quarrel.
24 Dealing with the little one first, the little
25 one first says this:
1 "Mr. Vujin: I know what he doesn't say. I
2 don't care about what he has to say. I want to say
3 what I want." "I want to say what I want."
4 So that fits into a suggestion that he was
5 saying something, and furthering to the suggestion that
6 he was saying what the witness should say.
7 Now look at the other transcript. In
9 "Quarrel between interpreter and Vujin. The
10 interpreter thought that Vujin had to wait until
11 Wladimiroff puts the question."
12 Then I think this is a quotation:
13 "Vujin: I don't care what he wants. I ask
14 what I want to."
15 So one represents Mr. Vujin as saying
16 something. The other represents him as asking
17 something and suggests that the witness was saying,
18 "Look, you can't ask any questions. All questions are
19 to be asked by Mr. Wladimiroff."
20 Now, if you grasp the distinction I'm trying
21 to develop, which of those two versions corresponded to
22 what you recall as having, in fact, happened? Was
23 Mr. Vujin telling the witness what to say or was the
24 problem this, that Mr. Vujin was asking a question and
25 the interpreter thought, no, no, all questions were to
1 be asked by Mr. Wladimiroff?
2 A. It's different. It was the first time that
3 such a thing happened, and at the very moment when it
4 happened, I didn't notice. I only noticed some
5 exchange between the interpreter and Mr. Vujin.
6 Later on, I understood what had happened, so
7 I can't give you any information about the difference
8 you're looking for. The only thing I can say is that
9 the whole conversation, as such, was that there were
10 several interventions by Mr. Vujin, and my impression
11 was that he was either advising the witness what to say
12 or correcting the witness in terms of, "What about
13 this, then," and, "What [indiscernible] them there,"
14 that kind of -- that's what I recall.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then I'm trying to
16 reconcile that version with what the transcript says in
17 Exhibit 37, the little one.
18 A. May I advise the Court about that we only
19 have seen a very small portion of what happened that
20 afternoon. I allowed them only to make that kind of
21 picture at the very beginning and then had to cut off.
22 So what I'm saying to you is my remembrance
23 of the whole conversation. I have little recollection
24 about what happened here, because I was told later what
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, yes. Now, look at
2 Exhibit 37 again, the one which has Mr. Vujin down as
3 saying, "I want to say what I want." The question in
4 my mind is was he saying something or was he putting a
6 Now look at two lines above. The interpreter
7 is speaking. She's saying, "Hang on. I won't ask
8 questions unless he tells me to." Who is "he" there,
9 Mr. Wladimiroff?
10 A. I'm afraid it's me.
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. Don't be afraid at
12 all. You're giving testimony which is helpful to the
14 So does that not suggest to you that the
15 problem was that Mr. Vujin was asking a question, and
16 the witness was taking up the position, "No, you don't
17 ask any questions. Only Mr. Wladimiroff may ask
19 A. I would go along with you potentially, but I
20 can't confirm mostly because I can't remember.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No. Let's move on a
23 Did Mr. Vujin see these witnesses before this
25 A. This specific witness?
1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
2 A. I have no information that would confirm
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No, you don't have any.
5 A. No.
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, let me ask you the
7 question like this: I think I can state this and not
8 ask this because it's so obvious.
9 Legal procedures vary from country to
10 country. It's not a question of whether they conform
11 to applicable international legal norms, but we know
12 they vary. Did you become aware of the existence in
13 Yugoslavia of any statutory or regulatory regime which
14 stipulated to this effect, that if Defence counsel
15 wishes to interview witnesses, the arrangements for the
16 interviewing should be done by some authorised
17 official, preferably at the police station? Did you
18 ever become aware of any such institution?
19 A. I have not read the Rules, so to say, by
20 myself, but I was well aware of the nature of the
21 system, of where it derives from and how it worked on
22 this level, in terms of investigations conducted by the
23 police, lawyers not being present when, for example,
24 witnesses are interviewed or investigations conducted
25 in the authority of the investigating judge, when a
1 lawyer would be allowed to be present except for
2 specific circumstances.
3 So I took that into account. But still in
4 the European continental tradition, before you advise
5 police or investigating judge to hear someone, you
6 convince yourself that it is a relevant witness to
7 hear. So what you essentially do is test the witness,
8 if there is any relevancy in the information he might
9 provide, and if so, you pass his name to the
10 investigating judge or to the police.
11 So to start with, I think I had a grasp of
12 what the tradition was under which he used to work.
13 And on top of that, I had, in my mind, that he was,
14 maybe still is, the Dean of the Bar in Belgrade, though
15 not the first one. It is the absolutely first one to
16 expect to go along the Rules.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now, Mr. Karadzic.
18 Certain interviewing arrangements were made for you by
19 Mr. Drljaca, the police chief, Drljaca?
20 A. Drljaca. What are you referring to, to my
21 speaking with Mr. Karadzic?
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
23 A. I arranged that myself, through the
24 assistance of someone else.
25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then he issued some
1 communication, pursuant to which you then had access to
2 certain persons whom you wanted to interview?
3 A. No. What he did, Mr. Karadzic phoned, in our
4 presence, Mr. Drljaca, and what I had been told by my
5 interpreter was that Mr. Karadzic essentially, to
6 summarise it, instructed Mr. Drljaca, police chief in
7 Prijedor, not to obstruct the work of the Defence and
8 to, on the contrary, to assist the Defence. If I
9 remember well, by the sound of it and as it had been
10 translated to me, there was some objections and
11 explanations by Mr. Drljaca, and at the end of it, he
13 So on the basis of what had been told to me
14 by then, it seemed that Mr. Drljaca agreed to the
15 position that he should not obstruct but, on the
16 contrary, cooperate, and that's where the whole thing
17 was left.
18 Later on, and you have noticed that in the
19 documentary, we felt that we needed some kind of
20 confirmation of that in writing because Mr. Drljaca
21 didn't want to do so, so we felt perhaps -- let me use
22 the phrase -- we should massage the authority to have
23 some kind of letter, and that's what we asked Mr. Vujin
24 to do. That's the reason why I distance myself a
25 little bit from what the commentator said in the
2 But, anyhow, Mr. Vujin went out, and then
3 this fax came in, which simply says that we were
4 allowed to do the investigations. That's all it says.
5 It doesn't authorise -- sorry. It does not instruct
6 any authority to assist us. It simply says that we are
7 authorised by the date, as far as I remember, the 1st
8 of February to do the job. That's essentially what it
9 says. That was not news.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. You appreciate
11 that interference and obstruction is one thing?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But did you become aware
14 of a procedure under which some responsible official
15 would have a role to play if Defence counsel wish to
16 interview witnesses?
17 A. At that time, I was led by the position that
18 either we had to inform the Trial Chamber, as we did,
19 if there was any obstruction we could not surpass
20 ourselves, and then the unproportional reaction would
21 be that the Trial Chamber would have to follow the
22 official procedure, ending up with the Security
23 Council, or to fight our way ourselves. That was
24 essentially the two parameters we had to find our way.
25 We informed the Trial Chamber, on a regular
1 basis at status hearings, about what were our
2 adventures, so to say.
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, thank you,
4 Mr. Wladimiroff. I'm grateful for your testimony, the
5 Bench is.
6 Yes, Mr. Abell.
7 MR. ABELL: I just wonder, given that Your
8 Honour has asked one or two very pertinent questions,
9 if I may say so, about the "double" point --
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No, no. No further
11 questions will be entertained by the Bench at this
13 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, so be it. I was
14 only going to ask two or three questions as to why he
15 took the view he did.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No. No questions will
17 be entertained. It's a rule of procedure with the
18 Court that when the Judges finalise matters by asking a
19 couple of questions, they do not allow any objections.
20 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, I have no
21 questions, but I do have a question of the Bench for
23 Before Your Honour asked the questions, my
24 understanding was that Mr. Domazet had had this package
25 of letters distributed, but I don't recall if
1 Mr. Wladimiroff had verified that these were letters
2 that he had sent, and that perhaps --
3 A. That's right.
4 MS. HOLLIS: Perhaps that will need to be
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: What is your position,
7 Mr. Domazet?
8 MR. DOMAZET: [Interpretation] Yes. My
9 question of Mr. Wladimiroff was for him to verify the
10 letters. I think that they were distributed, but I'm
11 not sure that he has done it and that he has reviewed
13 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The letters
14 will be marked 45. 45/1 for the letter of the 2nd of
15 May; /2 for the letter of the 17th of May, '95; 45/3
16 for the letter of the 13th of May, '95; /4 for the
17 letter of the 4th of September, '95; /5 for the letter
18 of the 15th of October, '95; /6 for the letter of the
19 30th of September of '97; /7 for the letter to
20 Mr. Vujin as well of the 30th of September, '97, a
21 two-page letter compared to the others; and 45/8, which
22 is a letter to Mr. Simic dated 16th of November, '95.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Then these documents are
24 admitted and given those exhibit numbers.
25 That concludes this witness's evidence.
1 Mr. Wladimiroff, you may stand down. You are
3 [Appeals Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I'm premature. You
5 haven't confirmed yet.
6 A. Yes, I've written all these letters.
7 I have one small comment to make on the
8 letter dated 17th of May, 1995, which is the second
9 letter of the bundle. It's a fax cover sheet, and then
10 a letter is attached to it. It's a letter to the
11 embassy of the former -- of the FRY in The Hague.
12 I would like to say that the tapes were
13 properly sealed, because this was privileged
14 knowledge. I only used the diplomatic mail to have it
15 urgently forwarded to Belgrade.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Any objections from the
17 parties? No. Then I confirm the documents have been
19 Witness, thank you again. You may stand
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: That concludes the case,
23 as it were, against Mr. Vujin. But before I go
24 further, I wish to refer to a motion which Mr. Abell
25 had made.
1 Yes, Mr. Abell.
2 MR. ABELL: Your Honour may remember that
3 there was admitted into evidence a statement from a
4 witness who was designated Witness G --
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
6 MR. ABELL: -- from whom we have not heard.
7 My understanding is, from informal discussions with the
8 Registry and the court clerk, that efforts were being
9 made to see if he could be traced and if either he
10 could come to give evidence or give evidence over
11 videolink, rather like Mr. Preradovic did. I remind
12 Your Honours of that. That evidence was admitted, and
13 it is still outstanding, one of the Court's witnesses.
14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let me confer with my
16 MR. ABELL: Of course.
17 [Appeals Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The position is this:
19 I'm not sure, personally, about all the matters you
20 have mentioned. No doubt that was said and that was
21 the intention, but the intention could not have been to
22 keep the proceedings going ad infinitum.
23 MR. ABELL: I appreciate that. All I'm
24 reminding Your Honours of is that on the first morning,
25 I believe it was, of last week -- no, I'm so sorry, the
1 second morning, there was an ex parte hearing, as a
2 result of which that evidence -- that statement was
3 admitted. Witness G.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But Witness G hasn't
5 turned up until now.
6 MR. ABELL: That's right.
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is the testimony
8 expected to be given of this witness related to any
9 particular thing you have in mind?
10 MR. ABELL: Well, it was evidence admitted by
11 the Court as being another example of misconduct.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You mean it was evidence
13 admitted by a scheduling order?
14 MR. ABELL: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But not admitted in
17 MR. ABELL: Because I gather there were
18 practical difficulties about arranging the attendance
19 of the witness.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Registrar, the
21 arrangements, have they been concluded up to now?
22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Well, we
23 tried to conform -- to comply with your order, but we
24 can't contact Witness G. We lack a lot of data to do
1 Mr. Abell might be able to help us out, as we
2 suggested to him in the course of the week, and that
3 would be most welcome.
4 MR. ABELL: My understanding is -- can I just
5 remind Your Honours that the way this came about was
6 that a statement was sent to the Court from the former
7 Yugoslavia by Witness G, not to me. I know nothing
8 more than what is on the piece of paper, and my
9 recollection is it was given to me by Mrs. Featherstone
10 or another member of the Tribunal.
11 Overnight, I made the ex parte application.
12 I drafted it and presented it to Your Honours the
13 following morning, as I considered it to be my duty to
14 assist this Court, and I've got no means of contacting
15 the witness.
16 My understanding as to what the latest
17 position is is that Mr. Ljubo Tadic, who apparently
18 knows where the witness lives, had been asked to
19 contact him on his return to the former Yugoslavia. He
20 would have returned there yesterday. I don't know
21 whether the clerk can make enquires of someone within
22 the witness department to see whether any information
23 has been received.
24 I'm not trying to hold up the proceedings.
25 Forgive me. I'm merely trying to remind Your Honours
1 of the scheduling order, admitting that evidence and
2 mentioning that that evidence is not at hand at the
3 morning, may be via videolink tomorrow morning. I know
5 [Appeals Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Judge Hunt will ask a
8 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Abell, you raise some issue
9 of forgery, and as I recall it, you said that you and
10 the Prosecution were considering whether some further
11 evidence was going to be available.
12 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, yes.
13 JUDGE HUNT: We've heard nothing more about
15 MR. ABELL: I know. That's next on my list
16 of outstanding matters. I've made a list, if I may say
17 so, of outstanding matters, and I thought I would
18 mention "G" first of all.
19 Might I, as I've mentioned "G", and I'm
20 sorry, I'm not trying to slip off the topic that His
21 Honour Judge Hunt mentioned, but just to assist Your
22 Honours, just to refresh Your Honours' memory, that's
23 the scheduling order about Witness G and that's
24 Witness G's statements, if Your Honours wish to be
25 reminded of what its contents are, as long as I can
1 have it back.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Abell, if we were to
3 wait until tomorrow morning, would that appear to be a
4 convenient procedure?
5 MR. ABELL: In relation to Witness G?
6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
7 MR. ABELL: Yes. We may have a progress
8 report by then, and we can take stock of the
10 I'm happy to move on to the issue of the
11 Preradovic forgery matter, to change the topic.
12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Would you like to know
13 that I also have a little shopping list on which that
14 item appears?
15 MR. ABELL: Yes.
16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I had meant to deal with
17 it as soon as we would have gone through this
18 particular item.
19 MR. ABELL: Yes.
20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, now it is agreed
21 that we will adjourn the case until tomorrow, and we
22 will then see whether this particular witness is
23 available to the Court; but if not, I think you must
24 know that the mood of the Bench is that the case cannot
25 go on ad infinitum in the expectation that some
1 particular witness will turn up by happenstance, as it
2 were. All right? So we will adjourn until 10.00
4 Yes, Mr. Vujin?
5 MR. VUJIN: [In English] Sorry, Your Honour,
6 I would like to mention one question more. Sorry.
7 [Interpretation] If we are waiting until
8 tomorrow morning for a possibility to take testimony of
9 Witness G, and taking into account the expenses which
10 have been incurred in trying to ensure the appearance
11 of my witnesses, and that we have lost one working day
12 due to Mr. Wladimiroff's inability to be present, and
13 also taking into account that we are all engaged in
14 various matters, I would just try to field a suggestion
15 about a schedule which we have proposed, where I had
16 proposed that I be the first witness to be called in
17 our case.
18 We would now like to propose that this would
19 be changed in such a manner that the witnesses which we
20 had proposed be questioned first, and that I be
21 questioned in the end, because I do not expect that we
22 are going to able to examine all the witnesses, so I
23 would not like to have additional expenses incurred in
24 having to reinvite some of the witnesses back.
25 So this is all I have to propose.
1 MR. ABELL: I would make a submission on
2 that. My submission would be, I'm afraid, in
3 contradiction to Mr. Vujin's submission, because he is,
4 with the greatest of respect to him, the accused for
5 these proceedings, and the normal rule is that the
6 accused gives his evidence first, and any witnesses he
7 wishes to call he calls after that, for all sorts of
8 good reasons.
9 Whilst I'm on my feet, whilst I don't wish to
10 flit from topic to topic, I know Your Honour has said
11 we're going to adjourn until tomorrow; I thought Your
12 Honour wanted to hear from me as to these forgeries.
13 I'm in Your Honour' hands, between Your Honours, as to
14 what I do. I only want to assist the Court.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We shall give a ruling
16 tomorrow morning on the forgeries. We would have given
17 it now had it not been for this new development.
18 MR. ABELL: I understand. I thought Your
19 Honours wanted to -- I'm sorry.
20 [Appeals Chamber confers]
21 MR. ABELL: It will take me five minutes to
22 explain, if that assists.
23 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The point has been made
24 to me, and it sounds to be well founded, that there
25 would be utility in your telling us now, briefly, what
1 you wish to say on the forgery aspect on which we shall
2 rule in the morning.
3 MR. ABELL: I will do so.
4 There are three relevant pieces of paper.
5 Exhibit 18 is the document which was filed at the ICTY
6 on the 5th of February of 1998. As Your Honours
7 rightly said, if there is any dispute about that, I
8 have spoken with the clerk of the court; that can be
9 formally proved. That document has the filing date on
10 it and the number.
11 18D is the document which was produced by
12 (redacted). It
13 is the document that he said, when he produced it, was
14 the one which he had shown to the witness,
15 Mr. Preradovic; that is the document that
16 Mr. Preradovic in his written statement indicated was,
17 quote, "a fraud."
18 And Document 18C, which was the document that
19 Mr. Vujin stood up during the course of the evidence
20 and produced as the original, and if I can assist, the
21 words he used are to be found at the transcript at page
22 920, and I'm briefly going to refer to it to make the
24 Mr. Vujin said this. This was during the
25 course of Mr. Preradovic's evidence, shortly before
1 Mr. Vujin was due to cross-examine. He said: "Thank
2 you, Your Honours. If you wish, I can show you the
3 original of the statement that has been designated with
4 the Number 18."
5 Pausing there, Exhibit 18, as I say, is the
6 one filed in February 1998 by Mr. Vujin.
7 "I can show you the original of the statement
8 that has been designated with the number 18 if anything
9 is being contested. If it isn't, then we can continue
10 immediately, so that you can compare it to the copy
11 which Mr. Preradovic himself has."
12 And so Mr. Vujin was there inviting a
13 comparison between his original, as he says it to be,
14 and the copy that Mr. Preradovic had; in other words,
15 saying that that original was the same document that we
16 have a photocopy of exhibited as number 18, Exhibit
17 Number 18.
18 And this is the point. One doesn't need
19 expert evidence on this; the Prosecution and I are
20 agreed about this. There is a simple comparison that
21 can be done by holding the documents up to the light.
22 Very simple. May I explain what I mean?
23 If one concentrates on the printed name,
24 "Preradovic, Milos," at the bottom of each of the
25 three documents, one puts them, holding them up to the
1 light, so that the printed name is exactly on top of
2 the copy, registered exactly, and then one looks at the
3 position of the signature, what one sees is that on
4 Exhibit 18, which is the document which was filed by
5 Mr. Vujin in February '98, and on 18D, which is the
6 document which Mr. Preradovic described in his
7 statement as a fraud and which is the document (redacted)
8 (redacted) which he showed
9 Preradovic when that statement was made, what one sees
10 when one holds it up to the light is that the position
11 of the signature is in exactly the same place.
12 Therefore the inference must be they are a photocopy of
13 one and the same document.
14 However, and this is the point, if one takes
15 the document produced by Mr. Vujin, which -- I
16 photocopied it for ease; in the original there is a
17 blue signature -- if one holds 18C up to the light
18 against either 18D or 18, one sees that the signature
19 is in a different position, by a matter of millimetres,
20 but it is in a different position. Therefore, the
21 document which Mr. Vujin produced as an original, and
22 which the witness Preradovic said he signed in March of
23 1999, because this was the effect of his evidence,
24 cannot be, cannot be the document which was filed by
25 Mr. Vujin on the 5th of February of 1998, although
1 looking at the two, like this, one may not able to
2 detect a difference. One has to, as I say, hold them
3 closely, register the type script, and see that the
4 signatures of different.
5 And it is our submission -- and I don't want
6 to go into all the evidence as to what Mr. Preradovic
7 said, but it is our submission that taking
8 Mr. Preradovic's evidence that what he had signed was
9 similar to the statement produced by Mr. Vujin but had
10 some differences which he didn't think were very
11 important, that the document that he signed in early
12 1998 was not the document submitted to this Tribunal on
13 the 5th of February. And therefore there is strong
14 inferential evidence, I would submit, compelling
15 evidence, that this document, Exhibit 18, the one
16 filed, is a forgery.
17 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Abell, the witness himself
18 was asked specifically, did he sign more than one
19 copy? And if you remember, there were a number of
20 copies made.
21 MR. ABELL: Yes.
22 JUDGE HUNT: And he could not exclude it.
23 MR. ABELL: But, Your Honour, the way that I
24 took the evidence or read the evidence when he was
25 being asked about that was this: that he was there
1 dealing with what he called a questionnaire, which he
2 repeatedly said was similar to the statement he signed
3 in Mr. Vujin's presence in March of '99, but which was
4 different. It had a yes/no block in it, for example.
5 In other words, what he was saying was he signed, he
6 believed, several copies of a questionnaire, not this
8 One wonders, as well, on that topic, one
9 wonders what the reason there would be for Mr. Vujin to
10 attend Mr. Preradovic together with Mr. Saponja, on the
11 15th of March of 1999, to get him to sign the statement
12 -- that's the evidence as to when it was signed -- if
13 it had already been signed, if several copies of that
14 same statement had already been signed.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Are you still answering
16 Judge Hunt's question?
17 MR. ABELL: Yes, I'm endeavouring to, yes, I
18 hope at not too great a length, but I'm endeavouring to
19 do it. I can give Your Honour -- if Your Honour
20 wishes, I can give Your Honour the transcript
21 references to that point: 887, 891, 896, and 897.
22 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry? 887?
23 MR. ABELL: 887, 891, 896, and 897 were all
24 examples of his indicating that this questionnaire,
25 which he called it -- he said on one occasion
1 questionnaire or statement, I can't remember which, but
2 the questionnaire or statement he signed, way back, was
3 different, although similar, different from the
4 document which he signed in March of 1999 in
5 Mr. Vujin's presence and which has been submitted to
6 this Court during the course of this hearing by
7 Mr. Vujin, who invites to you compare it with
8 Exhibit 18, the implication being it's one and the same
9 document. That's what he said.
10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin wishes to say
12 MR. ABELL: Certainly.
13 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, Mr. Vujin?
14 MR. VUJIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your
15 Honour. I'm very surprised by the way in which my
16 learned colleague, Abell, pursues his thinking and his
17 claim that this document is a forgery.
18 Without entering into what the witness said,
19 and in order not to give a summation like Mr. Abell, I
20 just want to say that he confirmed that he had signed
21 the statement -- or a questionnaire, and this is for
22 you to judge after having seen all the presented
23 evidence -- the fact remains that he confirmed that he
24 had signed several copies of this document.
25 I am in possession of one original which was
1 signed in pencil, and I had submitted that one. I am
2 not sure whether the other originals have been forcibly
3 taken from my office when Mr. Bozovic broke in with two
4 bodyguards and retrieved the entire file case of Dusko
5 Tadic, but what is important is that Mr. Preradovic
6 confirmed his signatures, both on Exhibits 18, 18C, and
8 And, please, if you are to ascertain, to
9 judge whether there are any forgeries in the body of
10 text, please use experts, or not, it is clear that the
11 typewritten text is identical on all the documents.
12 Whether this was signed a couple of millimetres up or
13 down may be due to the copying process, but really the
14 test is whether the typewritten text is the same or
15 not, and I think that we also know that Mr. Preradovic
16 has confirmed that he has signed it, and that is all I
17 have right now. Thank you.
18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Substantial submissions
19 have been made. The Prosecution is entitled to speak.
20 MS. HOLLIS: Very briefly, Your Honour.
21 If, indeed, you're going to make a decision
22 about this issue of a forgery, we would also direct
23 your attention to the testimony of Witness H, because I
24 believe in his testimony, he talks about Mr. Preradovic
25 telling him that Mr. Vujin had come to Mr. Preradovic
1 and asked him to confirm his statement. So it doesn't
2 clarify things, perhaps, for you, but that's a version
3 he says Mr. Preradovic told him was not to sign it, but
4 was to confirm the statement.
5 I'm trying to -- on the cross-examination,
6 Your Honour, when we go back to it, I believe, it is on
7 page 1158, we're attempting to find where he first
8 speaks about it in response to questions from
9 Mr. Abell. So there is his version as to what
10 Mr. Preradovic said occurred when Mr. Vujin visited
11 him, and this was a confirmation of a signature.
12 We had spoken with Defence counsel about
13 these signatures and had suggested to Defence counsel
14 one way, perhaps, of assisting in making a
15 determination, comparing these documents, would be,
16 number one, to darken 18D, because since it was in blue
17 ink it was light, so if it were a darker copy perhaps
18 you could consider it better; secondly, that perhaps
19 there would be a way that the Registry could enlarge
20 just that section of the documents for your comparison,
21 if you found that helpful. Those were the discussions
22 that we had with Defence counsel about that.
23 We believe that on the face of these
24 documents, if you look at them, there do appear to be
25 discrepancies in the signature. How those
1 discrepancies are explained probably will result in
2 being a matter for final summation.
3 That's all that we have to say, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Ms. Hollis, did we have
5 this witness before us, and was it the case that this
6 witness made a statement in which he described another
7 statement as a fraud, but that this witness, in his
8 testimony, did not reconfirm that allegation of fraud?
9 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. If we're
10 speaking of Mr. Preradovic --
11 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes.
12 MS. HOLLIS: -- he indicated that the
13 statement taken by (redacted), he had given it to him,
14 and then when he was confronted with the portion about
15 this was a fraud, he explained that as saying his
16 recollection was he had signed a questionnaire that had
17 the word "No" above his name, and also, at the very
18 top, had personal data about himself, and I believe
19 about Dusko Tadic, that do not appear in the
20 statement. But he said the contents were basically the
22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Is it my recollection
23 that he affirmed, having issued this statement, which
24 was described as a fraud, what he was saying was he was
25 unclear as to why it didn't have something which it
1 should have had?
2 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, the Prosecution's
3 recollection is he said he confirmed signing a
4 statement at the police station, and he believed that
5 he basically just signed a questionnaire that had the
6 word "No" above his signature. He may have signed more
7 than one copy. He said he couldn't be more exact
8 because he had not been given a copy of what he
10 Then, when he was shown a copy of what was
11 submitted in February, he, as the Prosecution
12 recollects it, confirmed that it was his signature and
13 said that he was confused because this was
14 substantively the same document, with a few minor
15 differences. Then, when he was -- I believe he was
16 also shown 18C, when it was produced, and I believe
17 that in his testimony, he confirmed that his signature
18 did appear on that document.
19 So it was confusing testimony, and then when
20 he was confronted with the statement he had given to
21 (redacted), he indicated what he thought the
22 differences were, and he thought they were minor but
23 that the content was basically the same.
24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But am I right that in
25 this court, he did not reaffirm his written statement
1 to the effect that a certain statement was a fraud?
2 MS. HOLLIS: That's he equivocal, Your
3 Honour. First of all, when he was confronted with the
4 statement given to (redacted), he said, "Yes, that's
5 my statement, and he basically, I think, adopted it.
6 Then, when he was confronted with the different
7 portions of it, he said he was confused about this and
8 that, and then he explained the differences. I'm not
9 sure he ever said "It's not a fraud," but he said, "The
10 differences are minor; the content is the same."
11 So the Prosecution was somewhat confused by
12 that testimony, but we do not recollect him ever saying
13 specifically it wasn't a fraud, but he explained what
14 he thought the differences were.
15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I see.
16 MS. HOLLIS: That's our recollection.
17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: But did he acknowledge
18 the signature as his?
19 MS. HOLLIS: That's our recollection. Again,
20 the transcript will be the best indicator.
21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Unless there are any
22 other submissions at this time, and I say that with
23 great hesitation, because I've been proved wrong so
24 often in my anticipation that there would be no further
25 submissions --
1 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, only this; I'm sorry
2 to keep getting up, but it is important -- in my
3 submission, at least.
4 Firstly, I agree with what Ms. Hollis has
5 said, that the evidence was somewhat confused. He did
6 not say it was not a fraud. He did say repeatedly, and
7 I have given the references, 887, 891 --
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: No, no, no. I didn't
9 say he said it was not fraud. What I was saying was he
10 did not reaffirm his written statement to the effect
11 that it was a fraud.
12 MR. ABELL: He said on more than one occasion
13 that the statement was correct, but then he went on to
14 expand his statement, and he repeatedly said that the
15 questionnaire which he had signed, and the statement
16 which was filed to this Court, although he thought they
17 were similar in content, were different.
18 He also, in answer to Your Honour, right at
19 the end of his evidence, couldn't explain why, if there
20 was no problem about the authenticity of his statement,
21 why on earth he had come and given a statement about it
22 in the first place.
23 One last thing, one last piece of jigsaw to
24 put in the puzzle, he said that he had only met
25 Mr. Vujin once, that that was on the 15th of March of
1 1999, and he said that that was the date on which he'd
2 signed the statement that Mr. Vujin produced to this
3 Court as being the original.
4 Your Honour, that's all I'm going to say.
5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We've heard you. I
6 think we can say --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin takes the
9 floor, yes.
10 Yes, Mr. Vujin?
11 MR. VUJIN: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your
12 Honour. Just one clarification in this situation. You
13 will judge the evidence of this witness, and I again
14 refer you to the typewritten text. If the witness had
15 confirmed that these were the contents of his
16 statements, why would I send some forged document, if
17 that is the same contents? My impression is that the
18 witness was confused because he was interviewed without
19 my presence, and this is why I travelled on the 15th of
20 March, because I could not believe that somebody would
21 plant a document with somebody else's signature, and I
22 only wanted to make sure that this was Preradovic's
23 signature. And he signed his signature four times and
24 confirmed that these are his signatures in order to
25 compare them to the signature on that statement.
1 That's all.
2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, are we now finally
3 through with submissions on the forgery aspect of the
4 matter? We have heard everyone?
5 There is one outstanding matter. I would
6 like to confer for a minute with my colleagues and then
8 [Appeals Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The Chamber has not
10 concluded its consultations with itself, and so, if
11 there are no further submissions, we will take the
12 adjournment now until 10.00 in the morning. When we
13 return, we hope to be able to rule on the ex parte
14 matter. By then the Registrar should have some
15 information. You've done well to remind us of that.
16 It had slipped me entirely. And we shall also rule on
17 the forgery matter, and we shall rule on the submission
18 made by Mr. Vujin and by yourself as to whether he is
19 bound to begin by giving his own testimony first.
20 So those are three matters, I think. Are
21 there any other matters which the Court should bear in
22 mind overnight?
23 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, there was only the
24 housekeeping, but certain declarations, at the start,
25 weren't exhibited and perhaps should have been, but we
1 can deal with that tomorrow morning. We needn't do it
3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Do remind the Court in
4 the morning.
5 MR. ABELL: I have done so, but I will do so
7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes. All right.
8 Well, then, until 10.00 tomorrow, the Court
9 stands adjourned.
10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
11 5.50 p.m., to be reconvened on
12 Thursday, the 9th day of September,
13 1999, at 10 a.m.