1 10th March 1997
2 (10.05 am)
3 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-96-21-T. The case of the
4 Prosecutor against Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim
5 Delic and Esad Landzo.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Are all the accused persons present?
7 MS McMURREY: The defendant Landzo is present, your Honour.
8 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): The defendant Zejnil
9 Delalic is present.
10 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): Hazim Delic is present.
11 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): The defendant Zdravko
12 Mucic is present.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much.
14 Last Friday, before the close of the -- in fact,
15 shortly after, I would say, the close of the working
16 day, we received a few applications, one jointly by all
17 defendants' counsel, asking for certain procedures to be
18 adopted. Now specifically I mention the joint
19 application to adopt all motions made by each of them,
20 except as otherwise indicated before the Trial Chamber.
21 Actually, I think this is a fairly difficult thing
22 to say, because, although the reasons adduced for
23 adopting these motions are splendid and intended to
24 minimise the wastage of time, and to make things easier
25 for everyone, it is a fairly difficult thing to ask a
1 Trial Chamber to have a blanket approval of motions not
2 already before it.
3 I think it still would not make a lot of
4 difference if, on each occasion any of the defence
5 counsel brought a motion, each of the other counsel is
6 asked whether he adopted it or not, and, if he did not
7 adopt it, that will be the position.
8 Technically, I think it is not in the interests of
9 proper procedure to grant a blanket approval of motions
10 not already before the Trial Chamber.
11 It would appear it is a very easy thing, because
12 it was a unanimous decision of the defence counsel, but
13 that notwithstanding, I do not think this Trial Chamber
14 should adopt that procedure. It is fairly irregular and
15 perhaps might commit the Trial Chamber to accept things
16 which otherwise would not have been the ideal situation.
17 The other matter which perhaps one needs mention
18 again before I call on the prosecution for its opening
19 speech, if it wants to make any, is the question of the
20 Landzo discovery motion. I am sure the prosecution has
21 been served with that motion.
22 MR OSTBERG: Yes.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: And will be able to react to it, so
24 that we can take that.
25 MR OSTBERG: Do you want us to answer to that motion now,
1 your Honour?
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, that is what I mean, because the
3 motion is asking that you should give the names and
4 location and places of --
5 MR OSTBERG: Yes, your Honour. We are now dealing with a
6 discovery motion, the discovery motion with the
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
9 MR OSTBERG: Mrs McHenry, at my side, has been dealing with
10 that question. I will ask her to argue and answer to
11 it, your Honour.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Will counsel to Landzo move the
14 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, if I may respond to this, yes, we
15 did file the motion to compel the prosecution to
16 identify the witnesses and give us the names and
17 locations. I do not have the record of the prior status
18 conferences in front of me, but at the prior status
19 conference, I believe that the Tribunal had ordered that
20 these witnesses' locations be given to us, unless they
21 filed for protection.
22 Now, it has been clear at that the prosecution has
23 filed for protection for witnesses B, C, D, E and F,
24 but, as far as the other witnesses that they have not
25 filed for protection of, I believe that the Rules
1 require that they give us the location. Mr Ostberg has
2 informed us that he has made an attempt to talk to these
3 witnesses and that the witnesses have said that they do
4 not wish to talk to us, but, under the Rules of
5 Discovery, it is not the prosecution's position to be
6 the go-between between the defence and the witnesses,
7 that we should, if they are not under the protection of
8 this tribunal, have a right to go and confront those
9 witnesses ourselves and have the same opportunity to
10 visit with them out of these surroundings as the
11 prosecution has had, in a more relaxed atmosphere, and
12 that is the basis of our request, that, according to the
13 status reports before, according to the rulings of this
14 tribunal, the witnesses that they have not requested
15 protection for should be given to us, their names and
16 locations, so that, before the prosecution calls them to
17 the stand, we have an opportunity to discuss with them
18 the same kind of things that the prosecution has
19 discussed with them, outside the presence and outside of
20 the protection of these walls.
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we have your reaction, please?
22 MS McHENRY: Thank you, your Honour. Teresa McHenry for the
23 Office of the Prosecution.
24 Your Honour, the defence of Esad Landzo has had
25 the names of the witnesses for a significant length of
1 time. What they are now seeking is the current home
2 addresses of the witnesses so that they may attempt to
3 contact the witnesses to ask about pre-trial interviews.
4 There is no Order of the Court at a status
5 hearing, or at any other time directing us to provide
6 those addresses, or to seek a protective order, if we
7 did not.
8 After we received the request from the defence, we
9 took it upon ourselves to contact all the witnesses and
10 ask them whether or not they wish to provide their
11 addresses and whether they wish to provide a pre-trial
13 In speaking with the witnesses, the prosecution
14 did not take a position on the matter and did not
15 influence the witnesses one way or the other. Without
16 exception, the witnesses, or their representatives, have
17 explicitly directed us not to reveal their home
18 addresses, and they have also reported, without
19 exception, that they do not wish to have a pre-trial
20 interview with the defence.
21 Indeed, even the asking of the questions
22 frightened many of the witnesses. The prosecution has
23 now done more than what is required. There is no basis
24 under the Rules, under the Statute, under the accused's
25 right to a fair trial, or under any Order of this Court
1 which would require the prosecution to provide home
2 addresses of witnesses, or seek protective orders when
3 it declines to do so.
4 The Rules, in fact, quite sensibly do not
5 contemplate the provision of home addresses to the
6 defence. The Rules explicitly require the prosecution
7 only to provide the names of the witnesses, while under
8 Rule 67, the defence, on the other hand, is required to
9 provide both names and addresses.
10 Similarly, most national systems do not require
11 the provision of home addresses, and there is no reason
12 to think that there is anything that would indicate that
13 the addresses should be presented in this case,
14 especially when the witnesses have explicitly requested
15 that they do not wish to have their addresses provided,
16 nor do they wish to provide pre-trial interviews. The
17 defence will have the right to cross-examine the
18 witnesses at trial, and they are entitled to nothing
20 It is the witness' right to choose whether or not
21 to reveal their addresses. To reveal their home
22 addresses against their wishes could endanger the
23 well-being of the witnesses, including jeopardising
24 their right to privacy and even jeopardising the
25 witnesses's safety and that of their family, and the
1 prosecution could no do this. In all frankness, your
2 Honour, to provide witness addresses, where the witness
3 has requested us not to, would ensure that there is no
4 co-operation with the Tribunal in this case, or in any
5 other case. Indeed, it is a basic right of anyone, be
6 it your Honour's, be it we with the prosecution, even
7 the defence attorneys, not to be forced to reveal their
8 home addresses.
9 To expect the witnesses, who have all been
10 severely victimised by these accused, to reveal their
11 home addresses to these accused, or their attorneys, is
12 frankly unthinkable.
13 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, we object at this point to the
14 reference of Miss McHenry that these accused have
15 victimised all these witnesses. That has not been
16 proven in this court of law and she should not be
17 allowed to pre-judge them at this point.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you, I think your objection is
20 JUDGE JAN: I would like to draw your attention to
21 Rule 69C. It talks about identity of witnesses, the
22 address also, or not.
23 MS McHENRY: No, your Honour, we would explicitly state that
24 it does not include the address.
25 JUDGE JAN: "Identity" would not include the address?
1 MS McHENRY: That is correct, your Honour. We would note,
2 for instance, in Rule 67 the defence is specifically
3 asked to provide both the identity --
4 JUDGE JAN: If you look at Rule 67 it talks about names and
5 then also addresses. It does not talk about identity.
6 This word has been used in Rule 69(c). Rule 67 talks
7 about names and then addresses, but here Rule 69(c) uses
8 the word "identity". Now, would the identity be much
9 larger than merely name, or include address also?
10 MS McHENRY: Your Honour, we would state that there is
11 nothing about the witness' current address which would
12 be included under their identity. It is possible that
13 you could say their birth date, or where they are from,
14 some of those things arguably might, but I do not
15 believe that there is any way that one could argue that
16 the witness' home address could be considered part of
17 their identity.
18 Thank you, your Honours.
19 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, if I might briefly respond, what
20 has happened is the defence of Esad Landzo has provided
21 to the prosecution names and addresses of witnesses that
22 we intend to call pursuant to alibi or any defences that
23 we have offered, and, as such, the prosecution has sent
24 investigators out there and interviewed these people in
25 their home environment.
1 Now, what this does, it gives them the opportunity
2 to investigate motives for fabrication, what their
3 position is in their community, all the surrounding
4 circumstances around this witness, because we have not
5 been afforded the same possibility for investigation.
6 The defence case is highly prejudiced in that we cannot
7 go talk to the neighbours, "Is this person known to be a
8 liar?", talk to the people surrounding the
9 circumstances. We have no information when that witness
10 takes this stand to decide whether he is a person who
11 normally tells the truth or not, other than what the
12 prosecution's investigator has said. So we are severely
13 prejudiced in that they now have had the opportunity to
14 interview our witnesses and we have not been afforded
15 the same right. Thank you, your Honour.
16 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, I am
17 Tapuskovic from Belgrade. What we heard from our
18 colleague is quite correct. Therefore, I should like to
19 second her position, because, as defence counsel already
20 in January, or even before, in August, I submitted a
21 certain number of names of witnesses who will be called
22 to testify in the defence of Zdravko Mucic, and I
23 counted on the possibility of the prosecution contacting
24 them. For me, this was nothing that I would object to,
25 and, therefore, I think this is another point at which
1 the defence is in an unequal position. Thank you.
2 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, may I too
3 support what our colleagues have said, and add by saying
4 that, by disclosure of the addresses of the defendants
5 too, Rule 21 of the Statute is being violated. I think
6 that, under the excuse that the defence may exert
7 certain pressure on the witnesses, one might say that
8 someone else is pressuring those witnesses, and that
9 possibility cannot be excluded. That is why I think, in
10 the interests of a fair trial, the prosecution should be
11 required to submit the addresses of the witnesses to us.
12 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): As defence counsel of
13 defendant Delic, I would like to support the views of
14 the previous speakers and especially what Madam
15 Residovic has just said. I believe that, by acting in
16 this way, the prosecution is jeopardising the basic
17 rights of the counsel of the defendants to be able to
18 question the witnesses and collect data about them, the
19 more so as the witnesses are in other states in other
20 regions, and the prosecution and others can reach them
21 more easily, which we are unable to do. We cannot talk
22 to them or contact them or collect the basic information
23 about them.
24 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, as defence
25 counsel of Esad Landzo, I should like to ask the
1 prosecution, who are the witnesses afraid of? Is it us,
2 the counsels, and an interview with the counsels, or
3 their investigating Judges? Not one of those witnesses
4 is living on the territory of the Federation of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They are living either in the
6 territory of the Republika Srpska in the Federal
7 Republic of Yugoslavia, or in third countries.
8 Therefore, this possible fear that the prosecution is
9 referring to is imaginary and non-existent, in fact. We
10 believe for the defence to be in an equitable position,
11 it should have access to the witnesses and be able to
12 have pre-trial interviews with them.
13 All witnesses of the defence are accessible to the
14 prosecution and the prosecution has talked to all the
15 witnesses that it was interested in talking to. Thank
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please, can I ask Miss McHenry, is it
18 one of the arguments that the witnesses have refused
19 that you should disclose their addresses or their
20 identities to anyone else?
21 MS McHENRY: Your Honour, it is one of our arguments. Our
22 first argument is that there is no requirement
23 whatsoever that we do so. In fact, though, in an effort
24 to assist the defence and ensure that we did everything
25 possible, we contacted the witnesses and asked whether
1 or not they objected to us providing their addresses to
2 the defence, and it is the case, and, if a witness
3 agrees that we may turn over the address, we are happy
4 to do so. Thus far, every witness we have contacted has
5 explicitly stated "Do not reveal my address to the
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much.
8 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, before you
9 rule on this matter, I should like to draw attention to
10 one further point. We would like to have this pre-trial
11 interview before each of the witnesses were to appear
12 before the Trial Chamber, the defence would like to have
13 a pre-trial interview with them, and, in direct contact
14 with the witnesses, we could see whether they wished to
15 talk to defence counsel or not, prior to the actual
16 trial proceedings, therefore allowing the defence to
17 verify the position of the witnesses. So I do not see
18 why witnesses could not have pre-trial interviews
19 immediately before making their statements in the
20 court. Thank you.
21 JUDGE JAN: Are you not asking for a right which is not
22 available to you under the Rules? Are you not asking
23 for a right which is not available to you under the
24 Rules, that you want to interview the prosecution
25 witnesses, whether they want to talk to you?
1 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, if I might respond, I do not know
2 that it is so important that we interview the witnesses
3 right here in The Hague before they testify as know
4 their identity and location so that we can investigate
5 them as a person, investigate the circumstances
6 surrounding their lives so that, when they come into
7 this courtroom to testify, we know something about them,
8 other than what the prosecution has told us. It is very
9 important for us to be able to have the same
10 investigative right that the prosecution has had, and
11 that they can go out to their location, they can
12 interview the people that these people work with every
13 single day, and they can find out something about their
14 personal lives, something other than what the
15 prosecution has provided us with, and that is the
16 purpose of needing their identities, more than their
17 actual testimony and an interview with them. Thank
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually, it seems to me what the
20 prosecution is protecting is the matter of
21 confidentiality between the prosecution lawyers and
22 their client who is a witness, and it is somewhat of a
23 strict matter in legal proceedings. The confidentiality
24 of this nature ought to be respected.
25 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, may I respond?
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can.
2 MS McMURREY: The witnesses that the prosecution has sought
3 protection for we certainly are not going to object if
4 there is a legitimate reason for them to have
5 protection, but that leaves about 35 or 40 other
6 witnesses that they have not sought protection for, and
7 we are asking that it is very important for us to find
8 out the location of these witnesses so that we can send
9 our investigators to have the same advantage that the
10 prosecution investigators have taken advantage of.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: We have had enough of this argument.
13 We will make our rulings later. Now we shall proceed to
14 the opening speeches of the prosecuting counsel.
15 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, if I may, I believe we have a
16 couple of other motions before the Court before we begin
17 opening statement. One is the joint motion in limine,
18 and the other one would be that we have -- we would like
19 to invoke the rule before the trial begins, the
20 Rule 90(d), I believe, which says that the other
21 witnesses should not be available in the trial chambers,
22 or in the audience, whenever other witnesses are
23 testifying. It is up to the discretion of the Court
24 when you want to hear this matter, of course, but we do
25 have a joint motion in limine that needs to be ruled
1 upon before evidence is given.
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Now, please, for the last suggestion
3 you have made about witnesses being out of court and out
4 of hearing, it is a normal tradition of every Tribunal,
5 of every Trial Chamber, and I think that announcement
6 normally would be made when it becomes necessary. What
7 are joint defences, joint motions, I stated it very
8 clearly, that it is a little irregular for one to
9 pre-judge what would be coming up in the future.
10 Whenever the motion is filed, it behoves every
11 defendant's counsel who is interested in it either to
12 associate himself with that motion and adopt it, or
13 state his objection to going it alone without that
14 motion. So you do not have to come by such a joint
15 decision. It is a very excellent thing, you have done
16 that, I accept in the right lines, but definitely it is
17 unnecessary in the interests of justice to gag future
18 motions by adopting a motion in a blanket way meeting
19 everything that would come in the future.
20 MS McMURREY: Yes, your Honour, we agree with you. I
21 believe you are referring to the motion to adopt the
22 other objections of the other defendants, but we have
23 another motion also, which is a motion in limine
24 regarding appropriate terms to be used in trial, and we
25 have objections to terms used by the prosecution that
1 are highly prejudicial under Rule 70(f) that need to be
2 resolved before I believe Mr Ostberg begins his opening
3 statement, and before the reading of the indictment.
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: We do not read the indictment again. I
5 think they have pleaded to it. Apart from that, I
6 already appreciate your approach, because much of what
7 you are saying I think need not even come before the
8 Trial Chamber. If somebody is using an inappropriate
9 terminology, you can object to it when it is used, and
10 the Trial Chamber will take cognisance of that
11 objection, and especially when you mention terminologies
12 which are not peculiar, I do not see why anybody should
13 come by way of motion and make it a decision of the
14 Trial Chamber, because you do not want a particular
15 expression to be used. It does not follow.
16 MS McMURREY: Just so that I am clear, since this is all new
17 to me, just whenever these terms are used that we object
18 to, we object and the Court will rule on it?
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you would have indicated to the
20 Prosecutor, or whoever is using that terminology, it is
21 inappropriate, and perhaps you would show reason, but it
22 should not come by way of motion at all.
23 MS McMURREY: Thank you very much, your Honours.
24 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, before
25 giving the floor to the prosecution, allow me, in
1 connection with this motion of the defence, to present
2 my view. I think that the Court should take a position
3 on this motion, even though the indictment will not be
4 read, because the indictment is a component part of this
5 trial, it begins with it and it will serve as a basis
6 for presenting to the public everything that is
7 happening in this Trial Chamber.
8 I must say that the decision on this motion is of
9 twofold significance: first, because, before the Court,
10 we have for the first time members of the legal Armed
11 Forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an independent and
12 internationally recognised country with legal bodies and
13 legitimate names, the use of terms such as "Muslim
14 forces", "Muslim courts", the commander of the Muslim
15 forces is absolutely legally unacceptable, and such
16 terms cannot be used in such a lofty institution as
17 this. On behalf of my defendant, I must say that he was
18 never a member of the Muslim forces, nor was he a
19 commander of the Muslim forces.
20 On the other hand, Bosnia and Herzegovina is an
21 independent and sovereign country, with its own
22 institutions, and it would be correct in this court, as
23 is the case in the United Nations, to use those terms
24 which the bodies of Bosnia and Herzegovina actually
25 have, and I think that such a decision should be taken
1 straightaway, and that the prosecution should be asked
2 to correct those terms and to submit such a corrected
3 version of the indictment to this Court.
4 Allow me one further point. I think that these
5 are questions contributing to a fair trial, which is in
6 the interests of the Court and of us, as the defence
7 counsel. From a part of the mass media this morning I
8 learnt of a sensationalist invitation to this trial,
9 whereby this case is being linked to the trials in
10 Nuremberg and Tokyo. I wish to express my deep
11 disagreement with such announcements regarding this
12 case. By presenting numerous evidence, we will seek to
13 prove the innocence of our defendants. We expect a fair
14 trial and such an inappropriate announcement of this
15 case will not contribute to it.
16 I should like also to say that, as a member of the
17 defence team of my defendant, Delalic, I will oppose any
18 attempts which would infringe upon his rights as
19 stipulated by Article 21 of the Statute, and any other
20 tendencies which may undermine the fairness of this
21 trial. I felt it my duty to make this statement before
22 the beginning of the proceedings. Thank you.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much, Mrs Residovic. We
24 appreciate your contribution, and, as I indicated from
25 the beginning, it is always appropriate for counsel to
1 point out inaccuracies or poor representation of facts
2 or poor misdescriptions of situations to the Trial
3 Chamber for correction, and it is not a thing which can
4 be done once one has tried the whole trial. It can be
5 done as it arises and depending on the situation which
6 confronts you.
7 I do not think the Trial Chamber has any
8 responsibility, whatever adverse publicity you might
9 have read. It is not our duty, except it affects the
10 trial as a whole, to issue any corrections, and I think
11 you should not mind so much of what you have read or
12 heard, but do your best in the interests of your client
13 for the purposes of the justice of the case before the
14 Trial Chamber. We assure you the best from now, and
15 from the beginning, as you have been very familiar
16 with. The Trial Chamber has cooperated with every
17 aspect of this case, both with the prosecution and
18 defence, and there is no reason why you should have any
19 fears from whatever you have heard elsewhere.
20 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, I just wanted to state that the
21 defence of Esad Landzo would wish to adopt the arguments
22 of Zejnil Delalic at this point also. Thank you.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually, I have already indicated the
24 view the Trial Chamber takes. It is not necessary for
25 us to rule on such a motion I say once as our decision.
1 Perhaps you have might have other inappropriate
2 expressions which might come up. When they come up, the
3 Prosecutor will also take heed and correct their
4 expressions, as the case may be.
5 Do you still have anything remaining?
6 MS McMURREY: One more thing. There is a terminology which
7 I think has been inappropriately used by the
8 prosecution, but I will reserve that until the time it
9 is brought before this tribunal. Thank you.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we hear the prosecution?
11 Opening statement by MR OSTBERG
12 MR OSTBERG: Thank you, your Honour. May I start by
13 introducing the bench of the prosecution for you, your
14 Honours? I am Eric Ostberg. You have already heard my
15 learned friend, Mrs Teresa McHenry. On my side, on the
16 other hand, I have Mr Giuliano Turone, and we have also
17 with us our case manager and legal assistant, Miss Ellis
18 van Dusschoten.
19 The prosecution brings today to the Trial Chamber
20 a case of violation of the laws or customs of war and
21 grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
22 perpetrated by four individual persons, Zejnil Delalic,
23 Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo.
24 The crimes are alleged to have been committed in
25 connection with the Celebici camp in the Celebici
1 village in the municipality of Konjic in Central Bosnia,
2 set up in May 1992 to detain persons of Serbian
3 ethnicity from villages surrounding the town of Konjic,
4 captured in the conflict that erupted between Serbs, on
5 one hand, and Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats on the
6 other in the spring of 1992.
7 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Objection. I have an
9 MR OSTBERG: I would be very grateful if the defence counsel
10 would reserve their objections until I have finished my
11 presentation. The case has been referred to in media --
12 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): The defence proposes that
13 a decision be taken immediately, because a moment ago,
14 your Honour, you said that the ruling would be made when
15 the problem arises. The problem has arisen, and we
16 would like to ask the Court to rule. The prosecution is
17 using inappropriate terminology, contrary to the
18 terminology accepted by the United Nations.
19 According to that terminology, there are no forces
20 of Bosnian Muslims. There are the legal forces of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which were at that time called
22 "territorial defence" and later were transformed into
23 an army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So the prosecution is
24 using a terminology which is, for us, malicious and
25 offensive, and it is contrary to the actual state of
1 affairs at that time.
2 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I am trying to use, in this
3 opening statement, terms and descriptions that will
4 certainly be objected to, but I relate them to reality.
5 It is impossible to go into formal names and formal
6 things in this informal war, in these uncertain times,
7 and I ask your Honour to permit me to make my statement,
8 and then, after I have done that, I will be open to any
9 objections, and even able maybe to correct some, if we
10 find it necessary, but what we do, we are trying to
11 describe the reality to this court, and for that purpose
12 I have to use terms pertaining to reality.
13 If I may now proceed?
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you have to consider two sides
15 of the matter. This is an opening statement. The
16 opening statement technically is not very much part of
17 the trial itself. It merely foreshadows what is coming
18 up. I agree there might be statements you would object
19 to in an opening statement, and I think the prosecution
20 also, having taken note of your objections, might be
21 able to adjust accordingly. I think you will try and
22 adjust accordingly, knowing the type of objections which
23 are being raised of certain descriptions, which
24 technically might not be as accurate as you would like
25 to have it.
1 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Please, your Honour, just
2 one sentence?
3 MR OSTBERG: I did not quite hear, Mrs Residovic.
4 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, by the UN
5 Resolution 827 of May 25th 1993, a decision was taken on
6 the formation of this court, and in this resolution, and
7 in all others of the United Nations, Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina is established as a sovereign and
9 independent republic.
10 In the report submitted to the Security Council of
11 the General Assembly by Mr Bassiouni's commission, a
12 single distinction is made between the legal bodies of
13 authority and the legal Armed Forces of the Republic of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and all other paramilitary
15 organisations. This is a tribunal which must respect
16 lawfulness and legitimacy. There are no strange wars or
17 strange events. An aggression occurred against that
18 independent country, and I appeal to you as
19 functionaries of this court that the accurate
20 terminology should be used on the basis of the documents
21 of the United Nations and this tribunal.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. I think we have
23 heard enough on this, please. Let the prosecution
24 continue. Please, we have had enough. There is no need
25 for it.
1 MR OSTBERG: I go on, and I will not start from the
2 beginning again. I will now say that this case, I will
3 repeat that it is against four individual persons
4 formerly named by me, this case has been referred to in
5 the media and elsewhere as "the Muslim case". This is
6 an unfortunate description. The religion or the
7 ethnicity of the perpetrators is of no consequence and
8 one of the indictees, Mucic, is not a Muslim.
9 The Statute of this Tribunal does not recognise
10 any other subjects to this jurisdiction than individual
11 persons. Had these persons now indicted been from any
12 other states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia,
13 or elsewhere in the world, or of any other religion or
14 ethnicity, they would have been sitting here,
15 nevertheless, charged in the very same fashion.
16 The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or any other
17 entity, or organisation, Muslim or not, is not sitting
18 on the bench of the accused today, just these four
19 individuals charged in the present indictment.
20 It is their serious violations of international
21 humanitarian law we are going to try in the proceedings
22 lying ahead of us in the upcoming months, nobody else's;
23 no responsibility of the state or army, or any such
24 body, just their own individual responsibility.
25 The prosecution will vigorously object to any
1 attempts by the accused, their defence lawyers, or
2 whoever it may be, to turn this trial into anything else
3 than a trial of the individual criminal responsibility
4 of Delalic, Mucic, Delic and Landzo.
5 Should the defence maintain that the Bosnian and
6 Croat forces had the right to attack villages around
7 Konjic in May 1992, the prosecution would not contest
8 it. If the defence should maintain that these forces
9 had the right to round up and bring to a detention
10 centre defeated or disarmed Serb individuals from these
11 villages, the prosecution will not contest that either.
12 The case of the prosecution rests only on two facts;
13 namely, that members of the civilian population of the
14 villages were imprisoned unlawfully, and that many of
15 these persons once detained, along with those who were
16 prisoners of war, were killed, tortured and abused in
17 the detention centre, camp, prison, or what the proper
18 name would be for this horrific place with the name of
20 The unlawful imprisonment of the civilians, the
21 killings, torture, rape, and other atrocities and
22 inhuman treatment inflicted on the detained person, who
23 were all protected by international humanitarian law,
24 are the only matters that this present indictment deals
25 with. The underlying conflict of the parties of the
1 former Yugoslavia, or the origin of the hostilities
2 among these nationalities of that unfortunate country is
3 not and cannot be the subject of this trial or any other
4 trial. It can be no more than a background to what has
5 to be tried by this Court.
6 To paint that background to the event in Konjic
7 that led to the incarceration in Celebici camp of
8 members of the Serb population in the surrounding
9 villages, and to facilitate the understanding of why it
10 happened, the prosecution will bring at least one expert
11 witness. That is Dr Marie-Janine Calic, a scholar of
12 the Institute for Research on International Policies and
13 Security in Munich, Germany. The prosecution may, at a
14 later stage of this trial, if necessary, bring the
15 retired general, JCAC de Vogel, previously Dutch
16 military attache to Belgrade, and a specialist on the
17 military involvement in the disintegrating former
19 Dr Calic will touch on the historical background
20 of the Bosnian conflict. However, the prosecution does
21 not, for the purpose of trying Delalic, Mucic, Delic and
22 Landzo for their alleged crimes pertaining to the events
23 in Celebici camp, see any reason to burden this trial
24 with a broad overview of the history of the Balkans
25 going far back in the centuries. Our expert witness
1 will therefore concentrate on the situation in Konjic,
2 in the beginning of the 1990s, from political and
3 military points of view.
4 The only elements of the underlying conflict of
5 the parties that has to become an issue for the evidence
6 of the prosecution is the question of whether the
7 outbreak of hostilities in the Konjic area was a part of
8 the conflict that was international in its character.
9 Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to be
10 found in Article 2 of our Statute, and charged in this
11 indictment, can only be committed in an international
12 armed conflict and directed against persons or property
13 protected by these conventions.
14 Subsequently, the prosecution has to prove that
15 the violations took place in such a conflict against
16 such persons and property. In doing so, it is not the
17 task of the prosecution to demonstrate who was the
18 aggressor or to make any statement as to who was to
19 blame for the outburst of the conflict. Nor is there,
20 in the submission of the Prosecutor, any need for the
21 Trial Chamber to deal with such matters to reach an
22 assessment of the character of the conflict.
23 The prosecution has filed a pre-trial brief in
24 which it, among other things, argues the application of
25 Article 2 of the Statute to the present case. The
1 prosecution's evidence will, as laid out in greater
2 detail in the pre-trial brief, demonstrate that an
3 international armed conflict occurred, at least from
4 March 1992, for the duration of that year, on the
5 territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 From now on, in this statement, if the defence
7 does not object, I will call it "Bosnia". Would that be
8 proper? Bosnia, its forces, were one of the parties to
9 this conflict. The other party was constituted,
10 firstly, from March 1992 by the Socialist Federal
11 Republic of Yugoslavia and its army, the so-called
12 Yugoslav People's Army, JNA, and from May 1992, the new
13 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its army, with the
14 same name, and secondly, from March 1992, by the entity
15 named "Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina", and from
16 August 1992 of the entity named "Republika Srpska" and
17 their army.
18 It will also be shown that, during most of 1992,
19 the Croat army and the Armed Forces of the
20 self-proclaimed Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
21 within Bosnia, called the HVO, fought against the
22 Yugoslav People's Army and the Bosnian Serb Army on the
23 side of the Bosnian Government forces.
24 To demonstrate the existence of an international
25 armed conflict, the prosecution also wants to rely upon
1 the findings of the Appeal Chamber of this Tribunal in
2 the Tadic case.
3 In paragraph 68 of the Appeal Chamber's decision
4 of the 2nd October 1995, the Appeal Chamber noted that
5 the Geneva Conventions suggest that at least some of the
6 provisions of the conventions apply to the entire
7 territory of the parties to the conflict, not just to
8 the vicinity of the actual hostilities. Particularly
9 those provisions relating to the protection of prisoners
10 of war and civilians are not limited in such a way.
11 In the submission of the prosecution, this means,
12 as far as this indictment is concerned, that Konjic area
13 cannot be an exception from the overall international
14 conflict in which Bosnia was involved at the relevant
16 The evidence of the prosecution will also
17 demonstrate that the victims of the present case are
18 protected persons under Article 4 of the Geneva
19 Convention number 3, or Article 4 of Geneva Convention
20 number 4. They were either non-combatants in the hands
21 of one side of the international armed conflict, that is
22 Bosnia, and seen to be linked to the other side of the
23 same conflict, namely the former Yugoslavia, or the
24 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the Serbian Republic
25 of Bosnia, or they were prisoners of war from the
1 Serbian side of this conflict who had been captured by
2 the Bosnian side.
3 Leaving all details to the expert witness, I will
4 now proceed to give a brief presentation of the area and
5 the camp, where the crimes charged in this indictment
6 took place. In that connection, I will also give a
7 short description of the political and military
8 situation in the area. After that, I will introduce the
9 accused to the Trial Chamber as the prosecution sees
10 them and describe their respective roles in the camp.
11 Then I will summarise the charges against the accused
12 and attribute their actions to the relevant articles of
13 our Statute. Finally, I will give a brief account of
14 the evidence by way of witnesses and exhibits that the
15 prosecution plans to tender.
16 The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina formed,
17 together with five other republics and two autonomous
18 provinces, the former Socialist Federal Republic of
19 Yugoslavia. Due to nationalistic tensions, that state
20 gradually began to fall apart. Two important events
21 were the declaration of independence by Slovenia and
22 Croatia in mid-1991. Bosnia soon followed suit and made
23 it clear that its intention also was to seek
24 independence. The referendum on that question took
25 place in March 1992, which, despite a boycott by the
1 majority of the Bosnian Serb population, led to the
2 result that 90 per cent of the 63 per cent that
3 participated voted for independence.
4 On 6th March 1992, President Itzetbegovic declared
5 Bosnia's independence and called for international
6 recognition. The Bosnian Serb leaders had already
7 declared the existence of a Bosnian Serb republic in
8 Bosnia on the 9th January 1992, and, on 28th February
9 1992, the constitution and major components of the legal
10 system of this entity were proclaimed as having entered
11 into force. This entity would become the
12 self-proclaimed Republika Srpska.
13 These events preceded the outbreak of the war in
14 Bosnia. Already after the first multi-party elections
15 in 1990, the three national parties of Bosnia, the
16 Muslim SDA, the Serb SDS and the Croat HDZ had become
17 deadlocked over the future of Bosnia, because Serbs and
18 Croats called for the division of the republic, whereas
19 the Muslims insisted on a multi-ethnic state.
20 The Bosnian society was thus split into ethnic
21 factions, two of which, the Bosnian Serb and the Bosnian
22 Croat, broke with the Government of Bosnia. Ethnic
23 paramilitary groups were established. The Serbs' ones
24 were supplied with weapons and support from the Yugoslav
25 People's Army. In many areas, ethnic criteria in public
1 life was put above everything else. Step-by-step,
2 ethnic homogenisation took place in all branches and
3 services of the administration. Konjic did not exist in
4 isolation from what happened in Bosnia. Konjic is a
5 municipality typical of the country, and is also the
6 name of its city.
7 Ethnically, its population of around 45,000 was,
8 in 1991, composed of around 54 per cent Muslims, 26 per
9 cent Croats and 15 per cent Serbs. About half of the
10 Serb population lived in the town of Konjic, and the
11 remainder spread in some of the villages surrounding the
12 city. Some of these villages, including Bradina, Brdani
13 and Donje Selo, were dominated by Serbs.
14 The municipality of Konjic is located in the
15 northern part of Herzegovina about 60 kilometres south
16 west of Sarajevo in a mountainous and woody area. Maps,
17 your Honours, will be tendered as exhibits in due
19 The town of Konjic is situated at a crossing of
20 the Neretva River and is an important communication
21 point for road and railway traffic between Mostar and
22 Sarajevo and roads connecting the inland with the sea.
23 Konjic also, which is important, had military
24 installations for the old Yugoslav army, JNA, among
25 them, the Igman, a factory for production of arms and
1 ammunition, the Ljuta barracks, where weapons were
2 stored for the territorial defence of Konjic and other
3 neighbouring areas, and the military barracks in
4 Celebici and Borci. The military facility known as
5 Celebici, located in a village with the same name, was a
6 rather small installation for the JNA surrounded by a
7 fence. It served primarily for storage of fuel and had
8 some partially underground building on its premises.
9 The prosecution has prepared a model of that
10 place, which will be tendered as evidence and then
11 described in detail.
12 In April 1992, the place had been taken over from
13 the JNA by the Muslim and Croat forces. After the
14 attacks on the Serb dominated villages, and capturing of
15 many of their inhabitants, it was turned into a
16 detention facility for those captured.
17 During the spring of 1992, the ethnic tensions
18 were growing in Konjic, as in the rest of Bosnia. There
19 was a large degree of mutual mistrust and fear among the
20 Muslims, the Croats and the Serbs of the area, augmented
21 by the military and strategic importance of Konjic to
22 all parties. Many Serbs who lived in areas who were in
23 minority, at Konjic town, moved to villages like
24 Bradina, Bijela and Borci, where the Serbs dominated.
25 Some moved because they lost their jobs or their
2 In April 1992, after fighting began in Bosnia, the
3 Serbs withdrew from the Municipal Executive Board, and
4 the Assembly. A War Presidency was set up. It
5 consisted of the President of the Executive Board, the
6 Chief of Police, and prominent members of the SDA and
7 the HDZ. Our expert witness will analyse in detail what
8 kind of body a War Presidency is. For the purposes of
9 this opening statement, it suffices to say that it took
10 over the running of the municipality in times of war.
11 Large numbers of persons on all sides were armed.
12 Some persons kept their arms for purposes of
13 self-defence, and persons formed or joined military
14 units, both formal and informal. Check points were
15 established in various parts of the municipality, manned
16 by members, including of course armed members from
17 respective parties. Some Serb dominated villages,
18 including Bradina, set up checkpoints.
19 During April and May 1992, negotiations took place
20 between the Konjic authorities and the larger Serb
21 villages, such as Bradina, and there were reportedly
22 agreements of non-aggression. However, the mistrust and
23 fear among the groups increased.
24 Beginning in April 1992, armed military units,
25 including territorial defence forces, abbreviated TO, of
1 Bosnia and Bosnia Croat forces, HVO, were operational in
3 In addition, the municipal police was also used in
4 a military capacity, as it had substantial armed reserve
5 forces to be used in times of national emergency.
6 The HVO had become operational earlier than the TO
7 in this area, and was better organised and better
9 In the beginning of this period, many Muslims who
10 joined the military operations were initially part of
11 HVO. That means the Croat side, which worked together
12 with TO, the territorial defence, without there always
13 being a clear distinction between these two.
14 There were also other Muslim or Croatian units in
15 the area, including a brigade from Split, and
16 independently formed local unit. The War Presidency had
17 a duty to provide support to the military units, so it
18 did not have direct authority over such units.
19 As the territorial defence, TO, became better
20 organised, as the tensions between the Muslims and the
21 Croats continued, as the TO began to assert its
22 supremacy as the legal Armed Forces of Bosnia, the
23 divisions between the TO and the HVO became evident.
24 Most of the Muslims were members of the TO, and most of
25 the Croats were members of the HVO. Even if there was a
1 joint command, the two groups did not always work well
2 together. These tensions, as well as the improvised
3 establishments of military structures, the shelling of
4 Konjic by the Yugoslav People's Army, JNA, or maybe the
5 Bosnian Serb forces from positions outside Konjic town,
6 such as from the village of Borci, the differing
7 priorities of the various interest groups in the
8 municipality and problems in communication with central
9 authorities in Sarajevo all contributed to a difficult
10 and confusing situation.
11 Starting in late May 1992, after many Serbs in the
12 villages surrounding Konjic refused to give up their
13 arms to the War Presidency and become part of the
14 legally recognised independent Bosnia, some of the
15 Serbian villages of Konjic's municipality, including
16 Bradina, Brdani, Donje Selo, Bjelovcina, Cerci and
17 Viniste -- you have to excuse my pronunciation -- were
18 attacked by Bosnian Muslim and Croat forces. These
19 forces quickly took control of the villages, although
20 there was an armed defence from the people within some
21 of the villages.
22 During these attacks, many persons, including men,
23 women and children immediately surrendered, and many
24 others, also including men, women and children, fled to
25 the woods for safety. Many of those who fled
1 surrendered or were captured within the next several
3 Following these attacks and captures of persons,
4 hundreds of men and a small number of women were
5 imprisoned in Celebici. Some of these persons had been
6 involved in defending their villages, but others had
8 Additionally, some Serb men, who remained in their
9 non-Serb dominated villages, believing they would be
10 safe, were also arrested and taken to Celebici.
11 During the initial period of the Celebici
12 existence as a prison facility, that is from mid-May or
13 early June 1992, it appears that both the TO, mostly
14 then Muslims, and the HVO, mostly Croats, and possibly
15 the military police, the MUP, were involved in the
16 operation and guarding of the Celebici facility.
17 During this time, there was a joint committee made
18 up by both Muslim and Croats, including members of the
19 MUP, the police forces, the TO and the HVO, charged with
20 the task to investigating the detainees. The
21 investigations consisted primarily, and often
22 exclusively, of interrogations of the detainees. The
23 detainees were then to be sorted according to
24 categories, with the most serious and harshly treated
25 being those directly involved in armed action.
1 After several weeks, the committee decided that it
2 could no longer function, because of the large scale of
3 murder and mistreatment of the detainees that was
4 allowed to take place in the camp.
5 In the latter part of June, the committee wrote a
6 report, signed by both the Croat and Muslim members,
7 detailing the situation of the detainees and refusing to
8 continue with its work. This report will be tendered in
10 The HVO, that is the Croat military forces,
11 withdrew at the same time from any participation of the
12 operation of the Celebici prison. After that, that is
13 from late June 1992, the Bosnian authorities exclusively
14 controlled the Celebici camp until its dissolution in
15 December 1992.
16 During its function as a prison, Celebici received
17 in total approximately 500 detainees. It is estimated
18 that around 300 were kept there at the same time.
19 From the time the prison was first opened, the
20 prisoners were subjected to horrible mistreatment.
21 Prisoners were murdered, tortured, raped and beaten by
22 the soldiers who brought them into the prison, by guards
23 at the prison, and by outside persons who were permitted
24 to come into the prison.
25 After a visit of the Red Cross in mid-August 1992,
1 the conditions at the camp improved significantly, and
2 incidents of mistreatment noticeably declined, even if
3 such incidents continued throughout the existence of the
5 Some were released, some of the detainees, and
6 others were moved to other camps. When Celebici ceased
7 to be a prison in December 1992, only 30 detainees
8 remained. No one was ever punished by the responsible
9 authorities for the murders or mistreatment of the
10 prisoners in Celebici.
11 This is, your Honour, about the first part, the
12 half part of my opening statement, and if it would suit
13 the Court, I would not object to a short recess at this
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Are you already exhausted?
16 MR OSTBERG: No, I can go on, if it pleases your Honours.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please go on.
18 MR OSTBERG: I will do that. I will now turn to introducing
19 the accused to the Trial Chamber.
20 I will start with Zejnil Delalic, who had the
21 highest degree of authority among the accused. He is a
22 native Bosnian Muslim from Konjic municipality. He went
23 to school in Konjic and graduated from Zagreb University
24 in 1970 to become a teacher. He could not find a job
25 and went to Germany, where he lived from 1970 to 1983,
1 only interrupted by one year of military service in the
2 Yugoslav People's Army, 1976, and that is his only
3 military training.
4 In 1983, he moved back to Konjic and stayed there
5 until 1987, when he moved to Austria. He seems to have
6 been successful in the construction and other business
7 branches in Germany, and in Austria. He was back in
8 Konjic in April 1992, when the war started, then
9 considered a wealthy and useful man.
10 Our evidence will show that he took part in the
11 War Presidency in Konjic, was made a co-ordinator
12 between the military forces and the War Presidency in
13 May 1992, and played an active role in the attacks
14 against Bradina and other villages surrounding Konjic.
15 Our evidence will also show that he took part in
16 the takeover of the Celebici barracks and in setting up
17 the prison camp.
18 On his suggestion, Mucic was made prison
19 commander, and thereafter reported to Delalic. On 11th
20 July 1992, Delalic was appointed Chief Commander of the
21 First Tactical Group by the Bosnian Chief of General
22 Staff in Sarajevo. On 27th July, his responsibilities
23 were extended to command all Armed Forces in an area,
24 including the Konjic municipality.
25 In this trial, the prosecution will show that
1 Zejnil Delalic in his capacity as co-ordinator and as
2 the Commander of the First Tactical Group and as an Area
3 Commander, had the responsibility for the operation of
4 the Celebici camp, and was in the position of superior
5 authority to all persons acting there.
6 Zdravko Mucic, with the nickname "Pavo", born in
7 1955, a catholic of Croat origin, is also from the
8 Konjic municipality. He went to school in Konjic and
9 prepared to be a mechanical engineer. He did his
10 military service in the JNA and was discharged as a
11 Sergeant. He then worked as a metal worker in Konjic.
12 He moved to Austria in 1989 and worked, among other
13 places, in a construction firm run by Delalic.
14 He frequently went back to Konjic, and, when the
15 war started in April 1992 he remained there and
16 participated in the war effort, including taking part in
17 certain military actions with Delalic. Through Delalic,
18 he was made Commander of the Celebici prison camp, soon
19 after its inception in May 1992. He remained in this
20 position until 18th November 1992.
21 Our evidence will show that he was in de facto
22 control of the camp during this period, and responsible
23 for its operation, having a position of superior
24 authority to all guards or other persons allowed to
25 enter the camp, and he himself was a subordinate to
2 Next accused in the chain of command at Celebici
3 camp is Hazim Delic, a Muslim born in 1964. Also he
4 came from Konjic area. He went to school in Konjic, and
5 after that, he was trained as a locksmith and worked as
6 such in Konjic.
7 In the beginning of the war, he was mobilised and
8 assigned to the joint police force, the MUP, and posted
9 at Celebici as an ordinary security guard. When Mucic
10 arrived at the camp as a Commander in May 1992, he
11 orally appointed Delic as his deputy. As such, he
12 exercised the command of the camp in the absence of Mucic
13 and even used to live in the camp. He remained in the
14 position of Deputy until the 18th November 1992, when
15 Mucic left, at which date Delic, by the order of
16 Delalic, took over as a Commander of the Celebici camp.
17 Our evidence will show that Delic, as a deputy to
18 Mucic, and then as a Commander himself, was responsible
19 for the running of the camp and that he was in superior
20 authority to all guards and other persons allowed to
21 enter the camp.
22 The last of our four accused is Esad Landzo, also
23 called "Zenga", a Muslim born in 1973. Like the others
24 in the municipality of Konjic, where he went to school.
25 Thereafter he had no specific education, because already
1 in 1991, he was called upon by the army. In the
2 beginning of 1992 he joined the TO in Konjic, and was
3 assigned to serve as a guard. He was sent to Celebici
4 camp in May 1992, where he remained as a guard for at
5 least several months.
6 Landzo was never in any kind of superior authority
7 to others during his service in Celebici. He was a
8 subordinate to Delic, Mucic and Delalic.
9 After that, your Honours, I will briefly summarise
10 the indictment, explain the manner of charging applied
11 by the Prosecutor, and address some legal matters
12 pertaining to the charges.
13 In this indictment, your Honours will find that
14 Landzo is charged as a direct perpetrator in accordance
15 with Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the
16 Tribunal, with five murders, four instances of torture,
17 and two instances of cruel treatment causing great
19 You will also find that, for these crimes alleged
20 to have been committed by Landzo, his superiors, Delic,
21 Mucic and Delalic are charged as individually and
22 criminally responsible in their capacity of superior
23 authority to Landzo, their subordinate, in accordance
24 with Article 7, paragraph 3.
25 You will find Delic charged as a direct
1 perpetrator with four murders, five instances of
2 torture, two of which include rape, four instances of
3 cruel treatment, causing great suffering, one instance
4 of unlawful confinement of civilians, and one instance
5 of plunder.
6 You will find that, for these crimes alleged to
7 have been directly committed by Delic, there is only one
8 exception to that, Count 40 and 41, committed after
9 Delalic and Mucic had left the camp. Both Delalic and
10 Mucic are charged as Delic's superiors under Article 7,
11 paragraph 3. With respect to those counts, where Delic
12 is charged as a direct participant, he is also charged
13 under Article 7, paragraph 3 as the superior to other
14 participants in the acts.
15 Mucic is charged by his own action as responsible
16 under Article 7, paragraph 1, with creating inhuman
17 conditions in the camp, thereby causing great suffering
18 and cruel treatment, unlawful confinement of civilians
19 and plunder. For these crimes, Delalic is charged as
20 Mucic's superior, and Mucic himself as the superior to
21 the other participants in the commission of these
23 Delalic, finally, is charged with direct
24 participation in just one single crime; namely, unlawful
25 confinement of civilians. All the rest of the
1 individual criminal responsibility with which Delalic is
2 charged in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 3 in
3 this indictment, stems, as I have just pointed out, from
4 his superior authority over subordinates who committed
5 the crimes of which he knew or had reason to know, and
6 failed to prevent or punish.
7 Thus the perpetrator who directly committed, or
8 participated in the commission of the crime is, as your
9 Honours can see, charged under Article 7, paragraph 1 of
10 the Statute, as individually responsible for the crime,
11 whereas his superiors are charged with individual
12 criminal responsibility under Article 7, paragraph 3,
13 for having known, or had reason to know that the
14 subordinate was about to commit the crime, or had done
15 so, and the superior failed to take the necessary and
16 reasonable measures to prevent it or to punish the
17 perpetrator for it.
18 One more thing about the Prosecutor's way of
19 charging. There are, as far as I can see, three main
20 ways of charging an act described as punishable in more
21 than one article or paragraph of an applicable penal
22 code. One is to choose one, and only one, of the
23 descriptions that covers the act and state that this is
24 the crime that the accused has committed. Another is to
25 choose two or more descriptions of the act and charge
1 them alternatively, and the third way is to use multiple
2 available descriptions of the act in question and charge
3 them cumulatively.
4 The Prosecutor has, in principle, chosen the third
5 and last option. It is only when the act fits more than
6 one description of punishable behaviour pertaining to
7 the same article in the Statute that the Prosecutor has
8 chosen to charge alternatively. This can be seen in the
9 charging of cruel treatment as an alternative to
10 torture, under Article 3 in Counts 15 to 35.
11 The reason behind the cumulative charging is that
12 the Prosecutor wants to put the Trial Chamber, and the
13 accused, on notice that the committed act is described
14 as a violation of international humanitarian law in more
15 than one of the Articles of the Statute of the
16 Tribunal. The reason is by no means to put the accused
17 in double jeopardy and to have him convicted for two or
18 more crimes in the same act. The Prosecutor will never
19 ask the Trial Chamber to find the accused guilty of
20 anything else than the act charged against him.
21 The Trial Chamber, in the Tadic case, has
22 addressed the question of cumulative charging and ended
23 up by saying, I quote from its decision of 14th November
25 "What can, however, be said with certainty is
1 that penalty cannot be made to depend upon whether
2 offences arising from the same conduct are alleged
3 cumulatively or in the alternative. What is to be
4 punished by penalty is proven criminal conduct and that
5 will not depend upon technicalities of pleading."
6 In the context of charging, I would like to touch
7 on the legal issue of superior authority, in
8 international law often referred to as "command
9 responsibility". It is obvious from my summary of the
10 indictment that this is one of the major legal issues we
11 bring before the Court at this trial. It has been
12 thoroughly addressed in our pre-trial brief, but I
13 consider it is appropriate to stress some of the
14 submissions of the prosecution in this opening
16 Article 7, paragraph 3 of our Statute codifies a
17 well-established rule of customary and international law
18 with respect to persons in positions of superior
19 authority. The wording of this paragraph is more or
20 less verbatim, taken from Articles 86 and 87 of protocol
21 number 1 of the 1977 additional to the Geneva
22 Conventions of 1949. These articles can be seen as a
23 contemporary expression of the doctrine of superior
24 authority. The International Committee of the Red Cross
25 defines in its commentary to protocol 1 the three
1 constituent elements of this doctrine which are
2 applicable to interpreting Article 7, paragraph 3, as
3 follows, I quote now from the International Committee of
4 the Red Cross, commentary on protocol 1, taken from
5 page 1012 and 1013:
6 "(a) the superior concerned must be the superior
7 of that subordinate;
8 "(b) he knew or had information which should have
9 enabled him to conclude that a breach was being
10 committed or was going to be committed; and
11 "(c) he did not take the measures within his
12 power to prevent it."
13 Article 7, paragraph 3 applies to any superior who
14 has a personal responsibility in relation to the
15 perpetrator on the basis that the perpetrator is a
16 subordinate under the superior's control. The doctrine
17 of superior authority is applicable with regard to
18 subordinates under the direct or indirect control of the
19 superior. Both forms of control can exist as a result
20 of de jure or de facto chains of command.
21 The ICRC commentary notes that:
22 "Article 87", I quote, "does not limit the
23 obligation of the commanders to apply only with respect
24 to members of the Armed Forces under their command. It
25 is further extended to apply with respect to other
1 persons under their control."
2 Again, from the same commentary, I quote another
3 comment. Furthermore, this article says:
4 "only concern the commander under whose direct
5 orders the subordinate is placed. The concept of the
6 superior is broader and should be seen in terms of
7 hierarchy encompassing the concept of control."
8 In addition, the application of the doctrine of
9 superior responsibility to civilian leaders is justified
10 on the basis that command control can be exercised by
11 superiors who are not part of a military hierarchy.
12 In summary, it is the submission of the
13 prosecution that it is an established rule in
14 humanitarian international law that a superior is
15 criminally responsible for the violations of such law
16 committed by his subordinates. This includes
17 subordinates over whom he has direct or indirect command
18 and control, whether exercised de jure or de facto, if
19 he knew or had reason to know, which includes ignorance
20 resulting from the superior's failure to properly
21 supervise his subordinates, that these acts were about
22 to be committed, or had been committed. The superior is
23 under a duty to take all reasonable and necessary
24 measures that are within his power, or at his disposal,
25 in the circumstances to prevent or punish these
1 subordinates for the same offences, but failed to
2 exercise his duty.
3 In respect of the superior's responsibility for
4 Delalic, Mucic and Delic, the evidence in the present
5 case will show that the Celebici camp commander, Mucic,
6 the deputy camp commander, Delic, the camp guards under
7 whom -- one of whom was Landzo, and all other persons
8 connected to the camp, were directly under Delalic's
9 command and control, and were his subordinates at all
10 material times.
11 In particular, the evidence will establish a chain
12 of command leading upwards from the camp guards to the
13 camp commander, and his deputy, and ultimately to
14 Delalic. Accordingly, Delalic had direct control over
15 the perpetrators and their superiors in the Celebici
16 camp. Below Delalic in the chain of command, Mucic and
17 Delic had direct control over the same perpetrators.
18 The Prosecutor's evidence will demonstrate that
19 Delalic, Mucic and Delic knew about the continuous
20 violations that were occurring in the Celebici camp. In
21 respect of Delic, he also had knowledge through his own
22 participation in the atrocities. At the very least, the
23 evidence will show that they should have known about
24 these violations as a result of their superior position,
25 the information they received about the camp, their
1 proximity to these incidents, the prolonged period of
2 their occurrence, and their notorious nature. To the
3 extent that they claim ignorance of these incidents,
4 they were under a duty, as superiors, to acquire the
5 information and that would have enabled them to control
6 their subordinates in the circumstances and to punish
8 As stated before, Delalic was the co-ordinator
9 between the Bosnian Armed Forces in the territorial
10 defence, TO, the HVO forces and the War Presidency from
11 approximately the end of May 1992. Thereafter, he was
12 the commander of the First Tactical Group of the Bosnian
13 Armed Forces from approximately July 1992 until November
14 1992. The evidence will show, beyond doubt, that in
15 these functions he had direct control over the personnel
16 of the Celebici camp, and the camp was situated within
17 the territory of his command.
18 There will likely, your Honours, in this trial be
19 much discussion over what Delalic's authority was on
20 paper. Not surprisingly, given that the function of
21 co-ordinator was a new function intended to deal with
22 the emerging complicated situation in Konjic at the
23 time, there is not one single organogram from the time
24 period which itself establishes exactly who had the
25 authority over Celebici.
1 Rather, the documents, as well as the actions
2 taken at the time, need to be looked upon as a whole.
3 The prosecution believes that these documents, and
4 evidence concerning what actually happened at the time,
5 will clearly establish that Delalic had official
6 authority over the camp.
7 Of course, it may be that others shared authority,
8 and it is of course the case that others had authority
9 over Delalic, and indeed these may be the persons who
10 delegated the authority to Delalic, but such factors are
11 not decisive. The fact that others may also be
12 responsible is not a defence for the responsibility of
14 The issue is, did he have superior authority? The
15 evidence clearly establishes yes, he had. Indeed, the
16 evidence is overwhelming that Delalic was, in fact, the
17 superior in charge of Celebici. He was considered the
18 person in charge. He acted as he was in charge, and his
19 conduct demonstrated that he was in charge.
20 I will not go into the numerous relevant pieces of
21 evidence establishing Mr Delalic's authority. It may,
22 however, be noted that, while a co-ordinator, he was
23 participating member of the War Presidency. He was the
24 Chief Military Commander of the area. He participated
25 in a leading role in the battles leading to the capture
1 of many of the detainees. He participated in the
2 setting up of the prison. He selected the commander,
3 Zdravko Mucic. He issued orders and instructions
4 regarding the investigation of the detainees. He
5 released certain detainees. He issued orders concerning
6 the administration of the camp. He gave reports on the
7 functioning of the camp. He was represented to
8 international organisations as the person in charge of
9 the camp, and he was the contact person for such
10 organisations, and finally, he appointed Delic as
11 commander at the time he himself and Mucic left.
12 Thus, whatever arguments can be made about his de
13 jure authority, there can be no doubt that he had the de
14 facto authority of the Celebici prison.
15 As pointed out before, Mucic was the commander of
16 the Celebici camp from approximately May to November
17 1992, and Delic served as his deputy for approximately
18 the same period, before he himself became commander of
19 the camp until its close in December 1992.
20 Mucic himself acknowledges that he was commander
21 of the camp from 27th July forward. The prosecution
22 notes that this admission alone, along with his
23 knowledge about the prior crimes in the camp, the
24 continuing nature of the crimes, even after 27th July,
25 and his failure to take appropriate action, including
1 punishing the perpetrators, is itself sufficient to make
2 him responsible as charged in the indictment.
3 In any event, however, the prosecution's evidence
4 does not support Mucic's contention that he was not
5 commander until this main date, 27th July, but suggests
6 that this is a date he manufactured as part of his
8 Rather the evidence will establish that Mucic was
9 commander, in fact, from at least the beginning of June
10 1992. He represented himself as the commander. He was
11 considered a commander, and he acted as a commander.
12 Under well-established international law, he may
13 thus be found in a position of command responsibility.
14 Now finally, your Honours, a few words on the
15 manner in which the prosecution will present its
16 evidence. We will start our presentation with a
17 witness, a Dutch police officer, who on our behalf has
18 travelled to Celebici, taking photographs, drawing maps,
19 and preparing a model of the camp. Thus, having
20 acquainted the Trial Chamber with the premises of the
21 camp, we will bring two witnesses, both having been
22 detained in the camp, primarily to show the general
23 conditions of the prisoners in the camp, but also to
24 prove crimes alleged to have been committed against
1 Following this introduction to the Celebici camp,
2 the prosecution will bring its initially mentioned
3 expert witness, Dr Calic, to give us the background to
4 the events, and then go on with the witnesses to the
5 crimes charged in the indictment.
6 On the witness list in the hands of the defence
7 and the Trial Chamber, we have in total 76 witnesses.
8 There is no certainty that all of the 76 will appear.
9 Many things may happen that could make it impossible for
10 a witness to travel to The Hague. This is one of the
11 reasons - others are readiness for possible events
12 during the trial - for the huge amounts of witnesses
13 appearing on the list, all 76 will probably not be
14 called upon to give evidence before the Trial Chamber.
15 We have been asked by the defence to specify
16 beforehand which one of the witnesses that will give evidence
17 against which one of the accused. We have declined to
18 do so for the following reasons: this is a joint trial
19 of four accused on their responsibility for alleged
20 criminal actions in the Celebici camp, and their
21 responsibilities are closely linked to each other
22 through the chain of command.
23 Nevertheless, in our witness list, filed, as
24 ordered, on 7th March 1997, we have tried, in accordance
25 with the order by the Trial Chamber, as far as possible,
1 to link every witness to specified counts, depending on
2 the crimes, consisting of continuous maltreatment of
3 prisoners, it is however, impossible to foresee
4 exactly to which alleged crime a victim or an eye
5 witness in the camp is able to give evidence.
6 Therefore, the prosecution will object to be precluded
7 from asking a witness questions about a count not
8 mentioned in connection with him in the witness list.
9 As appears from the list, many witnesses are going
10 to testify to more than ten counts. The effect of this
11 is that it is not possible to go through the indictment
12 count by count. Doing that would result in the
13 unthinkable situation that you would have to recall many
14 witnesses more than ten times. Nor is it possible to
15 work the way through the indictment in the chronological
16 order in which the acts took place. The only possible
17 way is to follow eye witness by eye witness through his
18 or her account of what he experienced, or saw, at
19 different times and in different ways, of the acts
20 charged in this indictment.
21 It can be anticipated that almost every witness to
22 an alleged crime directly committed by Landzo or Delic
23 will have relevant evidence regarding Mucic and
24 Delalic. Most of the witnesses that have not been
25 present in the Celebici camp will be examined on their
1 information about what was going on in the camp, and who
2 was responsible for it. Thus, practically every witness
3 for the prosecution in this trial can be considered a
4 witness against each and every one of the accused.
5 Fourteen murders are alleged to have been
6 committed in this indictment. Some twenty witnesses
7 will testify to them. Sixteen victims of torture, in
8 two instances including rape, and being exposed to great
9 suffering, are called to testify on what happened to
10 them, and some twenty-five eye witnesses will testify to
11 these crimes. At least fifteen witnesses will testify
12 to the unlawful detention charge and at least ten to the
13 charge of plunder of property.
14 As stated, these witnesses on separately charged
15 crimes overlap, and many of them are in the position to
16 give evidence also to Delalic, Mucic and Delic's
17 superior authority.
18 In connection with the examination of the
19 witnesses, the prosecution of course will present and
20 introduce exhibits of various kinds, like the model of
21 the camp, maps, photographs, and many other documents
22 that appear on the document list, which we have provided
23 the defence with.
24 Many of these documents originate from the
25 accused, Delalic and Mucic themselves; material which
1 was seized at the time they were arrested. They include
2 documents describing their own responsibilities and
3 functions relating to the Celebici camp. They also
4 include video tapes showing, among other things, the
5 responsibilities of the accused, their behaviour in the
6 camp, their knowledge of the accused of the Celebici
7 camp. This material will convincingly demonstrate the
8 criminal responsibility of both Mucic and Delalic.
9 I will refrain from commenting on them more
10 specifically until they are tendered. Now, your
11 Honours, I will conclude my opening statement. Thank
12 you, your Honours.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much, Mr Ostberg. I
14 think the Trial Chamber will rise for twenty minutes.
15 We will come back at 12.15.
16 (11.55 am)
17 (A short break)
18 (12.15 pm)
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Under the Rules of Procedure and
20 Evidence, the prosecution having concluded his opening
21 speech, the defence is also entitled to make an opening
22 speech, although there is an option either to make one
23 now or to wait until the conclusion of the case of the
24 prosecution, whichever way it chooses.
25 After the conclusion of the opening speeches,
1 under the Rules also we have an order for presentation
2 of evidence.
3 Each party is entitled to call witnesses, and
4 present evidence, but the nominal order is the
5 prosecution will lead this evidence...
6 (Short technical interruption)
7 I am sorry for the time we have spent trying to
8 test the transcript. As I was saying before we stopped,
9 the prosecution, having concluded its opening
10 statements, our rules entitle the defence also to make
11 an opening statement. These can be made now, or at the
12 conclusion of the case of the prosecution, whichever way
13 is preferred, but the usual thing is for counsel for the
14 defence to make it at the end of the case of the
15 prosecution. After that, then there is also an order
16 for the presentation of evidence.
17 Each party, by "each party" I mean the prosecution
18 and the defence, is entitled to call witnesses and
19 present evidence, but generally the order is for the
20 prosecution to start first, unless the Trial Chamber
21 thinks otherwise, and especially that occurs where the
22 burden of proof lies on one party or the other, but we
23 have not found any necessity for that in this case.
24 The first is to have evidence for the
25 prosecution. At the conclusion of that, there is
1 cross-examination and re-examination in the process.
2 Then the defence will lead its own evidence, similarly
3 with cross-examination and re-examination. Then the
4 prosecution can lead evidence in rebuttal, and also the
5 defence can lead evidence in rejoinder.
6 There are four accused persons in this case, all
7 with their own counsel. The general theory and practice
8 is that counsel is master of the situation, is in charge
9 of his defence, and determines what questions to ask in
10 consultation with the accused persons and, if in a team,
11 as it is in this case -- each one has a team -- the two
12 counsel would now determine how to cross-examine, but it
13 is usually tidier for counsel to know who is to
14 cross-examine and at what point he should hand over to
15 his junior, if the lead counsel is in charge of the
17 In the interests of good arrangements, we should
18 also avoid duplication in cross-examination of the
19 witnesses. If lead counsel has taken the stand in
20 asking questions, perhaps it is better for the
21 co-counsel not to go over again some questions which
22 lead counsel has established.
23 The accused, if in consultation with his counsel,
24 and if he so desires, can appear as a witness in his own
25 defence, if he desires, and that depends on the
1 agreement with his counsel. To a large extent, the
2 examination-in-chief, cross-examination and
3 re-examination shall be allowed in each case, and the
4 Judges of the Trial Chamber are entitled to put
5 questions to any witness if they find any need to do so,
6 especially to clarify difficult questions, difficult
7 issues, but by and large, the determination of such
8 matters, since they are left to the Trial Chamber, would
9 be for the counsel on both sides to determine how to
10 cross-examine, the subject matter of their
11 cross-examination and the conclusion of what comes out
12 of it.
13 At the end of this, the question of closing
14 arguments follows. We have four different accused
15 persons, and the order which I think is useful and less
16 time wasting is for counsel to start their
17 cross-examination from the first accused person. If the
18 nature of the evidence affects the first accused person,
19 he may cross-examine, but, if he is not affected, he
20 need not. It is not mandatory that you must
21 cross-examine, and similarly it goes down to the second,
22 the third, the fourth. If you do not have any -- if you
23 do not have to cross-examine, or if someone says that an
24 earlier case person's cross-examination has established
25 your own point, I suppose you can even adopt it, but
1 otherwise, it will not be necessary for everyone to ask
2 questions unless he needs to do so.
3 As I said, in order to avoid duplication, as you
4 also tried to do in the first case, by a joint motion,
5 it is most appropriate in this case for you to agree, in
6 whichever case, whenever a cross-examination is being
7 gone into.
8 Some time before now, I have always said, it is
9 not mandatory, that lead counsel is technically in
10 charge of his case. It is not the position of the Trial
11 Chamber to dictate who conducts a case for an accused
12 person. It is the duty of counsel to determine how they
13 conduct their cases. We are more interested in the
14 order in which the case is conducted, and how tidy our
15 records are, because there will be more confusion if
16 there is no order in the cross-examination by the
17 defence, if there is no order in the objections raised,
18 and, in fact, if it goes on a staccato basis from one
19 end to the other, without one knowing which is
21 So, as far as this Trial Chamber is concerned, we
22 will prefer the order of cross-examination to follow
23 from the first to the fourth. Thank you very much.
24 MS McMURREY: Your Honour, may we address that one second?
25 I understand at the last status conference on January
1 17th, we had asked the Court for some guidance in the
2 area of what order and procedure that we were going to
3 go in, and I thought that we understood that the Court
4 had told us to work it out among ourselves.
5 Now, we met this last week, all the counsel
6 together, and kind of worked out something that we hope
7 will work and if the Court would be tolerant enough to
8 let us try our method first. If it does not work, we
9 will certainly go to your preference, if that is okay.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can still try it out. If one of
11 your colleagues raises an objection and you adopt his
12 objection, that is working it out.
13 MS McMURREY: We are talking about the order of
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think if you have listened carefully,
16 all I said is if the first accused has nothing to
17 cross-examine, he need not. If the second has nothing,
18 he need not. It is only an accused person's counsel who
19 has anything to ask. So you do not go about asking
20 questions unless it is necessary.
21 MS McMURREY: I have one more question, just for
22 clarification. Let us say Esad Landzo, who is the last
23 defendant, let us say we chose that I cross-examined
24 first. The other three defendants are not waiving their
25 chance to cross-examination at that point, are they?
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: If they choose you to cross-examine on
2 their own behalf, not necessarily because you are
3 cross-examining on behalf of your client, then they
4 would have waived their right to cross-examine, because
5 they cannot come back, after you have, after
6 surrendering their right to you to cross-examine, they
7 cannot come back to examine.
8 MS McMURREY: I think what everybody --
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please, I think that is the way I
10 understand it.
11 MS McMURREY: I wanted to make sure that, if I had missed
12 something, that they have a right to come in and ask a
13 question that I might have missed, so they did not
14 completely waive their right to cross-examination just
15 because I went first.
16 JUDGE JAN: There is no question of a waiver. It is a
17 matter you have to decide among yourselves.
18 MS McMURREY: That is all I wanted to hear. Thank you very
19 much, your Honours.
20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, Mr Tapuskovic?
21 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, I did not
22 understand what you just said in the beginning while the
23 transcript was not on. I think you understood that none
24 of us counsel, including myself, as counsel of Zdravko
25 Mucic, do not intend to present an opening statement,
1 because you said that it is usually done at the end of
2 the prosecution case in chief. I have already informed
3 the prosecution, and it has been a while since I have
4 done it, that I would like to give my opening statement
5 right after the opening statement of my colleague,
6 Mr Ostberg, and I stand by it, and I would like to
7 address the Trial Chamber and tell you that I wish to
8 give the opening statement now, after the opening
9 statement of the prosecution.
10 If that is clear enough, then I have an additional
11 request for the Trial Chamber.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: All I said was that the Rules enable
13 accuseds' counsel to make their opening statement after
14 that of the prosecution, but usually most counsel delay
15 making their opening statements until the close of the
16 case of the prosecution, and when they are opening their
17 defence. I did not for one moment assume that you have
18 no intention of making any statements.
19 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honour, can I
20 address you?
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, Mrs Residovic.
22 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): You mentioned that the
23 prosecution has given us a list of witnesses, and I
24 would like to point out that on the list that was
25 provided to us, the list was determined on 5th and 6th
1 March, and I would like to object in the sense that the
2 defence counsel have not been consulted in putting
3 together this list. So I would like to request that the
4 time that was proposed by the prosecution for
5 examination of these witnesses be only tentative,
6 because the defence may have an interest in questioning
7 witnesses much longer than the prosecution may have
8 planned, for instance, only one quarter of one day. So
9 I would like to request that the Trial Chamber rule on
10 this based on the needs of the defence as well as the
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually, the time taken for a witness
13 will depend on the exigencies of the prosecution and the
14 nature of the cross-examination following. So I do not
15 think there is any strict adherence to any particular
17 JUDGE JAN: There is not a check on time regarding
19 MR OSTBERG: Your Honour, I want to point out as an answer
20 to Madam Residovic that it is headed by the word a
21 "tentative estimated time". It is of course by no
22 means to be understood that we want to try to limit the
23 time in which the defence want to cross-examine. Thank
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we hear Mr Tapuskovic, not only
1 because I think we will go for a lunch break now -- we
2 will go for a lunch break and come back at 2.30 to hear
3 you, if you want to make an opening statement.
4 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): In connection with this,
5 your Honour, since I plan to give the opening statement,
6 I have a proposition for the Trial Chamber. I have
7 prepared this opening statement a long time ago, and I
8 believe that it is appropriate to give it now, today,
9 and so is my client.
10 I was ready to give it back in October, as
11 originally planned, but, after I have heard the opening
12 statement of Mr Ostberg, and I have already turned over
13 a draft of my opening statement to the interpreting
14 unit, I think that I need to elaborate on certain points
15 of my opening statement, and I think that it would not
16 be asking too much if I gave this opening statement
17 tomorrow morning at 10.00.
18 We have waited for one year for this trial to
19 start. We insisted on going to the trial right away.
20 It has been postponed several times in October, then in
21 January and I feel that I have the right in order to
22 present this in the best possible way. I would ask for
23 an extension until tomorrow morning, and I think that we
24 have had a productive session already, and this would
25 give me an opportunity to elaborate on a few issues, and
1 I would be able to reply to several points raised by the
2 prosecution, and I think it is a very small request
3 indeed, in the defences that we have had in the country
4 that we used to have, whatever it was. I am in a
5 position to just improve on my opening statement and I
6 would like to ask you to allow me to do that and then
7 I will be prepared to appear before you tomorrow morning
8 and give my opening statement. Thank you.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do not remember any other date for
10 commencement of trial having been fixed before the 10th
11 March. I do not remember any earlier dates. I know so
12 many other dates have been fixed, not for commencement
13 of trial, but for preliminary motions and so many other
15 We are going on fine, but let me ask the
16 prosecution for the state of their witnesses for today,
17 so I will know whether it will be convenient.
18 MR OSTBERG: Yes, your Honour. As I mentioned in my opening
19 statement, we are starting with the Dutch police
20 officer. He is here today, and he is something between
21 an expert and a factual witness. We will use him for
22 telling us what Celebici camp really looked like, and we
23 are going to bring a model and photos and videos to
24 introduce your Honours to this Celebici camp, and that
25 can be done today, and, if you consider him not to be
1 too much of a witness of fact, then we can of course
2 consider it belonging to my opening statement, or
3 something like that, and I have nothing to say against
4 the proposition by the defence for Mucic to do this
5 tomorrow morning, if we hear our first witness today.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: But this will be interposing between an
7 opening statement of the defence and the prosecution.
8 So that will not be a convenient way to fit it in.
9 MS McMURREY: Your Honours, if we may respond also --
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Frankly, you would have allowed me to ask
11 whether there are any other opening statements on the
12 part of the defence, because once there is an
13 interposition of this nature, it becomes difficult to
14 know at what stage evidence and opening statements end
15 and I do not want to have that type of difficulty of
16 determining the two situations, because this is what is
17 likely to come, and if we have the evidence that will be
18 introduced now, it might be factual evidence. It is not
19 impossible it can impinge on some of the opening
20 statements. Nobody knows. So it is not that easy to
21 determine. It would have been easier if perhaps
22 Mr Tapuskovic could have made his statement today and we
23 reshift the evidence until tomorrow morning.
24 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, this is a
25 very small thing that I am requesting, and it defies my
1 understanding that I could not have that much leeway,
2 because I think that it would be in the interests of the
3 Chamber too to allow me to prepare as best I can,
4 because my opening statement has a particular purpose
5 here, and the witness who is ready to go and testify,
6 since he is a local person from here, they should be
7 able to be here tomorrow morning and go on right after I
8 have finished my opening statement.
9 Just to make a point, in May, the trial date was
10 set for October 1st, so we had four months to prepare
11 the trial, myself and Mr Mucic were ready to start in
12 October. Unfortunately it has been a year since, and,
13 when we are having a little problem, and Mr Ostberg
14 agrees with my position, in fact, I could start
15 presenting my opening statement now, without even
16 consulting it, but, in order for me to be of most
17 assistance to you, so that it would help you in your
18 work, I would really request that I be allowed some more
19 time, and I will be ready tomorrow morning, so that
20 tomorrow morning you can start addressing all the issues
21 pertinent to this trial.
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much.
23 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): Thank you.
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mr Ostberg, I think you might oblige
25 us, so that we might be able to start with your own
1 presentation after his opening statement.
2 MR OSTBERG: Yes, any way that your Honour --
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I would prefer it that way.
4 MR OSTBERG: To have the statement first thing tomorrow
5 morning and then the witness?
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
7 MR OSTBERG: Yes, that is okay with me, your Honour.
8 JUDGE JAN: It has to come before the evidence starts.
9 MR OSTBERG: Yes, I see the principle point. No problem for
10 me. We can bring this witness after the defence has
11 made his opening statement.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that is the only opening
13 statement we are expecting from the defence.
14 MR BRACKOVIC (in interpretation): Regarding the defence of
15 Esad Landzo, the defence is going to present its opening
16 statement after the prosecution case of chief is
18 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): The defence of Zejnil
19 Delalic will present its opening statement after the
20 prosecution case in chief.
21 MR KARABDIC (in interpretation): The defence of Hazim Delic
22 will give its opening statement after the presentation
23 of the prosecution defence.
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mr Tapuskovic, how long do you think
25 your opening statement will take, having prepared it for
1 so many months?
2 MR TAPUSKOVIC (in interpretation): About two hours.
3 JUDGE JAN: So you can bring your witness after the break,
4 after he has finished.
5 MR OSTBERG: Yes, after his statement.
6 JUDGE JAN: You can start after lunch.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: After lunch tomorrow.
8 MR OSTBERG: Tomorrow, yes, very good.
9 JUDGE JAN: Or maybe after 12.00.
10 MR OSTBERG: As soon as Mr Tapuskovic has finished his
11 opening statement, I am prepared to bring my first
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. I think we are
14 having an unmerited short holiday this afternoon. We
15 will go for lunch and for the day until tomorrow morning
16 at 10.00 am. The Trial Chamber will reassemble at
17 10.00 am tomorrow.
18 (12.50 pm)
19 (Tribunal adjourned)