1 Friday, 8
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Naumovski.
7 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I merely wanted to
8 inform you that Mr. Kordic's Defence does not have any questions to ask of
9 this witness. Thank you.
10 WITNESS: JOSIP ZULJEVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Lopez-Terres:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Zuljevic, I should like to seek some details
14 regarding your current situation. Are you a civilian now or are you still
15 with the military?
16 A. A civilian.
17 Q. And when did you leave the army?
18 A. As soon as I got a chance, and that was after the Washington
20 Q. Was it in 1995 or 1996?
21 A. After the conflict ended, so it could have been 1994.
22 Q. You cannot be more precise, can you?
23 A. The former half of 1994.
24 Q. And which rank did you have at that time?
25 A. When I left the army, I did not have a single rank. It was
1 granted me later, and I became a Lance Corporal.
2 Q. In the document which the Defence produced yesterday, the document
3 Z544.4, it says that you were Lieutenant First Class. Now, because it is
4 quite curious that you did not reach any higher rank than a corporal.
5 A. Well, then it was a misunderstanding. If I remember the document
6 that I saw yesterday, it was a proposal. It was a proposal as per
7 formation, what they should look like, that is, the formation of the
8 command of the Vitez Brigade. It is only the formation. We -- at that
9 time we did not have any ranks at all.
10 Q. But you were a member of the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade, weren't
11 you, and you were also in the command of the Vitez Brigade, even though
12 you didn't have a rank?
13 A. That is true, yes.
14 Q. And that document, to finish, you tell us that it was just a
15 proposal. I read -- I reread this document, but I couldn't find the word
16 "proposal." This is the list of persons who were in Vitez who already
17 had some offices, and even their telephone numbers were there. Where do
18 you see the word "proposal" in this document?
19 A. May I have a look at this list once again, please?
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let the witness see the document.
21 A. Yes, yes. That's the document. The first to the third -- no,
22 sorry. The sixth to the third --
23 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Where did you see the word "proposal," Mr. Zuljevic? Mr. Cerkez,
25 as the commander -- sends to the commander of the Operative Zone, that is,
1 Blaskic, sends a list. Perhaps this is not a complete list, but
2 nevertheless he sends the list of people who are in Vitez and also their
3 telephone numbers. And this is the command. This is the composition of
4 the command. It does not look like a proposal.
5 A. That's true, sir, but we get these forms empty, and we had
6 instructions how to fill in those forms. Had the command taken root fully
7 and had it been possible to form it, perhaps that is how it would be.
8 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] You are not answering my
9 question, and I really do not want to waste any more time with this
10 document. Let me move on.
11 Thank you, usher.
12 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, are you related to Fabijan Zuljevic, who testified
13 here a few weeks ago?
14 A. I know Fabijan Zuljevic, but I was not aware that he testified
15 here. And yes, we are related. We are cousins twice removed.
16 Q. Very well. So you are related. Are you also related to Ivo
17 Zuljevic who was a member of Vitezovi?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you. And one detail regarding your testimony and the
20 circumstances under which you accepted to testify. You told us yesterday
21 that the -- it was at the invitation of Mr. Cerkez's Defence that you
22 agreed to come and give evidence in this case. Could you please tell us
23 when were you invited?
24 A. I cannot give you the exact date, but, well, I've been here for a
25 week, let me see, could -- some three weeks ago.
1 Q. About three weeks ago. And before that, you never communicated
2 with Mr. Cerkez's Defence, or did you?
3 A. No.
4 Q. And how did the Defence counsel introduce themselves to you? Did
5 they tell you how your name came up regarding the evidence some -- those
6 three weeks ago?
7 A. Well, the very fact that I was on duty in the night between the
8 15th and 16th of April, 1993, I suppose was the one that prevailed, and
9 that was why it was decided for us to try to meet.
10 Q. The only statement that you submitted to us was signed by you very
11 recently, isn't it, just a few days ago; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Yesterday, you told us that in the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade and
14 then in the Vitez Brigade, you were simply an officer responsible for
15 vehicles and for the fuel; is that correct?
16 A. My responsibilities, my office was head of the transport service
17 and the -- this involved the procurement and distribution of fuel mostly
18 for the command and some of it for private vehicles, since we were forced
19 to, and transport the materiel to the front lines against the Yugoslav
20 Peoples' Army.
21 Q. Yesterday, you told us that your Vitez Brigade, since you were the
22 chief of transport, materiel and vehicle, that that brigade had only one
23 vehicle and that that was a Lada Niva. So could you tell us if you had
24 only one vehicle there, how did you then distribute the fuel?
25 A. We had one vehicle in the brigade but we also had permission from
1 the HVO government to compensate, to give fuel free of charge to those who
2 were using their private vehicles.
3 Q. And the vehicle which transported the soldiers of the Stjepan
4 Tomasevic Brigade and Vitez, were there -- there must have been several
5 vehicles because you had to transport the vehicles, didn't you? So how
6 did you do that?
7 A. Yes. Yes, I agree. Those vehicles we received regularly when
8 requested from the defence office of the municipality in Vitez in my
9 particular case.
10 Q. And these vehicles were buses or vans or small trucks which you
11 used regularly for the brigade.
12 A. Those were vehicles which were given us which, at other times when
13 they did not transport the troops, were at the taxi stop, there were vans
14 which could not -- the capacity of which was not more than 20, 25 men.
15 Q. While you were with the Stjepan Tomasevic and then Vitez Brigade,
16 you told us that you had a vehicle at your disposal for the transport. I
17 will show you two documents and they were taken from the exhibit adduced
18 by the Defence and which indicates that there were vehicles. It is
19 D131/2, tab 11 and 131/2, tab 6.
20 In this document of the 20th of January, Mr. Zuljevic, and it
21 is -- you have Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade on the 22nd January and it was --
22 you signed it. We agree with that, don't we?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And it seems that in January 1993, the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade
25 had vehicles at its disposal and several vehicles at that.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Very well. Then I should like to show you the second document of
3 the 18th of February this time. This is a document which was signed by
4 Mr. Cerkez. Paragraph 5 in this order, what does it tell us? The 2nd
5 Battalion of the Brigade, that is the battalion stationed in Vitez had
7 A. Yes. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. But it also had small vehicles, passenger vehicles, not vehicles
10 for the transport of troops.
11 Q. These buses, these small trucks, these taxis that you tell us, you
12 had them in Vitez in 1993, didn't you?
13 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, we were -- they were put at our disposal by the
14 defence office.
15 Q. And on the 15th of April, 1993, you were quite able to put your
16 vehicles at the disposal of other units.
17 A. Let us see. In April, end of April, and in the beginning between
18 the 15th and the 16th, we did not have a single private bus at our
19 disposal. And I told you that we sent our requests to the defence office
20 and they sent us men according to their plans.
21 Q. If I understand you well, you had vehicles before April, you
22 had -- after April, but on the 15th and 16th of April, strangely enough,
23 you did not have any vehicles.
24 A. Prior to April, we did have small vehicles. Don't force me to say
25 what isn't true. We had small vehicles. Between the 15th and 16th, we
1 didn't have a single vehicle which could transport troops nor on the 16th
2 after. And afterwards, when the mobilisation was underway the next days
3 we were given some vans but those vans were again given us by the office.
4 They were issued a time table and they were on duty in front of the
5 command of the brigade, but that was in late April.
6 Q. You say that on the 15th of April, your brigade did not put any
7 vehicles at the disposal of the military police to go to the Bungalow in
8 Nadioci; is that so?
9 A. Yes. Yes. Yes, correct. They did not.
10 Q. Well, it is rather embarrassing for you to admit that in view of
11 what then happened in Ahmici.
12 A. No. Why should I feel embarrassed? I have nothing to confess. I
13 am quite positive that the vehicles of the defence office were not used.
14 I have explained to you the methodology.
15 Q. I am not talking about the vehicles of the defence. I am talking
16 about all vehicles. I'm not talking about vehicles of the defence only.
17 I am asking you: Are you still affirming that you did not put any
18 vehicles at the disposal of the 4th Military Police Battalion so that they
19 could go from the centre of Vitez to the Bungalow in Nadioci on the 15th
20 of April?
21 A. Yes. Yes. That is what I am saying.
22 Q. You do not want to admit it because if you did, then you would
23 immediately be seen as an accomplice, as somebody who provided with means
24 those who went to Ahmici and committed that crime, isn't it?
25 A. I have nothing to confess, and everything else is as I have
1 already said.
2 Q. Can you explain to us how is it that the forces of the 4th
3 Battalion then got to the Bungalow as your soldiers, how could your
4 soldiers in the Vitez Brigade could go to Zabrdje, to Kruscica? How did
5 they move about, on foot?
6 A. In the first case, I am simply not aware that the 4th Battalion
7 ever went to Ahmici. As regards the transport of our soldiers to
8 Kruscica, there was no transport because Mr. Bertovic tried and did form
9 urgently surveillance, observation from troops that were at home.
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zuljevic, has anybody suggested to you ever that
11 the 4th Battalion were in Ahmici? Have we ever heard that?
12 A. The 4th Battalion was never in Ahmici, never. I know it very
13 well, because I was on duty at that moment, and I know very well where the
14 members of the Vitez Brigade were at the time, what we had of them.
15 JUDGE MAY: Who was in Ahmici then? Who was responsible for what
16 happened there, do you say?
17 A. Your Honours, I heard about Ahmici afterwards, the number of men
18 in Vitez, and afterwards rumours spread. I cannot say and I cannot know
19 who that was. I cannot guarantee, because I did not see it, but what I
20 can guarantee is who was not there. In this case, I say that not a single
21 member of the Vitez Brigade participated in the Ahmici crimes.
22 JUDGE MAY: Well, who was responsible, then? If you know it
23 wasn't the Viteska Brigade, who was responsible?
24 A. Really, I don't think I'm qualified enough. But since we were
25 also in the process of establishing our brigade, that there were too many
1 loose threads yet, that only a month had passed since the command had been
2 set up. As a matter of fact, it was never set up. Now, what was going on
3 down there, what happened there and who did that, I can't tell you. I
4 don't know.
5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. Just to follow up on
6 the question that you were asked by Judge May. You said in reply, "I
7 don't know who was in Ahmici, but I can assure you that the Vitez Brigade
8 was not there," and you were very emphatic about that, that you absolutely
9 did not know who was there. But you also very emphatically said, "I'm
10 quite positive that not a single member of the Vitez Brigade was there."
11 Can you then tell us what -- how can you be so emphatic, so categorical
12 about this? How can you affirm that not a single member of the Vitez
13 Brigade was there? What is it that allows you to be so positive, in view
14 of the information -- what is that information that you have which allows
15 you to give us an answer with such an absolute certainty?
16 A. Well, very -- I can't say easy, but if you can imagine a
17 situation, a difficult situation, the setting up of the Vitez Brigade,
18 active combatants of the Vitez Brigade, rather, the troops that had been
19 activated. They were on the front line above Novi Travnik, facing the
20 Yugoslav People's Army, and a platoon getting ready for that shift at
21 Lovac, at Ribnjak, the fish pond above Kruscica. All the others, they can
22 be on the list of the Vitez Brigade, but at that moment they do not belong
23 to a single formation. They are normal, free citizens.
24 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] So in fact what you are telling
25 us is that you did not have any concrete knowledge. It was the deduction
1 that you made on the basis of the situation at that time, and you estimate
2 that the Vitez Brigade shouldn't have been there in Ahmici because they
3 were elsewhere. That is what you are telling us, isn't it?
4 A. Yes. Yes.
5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Well, thank you.
6 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Before we go back to the document that we talked about yesterday,
8 I should like to round off what concerns your field of operations, that
9 is, the vehicles that were at the disposal of the Brigade. Mr. Zuljevic,
10 you organised the distribution of vehicles, but those vehicles had to be
11 confiscated from Muslims in Vitez, and then when they were -- and they
12 were subsequently then distributed within the brigade, isn't it?
13 A. No. No. No, none of that went -- I did none of that. Even
14 though there were such -- even if there were such instances, I'm not aware
15 of them.
16 Q. You never heard anything about the seizure of vehicles that
17 belonged to Muslims by the brigade and that they were considered as spoils
18 of war by the brigade?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Will you please look at this document. It is 14th May, 1993.
21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] It is a new document,
22 Mr. President, Z918.2 [as interpreted]. 918.3, not .2.
23 Q. You signed this document, Mr. Zuljevic, didn't you?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And on the left-hand side we see the authorisation of the
1 commander of your brigade, Mr. Mario Cerkez, isn't it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In this document you are requesting information about the
4 situation with vehicles which were taken as the booty, as the spoils of
5 war. These are vehicles which you had appropriated in May 1993 and before
7 A. This is a document dated the 14th of May, 1993; isn't that right?
8 Q. Yes. We agree about that. Yes. You have it before you. Will
9 you tell us, which are these vehicles, what it means that it is the war
11 A. It's not war booty of the Vitez Brigade. It is booty that the
12 Viteska Brigade was supposed to take from people who were seizing these
13 vehicles so that they could get, at least to a certain extent, the amount
14 of vehicles they needed.
15 Q. And who was it who confiscated those vehicles? What do you
16 understand by the war booty? I suppose that is something which is taken
17 from the enemy, and in our concrete case those were vehicles which
18 belonged to Muslims, isn't it?
19 A. They did not only belong to the Muslims; they also belonged to the
20 Serbs. Unfortunately, they also belonged to our people as well. I
21 believe that you know through this trial that in this chaotic situation --
22 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, we are talking about vehicles which were confiscated
23 from Muslims and Serbs. You tell us that when the vehicles, as you are
24 trying to tell us, that they were taken from Croats. You are talking here
25 about war booty, so the requisitioning is one thing the spoils of war, the
1 booty is another.
2 A. Could you please explain to me what this requisitioning means.
3 Q. I'm simply saying that there are different manners of coming by
4 vehicles at the time of war. There is a legal -- there is the legal
5 means, which is the requisitioning and there is also the theft, and that
6 is called the war booty.
7 A. For the most part, these were vehicles that were taken from
8 companies that had lost their function, so to speak, but I cannot remember
9 exactly. Perhaps there were vehicles that were taken away from our own
10 people who had obtained them in an illegal way, in some way. There were
11 even cases when vehicles were taken off the road through Vitez.
12 Q. You confiscate -- did you confiscate the vehicles from Croats in
13 Vitez? Is that what you are trying to tell us?
14 A. No. The Viteska Brigade never did that. Everything it had --
15 Q. Thank you. I'd like to move on to the examination of documents
16 that we talked about yesterday, that is, documents -- supplementary
17 documents that were presented to you by Mr. Kovacic. Will you please tell
18 us one thing. On the 15th -- in the afternoon of the 15th of April you
19 were on duty in the premises of the brigade with Mr. Sucic; we agree about
21 A. Yes, after 1500 hours.
22 Q. Were there other officers on duty that day after 1500?
23 A. No.
24 Q. And Mr. Cerkez brought you and other members who were together in
25 the early evening and explained that he had received instructions from
1 Colonel Blaskic to undertake certain operations in the light of
2 information that they had received; isn't that correct -- is that correct?
3 A. I'm sorry. This question is way too long for me. Perhaps I'm a
4 bit tired. Could you please repeat it for me.
5 Q. In early evening your brigade commander, Mr. Cerkez, brought
6 together you, Mr. Sucic, and other brigade officers, and told you that he
7 had received instructions for Colonel Blaskic?
8 A. No. As duty officers in the brigade, we received information from
9 the Operative Zone that we should bring the command together.
10 Q. So you called the members of the command and then your brigade
11 commander arrived?
12 A. Yes. We called all the officers belonging to the command. Who
13 came, came. And then after a little bit of time, Mr. Mario appeared.
14 Q. And Mr. Mario Cerkez told you that he had received some
15 instructions for Colonel Blaskic, is it?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did he tell you under what circumstances did he receive those
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And they were?
21 A. As far as I can remember, this was a conversation. I'm not sure.
22 I think Mr. Mario came that evening from the war zone [as interpreted].
23 Q. And Mario Cerkez, when you came to the brigade that evening, he
24 came from the Vitez Hotel, isn't it? Is that what you are saying?
25 A. That was my impression, yes. With the information that we
2 MR. KOVACIC: We have an error in transcript on the line 20 on
3 this page. The witness said that Cerkez came from the Operative Zone, the
4 transcript shows "war zone".
5 A. The building of the Operative Zone, to be precise.
6 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And that is the Vitez Hotel, we can agree on that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And he -- did he tell you what was to be the task of the Vitez
10 Brigade that evening, did he?
11 A. Yes. Yes. He conveyed to us what I already stated, that there
12 were certain indications.
13 Q. To speed matters up, Mr. Zuljevic, he told you that the task of
14 the brigade was to stop whatever attack might come from Vranjska and
15 Kruscica, isn't it?
16 A. Possible attack, possible penetration.
17 Q. He did not speak about Donja Veceriska as part of that area which
18 the brigade should cover.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did he have a written order with him or were those merely oral
22 A. I did not see any written order. I believe these were oral
23 instructions. That's what I can say, and I believe that it was so. Since
24 he told us that these were indications, I already told you that this was
25 not the first time that such things happened. That we should be a bit
1 more cautious. It was not the first kind of information of this nature
2 that we received.
3 Q. Very well. And you didn't take this information too seriously, if
4 I understand you well, did you?
5 A. No. No, not too seriously.
6 Q. You were not aware that sometime before that, perhaps one hour, an
7 hour and a half before your brigade commander addressed you, Colonel
8 Blaskic had ordered the general mobilisation, and Mr. Anto Puljic from the
9 defence office in Travnik, had also ordered general mobilisation. You
10 were not aware of that, were you? You didn't take things too seriously.
11 A. No. No. I certainly didn't know that.
12 Q. You spoke to us about oral instructions, but you were present in
13 the brigade during that night, the 15th to the 16th?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And did you see an order in writing from Colonel Blaskic arrive
16 there dated 1.30, half past 1.00 on the 16th of April?
17 A. No. I did not see any letter, no. No, that's for sure I did not
18 see any letter.
19 Q. You never saw that document?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Now, will you then have a look at it, it is document 676.
22 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, just for the record, I think that the
23 Prosecution is using the wrong number for this document. This document
24 was entered as Defence document, if I am not wrong, with the witness Jon
25 Elford. I do not have my number here, but I know that there was dispute
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 about the numbering. It should be checked.
2 JUDGE MAY: Very well, that can be done.
3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] It is true that it was a part
4 of the evidence presented with Jon Elford. It was 676 and, at that time,
5 Mr. Kovacic had taken over, if I may say so, took over this exhibit and
6 adduced it on behalf of the Defence.
7 The Prosecution will accept this document under any number.
8 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, have you had now time to read this document?
9 A. Well, not really.
10 Q. What does that mean; yes or no?
11 A. I haven't finished yet. Okay, I've finished. All right, I've
12 read it.
13 Q. And in the night between the 15th, 16th of April or on the 16th of
14 April sometime during the day, did you have an opportunity to see this
15 document then?
16 A. No. No.
17 Q. Since you have it before you, you see -- you can see that
18 Kruscica, Vranjska, but also Donja Veceriska is also mentioned as a part
19 of the area in which the brigade should go into action.
20 A. Well, Your Honours, I do not see which part of the brigade should
21 be established here in terms of this document. I mean this is the first
22 time I see it.
23 Q. Very well. But Donja Veceriska does figure in this document,
24 doesn't it? It is misspelled, by the way. On the left-hand side, we see
25 Kruscica, Vranjska, Donja Veceriska; right?
1 A. My copy is not very legible. Is there a better copy, perhaps?
2 JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Lopez-Terres, I think you've made your point
3 on the document. The witness says he's never seen it.
4 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Very well.
5 A. No, no, no. Never, for sure.
6 Q. Very well. Sorry. You can see that in this document, that there
7 is a special unit in the Vitez Brigade, a unit called Tvrtko. You see
8 that, don't you? It is addressed to Mr. Cerkez and also to the unit
9 called Tvrtko. You agree with that, don't you?
10 A. No. The Special Purpose Unit Tvrtko was never within the Vitez
11 Brigade, nor did it belong to our municipality.
12 Q. That is not what I was saying to you. I said that it was an order
13 issued to the Vitez Brigade and to the Tvrtko unit. Yes or no?
14 A. Since I've never seen this document, the Vitez Brigade --
15 Q. And when your brigade commander, Mr. Cerkez, told you which was
16 the area where the brigade should be deployed, did he also tell you which
17 other units were to be side by side with you in that operation?
18 A. No. No.
19 Q. So you did not know that the Tvrtko unit was associated with your
20 brigade, that the military police was taking part. You didn't know that
21 the Vitezovi were to participate. You didn't even know that the civilian
22 police of Vitez were also to take part in that military operation.
23 A. Your Honour, I really do not know which operation is the one that
24 is being discussed right now, and I don't agree with any of these
1 Q. Very well. I will now show you a document -- bring up a document
2 which was shown you yesterday and to which you gave some comments. If I
3 understood you earlier today, you told us that in the morning of the 16th
4 of April, Mr. Cerkez brought you and other members of the command so as
5 giving information about the operation which was underway. That is what
6 you told us yesterday, isn't it?
7 A. No. No, that's not what I told you yesterday.
8 Q. Explain it then. Explain it to us. What did you do in the
9 morning of the 16th of April around 10.00?
10 A. In the morning on the 16th of April, in all that commotion and
11 amongst this total disinformation concerning the situation on the ground,
12 I'm repeating, once again, that Mr. Mario Cerkez got an oral order to have
13 us make a maximum effort to compile all accessible information from the
14 territory of the municipality of Vitez. I remember very well that he
15 explicitly requested from us to try, through our friends and neighbours,
16 to obtain information, any kind of information, and that we should call
17 the duty officers of the other units that were on the territory of the
18 municipality of Vitez so that we could get all of this in the best
19 possible way and hand it over to the duty officer or rather to the
20 commander of the Operative Zone.
21 JUDGE MAY: Just help me, help us with this, Mr. Zuljevic: Were
22 you still the duty officer on the 16th?
23 A. No. No. No, I was not the duty officer, but --
24 JUDGE MAY: The next thing I want to know is this: You refer to
25 "us", "He told us to try", "He requested us to do various things." When
1 you refer to "us" in relation to this gathering of information and the
2 making of reports, who are you referring to?
3 A. Well, we, the command of the Viteska Brigade.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Yes.
5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Two things: Mr. Cerkez received an order, that order came from
7 General Blaskic to collect information about the situation. Yes or no?
8 A. I don't understand. I really didn't understand what you were
9 saying. I thought that you would continue and put a question. Could you
10 please repeat that?
11 Q. The question was as follows: The order which Mr. Cerkez received
12 to gather information in his area of responsibility, did that order come
13 from Colonel Blaskic?
14 A. Well, I told you as far as I know and, on the basis of what we
15 were told then, it was an oral order. Whether it was typed out on a piece
16 of paper, that I really don't know. I can't tell you that.
17 Q. From whom did this order come, Mr. Zuljevic? It's simple. That
18 is the only thing I am asking you.
19 A. For us, the command of the Viteska Brigade, an oral order came
20 from Mario Cerkez.
21 Q. So you do not know who Mr. Cerkez received his order from to
22 gather this information?
23 A. I believe Mr. Cerkez. If he told us that he received this from
24 Mr. Blaskic, and I remember that very well that it was so -- there is no
25 reason for me to think otherwise.
1 Q. Well, it is a pity that you did not come with this answer earlier,
2 Mr. Zuljevic. You tell us that on the basis of this order, you
3 communicated with other units which were deployed around the area, that
4 is, in the municipality. So you knew those units. You knew where they
5 were deployed. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to communicate with them.
6 A. Information. After that, all of us gathered information. This is
7 what it was all about. First of all, while I was still the duty officer,
8 gunfire could be heard somewhere around Kuber. Then later --
9 Q. This is not an answer. This is not your answer [as interpreted].
10 My question was: Did you know where were those other units in order to
11 communicate with them? Did you know where they were?
12 A. We did not know where all the units were. We had to establish
13 contact, and it was insisted upon that we should try to find out whatever
14 we could. For example, the special purpose unit of Vitezovi was in town.
15 We know where the command of the military police was stationed. We know
16 that a reconnaissance group of volunteers was established on Kuber. We
17 know that we have 50 to 60 men who are undergoing preparations up there.
18 JUDGE MAY: That's enough. Mr. Lopez-Terres, we will try and keep
19 the answers within reasonable bounds, but I must ask you to try and finish
20 by the break, because we have much else to do this morning.
21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Yes,
22 Mr. President.
23 Q. When you were shown one of the documents yesterday, 673.7, that
24 is, the document, which I will also show you now, the document which was
25 signed by Mr. Cerkez: Our forces are advancing in Donja Veceriska, which
1 has -- which is about to fall. Ahmici -- and they -- and Ahmici. They
2 are offering a truce [as interpreted].
3 This report -- this information, you received it from the units
4 which were on the ground, didn't you?
5 A. I don't remember who received this report, because, first of all,
6 I worked very hard the previous day. Then I was on duty all night. And
7 otherwise, according to my job description, if there's anyone who was
8 supposed to receive a report, it wasn't me, because I was involved in
9 other affairs.
10 Q. Very well. So you don't know who established -- drew up the
11 report that was signed by Mr. Cerkez?
12 A. No. No. But again, I say that I remember the atmosphere very
13 well. Everybody tried, in every conceivable way, to learn something,
14 because we ourselves did not know what was going on in the municipality of
16 Q. But this information you gathered then very quickly. You received
17 instructions from Mr. Cerkez between 9.00 and 10.00, and at 10.00, because
18 that's the time we have on the report sent to Colonel Blaskic, Mr. Cerkez
19 at that time is in a position to give information to Blaskic about what's
20 going on in Veceriska, about what's going on in Ahmici and Sivrino Selo,
21 and is able to give that information in just a few minutes, so it didn't
22 take long to get that information. So the conclusion we can draw is that
23 because you knew who to go to to get that information.
24 A. Your Honour, at this moment the Prosecutor is trying to pinpoint
25 the exact time. If you remember, yesterday I said, "in the early morning
1 hours." I said, "9.00 or 10.00." I did not say 10.00 exactly. And a lot
2 of things can be done within the scope of one hour.
3 JUDGE MAY: That was not the question. The question was this:
4 You knew where to get the information, didn't you? Now, what is the
5 answer to that question? Did you know where to get the information or
7 A. Where we had -- I mean, in Kruscica -- I don't have to repeat this
8 once again. That's where we could get information immediately. As for
9 the other information, we could get them in one way only, one possible
10 way: through people who were coordinators and who at that time worked out
11 the shifts for village guards.
12 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The information you give pertained to very specific
14 places - Vrhovine, Donja Veceriska, Ahmici, et cetera - so the reason why
15 you get this information is because you have members of your brigade that
16 are present in these places.
17 A. No. No. No. Those were not information from our members,
18 members of the Viteska Brigade. I repeat once again: This was
19 information that could have been gathered in various ways in order to put
20 all of this together, because the Viteska Brigade, the Vitez
21 municipality -- I mean, we had such orders to provide information from the
22 ground. At that moment I had the feeling -- I mean, we were bitter. We
23 had to give information --
24 Q. You never answer the questions I'm asking you. The village of
25 Donja Veceriska, I'm telling you, was part of the villages that were
1 controlled by the brigade. When we are told that Donja Veceriska is on
2 the point of falling, then I draw the conclusion that you're informed
3 about that by your brigade, not by another unit.
4 A. I cannot give you an answer when you don't understand me.
5 Actually, I'm giving the right answer, but you don't agree with my
6 answer. The members of the Viteska Brigade did not participate, or were
7 they in Donja Veceriska.
8 Q. Very well. I'd like to show you a document that has not been
9 shown to you by the Defence yesterday. It's document 692.3, 692.3.
10 Mr. Zuljevic, as you can see, this document was issued by Colonel
11 Blaskic, and Colonel Blaskic, when sending this order, refers to a report
12 he's just received, and it's precisely the report we were talking about,
13 report number 10, dated 16th of April, coming from the Vitez Brigade,
14 where it says that: "Our forces are moving ahead. Donja Veceriska have
15 almost fallen [as interpreted]. Ahmici, Sivrino Selo, and Vrhovine are
16 offering a truce." So he's referring to that specific report, I mean
17 Colonel Blaskic. So please have a look at this document and tell us who
18 it is sent to.
19 A. Well, I see that this document is addressed to the commander of
20 the Viteska Brigade.
21 Q. And Colonel Blaskic, can you tell us what he's asking from
22 Mr. Cerkez? Is he asking for information or is he asking him to go on and
23 take the villages?
24 A. Well, let me tell you. This, this, this is an outrage. This
25 doesn't look like Colonel Blaskic. He was aware of the fact that we did
1 not have any manpower. Gentlemen, I have been saying consistently, and
2 I'm sure that in Donja Veceriska, Ahmici, Sivrino Selo, Vrhovine in
3 particular, at that time, on the 16th of April, there were never any
4 activities on the part of the Viteska Brigade. And now what this order
5 refers to, I really cannot understand and I can't explain it, for sure.
6 Q. Sometime later in the afternoon, your brigade sent another report,
7 report number 12. It's Exhibit Z671.4. This report comes from your
8 brigade. It was established between 1200, the time of the previous
9 report, and the next report was issued at 1450. So it was established
10 about that time on that date, the 16th of April. You can read the
11 document. In the first part it says, "The village of Donja Veceriska has
12 been 70 per cent done. The village of Ahmici has also been done, 70 per
13 cent." This report was signed by Mr. Cerkez. Do you agree with me,
14 Mr. Zuljevic?
15 A. I agree that this report was signed by Mr. Cerkez.
16 Q. What does that mean, to say that the village of Donja Veceriska
17 and the village of Ahmici have been 70 per cent done?
18 A. You're taking me back to something -- I mean, to the very
19 beginning. This is then the result of the obvious confusion, commotion,
20 the situation on that day, even the way in which this is expressed. Look
21 at this document. It doesn't even have "Viteska Brigade" in the heading.
22 Q. Please answer my question, Mr. Zuljevic. What does it mean when
23 it says, "The village was 70 per cent done," confusion, everything? It's
24 not in the report, that.
25 A. I really cannot answer that question for you. I can't. I can't.
1 Q. Very well. The last document I want to show you. It's another
2 order dated 1450 [as interpreted], and it's Exhibit 671.5, 671.5.
3 Is also signed by Mr. Cerkez. Do you agree with that, don't you?
4 A. Just a minute, please. Please, with your permission, I would like
5 to read this document. Yes. Yes.
6 Q. In the final part of this document, it is said, and Mr. Cerkez's
7 signature is on this document says, "I also take this opportunity to
8 inform you that the town is clean and that we have about 50 Muslims in the
9 cellar of the police station."
10 "The town is clean," what does that mean, Mr. Zuljevic?
11 A. The town is clean, cleaned of what? We didn't even have our own
12 people in town. That information could only have been provided by the
13 civilian police because they were in town. Clean of what? To tell you
14 the truth, I don't know. But I would like to comment on this first thing
15 here. This first thing here, the report. All of this is the result of --
16 how should I put this -- of this clumsiness of ours, the clumsy way in
17 which we gathered information, reports from everyone.
18 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, you are not in a position to tell us what it means
19 when it says, "The town has been cleaned and we have 50 Muslims." The
20 town is clean. The town has been cleaned. The town has been cleaned of
21 those you were naming the balijas; isn't that true?
22 A. No. No. That's not the way it was.
23 Q. Do you know what balija means?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you use that expression, Mr. Zuljevic?
1 A. I personally did not ever for sure.
2 Q. Never? Never? Look at that document of the 5th of July, 1993,
3 I'd like to show it to you. It's a new document Z1138.3. Mr. Zuljevic,
4 this report dated 5th of July, 1993, was signed by yourself.
5 MR. KOVACIC: This document was never proposed by the Prosecutor
6 to be entered as Zagreb evidence and it is Zagreb evidence.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but it's a document related to this witness. He
8 is entitled to put it to the witness whether it was a Zagreb document or
9 not. It doesn't matter where it comes from. You've produced the
10 witness. The Prosecution are entitled to cross-examine him, and here is a
11 document which he has allegedly signed. They are entitled to put it to
12 him. Yes.
13 A. Your Honour --
14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, first sentence, the enemy, this night there were no
16 major attacks --
17 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness deal with the document itself first.
18 We'll come to the contents in a moment.
19 Is that your signature, Mr. Zuljevic?
20 A. No. No. That's what I wanted to say. This was signed by
21 Blazenko Ramljak. At that time in the brigade command, he was head of
23 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
24 Q. So what you are telling us is that Mr. Blazenko is the author of
25 this report. But still, it's your name that we can see underneath the
1 signature, isn't it?
2 A. Yes. Perhaps I should have been the duty officer that night, but
3 why Blazenko signed it, I don't know. Please, allow me to read the text.
4 I really did not manage to read it.
5 Q. I'm just -- I just have a question about the first line. You were
6 telling us that you have never used the word balijas; is that right?
7 A. No. No. No, for sure, never. I never used such expressions nor
8 do I use such expressions on this day.
9 Q. Yes. But you will agree but that an officer of the Viteska
10 Brigade, Mr. Blazenko Ramljak in charge of the artillery. So you agree
11 that when he writes this report to Colonel Blaskic he talks about balijas
12 in that same report. So it was a term that was commonly used and nobody
13 was very much outraged by the use of this term in an official document.
14 A. I would not agree with you. That is a question of individual
15 nature. Blazenko Ramljak was an officer of the Yugoslav Peoples' Army,
16 and perhaps he was more revolted than the rest of us. I am telling you
17 for sure, I mean if you have all these documents, take a careful look at
18 them and you will see that such things --
19 Q. Very well. I'd like to move on to the final item. The document I
20 have submitted to you this morning, you tell us, "I don't know. I don't
21 know what it means when it says the town is clean. I don't know what it
22 means when you read that Donja Veceriska, Ahmici, have been 70 per cent
23 done." You're still telling us that you don't know what it means?
24 A. I know of these expressions, but I was a bit shocked because I
25 don't know what the agreement was. I mean how and in which way this
1 information should be given. Actually, I was not present at this
3 Q. Yes, but this was signed by the commander of your brigade, and he
4 sent on this information to his superior officer.
5 A. Our commander of the brigade got this information. He just got it
6 and sent it all to the Operative Zone.
7 Q. So it was not his information. It was information that he
8 gathered here and there and had nothing to do with them; is that what
9 you're saying?
10 A. This was information from the field. Actually, I repeat from the
11 people who were accessible at all at that moment. Do you understand what
12 I'm saying? Again, again, I'm saying yet again that the Viteska Brigade
13 was taken by surprise by all of this. And we were a bit --
14 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, are you telling us the truth today?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You're claiming that you did not know that as of the 15th of
17 April, a major operation had been launched by the brigade, by other units
18 in the municipality of Vitez. All of this you did not know. You were not
19 aware of that. You were not aware that there was an operation against the
20 Muslims of the municipality. You had no idea about any of this.
21 A. Yes. I categorically assert, and it is for sure that I did not
22 know of any action, even if it had been conceived of and planned. I can
23 state that with certainty. Sir, Mr. Prosecutor, I am here under oath and
24 I am aware of each and every word I've said.
25 Q. You're telling us that you were not aware of that. But now that
1 you've seen all these documents, doesn't it lead you to change your mind
2 slightly or to change your point of view?
3 A. Sorry? I'm sorry, my concentration is a bit down. Could you
4 please repeat your question?
5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I'm almost finished, Your
7 JUDGE MAY: What the Prosecutor is putting is: Is there anything
8 you've heard or seen today which might lead you to change your mind about
9 what happened on the 15th, on the 16th of April?
10 A. Well, I guess so. I am changing my mind. It's the first time I
11 found out about certain things and saw certain documents.
12 JUDGE MAY: I don't think we can take it very much further.
13 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You never heard about a plan consisting in a major operation of
15 ethnic cleansing against the Muslims as of the 16th of April, 1993,
16 Mr. Zuljevic?
17 A. Yes. Yes. I never heard of any such plans. And least of all, of
18 what you've tried to do, to put this in the context of the Viteska Brigade
19 which was just being established at the time.
20 Q. Therefore, you cannot tell us why the commander of your brigade,
21 on the 16th of April in another report to Colonel Blaskic was writing,
22 once again, the military activities have -- military activities have not
23 gone according to the plan as envisaged. So you don't know why Mr. Cerkez
24 wrote that to Blaskic on the 16th of April at 12.00. It's Exhibit 673.6.
25 So this plan that is mentioned here, you are -- you are not aware of it at
1 all, Mr. Zuljevic.
2 A. No. No.
3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] No further questions, Your
5 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic.
6 MR. KOVACIC: I will only have a couple of brief questions.
7 Re-examined by Mr. Kovacic:
8 Q. [Interpretation] I think that some things remained a bit unclear
9 in a certain way because of a misunderstanding. First of all, with regard
10 to the mobilisation of vehicles that was mentioned rather extensively,
11 Mr. Zuljevic, could you please describe to us the procedure when you, the
12 brigade, needed a vehicle at the time when the Viteska Brigade was
13 established, when you thought that you would need vehicles to transport
14 people to take over their shifts at the front line against the Serbs, what
15 would do you then?
16 A. Well, in the following way: A request to be sent to the civilian
17 authorities, actually to the defence department. We would mention the
18 exact date and time, and the number of vehicles needed for transporting
19 people to the front line, and the date by which they would be engaged
20 noting, however, since there was a fuel crisis at the time, that we would
21 provide them with fuel for the service rendered.
22 Q. All right. So in advance, you would ask the defence office to
23 give you some vehicles for your disposal; is that correct? Yes or no?
24 Let's speed things up.
25 A. Yes.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Q. Could you put forth such requests within a few hours, how much in
2 advance would you have to put forth such a request?
3 A. Well, at least one day in advance.
4 Q. Thank you. A document was shown here concerning war booty, as the
5 Prosecutor said, and this word is also used in the document itself. Let's
6 not waste too much time over this. Tell me, when this conflict broke out,
7 were there a lot of abandoned vehicles in town?
8 A. Yes, there were abandoned vehicles too.
9 Q. Why were vehicles abandoned?
10 A. Well, because of chaos, for various reasons.
11 Q. What about civilian persons who were not engaged at the time,
12 could they get any fuel at the time?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Was that one of the reasons why there were masses of abandoned
15 vehicles on the road?
16 A. Yes. Yes, at any rate.
17 Q. Were there any individuals who were stealing even such vehicles,
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Finally, did the Viteska Brigade manage to set up some kind of
21 order where it operated and where it was duty-bound to maintain order, I
22 mean as the situation developed?
23 A. Yes. Yes. As the situation developed, the more time went by,
24 this got a bit more established, and things were a bit more in order.
25 Q. Very well. Let us move on to this document 6, number 6, I
1 believe, the order dated the 16th of April, the time, 1.30.
2 I would like the witness to be shown this document once again,
3 please. There was one thing that was not clear over there. I think the
4 document is still outside, isn't it?
5 Donja Veceriska was discussed. That's what we are interested in.
6 First of all, look at the following: This text up here underneath the
7 time, the number denoting the time in the left-hand corner, that is an
8 order mentioning the need of blockading the broader area of Kruscica,
9 Vranjska and Donja Veceriska. Look at the text, please, in paragraph
10 number 1. This order is described what is necessary to be done, and in
11 number 2 specific assignments are pointed out.
12 Is any specific assignment given in connection with Donja
14 A. No.
15 Q. If you, as a soldier, were to receive this order, would you act in
16 accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What would you do about Donja Veceriska if you were not told
19 anything specific?
20 A. Well, nothing.
21 Q. All right. Finally, have you ever heard of the Tvrtkovci being in
22 Donja Veceriska?
23 A. Yes. Later on I heard that the Tvrtkovci were in Donja Veceriska.
24 Q. Thank you. You can return the document.
25 Just two more questions, please. First of all, did you personally
1 ever see any document while you worked in the Viteska Brigade where the
2 word "balija" is mentioned, except for the document we saw here today?
3 A. No. No. For sure, no.
4 Q. One more question before the last one. As you gathered this
5 information that you said you were gathering in all possible ways, at the
6 same time did you get calls from people from the territory of the
7 municipality who were calling at their own initiative this telephone
8 number of the brigade? In other words, did you even get information that
9 was not solicited by you?
10 A. Yes. There were such pieces of information as well.
11 Q. Why did citizens call this telephone number of yours? Do you have
12 any explanation for that?
13 A. Because before we came from the command of Stjepan Tomasevic, this
14 telephone was also one that was in current use. It was used all the
15 time. The local people would call to report on any changes, on anything
16 that was wrong in the area, towards other municipalities, the villages
17 that were predominantly populated by Muslims, and any problems that
18 occurred in town were reported on this particular telephone number because
19 a lot of people wore a uniform at their own initiative.
20 Q. Very well. Let's be quite clear on this. You are talking about a
21 telephone that was in the offices of the Viteska Brigade when you came; is
22 that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Who had this telephone and who used those offices before you came?
25 A. The command of the 2nd Battalion, or actually, it was now the 1st
1 Battalion of the Viteska Brigade.
2 Q. All right. So that was specifically the battalion commanded by
3 Anto Bertovic?
4 A. Yes, yes.
5 Q. And people were still using that telephone?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. On that morning you were there, was there useful information
8 obtained through these telephone calls concerning certain movements,
9 conflicts, concerning certain detained persons, either Croats or Muslims,
10 things like that?
11 A. I'm sorry. I did not manage to understand the date. What time
12 are you talking about?
13 Q. I'm sorry. My mistake. That critical morning of the 16th of
14 April. From these telephone calls that were made by citizens, did you get
15 useful information from the ground?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And such information, if you look at the totality of all
18 information received, did that end up in written reports?
19 A. All the information, not only information coming from citizens.
20 Q. Thank you. Now, let us go back to one thing only, because I think
21 there was a major misunderstanding or lack of comprehension. The
22 Prosecutor asked you about the 4th Battalion, and we are talking about the
23 16th of April. Now, let us clarify a few matters. How many battalions
24 were in the Vitez Brigade in the very beginning of the conflict?
25 A. On the day when the conflict broke out, I'm repeating for the
1 third time, the Vitez Brigade had only one battalion.
2 Q. Very well. So when the term "4th Battalion" is used there, does
3 it mean the 4th Battalion of the military police?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So when we are talking about the 4th Battalion of the military
6 police, is it correct to say that in the early days, that is, after the
7 events, little by little you learnt that that unit had been in Ahmici?
8 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE MAY: That was a leading question, I mean, of an outrageous
10 sort, Mr. Kovacic.
11 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, it was obvious that the witness was
12 confused. 4th Battalion. He thought that it is a question. It was
13 obvious from the transcript.
14 JUDGE MAY: It's practically the last question of the case, and it
15 was a leading one.
16 MR. KOVACIC: I withdraw the question. I withdraw the question.
17 It was merely an attempt to show that it was a mistake, but I withdraw the
18 question. No problem. It will be struck. My intention was not to be
19 unfair in that sense, but it was obviously confusing. The witness thought
20 that it was mentioning the 4th Brigade -- 4th Battalion at that time.
21 JUDGE MAY: Well, we will be able to look at the transcript and
22 make our own judgement about it. Anything else?
23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Two questions about that.
24 Q. Mr. Zuljevic, did you gradually, after the conflict broke out,
25 begin to learn, little by little, what had happened in Ahmici?
1 A. Yes. We began to learn about it. Not only I; everybody.
2 Q. Isn't it true that there were various rumours, if I may put it
3 that way?
4 A. Yes, yes. There were various rumours, unfortunately.
5 Q. And didn't, little by little, all these stories begin to converge,
6 to focus in a somewhat clearer story?
7 A. No, not in the beginning, but then it was -- there was the
8 grapevine, of course, but eventually one arrived at the real truth. And
9 in the beginning of the cross-examination I said that we know very
10 well -- not that we know very well, but that everybody now knows very well
11 who could have done that, but I cannot be sure, because I did not see
13 Q. Very well. But tell us, please: Did you, in one of those
14 rumours, stories which circulated in those early days, did you ever hear
15 something about the Vitez Brigade being in Ahmici or having to do with the
16 action in Ahmici?
17 A. No, I did not hear that.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Zuljevic, that concludes your evidence. You are
20 free to go.
21 We'll adjourn now for half an hour. When we come back we will
22 deal with the exhibits, rulings which we have to give, the outstanding
23 exhibits we have to rule on, and the motion for adjudicated facts.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I note that you haven't called Drazenko
1 Vidovic, as you were going to, and therefore, of course, his affidavit is
2 not admitted.
3 We'll adjourn for half an hour.
4 --- Recess taken at 11.11 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 11.44 a.m.
6 JUDGE MAY: The first matter I'm going to deal with is to rule on
7 the various matters which the Chamber has to deal with. First of all, the
8 Cerkez additional and Zagreb documents. The Chamber has been through
9 them. Those already admitted are tab 1, documents number 6 and 14; tab 4,
10 numbers 4 and 7; tab 5, numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11; tab 7, numbers 3
11 and 13. They will be removed from the binder. The rest will be
13 The additional documents following our ruling in the case of the
14 Prosecution and our ruling in the case of Mr. Kordic when we allowed a
15 broad admission of documents unless there were no translations or
16 illegible documents. So in line with those rulings, the rest will be
18 In relation to the Zagreb documents, they will be admitted having
19 regard to our previous ruling on that matter. A written order would
20 follow and I would ask the registry for a number for the binder.
21 THE REGISTRAR: The number for the binder will be Defence
22 Exhibit D160/2.
23 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
24 I turn next to the Prosecution rebuttal documents. The following
25 will be admitted: Documents numbered Z151.1 and 369.1. Of the remainder,
1 20 or so have already been admitted, and the Court should not be troubled
2 with them. The rest are excluded either because they were served,
3 disclosed after the time allowed by the Trial Chamber or because the
4 evidence of the relevant witness was excluded in rebuttal and therefore
5 the document is excluded. A written order will follow.
6 Finally this: The Trial Chamber has been told that there has been
7 discussion about some exhibits involving the registry and the parties. So
8 that the matter is clear, the Trial Chamber has instructed the registrar
9 that subject to the rulings today, no more documents are to be accepted
10 and the list of exhibits is now closed.
11 The registry will go through the exhibits and publish by next
12 Tuesday a final list which will be the official list to be used in the
13 case. Any document or item which is not on that list is not an exhibit.
14 Turning to the documents about which there was dispute which I
15 mentioned earlier, the Trial Chamber has looked into the situation and
16 determines that the three documents, and they are marked Z882.1, Z1111,
17 and Z2770, have not been admitted and so will not appear on the list.
18 I mention one other matter unconnected with exhibits, and remind
19 you that final briefs are to be filed by 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday, the 13th
20 of December, and besides the official copy for the registry, it would be
21 helpful to have four courtesy copies for the use of the Chamber so that we
22 may have the opportunity of reading them before we hear submissions on
23 Thursday and Friday.
24 Now, subject to any other matters which counsel may wish to raise,
25 there are two outstanding matters, I think, the motion on adjudicated
1 facts and also the Kordic exhibits.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MAY: We'll deal with the exhibits first.
4 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, following the Court's evidentiary
5 rulings, we prepared a list of exhibits that have not already been
6 admitted, 12 in number. I think that if you look at them --
7 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps we could have them. The documents now are in
8 front of us. Having taken a very brief look, two matters which I note.
9 157, 158 and 159. 157 is the letter from Mr. Vidak to Mr. Cameron. We've
10 excluded the evidence of Mr. -- well, we've excluded the evidence in
11 relation to that. How can this document be relevant?
12 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, the proposal was only designed to
13 address this situation: If there is to be a reference in the
14 Prosecution's final submissions regarding Mr. Vidak in any way, then we
15 would wish for this exhibit to be admitted. If there is to be no
16 reference to Mr. Vidak, then obviously it can be deleted. The suggestion
17 has been made, not to beat around the bush, that somehow there's been
18 interference with this witness, or something of that variety, which is not
19 particularly a welcome suggestion, but the suggestion has nonetheless been
20 made. I think this letter, and we submit that this letter, which we had
21 no part whatsoever in writing and was sent to the investigator, makes
22 Mr. Vidak's position completely clear on the point. But if his is a name
23 that is going to be absent from any submissions, then we readily concede
24 that this is not an issue that the Court need trouble itself with.
25 JUDGE MAY: And the log books.
1 MR. SAYERS: The log books, Mr. President, are really relevant
2 only for this limited perspective. We're not inviting the Trial Chamber
3 to plow its way labouriously through these. These documents were produced
4 pursuant to a binding order issued to the Federation of Bosnia and
5 Herzegovina and to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We only recently received
6 translations of these documents I think within the last few weeks.
7 The relevance of the documents is this: The production of
8 documents by the Republic of Croatia and by the Croat part of the
9 Federation, as the Trial Chamber well knows, has been a subject that has
10 been bruited very loudly in this case, and complaints have been made
11 regarding non-production or delayed production.
12 As I understand it from witnesses who have testified, the
13 documents now available in the Zagreb archive span some four kilometres.
14 The military documents produced to Mr. Kordic pursuant to the request for
15 a binding order are about four centimetres, not four kilometres. But
16 ready reference to these log books - and it will be our submission in our
17 final papers - ready reference to these log books makes it absolutely
18 clear, beyond any doubt, that there is a vast quantity of contemporaneous
19 documentation that has been generated by the ABiH, specifically by the 3rd
20 Corps. These log books make continual reference to the receipt of reports
21 from various brigades. A number spring immediately to mind: the 333rd
22 Mountain Brigade in Kacuni; the 325th Mountain Brigade, headquartered in
23 Kruscica, with a branch in Stari Vitez, throughout the period of
24 hostilities; the 303rd Brigade, which was instructed to engage in combat
25 activities, amongst other places, in Ahmici on the 16th, and which on the
1 15th engaged in activity, combat, with HVO units from the Nikola
2 Subic-Zrinjski Brigade on the slopes of Mount Kuber. None of those
3 reports have been produced to us, with one or two exceptions, which we've
4 included as exhibits in prior evidence.
5 So the only point that we would ask the Trial Chamber to extract
6 from that and to take note of is the very considerable number of reports
7 that exist and the absolutely minuscule number that have been produced,
8 which shows that the document access problems in this case have by no
9 means been one way. And as the Trial Chamber knows, we've been fairly
10 diligent, I hope, in trying to acquire these documents from the Federation
11 and from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the representation was made by the
12 official representative of both bodies or entities that full production
13 has now been made.
14 So that's what the relevance of those documents is, Mr. President,
15 not -- I hope that the Trial Chamber didn't think that we were asking the
16 members of the Bench to pour through hundreds of pages of entries. We're
17 not doing that.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is the specific evidential value?
19 MR. SAYERS: The evidential value, Your Honour, is to show that
20 these reports must exist. They do exist. They are referred to by number
21 in the logbooks, yet they have not been produced to us. And we will, I
22 hope, with some legitimacy be asking the Trial Chamber to draw some
23 inferences from that nonproduction.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Sayers.
1 MR. NICE: In fact, Your Honour, I'm pursuing my policy this week
2 of, as it were, taking a side seat so Mr. Scott will be dealing with it.
3 But just on that last point, when it's said, "inference to be drawn from
4 nonproduction", I take it that that's nonproduction by the Federation
5 rather than nonproduction by us, because all this comes as a surprise to
6 us. We haven't been subject to a request.
7 MR. SAYERS: Absolutely, Your Honour.
8 MR. NICE: Well, then perhaps Mr. Scott would deal with the
9 substance of it.
10 JUDGE MAY: Just on the point about the Cameron letter, if I can
11 call it that, well you heard the exchange.
12 MR. NICE: There's no way I'm going to be referring, of course, to
13 the evidence of Mr. Vidak, the potential evidence of Mr. Vidak, because
14 the closing submissions are built on the evidence and that's that. Would
15 I be making some observations about the difficulty of getting Croat
16 witnesses in general? Yes, I probably would. That doesn't let this in,
17 and the problem with that particular letter is that if it goes in, then
18 it's got to go in with both the statement that, the witness potential
19 witness, made and any explanation that Mr. Cameron, who's available, would
20 want to give, because he's here, and the letter is hotly challenged.
21 But in any event, as to the evidence of the man I shan't be
22 referring, and I don't forecast, I can't say precisely what I would be
23 minded to say, but I can't forecast that I am going to go into details of
24 any particular witness difficulties although I no doubt will say something
25 about the difficulties that are placed in the way of calling Croat
1 witnesses. But that's as far as it will go.
2 Certainly on that topic, because I have I've discussed this with
3 Mr. Scott, that particular document simply cannot stand on its own because
4 if it's to go in at all, then Mr. Cameron is entitled to be heard in
5 response to it.
6 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
7 MR. NICE: Perhaps Mr. Scott can take over with the detail.
8 MR. SCOTT: May it please the Court.
9 When we started the rejoinder exercise concerning Mr. Kordic, the
10 Prosecution stated its position -- and I apologise for not seeing Judge
11 Robinson. My apologies, I don't mean to be discourteous. I'll stand over
12 here, if the interpreters can hear me.
13 Our position at the time was that the vast majority of this
14 material was not proper rejoinder. That basically remains our position
15 overall albeit, at this point, through some of the rejoinder witnesses,
16 some substantial amount of this material has, in fact, been admitted and
17 we don't intend to revisit that by any means. But simply stating our
18 position now is the same as it was at the beginning of this exercise, that
19 the vast quantity is not proper rejoinder or, at best, is cumulative and
20 does not go to core relevance. The standards that the Chamber has applied
21 as to the late evidence, if you will, submitted by all parties.
22 Some specific points: We would note that while the Prosecution
23 initially had tendered 140 documents concerning Kordic from Zagreb, et
24 cetera, eight, specifically related to Kordic as opposed to Cerkez or
25 miscellaneous -- out of 140, eight were admitted. Then the Kordic Defence
1 puts in initially 159, then cut its list to 113. And then now has, in the
2 last several days, admitted a fairly substantial number of these documents
3 and now asked for still more.
4 As Mr. Sayers himself has said many times, I think that the time
5 has come to cease the admission of more and more documents, especially
6 those which are not clearly rejoinder and for which there is no specific
7 relevance or for specific authentication. On the authentication point I'm
8 going to zero my arguments in on a couple of points in just a moment.
9 For the balance of my statement, Your Honours, I'm going to focus
10 on particular items, but that is our general, overall position. As
11 Mr. Nice has said, concerning their number 157, Vidak's letter to
12 Mr. Cameron, I can tell you, since the Prosecution has never really had a
13 chance to state its position on this letter. It is absolutely completely
14 opposed and reject it.
15 If there was any inclination by the Chamber to consider it or to
16 receive it, we would ask that the Chamber should hear from Mr. Cameron. I
17 would offer to the Court, as an officer of the court and as a proffer of
18 evidence, that Mr. Cameron would just completely dispute the contents of
19 that letter. It is a complete 180 degree reversal of Mr. Cameron's
20 dealings with that witness who he has described as completely cooperative,
21 completely courteous.
22 This man was, in fact, prepared to come to The Hague. He was, in
23 fact, prepared to authenticate the so-called four presidents documents.
24 All of that only changed, only changed after he was visited by the
25 Defence. I won't press the matter further except that say, again, we
1 completely dispute that letter.
2 It's interesting -- we would note that it's interesting to us that
3 for some reason, when Mr. Vidak sent the letter to Mr. Cameron for some
4 reason he saw fit or was asked to fax a copy to Hunton & Williams which is
5 shown on the letter. If the Chamber wants to hear that, we would ask that
6 they receive both the Vidak's original statement and hear from Mr. Cameron
7 who stated a very different version of events.
8 The other specific point that we would -- a couple of other
9 specific items. On number 79, Your Honours, on the list, that remains on
10 the residual list, if you will, that was submitted this morning, there is
11 an odd item which has not been specifically addressed but I think it
12 should be. On Exhibit 79, if the Chamber has the smaller bundle, I take
13 it it does, that was tendered this morning, if you find that document,
14 which is the April 17th report, I suppose you could call it from Kodric,
15 you will note, if you have a chance to look a it, Your Honours, on the
16 English translation only there is some reference to Susak. Now, on the
17 original B/C/S version that follows the document, there is no such
18 reference there is nothing in there about Susak.
19 No explanation has been given as to how this gets appended, how
20 this became appended to the English version. There's no authentication.
21 There's absolutely no information as to how this goes on there or if it
22 properly, in fact, attaches to this document or if it was miscopied or a
23 fragment from another document or what it is. We simply have no
24 information about how this reference to Susak got on this document and we
25 would oppose the document at least to that extent. The rest of the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 document, if the Defence wants it, fine. It seems to be a B/C/S document
2 and the rest of it seems to be, at least on its face, an order, but that
3 is a peculiarity that has not been explained at all and we oppose it
5 Turning to the ABiH logs, Your Honour, which is this much
6 material, we submit, Your Honour, this falls under the heading that again
7 the Chamber has applied to all the parties late in the trial proceedings
8 if I may say that. And I think it falls -- this falls under the heading
9 of too much too late. We know nothing about it. There's no
10 authentication of it, not a single witness has been called about this
11 material. It is not the same, Your Honours, we submit, as the HVO archive
12 material, because the HVO archive material was by all accounts, and I
13 submit, undisputed at this point, was the HVO archive. And the HVO
14 documents were coming from the HVO archive.
15 These are not HVO documents. They are ABiH documents. And not a
16 single witness has appeared to authenticate them. And I -- again, we
17 submit, Your Honours, it's too much too late. Much of it is illegible to
18 follow up on some of the judges, Your Honours' questions, we don't know
19 what the specific evidential purpose of it is. It's -- we oppose those
20 two items, the two log books, Your Honours.
21 I think, Your Honours, subject to consultation with my colleagues,
22 that's -- those are our major points.
23 [Prosecution counsel confer]
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honours. Two points that my
1 colleagues -- or several points my colleagues remind me of, briefly. Just
2 on the ABiH logs, Your Honours, these voluminous logs, I point out that
3 the Prosecution -- one of the arguments the Prosecution had made in
4 respect to some of the Zagreb materials was that authentication -- it was
5 authentication enough in some instances that they were produced in
6 response to binding order. Now, it appears to us, and the Court will
7 correct us if we're wrong, that the Court did not view that by itself to
8 be a sufficient basis of authentication to receive the evidence, and I
9 submit to you this material puts us exactly in the same position. Even if
10 it was, at least parts of it, submitted -- received by binding order,
11 again applying the Court's prior ruling, as we understand it, that is not
12 enough to provide a basis for authentication or admission here.
13 Secondly, Your Honours, if the only point -- if Mr. Sayers is
14 telling us that the only point of submitting this voluminous material is
15 to say that there's probably -- there are, in fact, additional ABiH
16 records out there, I think we are prepared to admit that. Clearly there
17 are additional ABiH material out there. No one would be surprised by the
18 fact that there is a large volume of existing material in a number of
19 places, including on the Croat side of the Federation, which has never
20 produced documents to us. So if that is indeed the entire evidential
21 value of this volume of material, I think we're prepared to say that yes,
22 there are materials out there that we have not received and the Defence
23 probably has not received.
24 I think, Your Honour, the only remaining -- other remaining things
25 relate to the witness Grubesic from yesterday. On both sides, if I can
1 submit, Your Honour, and that is, when I say that, I mean both from the
2 Defence and from the Prosecution, the Defence prepared a binder of some
3 42, 44 -- 44 documents, many of which were not in fact used, but I suspect
4 they are to be offered. I don't know whether they've been -- we're not
5 sure whether they've been admitted or not on the Prosecution side. We've
6 talked among ourselves. Again, it's just a bunch of binders, documents
7 that were not in fact put to the witness, other than kind of perhaps
8 passed in front of him, I mean, but no specific discussion. So that's
9 just a point of clarification, Your Honour.
10 Again, many of those documents, the fact that they may have been
11 passed in front of the witness, Your Honour, does not change the situation
12 that many of them are irrelevant, many of them are cumulative,
13 many -- they don't go to core relevance. As the Chamber has said, that
14 some of them are personnel records, when someone was appointed or
15 whatever, things that are -- some of them are not even in dispute. But if
16 the Chamber has time, and I know that the Chamber has been burdened with a
17 huge task, but if you do go through there, much of it is simply not
18 relevant; it has no core relevance and is cumulative and redundant. So we
19 would oppose those items, except for those that were specifically gone
20 through with Mr. Grubesic as a witness.
21 In the same respect, Your Honours, if I may be allowed to do so,
22 and this is my last -- I'll sit down, unless the Chamber has questions.
23 When we did our cross-examination yesterday, the Chamber will recall,
24 please, that we had prepared a summary chart, schedule, if you will, of
25 the orders on the 15th, 16th, and 17th, to meet -- well, to present the
1 cross-examination most efficiently in the time allowed. We had said at
2 the time that we are prepared to tender the orders themselves, and we
3 indeed are and would tender those orders, Your Honours. And there's one
4 specific explanation or additional piece of evidence why they should be
5 admitted, because even this morning we heard that apparently it's the
6 position concerning the Busovaca -- the Zrinjski Brigade that they were
7 only in Kuber, at a position or location generally known as Kuber, and
8 therefore could not have been involved in Ahmici, could not have been to
9 the right side of the Vitez Brigade, et cetera, et cetera, contrary to
10 other evidence.
11 In these orders which we tender, Your Honour, which were included
12 in our schedule yesterday, it's clear that components of the Busovaca
13 Brigade were assigned a number of places. Some were at Kuber, some were
14 around Kaonik, some were at other places. Some were in Busovaca town.
15 It's reflected on the face of these orders, some -- many of which by Dusko
16 Grubesic. So if there is going to be a suggestion that "Well, they were
17 only at Kuber," that is not correct.
18 So we would close, Your Honours, by asking -- by tendering the
19 orders from those days which were included in the schedule that we used in
20 cross-examination yesterday.
21 JUDGE MAY: What may be cumulative and repetitive in the case of
22 the Prosecution may not necessarily be repetitive and cumulative in the
23 case of the Defence, and therefore if that category is used in one case,
24 it does not necessarily follow that it is applicable to another.
25 We shall admit the Grubesic documents admitted yesterday. We
1 shall admit these documents, except for document 157, the letter to
2 Mr. Cameron, which at this stage in the trial, it seems to us, lacks the
3 necessary relevance, lacks the necessary significance. It is a
4 controversial letter, and if we were to admit it, the only fair way would
5 be to allow Mr. Cameron to respond to it. It's sought to be admitted on a
6 very narrow point, which probably isn't or may not be in dispute anyway.
7 In any event, that document will be excluded.
8 On the other hand, the two log books, numbered 158 and 159, will
9 be admitted, for the same reason that we admitted the log of the duty
10 officer of the Operative Zone. These log books come into precisely the
11 same category. They speak for themselves, made, it would appear,
12 contemporaneously by a similar duty officer. Of course, if they had been
13 available earlier in the trial, they should have been admitted then, and
14 no doubt could have been evidence about it. But one of the problems of
15 this trial has been that evidence has not been admissible until late.
16 That has not been a ground for excluding relevant evidence for the Trial
17 Chamber in its pursuit of the truth.
18 In those circumstances, these two documents will be admitted. It
19 may be the registry can give us some numbers in due course as to these
21 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
22 JUDGE MAY: Apparently there's a difficulty about videotapes, as
23 to which have been admitted and which haven't. I think the position is
24 this: that those which have been admitted so far will be admitted; those
25 which have been excluded will be excluded.
1 MR. SAYERS: Two very minor points, Your Honour. Yesterday
2 certain materials were disclosed to us as a result of a binding order
3 issued to the Kingdom of Sweden. We've reviewed those documents. We
4 think only one is potentially relevant. We filed that yesterday. And
5 with the Court's permission, I'd like an exhibit number to be assigned to
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes. If you hand it -- well, we'll perhaps take that
8 exhibit. What's the next number, please?
9 THE REGISTRAR: Number D35 -- sorry. D357/1.
10 JUDGE MAY: And the remaining documents which have been put in
11 today can be given numbers following that. Thank you.
12 MR. SAYERS: And the final evidentiary matter, at least insofar as
13 our evidence is concerned, Mr. President -- really, the Court's evidence,
14 concerns court Exhibit number 1. There was simply a dispute as to the
15 translation, and we've prepared a translation that we would tender to the
16 Court for its consideration. I think that it's accurate.
17 JUDGE MAY: What was wrong with the translation?
18 MR. SAYERS: There was a box of materials in the original exhibit,
19 Mr. President, that was not translated in the translation that we were
20 given. I don't know why it wasn't, but this box here on the exhibit.
21 JUDGE MAY: We will have that checked. If you'd like to hand your
22 translation in.
23 MR. SAYERS: Yes.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 [Trial Chamber confers with registrar]
1 JUDGE MAY: Well, what we'll do is we'll send that to the
2 Translation Unit and make sure it's correct.
3 MR. SAYERS: Yes. My colleague reminds me that there was a name
4 mentioned in the letter which was wrongly transposed. Mr. Nobilo's name
5 apparently appeared in the wrong place in the translation, and we've
6 corrected that. But of course, we're in the hands of the official
7 Translation Unit. I just wanted that to be clear, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
9 MR. SAYERS: With that, Mr. President, if I may say, we rest our
11 MR. NICE: May I make one point about 357/1. My mistake, no
12 doubt. I had not imagined that there was a serious intention now to
13 produce this as an exhibit. It relates entirely to AO, and all the AO
14 evidence is excluded. And it seems to me -- I cannot see that it has any
15 potential value or relevance, being a document from one of the Norwegian
16 or Swedish officers, about him. It simply can't be of any value, I would
17 have thought. And when I had seen it yesterday, I had assumed that its
18 presentation, as it were, came either before or had been automatically
19 processed and would have been overtaken by AO's exclusion.
20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers.
21 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, we believe the document is still
22 relevant to one consideration, and that is some of the witnesses selected
23 by the Prosecution and brought forth to testify before the Trial Chamber
24 on very, very important matters have certain characteristics which are, to
25 put it mildly, a little bit disturbing, and this particular exhibit bears
1 materially upon that observation. I think that it -- I hope that the
2 Trial Chamber would feel that it would be an appropriate observation for
3 the Defence to make about witnesses, the character of those witnesses, and
4 a certain pattern -- well, not -- a certain consistency in the quality of
5 very important witnesses that are brought to testify against Mr. Kordic.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll admit the document.
8 MR. NICE: Of course I'm not challenging the ruling. I'm a little
9 disturbed to hear what's been said.
10 JUDGE MAY: Let's wait until it's said more formally.
11 MR. NICE: The trouble there is that if we are just going in the
12 ordinary course of speeches, I don't have a reply. This is the first I've
13 heard of this, and if it's going to be suggested in any way that the
14 Prosecution has been selecting witnesses of a certain type, that's a very
15 serious suggestion, and one in which I should have an opportunity to
16 deal. It's also, of course, wholly without foundation.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, thank you.
18 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, there will be no suggestion along
19 those lines.
20 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Now, that leaves the issue on adjudicated
21 facts. We've had the submissions of both parties.
22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] I think we heard enough argument
23 and that all we have to do is ask the parties, before the ruling of the
24 Chamber, if they have anything to add to -- in addition to the submissions
25 which they have written?
1 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, could I just, for the record, inform
2 the Chamber that we joined the request or points made by the Kordic
4 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, we were asked to put together
5 something in writing yesterday. We did. I apologise if it's a little
6 rough around the edges, but it says pretty much everything we want to say,
7 and I have nothing to add to it.
8 MR. NICE: I'm continuing my policy. I was going to ask
9 Mr. Guariglia, who's helped me on this, but with my full authority to
10 deal. There are a couple of concessions we would like to make and better
11 that we should make them now.
12 MR. GUARIGLIA: Your Honours, very briefly, we agree with the
13 Defence that paragraphs 20 and 22 of the Aleksovski judgement can go.
14 They are not necessary. One previous point of clarification. We are not
15 requesting the Trial Chamber to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts
16 in the Blaskic and Kupreskic decision. We are doing something rather
17 different which is simply invite the Trial Chamber to consider certain
18 factual findings of those decisions, an exercise that we contend the Trial
19 Chamber has inherent authority to do, the Blaskic Trial Chamber did it
20 with a number of findings from the Kupreskic Trial Chamber or may choose
21 to follow a different path and not consider these factual findings.
22 In any event it is not a request on the Rule 94(B), and the list
23 of facts that we indicated from those findings is solely for the purpose
24 of highlighting which factual findings we consider to be useful from the
25 Kupreskic and Blaskic decisions, but that's all.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE MAY: As far as noting what other Trial Chambers have found,
3 that is, of course, something within our inherent power to do, and is a
4 course which we can follow. It will be a matter for the Trial Chamber in
5 making its decision whether it does or not, but that's a matter which has
6 to be considered upon the evidence.
7 We do not take judicial notice of any of the matters to which we
8 are invited to do on the question of adjudicated facts. The fact that
9 something has been adjudicated upon by another Trial Chamber does not mean
10 that this Trial Chamber is bound by it, far from it. It is a matter which
11 we shall consider in each case in this case, and we will make our own
12 findings upon the facts.
13 Now, are there any other matters arising?
14 MR. NICE: I think there are three falling into two very short
15 categories, small categories. They've both been referred to before and
16 the Chamber has indicated that it wants to deal with them after the close
17 of speeches next week, but it occurs to me it's going to be very difficult
18 for us to be reconstituted after next Friday, between then and the day
19 when judgement is delivered and, therefore, can I just mention them again
20 in case there's any action that the Chamber wants us to take.
21 One I ought to deal with in private session, so perhaps I can just
22 go into that with Your Honour's leave.
23 JUDGE MAY: Before you do, let me just add this to my ruling.
24 The reason that we are doing so, the reason we've come to this
25 decision about adjudicated facts is this: That it is late in the trial,
1 at the very end. And as we've said earlier, I think, in argument, the
2 time really to consider adjudicated facts is at the very beginning, not at
3 the very end of the trial. If a party wants to put adjudicated facts
4 before a Trial Chamber, they should do so at the outset and let the Trial
5 Chamber rule on it and then the whole trial can proceed on the basis of a
6 particular fact.
7 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I'm sure that the OTP will take that
8 into consideration for other cases, and I trust that the Chamber will
9 accept that that may not have been realistically possible here. What we
10 did was forecast, at various stages, that we would be making an
11 application, and what we did was, out of our duty, we perceived it to
12 allow the Chamber to take the course that was proposed had it judged that
13 efficient in terms of judicial economy. But we'll certainly communicate
14 the Chamber's view in respect of the timing of such motions for other
16 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 MR. NICE: So far as other matters are concerned, there are the
25 two witnesses now in respect of whom the Chamber may be taking further
1 steps for noncompliance with Court orders: That's the woman witness
2 referred to at an early stage and the Witness AO.
3 Unless we hear further, we will assume that no steps are required
4 by the Prosecution in relation to those witnesses.
5 JUDGE MAY: That is right.
6 MR. NICE: Thank you. So far as the other inquiry directed or
7 proposal recommended through us a week or so ago in relation to another
8 witness, I mentioned this a day or so ago and the Chamber then said that
9 should be put back in after the last hearing, but I respectfully remind
10 the Court it's going to be difficult for us to convene, if we all have to
11 convene to deal with that.
12 I mentioned something of an alternative practice, of which Your
13 Honour was familiar, in different circumstances where the steps were taken
14 by a member of the Bench. No doubt this can be dealt with in writing, but
15 we would respectfully ask the Chamber to tell us what steps or what part
16 of steps it wants us to take and we will then pursue it. Because until
17 then, it's a little difficult for us to know how much initiative you want
18 us to be taking at this stage, given that officers of the court may be
19 involved. I use the word "officers of the court" in its meaning well
20 understood by Your Honour.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] If my memory serves me well,
23 Mr. Nice, we said that the Chamber said that it was not necessarily
24 related to this case, to these hearings, but we accepted the Prosecutor,
25 that is, the Office of the Prosecutor, should see which measures, which
1 steps should be taken in that particular case. However, this is not
2 related to this particular case.
3 MR. NICE: Indeed so. That's as I understood it. But the
4 sensitivities that exist with investigations, both of contempts in general
5 and contempts that may involve officers of the court, and given the
6 limited and varying practice of the Court in relation to these matters in
7 the past, we would be grateful for an indication of which part you want us
8 to play. If it's simply to be told, "We want you to carry out an
9 investigation into this," then we will take that communication, pass it
10 over to the chief of investigations, and let steps be taken. That is all
11 assuming our Statute allows us to do that, which it may be a problem.
12 JUDGE MAY: Well, if it wasn't plain, that's what we meant.
13 MR. NICE: Very well. We'll come back if there are any procedural
14 difficulties that are foreseen. Thank you very much.
15 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
16 MR. KOVACIC: If my dear colleague is finished, [Interpretation]
17 Your Honours, only two minor administrative matters. I failed to do it in
18 due time, so with your leave: Last night I tried - and I suppose the
19 document was received today - I tried to file yet another document that is
20 a letter by Mr. McFadden. Rather than waste time arguing it in our
21 favour, I should like to tender it and then have it admitted as such. I
22 believe it reached the distribution this morning, Mr. McFadden's letter.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. So that I may
25 refer to it in my closing argument. Thank you.
1 The second matter, which has to do with my reaction to the witness
2 who we had on the stand before, when I said that evidently the witness did
3 not understand that question regarding the 4th Battalion. Meanwhile, I
4 went through the transcript. On page 8, in line 9, Their Honours - that
5 is, the Presiding Judge - asked the witness about the 4th Battalion in
6 Ahmici, and it was not said "military police." And that is where it
7 began; that is, the witness to that obviously replied that the 4th
8 Battalion did not exist. Of course it is -- you will decide about this,
9 but you will realise that that is the misunderstanding. So it is page 8,
10 line 9. The witness understood that you were referring to the 4th
11 Battalion of the brigade, and that is why his answer was negative. Thank
13 JUDGE MAY: We'll look at the whole context.
14 Yes, Mr. Naumovski.
15 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Kovacic has just
16 reminded me we have still not received Mr. McFadden's letter. We did
17 invite him to give us his opinion of Mr. Kordic, so we should like to
18 adduce that. I believe we shall get it one of these days, so may we
19 please produce it on the last day at the time of closing arguments?
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll let you do that.
21 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your
23 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now until Thursday morning, 9.00.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.45 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 14th day of
1 December, 2000, at 9.00 a.m.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.