1 Wednesday, 19 May 2004
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, case number IT-01-47-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 And I'll address the new Prosecution team and ask the Prosecution
11 for their appearances.
12 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, Your
13 Honours, Counsel, and everyone in and around the courtroom. For the
14 Prosecution, Tecla Henry-Benjamin, Daryl Mundis, our case manager, Hasan
15 Younis, and I should note, Mr. President, that later this morning our
16 case manager will substitute and Mr. Andres Vatter will be with us later
17 this morning. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 And the appearances for the Defence. They're all present.
20 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President.
21 Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of General Hadzihasanovic, Edina
22 Residovic, counsel, Stephane Bourgon, our co-counsel, and Mirna
23 Milanovic, our legal assistant. Thank you.
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. On
25 behalf of Mr. Kubura, Rodney Dixon, Fahrudin Ibrisimovic, and Nermin
1 Mulalic, our legal assistant.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber would like to
3 greet everyone present, members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the
4 accused, and everyone else in this courtroom.
5 We'll be continuing with the hearing of a witness today, but
6 before we do so, the Trial Chamber would like to provide information --
7 would like to provide the parties with some information concerning the
8 following matter.
9 The Trial Chamber has taken note of the letter of the Prosecution
10 dated 19th of May, 2004 in which the Prosecution said that they no longer
11 wanted to call 19 witnesses included in their witness list. These are
12 numbers 1, 2, 5, 30, 35, 38, 51, 58, 63, 77, 78, 85, 93, 98, 123, 125,
13 135, 136, and 139. These are the witnesses on the list.
14 The Trial Chamber deliberated about the matter yesterday and
15 would like to know whether it is necessary for the Trial Chamber,
16 pursuant to Rule 98 and in the interests of justice, to call a number of
17 these witnesses to appear before the Trial Chamber immediately after the
18 Prosecution has presented its case. As an example, the Trial Chamber
19 would call witnesses 1, 2, 38, 77, 85, 123, 135, 136, and 139.
20 But before we reach a decision, the Trial Chamber would like to
21 invite both parties to state their position, to express their opinion
22 about this measure that the Trial Chamber is considering. This could be
23 done either today or tomorrow. If the Prosecution could inform us of its
24 position now, they could do so today. But if they need time to reflect,
25 they could do so tomorrow. Naturally, I will also give the floor to the
2 Following the comments made by both parties, the Trial Chamber
3 will reach its final decision as soon as possible.
4 I will now turn to Mr. Mundis. You've heard what I have just
5 said. Would you like to express your opinion today, or would you prefer
6 to think about the matter before you tell us about what your opinion is?
7 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 The Prosecution would prefer to express its views on this matter
9 tomorrow. We will do so orally, if that's acceptable to the Chamber, in
10 order to save time.
11 I do have two matters of clarification that perhaps Your Honours
12 could help us with prior to the Prosecution setting forth its view.
13 First, whether the nine witnesses that Your Honour just mentioned as an
14 example would be the only nine witnesses, so that I could limit my
15 comments to those witnesses, or if those were simply examples and that
16 the Trial Chamber might be contemplating additional witnesses. That
17 would be my first area that I would seek some guidance on.
18 Second of all, Mr. President, clearly Rule 98 permits the Chamber
19 to call witnesses, and of course Rule 85, setting forth the presentation
20 of evidence, permits the Chamber to vary the order of the presentation of
21 cases in the interests of justice, as Your Honour has just indicated. I
22 do think it might be helpful to the parties, however, to get some type of
23 clarification in the event the Chamber - again, in the interests of
24 justice - pursuant to the preambular language of Rule 85, could give us
25 some guidance as to the Chamber's position with respect to the
1 anticipated submissions pursuant to Rule 98 bis by the Defence and how
2 the fact that the Chamber might be varying the normal order of the
3 presentation of evidence, how that would impact upon Rule 98 bis
4 submissions. And I raise that, Mr. President, because of course
5 Rule 98 bis indicates that upon the closing of the Prosecution case the
6 Defence shall file their Rule 98 motion, if any - and I assume there will
7 be in this case - seven days after the close of the Prosecution case.
8 And I'm just wondering if perhaps we could get some guidance from the
9 Chamber as to what would be the Chamber's view or how the calling of
10 witnesses, the varying of the order pursuant to Rule 85, would impact
11 upon those Rule 98 bis submissions.
12 For example, if we closed our case in the 10th of June, for
13 example, that would trigger certain obligations under Rule 98 bis, in
14 terms of the filing of those submissions, which, while those submissions
15 are being filed, we may then be in a situation where the Chamber is
16 calling judges [sic] pursuant to Rule 98 and varying the order of the
17 presentation pursuant to Rule 85. And I'm just seeking some
18 clarification or guidance from the Chamber in that respect. I think that
19 might be helpful to all the parties prior to the parties being given an
20 opportunity to be heard on the issue.
21 I note from the transcript, Mr. President, page 4, line 16,
22 obviously I was making reference to the Chamber calling witnesses and not
23 calling judges. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Mundis.
25 As far as the two matters that you would like to be clarified are
1 concerned, I'll immediately address the most important issue, namely the
2 use of Rule 85 and 98 in combination.
3 As you know, Rule 85 provides that each party is entitled to call
4 witnesses and to present evidence. The order is as follows: "evidence
5 for the prosecution"; "evidence for the defence"; "prosecution evidence
6 in rebuttal"; "defence evidence in rejoinder." And then: "evidence
7 ordered by the Trial Chamber pursuant to Rule 98." That's the general
9 But under (A) in 85 the following is stated: "Unless otherwise
10 directed by the Trial Chamber in the interests of justice." So at this
11 point in time, without taking into account Rule 98, the Trial Chamber is
12 thinking of calling the nine witnesses once the Prosecution has presented
13 its case at the conclusion of the first stage, in other words. That
14 means that it would be before the Defence presents its case.
15 If this is the decision that we take, we will take it because it
16 is in the interest of justice. So such is the clarifications I could
17 provide about this issue.
18 As far as a motion for acquittal is concerned, under Rule 98,
19 this is a different matter and we shouldn't confuse these two matters,
20 although the one matter could arise from the other. But nevertheless
21 it's not necessary to establish a direct link between them. At this
22 point in time, 19 witnesses were scheduled. The Prosecution would like
23 to withdraw 19. The Trial Chamber thinks that there are at least 9
24 witnesses out of these 19 witnesses who should be heard for the sake
25 of -- in the interest of justice. But before we reach this decision,
1 before we take such a decision, the Trial Chamber would like to know what
2 the position of both parties is with regard to this matter, and this is
3 why you will inform us of your position tomorrow, and I will then let the
4 Defence take the floor to address the first issue, the issue of calling
5 nine witnesses.
6 Naturally, if these nine witnesses do appear, this will mean that
7 we'll need additional time for the hearings. According to the
8 provisional schedule, we were to finish with the hearings in mid-June,
9 but you should remember that on a number of occasions the Trial Chamber
10 pointed out that this was a provisional date because as everyone is
11 aware, various matters may arise in the course of proceedings and as a
12 result the provisional dates are not adhered to; in fact, quite
13 frequently an extension of time is required. And this would be the case
14 if nine additional witnesses are called.
15 Naturally, it would be necessary to add to these nine witnesses
16 another witness with regard to whom a decision was taken yesterday. This
17 written decision has been forwarded to the registry, so you will be
18 provided with it. And likewise there is the matter of archivists, whom
19 we would like to call as well. The two or three archivists concerned
20 could come on the same day; they would enable us to proceed more
21 expeditiously. We need a little information from them, so it shouldn't
22 take too long to hear these witnesses. We could deal with the matter
23 quite rapidly.
24 Another issue concerns witnesses who haven't been scheduled to
25 date, and this might arise from the videotapes. This is something that
1 could be a result of the videotapes. So we have scheduled the appearance
2 of a witness on Friday.
3 I would like to ask the Prosecution whether when this witness is
4 called, whether they would like the video to be broadcast. Because
5 certain witnesses have appeared the Prosecution had the possibility of
6 tendering the video through these witnesses, and this wasn't done.
7 So this is a matter that is still pending. The Trial Chamber
8 said that it would be good if the video were broadcast, if the video were
9 shown, and if that's the case, we would call the relevant witnesses for
10 the video. But naturally this is a matter that is not certain. As far
11 as these additional witnesses are concerned, this issue is not certain.
12 So, Mr. Mundis, if you would like to address this point.
13 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 Let me just first mention the archivists, because that was also
15 addressed by Your Honours.
16 If I may propose the following course of -- with respect to the
17 archivists: The Prosecution, again in order to expedite the proceedings,
18 is planning on attempting to adduce the evidence of the archivists via
19 Rule 92 bis and then of course making them available for any additional
20 questions from the Defence or from the Trial Chamber. But our proposal
21 at this stage, Mr. President, with respect to the archivists, is to take
22 statements from them pursuant to Rule 92 bis and in the event there are
23 additional questions, if Your Honours would prefer that we bring them, we
24 can certainly make those efforts. But in order to save time, we were
25 planning on taking statements pursuant to Rule 92 bis. And one of the
1 reasons I say that, Mr. President, is it seems to the Prosecution that as
2 a matter of fairness to the Defence, we need to take written statements
3 from these witnesses anyway, rather than simply calling them without
4 providing the Defence with written witness statements. And in -- since
5 we have to take written witness statements, it would make sense to us to
6 expedite things by taking those pursuant to Rule 92 bis and then making
7 those witnesses available in the event the Defence or Your Honours have
8 additional questions.
9 If that's not the course that the Trial Chamber at this phase
10 wishes us to take, then we will certainly rethink our plan in that
12 With respect to the videos, the witness who's scheduled for
13 Friday has not yet arrived in The Hague. My understanding from
14 discussing this matter with Mr. Withopf is that the witness who is -
15 excuse me - scheduled for Friday has not in fact ever seen the videotape,
16 so it may be problematic to show that videotape to him in court as a
17 means of authenticating that videotape.
18 The witness certainly in the course of his professional duties
19 encountered Mujahedin in Central Bosnia and made reference to
20 interviewing at least one of them. That interview was videotaped, but
21 the Mujahedin videotape that has been discussed throughout these
22 proceedings is not the same videotape that the witness refers to in his
23 statement, at least according to the information that I have right now.
24 I will certainly discuss that with the witness when he does arrive in The
25 Hague and perhaps we are mistaken, but at this point there's no
1 indication to us that this witness has actually seen the videotape in
3 We're in the process of trying to gather certain information
4 about the videotapes that are on the consolidated exhibit list in light
5 of the oral order that they be broadcast in public. We're attempting to
6 come up with a precise figure as to precisely how long these tapes are.
7 Some of the tapes are compilations and are rather lengthy, and I will be
8 in a better position to inform the Trial Chamber about the precise amount
9 of time required to publicly broadcast those videotapes in the near
10 future. That's one of the many issues that the Prosecution is working
11 on, in light of the order of the Trial Chamber. And again, we haven't
12 seen the written decision yet, but based on the oral order, we're working
13 on the issues that Mr. President addressed to us earlier this week.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As far as the
15 application of Rule 92 bis is concerned, with regard to the archivists
16 we'll deliberate about the matter in the course of the afternoon and
17 inform you tomorrow of what we think about your position is. It's true
18 that Rule 92 bis could be useful, but notwithstanding this Rule, it might
19 be required by the Defence to have the witness examined. In such a case,
20 this procedure wouldn't be useful because the witness would have to
22 To call the witness might be a matter of judicial economy,
23 because we wouldn't need to have a preliminary procedure involving
24 written testimony. We'll deliberate about the matter and inform you what
25 our final position is.
1 You also said that as far as the nine witnesses were concerned
2 you'd inform us of your position tomorrow. The Defence should also
3 inform us of their position tomorrow. We'll deal with this matter again
4 at the beginning of the hearing tomorrow.
5 We'll now start with the examination of the witness. Have any
6 protective measures been requested?
7 Ms. Benjamin.
8 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: No, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No protective measures have
10 been requested.
11 Very well. We will call the witness into the courtroom, then.
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would first
14 like to make sure that you are receiving the interpretation of what I am
16 THE WITNESS: I do.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've been called here as a
18 witness for the Prosecution. Before you take the solemn declaration, I
19 would like to ask you to tell me your first and last names and your date
20 of birth.
21 THE WITNESS: My name is Ulf Henricsson, and I'm born on the
22 1st of February, 1942.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which town or village were you
24 born in and what is your nationality?
25 THE WITNESS: I'm a Swede, and born in Stockholm.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your current
3 THE WITNESS: I'm an army officer, working at -- as head of the
4 Department for Leadership at the Swedish National Defence College.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What rank do you hold in the
7 THE WITNESS: I'm a brigadier general.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In 1993, what was your rank and
9 what duties did you perform in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
10 THE WITNESS: I was a colonel and commanded the 1st Nordic Battle
11 Group, NordBat 2, from middle of September until the beginning of April
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified
14 before an international or a national court about the events in Bosnia
15 and Herzegovina in 1993 and 1994?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which tribunal have you already
18 testified before?
19 THE WITNESS: It was here in The Hague, this court.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And could you tell me which
21 case you testified in, if you remember?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. It was linked to this event, and that was
23 what happened in the town of Vares a week before the event we will talk
24 about today. And I was here -- I don't remember exactly. I think it was
25 in 1996. It was the case against Ivica Rajic.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were you a witness for the
2 Prosecution or for the Defence?
3 THE WITNESS: For the Prosecution.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please read out the
5 solemn declaration that the usher will show to you.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. I --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare to tell the truth, the whole
9 truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General. You may
11 sit down now.
12 WITNESS: ULF HENRICSSON
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you have already testified,
14 you are used to the procedure, but I would just like to remind you of the
15 procedure. You have been called here as a witness for the Prosecution,
16 and you will first answer a series of questions put to you by the
17 Prosecution. I assume that Ms. Benjamin, who is to your right behind the
18 transparent lectern, will be answering -- will be conducting the
20 Once the Prosecution has completed its examination-in-chief,
21 Defence counsel, who are to your left, will conduct their
23 As you will see, the questions put to you by the Defence will be
24 somewhat different to those put to you by the Prosecution. According to
25 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of this Tribunal, the purpose of the
1 Defence's questions is to verify your credibility and to obtain
2 information on the context.
3 After this initial stage has been completed, after the
4 examination-in-chief and the cross-examination have been completed, the
5 Prosecution may re-examine you. The three Judges sitting before you may
6 also put questions to you. According to the Rules of Procedure and
7 Evidence, the Judges may ask you questions at any point in time, but as a
8 rule Judges prefer to wait for both parties to conclude their examination
9 before the Judges ask you questions.
10 Once the Judges have asked a witness questions, both parties can
11 ask a witness additional questions in order to clarify some of the
12 answers provided to the Judges.
13 So roughly speaking, this is the procedure that we will be
15 In addition, I would like to inform you of two other matters:
16 You have taken the solemn declaration. As a result, false testimony
17 should not be given. And secondly - but this shouldn't apply to you -
18 when a witness answers a question, if the witness's answer could be used
19 against him, the witness may refuse to answer the question. In such a
20 case, which is exceptional, the Judges may compel the witness to answer
21 the question but the witness is granted a form of immunity by the Trial
23 So this is a very brief summary I wanted to provide you with in
24 order to ensure that these proceedings and your examination runs
25 smoothly. To the extent that this is possible, try to provide clear and
1 precise answers to the questions. You might be asked questions about
2 events that happened over ten years ago, and your memory may not be quite
3 accurate. If that is the case, do inform the Trial Chamber of the fact.
4 And if you encounter any difficulties, inform us of the fact too because
5 the Judges are here to deal with any difficulties that may arise.
6 It is now 9.35. We'll be working until 10.30, which is when we
7 will have our break. So we have about an hour for the
9 Without wasting any more time, I will now let Ms. Benjamin take
10 the floor for her examination-in-chief.
11 Ms. Benjamin.
12 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning,
13 Your Honours.
14 Examined by Ms. Henry-Benjamin:
15 Q. Good morning, Brigadier General.
16 Brigadier, you explained to the Trial Chamber a while ago your
17 rank, present and while you were in Bosnia. Could you briefly give the
18 Trial Chamber an account of your military career, please.
19 A. Yes. I became an officer in 1969 and make a normal troop career
20 during the 1970s and worked at the proper schools, and then I worked as a
21 general staff officer for six years, and then I made a new service as
22 battalion commander. I worked with the Swedish tank programme some
23 years, and then I became brigade commander in 1991 and served as brigade
24 commander in -- from 1991 to 1994, and during that period I served as
25 commanding officer of the Nordic Battle Group down in Bosnia. Then I
1 served as division commander from the Swedish Eastern Division until
2 1999, and after that I served two years as head of the EC military
3 department in Sarajevo. And since 2002, I'm head of the Department for
4 leadership at the National Defence College.
5 Q. Thank you. Now, as commander and leader of the NordBat 2 in
6 Bosnia, could you please tell us what was your role, what was your duty
7 in Bosnia, please.
8 A. The duty or the task for the battle group was to support the
9 humanitarian aid in our area of responsibility. It was to establish
10 freedom of movement and to try to negotiate a cease-fire in the area and
11 to establish a secure environment. And we were deployed, or my area of
12 responsibility was from the Sava River in the north down to south of
13 Vares, some 100 kilometres, and from the Drina River in the east until a
14 line north-south drawn through Doboj. And it was an area of 5.000 square
15 kilometres, and I had 1.300 soldiers to do the job with, which was more
16 or less a mission impossible.
17 Q. Thank you. Your period of your tenure in Bosnia, could you tell
18 us when it began and when it ceased, please.
19 A. Well, I came down to Bosnia more or less permanently for this
20 period on -- in the middle of September 1993 and stayed until, I think it
21 was 7th of April, 1994.
22 Q. On your arrival in Bosnia, could you state for the Trial Chamber
23 your immediate role, what you did and how you started your tenure.
24 A. Could you explain what you mean by this.
25 Q. When you got into Bosnia in mid-September --
1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. -- could you tell us how you began your tenure, please, what you
3 set out to do.
4 A. I of course set out to prepare to solve my task. And in
5 September, the two weeks, we -- I travelled around to learn the new area,
6 to meet commanders on different levels, and of course also get convenient
7 with my superior staff or commander in Kiseljak in BH command, and the --
8 prepare the deployment of the battle group, which started on the 1st of
9 October from Scandinavia and lasted until February 1994.
10 Q. Thank you. Now, how would you describe Vares when you got into
11 your area of responsibility? How would you describe the area?
12 A. Well, the Vares area is -- if I start with the town, it's an old
13 mining town deep in a valley, going north to south, very -- and the
14 mining in the town has ceased before the war, and it was a town with a
15 Croat majority. And I think the number of inhabitants was around 15.000
16 and maybe the majority of the Croat was at least two to three --
17 two-thirds of the population.
18 And around Vares it was a hilly, mountainous terrain, and it was
19 a very important place, both for military purpose and civilian, because
20 through Vares went the only road -- supply road up to the Tuzla area.
21 And on -- rather close to the road up north went the Serbian lines, both
22 east and west. So it was strategic, very important.
23 Q. With respect to units, how many units - and I speak of the
24 Bosnian army now - how many units did you meet in Vares?
25 A. Vares was inside the area of responsibility of the 2nd Corps of
1 the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the Vares area were under the
2 responsibility of the Bobovac Brigade, which was also unique, was a Croat
3 brigade, under the command of a mainly Bosniak corps. And we had --
4 well, we knew that there were tensions and Vares a hot spot when we came
5 down, and that's why I deployed my first company, the company first
6 coming to the area, in Vares. And we had good cooperation with the
7 Bobovac Brigade and with the mayor of the town, but in -- somewhere
8 around the 20th of October the command or the -- both the Bobovac Brigade
9 and the town was taken over by Croat extremists which was said - and I
10 think that's proved too also - from Kiseljak and Kakanj, under command of
11 a man named Ivica Rajic, a former JNA major, and that changed the
12 situation considerably. So our cooperation vanished and it got -- it
13 became a very tough situation and the Bosniaks was impeded, jailed, and
14 it ended up with a massacre in Stupni Do, which is the other case I
15 referred to earlier.
16 Q. Would I be correct, Brigadier General, if I were to say, then,
17 that Vares was not a normal situation?
18 A. I would say it was a fairly normal situation in Bosnia at that
20 Q. Okay. You were privy to the first assault somewhere around the
21 end of October. Could you --
22 A. The first assault from the Croat side, I would say, occurred on
23 the 23rd of October.
24 Q. So could you please explain to the Trial Chamber what happened
25 and your role in this.
1 A. Yes. What happened was -- well, the first assault in that area -
2 I'll go back a little - was, I think, on the 21st of October, when the
3 village of Kopjari in the southern part of the Bobovac Brigade area were
4 assaulted and the Croat inhabitants were expelled. It was some killings,
5 and the village was then burnt. And that was on the 21st.
6 Q. At this time, did you see it necessary to request more
7 assistance? Did you find it becoming difficult?
8 A. Well, I didn't acquire that because there were no assistance to
9 get at that time.
10 Q. But things began to get tense; am I right?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Then comes the second attack that you have been privy to. And
13 which -- could you tell the Trial Chamber how this would have changed the
14 whole situation in Vares, please.
15 A. Yes. And that was on the 23rd of October, when the Croat
16 extremists made an attack on the village of Stupni Do, which was a
17 Bosniak village some kilometres outside the town of Vares. And we -- and
18 I negotiated with them together with my company commander, and we
19 demanded access to the town -- to the village to see what happened, and
20 we had also at that time communication with the Bosniak army, the
21 federation army, and with the operational group in Dabravine and --
22 Q. Commander, if I may interrupt.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How did this affect Vares during your tenure?
25 A. It affected Vares on a -- because, of course, the Bosniaks were
1 very afraid and fled the town and we ended up with hundreds of them in
2 our own camp, and it was also a lot of Bosniak males jailed in two of the
3 schools in Vares. And this led to -- that the Bosniaks started an
4 assault for the whole town of Vares, and that's why I talked and
5 negotiated with the operational group in Dabravine, because they said now
6 the Croat have made this and now we will kill them, we will destroy the
7 town of Vares. And I managed to convince them that it was better to take
8 it a little easier to check what has happened and let me come into the
9 village of Stupni Do and check the situation and to be a link between the
10 operational group and the Croats to avoid more bloodshed. And we managed
11 with that for some days. Maybe it also made the Bosniaks -- created some
12 calm period for them to make preparations. I don't know.
13 Q. With this come any different units now to Vares? Did you see the
14 emergence of another unit in Vares then?
15 A. I didn't see any other military units in Vares until on the 4th
16 of November -- okay, we saw during this chaotic period some other
17 military -- or not units but the individuals, Serbian officers going into
18 the Bobovac Brigade headquarters and so on. But really units I saw in
19 Vares, the town of Vares, for the first time on the morning of 4th of
21 Q. Can you inform the Trial Chamber as to which unit this was and
22 from which army.
23 A. Yes. And the reason I met them and not my unit was that I had at
24 that time got reinforcement from FrenchBat but I was down to meet the
25 company and the company commander in the southern part of Vares. And
1 there were no Frenchmen but there was a Bosniak unit and they didn't look
2 very confident, so I stopped and talked with them and asked, "Who is the
3 commander?" And one man asked -- answered without hesitation and said,
4 "That's me." And then I asked from where he came, and he said, "We are
5 from the 7th Muslim Brigade." And then we had a short conversation. I
6 told them a little what -- about what had happened prior in Vares, and
7 then I told him now to consider his responsibility and be a good example
8 and avoid what has been done by the Croats and keep up to national and
9 humanitarian laws. And he said yes. And then I left further south to
10 find the French company.
11 Q. Did you observe then if your instructions were carried out?
12 A. Well, as I said, I just passed on out of the town. But when I
13 came back some hours later, I really realised he didn't care the least
14 about what I said or at least couldn't control it, because then the
15 looting and impedement in Vares was under full swing.
16 Q. Would you say then that the situation worsened? Would I be
17 correct if you said that the situation worsened --
18 A. Yes, of course --
19 Q. -- on your return?
20 A. Yes. It was chaotic and out of control. It was a lot of firing
21 in the air and screaming and looting in the town.
22 Q. Could you describe the physical condition of the town for us,
23 please, the buildings, how they looked to you and ...
24 A. Well, at that time -- well, the town is partly old and partly
25 some higher buildings built somewhere in the 1960s, 1970s. And some of
1 the buildings were burnt by the Croats some days earlier and also some
2 looting took place then. But now it was chaotic and a lot of windows was
3 smashed and the soldiers stole what they could find. They also stole
4 some cars, tried to steal others. They also went into the food storage
5 of the units' yard and were all over the town.
6 Q. And when you say "the soldiers," could you tell the Trial Chamber
7 which unit you're referring to.
8 A. Well, I thought then and I still thought it was from the
9 7th Muslim Brigade. I didn't saw any signs on some other units up there.
10 And in my talks with the operational group in Dabravine - because I went
11 back there when I saw what was on in Vares, because what happened there
12 was a responsibility for my company commander - so I went back to the
13 operational group and told them to take control over the situation, and
14 he said, "Yes, we will," and they sent a unit of military police and they
15 came. They were not too many, but they tried. So -- and they -- the day
16 ended up with some of the Bosniak soldiers lying dead on the streets that
17 day, shot by their own military police.
18 Q. Brigadier General, from the period of September 1993 and perhaps
19 until the end of November 1994 [sic], what is your opinion of what
20 transpired in the Vares area? How would you best describe it?
21 A. Well, it was, of course, a fight to control the important
22 strategic road up to Northern Bosnia. That was one part of it. And it
23 was not just militarily strategic; it was economically strategic, because
24 the parties also took tolls from all transportation going up there. It
25 was a lot of checkpoints where normal people had to pay to come through.
1 It was also an important area for the black market and smuggling in that
2 area. So it was both militarily important but it was also important for
3 the -- call it organised crime, or what you will call it.
4 Q. I'd like to correct the transcript I think in line 12,
5 paragraph -- page 21. It says "end of November 1994" and that should be
6 end of November 1993.
7 A. 1993.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 Other than the economic situation and the military situation,
10 from a civilian point of view was this area a tense area at that time?
11 Was it, you know, could you elaborate for us, please.
12 A. Yes. The civilian situation was -- as I said before, it was a
13 Croat majority in the town, and due to what happened and the Croat
14 extremists, first they threatened their own people that if they didn't
15 leave Vares when the extremists left or -- I think it was around the 2nd,
16 it was the 2nd and the 3rd of November mainly -- they would be killed by
17 the Bosniaks. And a lot of people - hundreds, maybe a thousand of them -
18 left. And then when the Bosniaks took control over Vares, the majority
19 changed, so a lot of Muslims or Bosniaks moved into the town. So after
20 and in the middle of November and so on it became a Bosniak majority in
21 the town and the mayor became a Bosniak and the brigade or the defence
22 there were -- became a Bosniak task.
23 Q. And at that point in time, would you say that Vares then became
25 A. Yes, compared with the situation before. Yes, it became stable
1 at least.
2 Q. I believe that one of your duties, as you outlined before, was to
3 try to make as much peace as you could have between the parties. Am I
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And I think you may have set out in your duties to try to
7 demilitarise, if for a better word, the town, so to speak. Were you able
8 to achieve this?
9 A. We did not. But -- and the idea was that we should took over the
10 security and defence of the town from the parties, but they were not very
11 interested in that. We made that proposal and we asked -- I think it was
12 on the 5th of November or something like that -- the 2nd Corps and mayor
13 of Tuzla to come down and to talk about this and to negotiate. They
14 also wanted us to be some buffer zone between the 2nd and the 3rd Corps,
15 which we turned down because we were not interested in that. It was not
16 our task to be a buffer. So it went out of nothing and the parties was
17 not interested, and of course the Vares area get under Bosniak control.
18 And that was -- I can understand that they prefer that solution, yes.
19 Q. Thank you very much, Brigadier General.
20 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. President, Your Honours, this concludes
21 the examination-in-chief.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Madam Benjamin. You
23 were very expeditious, as you only used half an hour.
24 I turn now to the Defence to give them the floor.
25 [Defence counsel confer]
1 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Cross-examined by Ms. Residovic:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, General Henricsson. My name is
4 Edina Residovic, and I represent General Hadzihasanovic. Allow me to ask
5 you a few questions.
6 You told us that as the commander of the Nordic Battalion you
7 were in Bosnia and Herzegovina from September the 1st, 1993 until the
8 6th of April in the area of responsibility of the 2nd Corps. Am I right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When you arrived in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the war had been
11 ongoing for almost a year and a half; is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. You were aware of the fact that the Army of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina was the legitimate armed force of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. During your tour of duty, you learnt quite a lot about the 2nd
17 Corps and your knowledge about the 2nd Corps was far better than your
18 knowledge of the structure, responsibilities, and missions of the other
19 corps of the BH army; would I be right in putting it that way?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Actually, as you have already testified, in the area of
22 responsibility of the 2nd Corps and within the ABiH there were several
23 HVO brigades that accepted the command of the 2nd Corps and of the ABiH
24 army in accordance with the laws of the country of Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. Were you aware of that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Is it true, General, that other HVO units, and particularly in
3 the area of Herzegovina and in Central Bosnia, waged an armed struggle
4 against the ABiH army and -- while you were there, especially along the
5 Neretva River Valley, the town of Mostar, Jablanica, Konjic, and in the
6 Lasva Valley? Were you aware of these facts?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. You have already said, General, that the only road linking the
9 areas of the 1st, 6th, 3rd, and 2nd Corps was the road leading through
10 Vares. That is why, as you yourself said, from the standpoint of the
11 civilian population, as well as in military terms, this was an area of
12 extreme strategic significance, was it not?
13 A. It was.
14 Q. If this route was obstructed or if it were to be gained control
15 of by enemy forces, that is, the HVO or the Army of Republika Srpska, the
16 North and North-Eastern Bosnia would be totally cut off from the rest of
17 the country and would find themselves in an extremely difficult
18 situation; would that be right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. At the time already you knew that the Croatian Defence Council,
21 and in particular its command in Grude, Vitez, and Kiseljak, was
22 cooperating with the VRS in the fighting against the ABiH and this was
23 particularly obvious earlier, when the attack occurred on Travnik,
24 Bugojno, Zepce, and you were also able to see officers of the VRS in
25 Vares, where the HVO Bobovac Brigade was stationed. Were you aware of
1 these facts?
2 A. I was not aware of the cooperation with the Defence -- the
3 Croatian Defence Council. I learned that later. But it's right that I
4 saw Serbian officers coming into the headquarters of the Bobovac Brigade
5 after Ivica Rajic took it over. Yes.
6 Q. General, from the military standpoint, isn't it quite normal for
7 the ABiH to be concerned by the fact that the Bobovac Brigade, and
8 especially the fresh forces that arrived in Vares, were refusing to
9 succumb to the command of the 2nd Corps and were being resubordinated to
10 the command in Kiseljak?
11 A. Yes, they did.
12 Q. You believe that it was normal that several corps cooperated and
13 prepared a plan to take over Vares as an important strategic location
14 linking the forces of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 A. Yes. During these conditions, it was like normal. Yes.
16 Q. At the time or later you probably learnt that the operation to
17 gain control of Vares was carried out in cooperation by three corps.
18 A. At that time, I was not aware about three corps. My picture --
19 okay, the 1st Corps was involved, but I didn't know about the 2nd Corps
20 at that time, because I thought it was 3 Corps and 2nd Corps and partly
21 1st Corps, the one I met in Dabravine, the 1st Corps.
22 Q. A witness has appeared in this courtroom, Mr. Birger Hakan, who
23 describing the events that occurred prior to this claimed that the attack
24 of the army units on Kopjari was a very well-executed combat operation in
25 military terms and that after accusations made by the HVO that a crime
1 had been committed in Kopjari, there was an investigation by the
2 international forces which did not produce any evidence of a crime having
3 been committed in this village. Would you agree with this statement
4 given before this Trial Chamber?
5 A. Yes. Major Birger was the one who was in Kopjari. I was not.
6 So I have full trust in his report.
7 Q. Thank you. You have testified to the effect that on the 23rd of
8 October you learnt from members of the ABiH that Stupni Do had been
9 attacked. This is a village not far from Vares inhabited by Bosnian
10 Muslims. Did you learn of that?
11 A. Yes. I learnt that from the 1st Corps or the operational group
12 in Dabravine, but on the 23rd they were not quite sure of what had
13 happened. It was more or less a rumour at that time. And that's why I,
14 as I said before, negotiated with them to -- and promised to check what
15 exactly had happened.
16 Q. After receiving this information, you demanded from the HVO
17 command that you be allowed access to Stupni Do, and in spite of repeated
18 requests it was not granted; is that right?
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. From a distance of about a kilometre and a half you observed
21 Stupni Do and you saw that the village was on fire; but because of the
22 smoke and the distance, you couldn't really see what was happening in the
23 village, could you?
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. Your units shortly after that met refugees fleeing from Stupni Do
1 and Major Egberg informed you that the refugees were in a state of shock,
2 that they couldn't speak, with the exception of two young women, who told
3 them that there was burning, looting, and raping in Stupni Do and that
4 they too, these two 20-year-old young women, had been raped. Is that
5 what you were told?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Regarding the HVO behaviour, you informed their command in
8 Kiseljak about this, and after repeated interventions you managed on the
9 26th of October to enter Stupni Do; is that right?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. As you had other obligations, you didn't stay long in Stupni Do
12 but you took a walk around. You saw that the houses were totally or
13 partially burnt. You saw dead bodies, burnt corpses, but detailed
14 information about the village was collected later by members of your
15 battalion and of the British Battalion, who came to assist you in
16 securing the village. Is that right?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. You entered the village even though the Bobovac HVO Brigade tried
19 to prevent you from doing that by force. They opened fire on your
20 battalion. They set mines, but you managed to remove them and that is
21 how you were able to be a witness of the crime that happened in this
22 village. Is that right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. On the 2nd of November, you learnt that the HVO Bobovac Brigade
25 had left Vares, taking with it a part of the population. But you were
1 also able to see that the HVO was forcing a part of the Croat population
2 to leave this area. They were exerting pressure on them to leave the
4 A. There were still HVO units or soldiers in Vares on the 3rd, the
5 beginning of the 3rd of November, and I never saw the HVO units exerting
6 pressure. It was reported to me, but I didn't see it personally.
7 Q. Thank you, General.
8 In answering a question from my learned friend, your soldiers
9 also saw that while withdrawing the HVO were setting fire to its own
10 property, some of the houses that were damaged in Vares and the
11 surroundings, the damage was due to what they did upon pulling out. Is
12 that right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. After the takeover of Vares by members of the ABiH, you learnt
15 that the HVO was withdrawing across territories under the control of the
16 VRS, which for you was evidence that these two armies had already reached
17 agreement on cooperation; would that be right?
18 A. That they withdrew over VRS territory was completely true. That
19 doesn't prove that the cooperation was on the high command. For me at
20 the time, I was not surprise forward there was more or less private
21 negotiation on the low level, but -- so it doesn't prove for me that the
22 cooperation was on a high level.
23 Q. Thank you, General, for answering my questions.
24 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have no further
25 questions of this witness.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 I wonder whether the other Defence team have any questions.
3 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. On
4 behalf of Mr. Kubura's team, we will have a few questions for this
6 Cross-examined by Mr. Ibrisimovic:
7 Q. [Interpretation] General, can we go back to the 4th of November
8 when you arrived in Vares and when you said that you noticed members at
9 7th Brigade there. Is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You recognised them because their commander introduced himself as
12 being the commander of the 7th Brigade.
13 A. Yes. And they also wore the badge of that brigade, yes.
14 Q. Yesterday, when talking to my learned friends from the
15 Prosecution, you said that the total number of soldiers was about 80; is
16 that right?
17 A. Yes. On that spot, when I first met them, it was around that. I
18 can't tell you exactly, but that's how I remember it today. But you must
19 also know that the area and the terrain there was rather difficult to
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters correction: It was not from the
22 Prosecution. "When talking to my friends," said the counsel. I'm sorry.
23 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, there's an error
24 in the transcript. In line 13 I meant that the witness spoke to my
25 colleague from the Defence team, not from the Prosecution.
1 Q. At that point in time, the situation in town was peaceful, wasn't
3 A. I wouldn't say that. It was definitely not peaceful, at least
4 not when that unit -- those units arrived. It was more -- better to
5 describe as chaotic.
6 Q. And after Vares, you went to Dabravine a few hours later. That
7 is my understanding. Am I right?
8 A. Well, immediately after my meeting with this unit, I went
9 directly down south to meet the French company. And after some hours, I
10 went - maybe one hour - I went back up to Vares and then the situation
11 was out of control. And when I saw that, I went down to the operational
12 group in Dabravine and asked them to take control of the situation in
13 Vares and to -- and in my, as I then experienced it, the operational
14 group was not in command of the units in Vares. I thought it was the
15 3rd Corps. But I asked them to communicate with the commanders and the
16 officer under control of Vares to take his units under control. And they
17 then sent a military police unit.
18 Q. You just mentioned units, and that brings me to my next question.
19 When you returned to Vares from Dabravine, you found many more soldiers
20 than the 80 that you mentioned as being members of the 7th Brigade.
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 Q. If I were to tell you that in the town of Vares itself, in
23 addition to members of the 7th Brigade, there were also the members of
24 the 126th and 110th Brigades and soldiers of the municipal TO of Vares, I
25 hope you will agree with me.
1 A. I can't do that. I can't say that everybody came from the
2 7th Brigade, but I can't say that they came from the unit you mentioned.
3 It could have been all from 7th Brigade; they can also have been from
4 different units, yes.
5 Q. You also mentioned the UNHCR warehouse that soldiers apparently
6 entered. Members of your battalion were securing that warehouse, weren't
7 they? Of your Nordic Battalion.
8 A. They took over the protection of it, but at that time they -- the
9 ABiH soldiers already were in there, so we had to get them out of the
11 Q. During the events in Vares, you compiled reports which you
12 forwarded on. Did you send them to the 3rd Corps or another superior
13 command of the ABiH?
14 A. Well, I informed first, as I said, I had -- I communicated with
15 the operational group in Dabravine. I communicated with the 2nd Corps.
16 And then I communicated, of course, with my superior commander, General
17 Briquemont, and his staff in Kiseljak. And the link to the 3rd Corps
18 went through Bosnia-Herzegovina command or through the 1st Operational
19 Group in the ABiH, and of course - I hope at least - that the 2nd and
20 3rd Corps could talk with each other. But I didn't negotiate or meet
21 with officers or a commander of the 3rd Corps.
22 Q. The commander of the operative group that you had contact with in
23 Dabravine was not a member of the 7th Brigade or an officer of the
24 7th Brigade; is that right?
25 A. I don't think so.
1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We have no further
2 questions, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we have the
4 re-examination and the questions by the Judges, it would be better to
5 have the break. It is 10.25. And we will resume at five to 11.00.
6 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
7 --- On resuming at 11.00 a.m.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is now time for
10 Ms. Benjamin, do you have any additional questions?
11 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: Mr. Prosecution -- Mr. President, the
12 Prosecution doesn't have any re-examination at this time. Thanks.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges have some questions.
14 Questioned by the Court:
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, the Judges sitting
16 before you have a number of questions for you in order to clarify some of
17 the answers you provided to the questions put to you by both parties, and
18 in order to fill in certain gaps. It is necessary to do this -- it is
19 necessary to clarify these matters in order to be quite clear and in the
20 interest of justice.
21 General, first of all, I would like to ask you: When you were in
22 Vares, how long were you there for? What was the exact period of time
23 that you spent there? Could you specify the dates.
24 A. Well, for this period, I arrived to Vares on the 23rd of October,
25 and I stayed there until the 25th. Then I -- sorry, I -- yes -- no, I
1 stayed until late 24th. I was then in Zvornik negotiating with the Serbs
2 on the 25th, and on the 25th in the evening when violations started in
3 Vares I went back and was there, when from the late evening 25th until
4 the 28th, I think - 28th, yes - I passed through Vares on the 29th, and
5 then I went back to Vares on the 3rd of November and stayed there until
6 the 5th.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you say that you
8 were in Vares from the 3rd to the 5th. Where did you stay? Because
9 between the 3rd and the 5th, it was the night from -- between the 3rd and
10 the 4th and the 4th and the 5th. Where did you stay during this period?
11 A. I stayed at the camp of my 8th Company.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And the camp of the
13 8th Company, how far was it from the centre of the town?
14 A. Well, it was 2 kilometres.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 2 kilometres.
16 During the two days that you spent there, the 3rd, the 4th, and
17 the 5th, did you meet any foreigners apart from the mayor? Any
18 foreigners such as European Union representatives?
19 A. Well, I'm quite sure I did, but I cannot tell you exactly. I
20 don't remember that, which people I met. But we have a continuous
21 communication with the BH command, with the United Nations military
22 observers, with the ECMM.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The ECMM monitors, did you
24 speak to them over the phone or did you meet them in order to discuss the
25 subject of the town of Vares?
1 A. If I talked with them, then I met them. I had no talks with them
2 over the phone, as I remember.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when you spoke to them, did
4 you talk about the situation which you described as being chaotic? Was
5 this something that you talked about with them?
6 A. I don't remember that, because that was mainly a task for my
7 company commander.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But your company commander was
9 under your authority.
10 A. Yes, of course.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the commander of the
12 8th Company could replace you when speaking to European Union monitors.
13 A. He could replace me if he followed the guidelines he had, and I
14 think that's quite normal. But if I were on the spot and we had
15 communication with the ECMM, I think I should have attended it. But I
16 don't recall that in my memory today.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In response to a question put
18 to you, you said that in the depot of the high commission there were
19 problems. There were problems with a certain depot. And you said that
20 it was necessary to leave -- to take soldiers out of the depots,
21 BH soldiers had to be taken out of these depots. Who guarded these
23 A. I don't remember exactly the position of my own company down
24 here. As I said, that was part of the company, the commander's
25 responsibility, and of course mine at the whole. But when the looting
1 started in Vares - and I say -- can tell you when you have -- I think we
2 had about 150 operative men in Vares - then a town of 50.000 people are
3 very big, so you can't be all over the place. But I myself came down to
4 the storage during the 4th with my command APC, and that's when I saw
5 that the BiH soldiers has gone into the storage. And together with some
6 of my soldiers on the spot we took over, blocked the door with APC, and
7 took them out of the storage, and closed the gates and took over the
8 guarding of the storage.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you used legitimate force in
10 order to deal with the way in which these soldiers were conducting
12 A. Yes. We -- well, legitimate force? We used robust action to get
13 them out. We didn't use weapons or something like that.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you didn't use
15 your weapons. Why do you say that these soldiers were BH soldiers? How
16 many people were in these storage facilities? Were they in uniform? Did
17 they have any insignia on them? Did they have any weapons? Were they in
18 combat gear? Could you describe them for us.
19 A. They were definitely in combat gear. They had weapons. They had
20 uniforms. I didn't notice any badges, signs on them in -- at that
21 moment. They were rather aggressive, and I think we were lucky we had
22 better quality soldiers. We had more equipment and armoured personnel
23 carriers, so we were superior to them. And I think they realised it was
24 not a good idea to stay in the storage.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why do you say that they were
1 soldiers rather than bandits or people who were engaged in looting? Why
2 are you persuaded that these people were soldiers, that is to say that
3 they were part of an organised structure? What are the grounds for
4 making such a claim?
5 A. They wore uniforms. They were armed. They also had a bus
6 outside the storage at that time with -- and altogether could have been
7 around 50 persons, 50 soldier, around there. And -- but sometimes I can
8 admit it was not so easy to separate crooks, bandits, from the soldiers,
9 because I would say that the respect for international humanitarian laws
10 and the discipline in the units was not very impressive to me.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The 50 individuals you have
12 described as soldiers, was there some sort of an officer structure there?
13 Were these officers from the base, or did you think -- were these basic
14 officers or did you think there were middle-ranking officers among them?
15 A. I think there were. I think there were, but I couldn't see it.
16 Because they were out of control, as I saw it. Maybe they had the task
17 to rob that storage. But I didn't see any officer trying to get control
18 of the unit and making them follow the rules.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This peaceful confrontation you
20 had with them, since weapons weren't used, how long did it last? How
21 long did it take before you could take control of the situation and make
22 them leave? As far as you can remember, how much time did this take?
23 A. Well first, I wouldn't describe it as peaceful, but it was
24 without weapons used. And just at the storage, until we gained control
25 of it, I think it might have lasted 15 minutes before I left the place
1 and gave the command over to my -- to the unit on the spot.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is something that happened
3 a long time ago. But do you remember whether these soldiers had
4 walkie-talkies or any communications equipment? Because as you are a
5 professional military officer, you know that units in the field always
6 have means of communication. Do you remember seeing any such equipment?
7 A. I don't remember that, but I can say that devices of
8 communication, radio equipment, was very rare in the Bosnian army at that
9 time, so even on platoon and company level they lacked radios. And I
10 know that very well because they stole from us.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are telling us that the
12 battalion -- that BritBat and other battalions had equipment stolen from
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In response to one of the
16 questions put to you, you said that you went to the operational group in
17 order to ask them to put an end to such behaviour. You said that in the
18 operational group you met the commander, the person who was in charge.
19 Do you remember the name of this commander or not?
20 A. I do not.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you gave him an account of
22 what you had seen and when you told him about the looting carried out by
23 these individuals who might be described as soldiers, what impression did
24 he give you? Since you said that he sent the military police there. If
25 these were bandits, highway bandits, he should have told you, "Take this
1 up with the municipality or the civilian police." Why in such a case
2 would he have sent the military police there? Could you provide us with
3 some clarifications about this very precise situation.
4 A. Yes. I think he was very well aware that it was units from BiH
5 in the town, and he never denied that and said anything that it's not my
6 business. He listened seriously to what I said, and he said, "We will do
7 something against this." And they did obviously, because they sent
8 military police. But I never saw him there. I never saw -- and on the
9 4th of November I spent a lot of time down in the town of Vares, and I
10 never saw any officers doing any obvious attempt to get control of the
12 But I saw, as I said earlier, the military police. They tried to
13 stop it, and they even fired live on their own soldiers, and I think we
14 had two or three dead on the streets during that day. And that, I think,
15 shows that discipline was not very impressive.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In fact, I was going to ask you
17 this question, but you've already answered it. In line 6, page 23 you
18 said -- and in line 4, you said that the military police opened fire on
19 the soldiers. Was this an event that you were informed about? Do you
20 have hearsay information about it? Or were you a witness of this event?
21 Did you see the military police using their weapons against other
23 A. I did. And that was a specific situation when they fired at a
24 car which didn't stop for a stopping sign which was made by the police,
25 the military police. They didn't stop and the car ran away and they
1 fired at it and they hit it. But it didn't stop.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was the car a civilian one or a
3 military one?
4 A. It was a civilian car with soldiers in it, a stolen one.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It was a stolen car.
6 The people who were killed, why do you say that they were
7 soldiers, since you are telling us that they were in a civilian vehicle?
8 A. They wore uniforms. And I would say that there were very, very
9 few civilians out during these days because of the danger.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many people were killed in
11 this event?
12 A. As I said, I saw two bodies on the street personally, and I don't
13 remember what our reports said afterwards. And so -- two people at
14 least. That's what I can say with security.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apart from the 8th Battalion,
16 it seems that a French unit was also present. Who else was present in
17 the field?
18 A. You mean the 8th Company. But on the 4th, it arrived a French
19 company from the foreign legionnaires. But they came late that day and
20 was not operative until the next day, on the 5th.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To be operational when you're
22 part of a foreign unit, when your in a foreign country, what does that
23 consist of? Does it mean having a physical presence in the street, an
24 armed physical presence in the street? Does it mean that one is involved
25 in protecting facilities, buildings such as storage facilities? What
1 exactly does it mean when one is present in such a chaotic situation?
2 How did you attempt to resolve this problem?
3 A. Well, as I remember it, the company was operational or in that
4 way on the 5th, that they protected -- I think it was because the
5 8th Company at that time was very tired; they had been in full swing for
6 more or less a week the day around. So they released our checkpoints, I
7 know at the church, the Catholic church, to protect it. I think they
8 also took over the storage for UNHCR. And that was a rather easy task
9 for trained, skilled soldiers, which this company consisted of. So they
10 were doing their job on the 5th.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you left the area, was the
12 situation stable or was the situation identical to the one that prevailed
13 on the 4th?
14 A. No. Late on the 5th the situation was stable, for the moment.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And as far as you are aware,
16 was there Croatian civilian population that had remained in the town in
17 spite of the fact that many had left? Were there still Croats in the
19 A. It was still Croats in the town. That's my impression. The
20 number I can't tell you, but there were people staying all the time and
21 still is.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And these people weren't
23 particularly concerned, weren't particularly worried about anything? Had
24 they requested protection of any kind? What sort of relationship did you
25 have with this Croatian population?
1 A. We had a good relation with all civilians in Vares, and at this
2 time the Croats wanted protection, and we did whatever we could to do
3 that, as we did when the Croats impeded the Bosniaks. That was why we
4 were there.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, General.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no further
9 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
10 don't have any further questions either.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Benjamin.
12 MS. HENRY-BENJAMIN: And the same for the Prosecution,
13 Mr. President. We have no questions. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General, as you have probably
15 realised, this completes your examination because the parties have no
16 further questions for you, nor do the Judges. We would like to thank you
17 for having come to The Hague to testify about what happened during the
18 mission you were involved in in this part of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
19 September, October, November of 1993. We would like to thank you for
20 your contribution to establishing the truth, and we would like to wish
21 you a good trip home. And naturally we wish you all the best in your
22 current profession in this military college.
23 I will now ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Mundis, I will give you the
2 floor, but before I do so I just wanted to clarify a minor matter that
3 concerns the fact that the Trial Chamber, after having heard what your
4 position is, plans to call a number of witnesses.
5 You asked whether these witnesses should appear before the
6 Prosecution concludes its case or after, and you mentioned Rule 98 bis.
7 In order to clarify this issue, the Trial Chamber intends to call proprio
8 motu nine witnesses before the end of the Prosecution's case. So as I
9 said, that would be before. Because according to the Rules of Procedure,
10 according to Rule 85, the Prosecution presents its evidence and it is
11 within that framework that the witnesses called by the Trial Chamber
12 appear. It is only afterwards, after the presentation of the
13 Prosecution's case, that Rule 98 bis or the provisions covered by
14 Rule 98 bis are applicable. So that is how we will be proceeding.
15 Mr. Mundis, you may take the floor now.
16 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 The Prosecution has no further witnesses scheduled for today.
18 The witness who is scheduled for tomorrow will be made available first
19 thing in the morning.
20 I did want to say, however, that perhaps, if it would be helpful,
21 and given the fact that we do have a substantial period of time left
22 today, if I could suggest the following: In light of and having had the
23 opportunity over the break to review the nine witnesses that the Trial
24 Chamber was interested in having called, the Prosecution would be in a
25 position to present its views with respect to those nine witnesses;
1 however, I do need to make a couple of inquiries with respect to two or
2 three of those witnesses. I believe that if I were to have a recess now
3 of approximately 45 minutes, I would then be in a position to at least
4 elaborate on the Prosecution's view with respect to those nine witnesses
5 at that time.
6 I hesitate to add this, Mr. President, but I -- with respect to
7 what I said previously about the interaction between Rule 85 and
8 Rule 98 bis, I would like to discuss this issue also with my colleagues
9 from the Defence for both accused. But for now the Prosecution would
10 respectfully reserve its right to revisit or to -- revisit the entire
11 issue of the interaction between Rules 98, 85, and 98 bis. But perhaps
12 we can further address that after I've had an opportunity to discuss the
13 issue with my colleagues from the Defence.
14 So perhaps, Mr. President, if you'd like to hear the Prosecution
15 views at least with respect to the nine witnesses, I believe we'd be
16 prepared to address Your Honours at about 12.15 on that issue. Thank
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber raised
19 a moment ago the question of the witness for Friday and the question of
20 the video. I wish to draw the attention of the Prosecution to this issue
21 once again. There are a certain number of videotapes which are listed on
22 your list; and as you know, before making a final ruling on all of these
23 documents and exhibits, has asked the Prosecution to carry out a number
24 of measures. Regarding the videos, and especially the video that could
25 be tendered through the witness on Friday, I am inviting the Prosecution
1 to make a selection among those videos and to consider the video for
2 which there is a transcript, number 00818539. And if this transcript
3 comes from a video, it would be desirable and in the interest of justice
4 that the video - especially if it's not too long - for the video to be
5 broadcast, and afterwards the witness can be examined about it.
6 On the other hand, there is another video about the Mujahedin,
7 but that is a separate problem. But there is a video which appears to
8 correspond fully to the witness that will appear on Friday. So can you
9 please consider the matter closely so as to avoid that after hearing the
10 witness we are forced to make him come again, because we feel that the
11 video certainly should be publicly broadcast.
12 You asked for 45 minutes, and we will resume about quarter past
13 12.00 or twenty past 12.00.
14 --- Recess taken at 11.35 a.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed, with a
17 few minutes' delay.
18 But before giving the floor to both parties, the Chamber would
19 like to situate the problem emanating from the issues we raised a moment
20 ago in a more general framework, which is the following.
21 Some time ago the Prosecution asked us to admit into evidence
22 hundreds of documents. Following this request, the Defence made their
23 observations on the grounds that some of those documents could be
24 produced in the presence of a witness.
25 Following that, the Prosecution notified us that they intended to
1 withdraw 19 witnesses, and they did so several days ago, from a list of
2 witnesses which was determined by the Chamber in accordance with
3 Rule 73 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4 The Prosecution is requesting the withdrawal of those witnesses,
5 without providing us any explanations regarding the motives that have
6 prompted them to withdraw those witnesses, whereas those witnesses were
7 envisaged when the Chamber determined the number of witnesses and the
8 duration of the hearings.
9 The Chamber notes that among the withdrawn witnesses a certain
10 number could authenticate certain documents which are still outstanding
11 and that in order to respond to the concern of the Prosecution regarding
12 the admission of its documents and also those of the Defence which
13 requires that some documents be authenticated by witnesses, one might
14 consider calling a certain number of witnesses in the weeks that will
15 come before the closing of the Prosecution case, and the Chamber has
16 selected nine such witnesses.
17 So the Chamber wanted to tell you this because these witnesses
18 had already been scheduled. They are not additional witnesses. They are
19 not witnesses coming in support of additional evidence. These were
20 witnesses who had been scheduled and who could assist in the
21 authentification of documents. That is how the Chamber sees the problem
22 at this stage.
23 Judge Swart would like to add something as well.
24 JUDGE SWART: The question that is put before us by your
25 communication of Monday is the following: Was it a wise decision to
1 eliminate 19 witnesses and would you be prepared to reconsider it,
2 notably with respect to 9 witnesses?
3 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President, and Your Honours, for the
4 opportunity to address you.
5 Let me start -- perhaps before getting to Judge Swart's question,
6 let me attempt to provide a little bit of background for the benefit of
7 the Trial Chamber and the Defence with respect to the prosecution of this
8 case as it concerned the duty of the accused to punish the perpetrators
9 of the crimes for -- which the indictment is concerned with.
10 The pre-trial filings of the Prosecution, including its pre-trial
11 brief and through the opening statement of the Prosecution in this case,
12 to a certain extent, Your Honours, has been overtaken by some of the
13 evidence which has been adduced. That is, when we commenced the trial
14 and filed our pre-trial Rule 65 ter package including the list of
15 witnesses, there were certain elements, if you will, that the Prosecution
16 was attempting to establish from numerous angles, to use a colloquial
17 phrase, it was a "belt and suspenders approach."
18 Largely as a result of evidence that was adduced by the Defence
19 during the course of the cross-examination of the expert
20 General Reinhardt, the Prosecution's views with respect to the actual
21 steps taken by the accused and in light of General Reinhardt's report, we
22 would submit that the issues that are involved in this case have been
23 substantially narrowed; that is, we are of the view that the duty of the
24 commander in the ABiH was to investigate and refer cases to the district
25 military courts.
1 Our view is that the court prosecutors and court judges would
2 only be able to add a limited amount of evidence, if any, to the actual
3 issues that are now being Your Honours. That is, whereas prior to trial
4 we were attempting to demonstrate steps taken at the trial level in the
5 district military courts through calling prosecutors or judges from both
6 district military courts and the functioning civilian courts, our view is
7 now such that because it's clear that the obligation of the commanders
8 was to investigate and refer these witnesses are not necessarily as
9 probative as they otherwise appeared to the Prosecution to be when we
10 commenced our trial.
11 In addition, Mr. President, the Prosecution in reviewing these
12 legal witnesses, for lack of a better term, that would cover seven of the
13 nine witnesses that Your Honours have specifically addressed, the
14 Prosecution has had some difficulties with respect to some of these
15 witnesses, as reflected in the testimony of some of the witnesses who
16 have appeared as well as some of the witnesses who have yet to appear, in
17 the sense that they do not necessarily advance the Prosecution case in a
18 manner in which the Prosecution would put them before this Trial Chamber
19 as being of -- or as having probative information or evidence for the
20 value of the Trial Chamber.
21 Those are some general comments.
22 With respect to -- or to provide you with a couple of examples,
23 Mr. President, I would ask to do that in private session.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, let us go into
25 private session.
1 [Private session]
12 Page 7699 redacted, private session
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
2 MR. MUNDIS: Mr. President, with respect to the witness
3 number 77, Jason Medley, Mr. Medley is currently serving in the British
4 Army. He's stationed at the British Embassy in Washington, DC. We made
5 a determination that Mr. Medley's testimony would be largely cumulative
6 with respect to other British soldiers who have testified and the
7 combination of the cumulative nature of Mr. Medley's testimony, plus the
8 fact that we anticipated that his testimony in chief would last some 45
9 minutes, it was a simple question of economics that we determined that
10 the costs to the Tribunal of bringing Mr. Medley here for such limited
11 testimony was not necessary under the circumstances, as the Office of the
12 Prosecutor determined them.
13 And I think, Mr. President, that really summarises the
14 Prosecution position with respect to these nine witnesses.
15 JUDGE SWART: I still am at a loss a little bit to know in what
16 way your case has now changed. You say as a result of the hearing to
17 have witness Reinhardt, as a result of the material produced by Defence,
18 we have a different view of our case.
19 The question is: What has remained and what has gone? You have
20 said a few things in general, but I have difficulty in getting your
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Exactly. I wanted to intervene
23 on this point. But let us go back into private session, please,
24 Mr. Registrar.
25 [Private session]
12 Pages 7702 to 7707 redacted, private session
1 [Open session]
2 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in open session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have the floor.
4 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, after the question
5 that was raised yesterday, Defence counsel has considered the suggestions
6 that you made, but in accordance with the schedule that you announced, we
7 thought that perhaps the Prosecution and Defence counsel would present
8 their positions tomorrow. But given the current situation, our position
9 can't be expressed quite precisely in relation to all the very important
10 issues raised today. The position of the Defence is that we must at all
11 times bear in mind the basic principle -- the fundamental principle
12 involved in all criminal proceedings, namely the rights of the accused.
13 This primarily concerns the accused's right to respond to
14 everything presented by the Prosecution before this Trial Chamber, and it
15 also concerns the main obligation of the Prosecution, which is to prove
16 its case.
17 After the comments made by my learned colleague, the Defence is
18 not quite certain, because we haven't -- about the position to adopt,
19 because we haven't seen an amended indictment, given that the indictment
20 mentioned a very broad form of responsibility, command responsibility,
21 according to which the accused didn't take certain measures in order to
22 punish and prevent.
23 For these reasons - and naturally I'm bearing in mind the rights
24 of the accused and I'm also applying the Rules of this Tribunal - the
25 Trial Chamber after the conclusion of the Prosecution's case should take
1 one of the decisions provided for by the Rules of the Tribunal. The
2 Defence has the right to proceed in this manner. This has been pointed
3 out by my learned colleagues.
4 In such a case, our position would be that the Trial Chamber
5 should state whether it considers that the Prosecution has been able to
6 prove its case.
7 On the other hand, although we tried to discover what the
8 jurisprudence of this Tribunal was with regard to this matter, with the
9 exception of one case that hasn't been concluded yet before the Appeals
10 Chamber - the case is still pending - so apart from this case, we haven't
11 encountered a similar situation in which the Trial Chamber called
12 witnesses while one of the parties was still presenting its case before
13 the Chamber.
14 Some of the witnesses included in the list were potential Defence
15 witnesses, so they could be called when the Defence commences with the
16 presentation of its case.
17 For these reasons and given that the Trial Chamber, as you
18 Mr. President have said, has the right to order that a party present
19 certain evidence at any point in time, or given that the Trial Chamber
20 can call witnesses if this is in the interest of justice, and given that
21 we are not sure whether the Trial Chamber will do this at the end of the
22 presentation of the evidence or at the end of the presentation of the
23 evidence by one of the cases, and given that we believe that any
24 decision, either to have the evidence presented or to have the Trial
25 Chamber call this witness -- these witnesses, we believe that regardless
1 of the decision taken, the rights of the accused -- the interests of the
2 accused should be taken into account. As well -- and we also think that
3 the Prosecution has the duty to prove its case.
4 We don't have a final position with regard to this matter, so we
5 would like the Trial Chamber to consider the arguments presented by our
6 learned colleagues from the Prosecution and to take into consideration
7 our positions. And we would like the Trial Chamber to reach a decision
8 and when doing so to bear in mind the rights of the accused.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Mr. Dixon.
12 MR. DIXON: Thank you, Your Honours. I only have one point to
13 add, and that being of course we respect the right of the Prosecution to
14 put its case in the way that it sees best and to call the evidence that
15 supports such a case.
16 At the same time, Your Honours, according to the Rules, do have
17 the discretionary power, of course, to order the parties to call
18 witnesses or to call witnesses Your Honours' selves in order to safeguard
19 the interests of justice.
20 The only question - and this is the point that I do wish to make
21 - is when that should occur; whether it should occur at a point during
22 the case of either of the parties, after their case, or at the end of the
24 In this particular situation, Your Honours, we don't have any
25 submissions at this stage on what would be the best time for that to
1 occur. It's, of course, a matter for Your Honours to consider. And as
2 Your Honours have indicated, it is closely related to the documents and
3 the authentication of those documents.
4 It may be, because it relates to documents the Prosecution seeks
5 to rely upon, that it is for the Prosecution to call those witnesses in
6 order that that evidence be made part of the Prosecution case, evidence
7 that the Prosecution would then rely upon, but that is a matter for Your
8 Honours. It could be that those witnesses are done independently. But in
9 our submission, it may be, as it is part to have Prosecution case, the
10 best way for it for the Prosecution to be ordered to call those
11 witnesses if they are for the purposes of authenticating their documents.
12 I'm grateful, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE SWART: May I ask Mr. Mundis two questions in this respect
14 regarding to what Mr. Dixon has said and our Presiding Judge in the
16 In our view, there is a discussion of having witnesses in court
17 related to the issue of admitting documents. The Defence has expressed a
18 very strong desire, a very clear design repeatedly to have admitted
19 evidence by means of a witness.
20 If you are going to reduce your list with 19 witnesses, this is
21 going to be more difficult. So we would like to hear your opinion on
22 that, not necessarily now but maybe tomorrow.
23 The second thing that I have been asking myself since last Monday
24 is the following: If you are reducing your list with 19 witnesses, that
25 more or less amounts to a very rigorous amendment of your list. And from
1 what you have done so far or your predecessor, Mr. Withopf, I conclude
2 that you are of the opinion that you are completely free to use your list
3 of witnesses or not to use your list of witnesses completely. That is
4 for you and for nobody else to decide whether a witness will in effect be
5 called or not. Is that a proper summary of your position in this
7 MR. MUNDIS: Judge Swart, Your Honour, let me start with the
8 first question.
9 In terms of the need for witnesses to authenticate the documents,
10 the Prosecution would submit that the nine witnesses that have been
11 discussed here this morning I don't believe would be the proper witnesses
12 to authenticate more than perhaps only a handful of the hundred of
13 contested documents anyway. I'm a bit at a loss to understand the
14 specific link between these nine witnesses and authentication of --
15 JUDGE SWART: Well, you have, for instance, submitted documents
16 for admission concerning the Zenica and the Travnik court registrars.
17 MR. MUNDIS: Yes. Clearly, Your Honour, there are a few
18 documents that could be authenticated by these witnesses, but the vast
19 majority of the documents would not fall into that category, I would
21 Let me perhaps come back to that question tomorrow.
22 With respect to the second question, it has certainly been my
23 recollection of practice, both before this Trial Chamber and before other
24 Trial Chambers, that either of the parties may withdraw witnesses or
25 simply not call such witnesses upon due notice to the Chamber and the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Defence. We have on a number of occasions, as Your Honours and my
2 learned colleagues are aware, dropped or not called witnesses at various
3 points throughout this trial for a number of reasons. The Prosecution
4 would submit that it is in fact primarily for the parties to determine
5 which witnesses to call and the precise -- one of the precise reasons why
6 Rule 98 is in the Rules, permits Judges to call those witnesses that they
7 want to hear, whether those witnesses were originally on the Prosecution
8 or Defence list or any other witness that the Trial Chamber thinks would
9 be helpful. And again, the Prosecution would submit that Rule 85 sets
10 forth a default order in the presentation of witnesses, if you will, so
11 that those witnesses are heard at the end of the trial.
12 But it is generally speaking our view that it is for the
13 Prosecution to determine which witnesses to call in its case, just as it
14 is for the Defence to determine which witnesses they want to call in
15 their case.
16 JUDGE SWART: Thank you. I just wanted to know your position on
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has taken
19 note of what the Prosecution has said, and we have also taken note of the
20 Defence counsel's position in relation to the issue of withdrawing
21 witnesses. And as I already said this morning, we'll deliberate after
22 having listened to what both parties have said and we will then render
23 our decision concerning the 19 witnesses -- unless the Defence wants to
24 make submissions up until tomorrow, because we were informed that the
25 Defence would like to reflect on the matter -- But given that withdrawing
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 witnesses can only be satisfactory from the point of view of the Defence,
2 I don't know what the Defence could add.
3 Mrs. Residovic, would you like some time to provide us with
4 additional arguments tomorrow?
5 MS. RESIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't think we
6 need to make any additional submissions tomorrow, and this is why we
7 leave it to the Trial Chamber to reach a decision about this matter.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I thought you
10 MR. DIXON: Yes. I fully concur with Ms. Residovic on this
11 point. There's no further submission that we need to make on this
12 matter, which primarily concerns the Prosecution and Your Honours'
13 exercise of Your Honours' discretion.
14 I'm grateful.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 It's almost time to adjourn. We have about another ten minutes
17 left. Are there any other issues to raise? If not -- I see that
18 Mr. Bourgon is remaining very silent. There are no other submissions to
19 be made. Mr. Mundis has nothing to say either.
20 As that is the case, we will now adjourn and I will see everyone
21 tomorrow morning at 9.00.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.24 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 20th day of
24 May, 2004, at 9.00 a.m.