1 Monday, 2
9 Ex parte hearing, pages 3168 to 3188 in closed session
1 Monday, 2nd June 1997
2 (11.45 am)
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
4 Can we have the appearances now?
5 MR. OSTBERG: Good morning, your Honours. I am Eric
6 Ostberg. I appear today with Mr. Giuliano Turone, Ms.
7 Teresa McHenry, Mr. Stephen Waespi and our case manager,
8 Elles van Dusschoten.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can we have the appearances for the
10 defence, please?
11 MS. RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Good morning, your
12 Honours. I am Edina Residovic, defence counsel for
13 Mr. Zejnil Delalic, together with Mr. Eugene O'Sullivan,
14 Professor of Criminal Law from Canada.
15 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honours. My name is Zeljko
16 Olujic. I am defence counsel for Mr. Zdravko Mucic.
17 With me in the courtroom is Mr. Michael Greaves, attorney
18 from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
19 MR. MORAN: Good morning, your Honour. I am Tom Moran and
20 I represent Hazim Delic in this case. As the Trial
21 Chamber knows, the lead counsel, Mr. Karabdic, is out of
22 town on business. I believe he will be back in the
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much.
25 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning, your Honours. I am John
1 Ackerman, appearing on behalf of Mr. Esad Landzo. Ms.
2 McMurrey remains in the United States on business.
3 I believe she will be back in front of the Tribunal on
4 Wednesday, June 4th. Thank you.
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mr. Ostberg, where are we now?
6 Mr. OSTBERG: We are going to call our next witness, which
7 is to be Mr. Regis Abribat.
8 MR. GREAVES: Before that happens, I have an application.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us hear it.
10 MR. GREAVES: Your Honours will recall on Friday of last
11 week your Honours kindly heard a motion concerning the
12 failure of the prosecution to supply information to the
13 defence and your Honours indicated that you would go
14 away and give consideration to the motion as it had been
15 argued before you on Friday of last week. At
16 6.00 o'clock on Friday of last week a document was
17 served on all of the defendants which was fifteen pages
18 of text, plus a number of annexes, which in our
19 submission amply demonstrates the need for the kind of
20 procedure that was placed before you as being
22 Can I tell you what the document is? It is a
23 document called "Prosecution's Response to the Mucic's
24 Defence Motion to Exclude Evidence". It is a curious
25 document. It is undated. It, however, refers to
1 Mr. Branislav Tapuskovic and Mr. Mustafa Brackovic as
2 being counsel for the accused. Your Honour will recall
3 those learned gentlemen ceased to be counsel a fortnight
4 ago, and our documents have been filed in respect of new
5 counsel who have been instructed in the case of Mr. Mucic
6 and Mr. Landzo. It rather suggests that that document
7 has been in preparation for some considerable period of
8 time. It is a document which starts off in this way
9 "Statement of Facts" and it is signed by various
10 members of the Prosecution. It reads like a witness
11 statement. In it is many pages of assertions of fact
12 which are made in the guise of a motion. That, of
13 course, is quite improper for counsel to do. Counsel
14 do not give evidence in this case. What it reveals,
15 and I do not know if your Honours have even seen this
16 document, bearing in mind it was only served on us at
17 6 o'clock on Friday of last week, and bearing in mind
18 the Prosecution are just about to call the witness to
19 whom all this relates, I am quite astonished if your
20 Honours have not seen this document, because how your
21 Honours can listen to this witness and determine the
22 matters which are the subject to this motion without
23 seeing the Prosecution's response to it is beyond me,
24 but it contains a wide number of items of purported
25 evidence which suggest to even the most casual of
1 readers that the Prosecution have not complied with
2 their duty of disclosure in this case under Rule 66.
3 If your Honours have not seen it, I would
4 respectfully submit that your Honours ought to see it
5 before going any further. If you do not, you cannot
6 determine this issue properly. I would respectfully
7 invite your Honours to have a copy of it to read it and
8 to enable us to discuss it properly. I see from your
9 learned clerk's nodding of his head or rather shaking of
10 his head that I do not think even he has seen it. As
11 I suspect, it is milling around somewhere in the system
12 waiting for your Honours to read it at some future date,
13 when the matters we are about to discuss this morning
14 are long forgotten. I think my learned friend
15 Mr. O'Sullivan has something to add as well about this.
16 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, with respect to what has been
17 stated by my learned co-counsel, Michael Greaves, of
18 course this motion that was submitted to us at the end
19 of working hours on 30th May at 6.00 pm and it was
20 written obviously at least 20 days before then. Though
21 it was handed to us just before the weekend, I would
22 like to respond to this motion immediately, which is
23 legally unfounded and which speaks for the thesis that
24 we presented during the closed part of our meeting this
1 So if I may be allowed, I should like to refer to
2 all the allegations that we consider to be necessary
3 with respect to this motion which we received on 30th
4 May. Am I allowed to proceed?
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: It appears you are reacting to the
6 response itself? Is that so, in which case you cannot
7 complain about impropriety. Are you reacting to the
8 response itself and dealing with it as it is without
9 having any objections to it?
10 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, we do have objections regarding
11 the procedure. We appeal that such situations do not
12 happen again, that is that we do not receive documents
13 at the last minute, but since I have received this
14 response, I consider it necessary to respond to it,
15 because it is not ground in fact or in law.
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Let us hear you.
17 MR. OLUJIC: Thank you, your Honours. First of all, on
18 page 2 of this response the Prosecution in the document
19 of 30th May does not say in which language the policeman
20 told the suspect why he was being arrested. This is
21 legally very important, because it is of decisive
22 importance how he understood that statement. If he was
23 told, for example, that he had beaten, raped or killed,
24 then clearly Mr. Zdravko Mucic considered himself to be
25 completely innocent regarding such charges and so he did
1 not ask for around attorney.
2 Secondly, the daughter, who was an interpreter, is
3 a person of confidence and there is no dispute about
4 that. Nonetheless, your Honours, she is not a
5 qualified person. Can she, does she know how to
6 interpret and who will she be responsible to if she
7 misinterprets, and why was there not an official
8 interpreter present from that moment? On page 3 at the
9 hearing of the 19th March 1996 it is clear that my
10 client spoke without a lawyer. However, Zdravko Mucic
11 did not say that he does not want an attorney but that
12 he does not want any attorney to be informed, which
13 means that he does not have an attorney of his own, but
14 he is not renouncing the right to an attorney.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You appear to be dealing with the
16 merits of the response when I thought you said you are
17 dealing with the objection about the propriety itself.
18 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, these are all incorrectness,
19 because the Prosecutor in his file claims that
20 everything was conducted lege arcis, that my client was
21 clearly informed of his rights, and we are trying to
22 explain that that does not correspond to the truth.
23 Therefore, on page 4 what the accused says, that
24 he understood the interpretation of his daughter, does
25 not mean that he understood the arrest warrant.
1 Secondly, why did the Croatian -- why was the Croatian
2 Embassy not informed immediately? It was said that it
3 would be informed the next day when everything was
4 over. Thirdly, Mucic said because he does not consider
5 himself responsible, he will not ask for a lawyer, but
6 he is not waving his right to a lawyer. Fourthly, in
7 his talk with Ms. Claudia Ortna, a distant judge in
8 Vienna, Mucic did expressly require a lawyer.
9 Furthermore, he agrees to talk to representatives of the
10 United Nations, but under supervision.
11 On page 5 of the prosecution response, first it is
12 correct that Mucic did confirm the statements made to
13 the police, but in doing so he also confirmed that he
14 wanted a lawyer, and he told Ms. Ortna. He speaks for
15 a second time and expressly requests a lawyer, that he
16 wants to talk to him as soon as possible.
17 Secondly, Mr. Mucic asked for a half hour break,
18 but that break was not given to him.
19 On page 6 of the prosecution response Abribat
20 states clearly -- this is the proposed Prosecution
21 witness -- that according to the Tribunal's statute and
22 Rules of Procedure he is entitled to an attorney of his
23 choice and if he cannot find one, an attorney will be
24 assigned to him. Then we see the sentence:
25 "Do you agree with the investigation without the
1 presence of an attorney?"
2 It follows logically from this, your Honours --
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Excuse me. Can the Registrar find a
4 couch for Mr. Ackerman?
5 MR. ACKERMAN: I apologise, your Honour. I am sorry.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you.
7 MR. OLUJIC: It logically follows from this that Mr. Abribat
8 wrongly informed Zdravko Mucic. He namely told him
9 that if he does not appoint an attorney of his own, then
10 in any event an attorney will be assigned to him.
11 Therefore in any event he would have an attorney. Of
12 course, this is fully in accordance with the law and
13 criminal procedure of the Republic of Croatia.
14 However, Mr. Abribat never told Mr. Mucic that if he
15 waives the attorney, that he would not have the right to
16 an attorney, which is, of course, contrary to the
17 Croatian Rules of Procedure. On the contrary,
18 Mr. Abribat misled him by saying that if he did not
19 select an attorney of his own choice, an attorney would
20 be assigned to him.
21 Secondly, at the interview on March 20th, 1996 at
22 9.30 am the same was repeated as before. There is
23 another misconception we would be bold to say. As in
24 the case for the attorney, the interviewer said that
25 Mucic is also entitled to the free services of an
1 interpreter. Mucic says that he does not want an
2 attorney of his own, nor does he want an interpreter.
3 Mucic knows that according to the Croatian law on
4 criminal procedure an attorney has to be present. So
5 what happens? He sees the questioner in the room and he
6 sees somebody else in the room who is also interpreting,
7 but he sees another person, that is Mr. Peter Nicholson,
8 who is responsible for the equipment. We ask: how
9 does Mr. Mucic know which one of those gentlemen present
10 may be his attorney, an attorney assigned to him by the
11 Prosecution, because he never said that he wanted his
12 own interpreter. Yet an interpreter was there.
13 Therefore, if he did not say that he wanted his own
14 attorney, an attorney should be there nevertheless.
15 The presence of an interpreter leads Mucic to believe
16 that his attorney is in the room too. It is Mr. Mucic's
17 right to have the assistance of an attorney of his own
18 choice and legal assistance free of charge.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mr. Olujic, I do not want to interrupt
20 your presentation but I thought if all you are
21 contesting is that everything here is incorrect, then
22 perhaps there are other ways of doing it. If evidence
23 is being led then you might want to challenge the
24 evidence, because this is not how to oppose what is in
25 this response. This is a response to your own
2 JUDGE JAN: Apart from that, you are talking about matters
3 which have yet to come out in evidence. The facts
4 stated in the motion are not really evidence. When you
5 cross-examine these persons, bring out all these facts
6 and then we will know what is the value of that
7 statement which Mucic is alleged to have made in
8 Austria. All these things have yet to come on the
9 record. You are talking about matters which are yet to
10 come on the record.
11 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, may I say the following? First
12 came the defence motion of 8th May 1997. Then on 30th
13 May 1997 the Prosecutor submits their response, and now
14 I am taking this opportunity to respond to that
16 JUDGE JAN: It will be more appropriate when the evidence
17 has been recorded that you raise these objections. You
18 first cross-examine the person who recorded the
19 statement, get all these things on the record first.
20 MR. OLUJIC: Certainly, but we are now in such a legal
21 situation that we have the Prosecution response, which
22 denied all the allegations in our motion to exclude
23 evidence to be submitted before this Trial Chamber, and
24 we are not in a position to be able to respond to that.
25 JUDGE JAN: Wait until the evidence is recorded. You
1 bring out all these facts from the witness who proves
2 the statements. Then you can argue while recording the
3 statement of Mucic all these precautions were not taken,
4 precautions to which you are entitled as a right.
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is the position in which we are
6 at now. They have to lead evidence to support whatever
7 allegations they have made. You are challenging all of
8 them, which you can do when they present the evidence,
9 and at the close of the evidence you still make your
10 submissions to see whether they have substantiated what
11 they have been saying. You do not do it by this
12 rejection because they will lead evidence in support of
13 whatever claims they are making.
14 JUDGE JAN: They are aware of the objections which you have
15 raised and they will have to take care of them. They
16 will have to prove before recording the statement of
17 Mucic all these precautions were taken. You can
18 challenge them. Then at the end we will know whether
19 the statement can be admitted.
20 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: At every stage you can object to those
22 JUDGE JAN: If motions are stated, why hold a trial at
23 all? Just collect the papers and give a judgment.
24 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, I certainly understand this to be
25 your will and desire. It is up to you to decide
1 dominus letus as this Trial Chamber and I appreciate
2 that, but I feel I have been deprived of the possibility
3 of completing my response to the Prosecution response.
4 Thank you.
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think you are still under a
6 misconception of how to go about these things. It is
7 not a whim of the judge to tell you not to waste the
8 time, your own time and that of everybody. It is not a
9 whim. What we are saying is you have joint issues on
10 certain things. The Prosecution has now come to lead
11 evidence to those things to which they make claims.
12 You are entitled to reject them by cross-examination and
13 make them establish those things. It is not by your
14 own submissions alone. So it is not a whim.
15 JUDGE JAN: I do not intend to cut down your argument, but
16 I am just pointing out.
17 MR. OLUJIC: Thank you.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, if I may be permitted to say
19 a word about this motion and in particular the response
20 by the Prosecution, it is my submission that it is
21 inappropriate to hear this witness at this time for
22 several reasons. The first one, which was pointed out
23 by my learned friend, Mr. Greaves, is that this fifteen
24 page document was served on us at approximately 6.00 pm
25 last Friday, at the end of the day during which we had
1 motion and argument on the appropriateness and
2 timeliness of being served with documentation in support
3 of direct evidence by the Prosecution. That is the
4 first point. Your Honours may now just have had this
5 document served at you at noon on Monday.
6 The second point is: in reading this response by
7 the Prosecution it becomes clear that this contains many
8 statements of fact, which suggest that the Prosecution
9 has interviewed people and taken statements from people,
10 in particular several of the witnesses who will appear
11 today and tomorrow. We have never on the defence
12 received those statements from the Prosecutor, which the
13 rules require, which the order requires. That is the
14 second reason why we should not be hearing those
15 witnesses at this time until we get those statements
16 from Prosecutor, because they are necessary to prepare
17 our cross-examination. We have been through this with
18 you before. In hearing a witness it is appropriate to
19 know what this witness' previous out of court statement
20 would be to compare it with what he or she may say on
21 direct. To be precluded of that ability is not only in
22 violation of the rules and orders of this court; it is
23 also prejudicial to preparing a proper defence and
25 The final point, and I will end here, is that in
1 reading this document it becomes apparent that there may
2 be a need for the defence of Mr. Delalic, in fact, to
3 seek to contact and interview people from Vienna,
4 because there is more than passing interest in our
5 client's case on the events that occurred in Vienna.
6 Some of these police officers and investigators were
7 present in Vienna and their investigations impact
8 directly on evidence which the Prosecution may attempt
9 to lead against Mr. Delalic.
10 So for all those reasons, your Honours, the
11 untimeliness of the serving of this response, not being
12 given witness statements which appear to exist and the
13 need now that we see the position of the Prosecutor to,
14 in fact, contact people who will be coming -- even to
15 have witnesses appear in rebuttal to the Prosecution's
16 attempt to prove the legality of the statements and
17 seizures, it is inappropriate at this time to hear these
18 witnesses. Those are my submissions.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. I follow
20 Mr. Greaves' submission, but when lead counsel gets up
21 you do something else, I suppose one assumes that is the
22 position of the team. Now I agree if there are
23 additional statements which have not been served on
24 counsel and appearing in the response, that might create
25 problems for cross-examination and might require a
1 re-examination of the whole situation, but for the
2 authentication I suppose that is another matter which
3 perhaps could be made by the Prosecution itself. If
4 they really can own up to you that it is their document
5 and that they have produced it, perhaps you might waive
6 any clerical omissions which are made there, but for
7 other matters about statements which are additional to
8 what they have taken before, I think that is fundamental
9 and should be served on you. Can we hear the
10 Prosecution on that?
11 MS. McHENRY: Yes, your Honour. In responding to the
12 various claims made by the defence, I will first note
13 that with respect to some statements made by Mr. Olujic,
14 who referred to the closed hearing this morning, we are
15 obviously unable to respond since we were not present
16 and we had assumed that it had nothing to do with
17 anything to do with the Prosecution case, since we were
18 not present. To the extent that Mr. Olujic says that
19 some of these matters are related to the matters raised
20 this morning, the Prosecution is unable to respond, and
21 so I will not do that.
22 This entire issue I think raises -- as the defence
23 says, this is a perfect example of an issue that -- the
24 Prosecution in all frankness thinks this is a perfect
25 example of how the defence is attempting to make sure
1 that this trial does not focus on important issues or
2 truth seeking or even justice but tries to really just
3 raise issues that are not appropriately raised. In
4 particular, the Prosecution finds it frankly incredible
5 that after the defence of Mr. Mucic was permitted to
6 raise this allegation out of time, and if you will
7 remember the Prosecution objected to the defence raising
8 this issue, because it is something that could have been
9 raised over a year ago and four attorneys ago. The
10 Trial Chamber, because of the very serious nature of the
11 allegation decided at least to let the defence raise
12 this issue even though it was untimely. The
13 Prosecution then started trying to respond, and filed on
14 Friday a response to the defence motion, which responds
15 to certain factual allegations made in the defence
16 motion. So this document was not prepared three weeks
17 in advance. In fact, we did not even know that there
18 would be an issue about this three weeks ago. This
19 document was finished frankly a few minutes before
20 6 o'clock on Friday.
21 Now, we emphasise that if this document had been
22 submitted a week later, this does not mean that these
23 witnesses could have testified. I will also state that
24 it is not the case that we have additional witness
25 statements. This is a matter that was raised several
1 weeks ago, as has been informed to defence counsel. The
2 Prosecution, to be fair and appropriate, and to be able
3 to respond to these allegations which we had never had
4 any hint of, then started a brief investigation which
5 included phone calls of certain people trying to
6 reconstruct what had happened. In an effort again to
7 assist the Chamber and the defence we put down our
8 belief of what the evidence will show, but there are no
9 statements. Had this matter been raised within 60 days
10 it is very possible there could have been statements and
11 this issue could have been handled in a very slow,
12 thorough, methodical way, but because the defence raised
13 this two months into trial, which includes very serious
14 allegations, the Prosecution is responding.
15 Now, many -- and I believe, in fact, the documents
16 -- any documents attached are just correct translations
17 of what the accused had already filed as attachments to
18 its own motions, and so I think this is just an example
19 where the Prosecution tries to do everything it can in
20 good faith to respond in writing and to assist the
21 defence and the Chamber in laying out what it believes
22 the evidence will show, that there are not witness
23 statements and in particular the next witness, both
24 Mr. Abribat and the witness after him, Mr. d'Hooge, will
25 speak to what the circumstances surrounding Mr. Mucic's
1 interview were. We said that weeks ago when the
2 defence first raised this, and we said we wished to have
3 Mr. Abribat speak to those issues. We also in an effort
4 to assist the court have put some issues in there about
5 the Viennese police and, as your Honours know, last week
6 we orally requested leave to call Mr. Gschwendt, an
7 Austrian police officer, to explain that part of it,
8 just to make it crystal clear that everything was done
9 properly here and that the statements are admissible.
10 The fact that we respond to the defence motion does that
11 mean that witnesses cannot be heard.
12 I would suggest that the appropriate procedure is
13 for the witnesses to be heard and if it is at some point
14 later on a case that something unexpected happens that
15 could not have been anticipated, then the witness can be
16 recalled, but the fact that the defence has been allowed
17 to bring this up and the Prosecution wants to call
18 witnesses, I think the Prosecution has acted more than
19 fairly in this case, and to the extent there is any
20 problems or issues they can easily be resolved by
21 having, if necessary, to recall the witnesses. I hope
22 that assists your Honour.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Greaves?
24 MR. GREAVES: I note my learned friend refers to the fact
25 they believe this will show that everything was done
1 properly. They assert in their document that this is a
2 statement of the facts. That is an assertion that they
3 are right and we are wrong, and they are giving
4 evidence, signing their names to it. That is not
5 proper. They are asserting matters that are properly
6 matters for witnesses other than themselves to give and
7 secondly matters that are entirely within your Honour's
8 province to decide whether these are facts or not.
9 The second matter is this. They complain they
10 have not had a chance to take statements from anybody.
11 Your Honours will recall when the matter of contempt was
12 raised before this Tribunal, one of the witnesses who
13 was present here in the Hague was one Regis Abribat who
14 had to be sent away again because we could not deal with
15 him. I ask this: why on earth was a statement not
16 taken from him then when an ample opportunity was
17 present to do so? It seems to me that the Prosecution
18 are being somewhat prevaricatory about that. They have
19 had a plain opportunity to take statements from these
20 people in the last three weeks. They have not done
21 so. What is being done here is a gross violation of
22 Rule 66. It is thoroughly unfair, thoroughly unjust
23 and it makes the preparation of the defence of these
24 people absolutely hamstrung at times. For the
25 Prosecution to complain that this is just simply a time
1 wasting tactic is frankly an outrageous suggestion.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, the Prosecutor has just said
3 that in regards to Mr. Abribat and Mr. d'Hooge, she knew a
4 long time ago what they would say. I submit the way
5 you would know what a witness is going to say is you
6 have spoken to this witness. Both Mr. Abribat and
7 Mr. d'Hooge were on the March 7th witness list. They were
8 on the revised May 13th witness list and they were
9 scheduled to testify in the middle of May. When the
10 Prosecutor speaks to a witness and signed out what that
11 witness is likely to say on the stand, they have taken a
12 statement. We are entitled to know what that statement
13 says. This is not to waste time. We are talking
14 about fundamental admissibility on the statements and
15 seized objects. This goes to the heart of the evidence
16 in this case, your Honours. .
17 MS. McHENRY: I agree with Mr. Greaves that this is unfair
18 and unjust. I think we disagree who it is unfair and
19 unjust to. The Prosecution would submit it is to the
20 Prosecution. It is certainly the case that the
21 Prosecution does not believe that there is any
22 obligation anywhere that it take a witness statement
23 every time it speaks to a witness. The Prosecution
24 would agree that the defence should be entitled to have
25 some idea of what a witness is going to speak to and, of
1 course, as your Honours know and as can be seen, in most
2 cases we do take statements from witnesses, but in this
3 case it is the case that several weeks ago the
4 Prosecution stated in open court, and there was much
5 discussion with all defence counsel, about the fact that
6 Mr. Abribat and Mr. d'Hooge were going to testify about
7 the introduction of the statements. That is not
8 anything new. That is what they are going to testify
9 to. If there is some huge surprise that could not have
10 been anticipated by the defence, well, then the court
11 always has the option of potentially recalling a
12 witness, but there is absolutely nothing in the rules
13 that requires that the Prosecution take a witness
14 statement from every witness or with respect to every
15 time it speaks to a witness. If defence wish to
16 suggest that the rules be amended to do that, they
17 may. I will also bring up the fact that this issue has
18 already been decided by the court with respect to,
19 I believe, the expert witnesses, and the Prosecution
20 does not have to take a witness statement. The
21 Prosecution should give the defence a fair idea of what
22 a witness is going to speak to, and the Prosecution has
23 done that in this case.
24 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honours, I think one of the problems is
25 one of definition here this morning. The Prosecution
1 seems to be taking a very, very restricted and narrow
2 view of what is a witness statement. The Prosecution
3 seems to define that as a document in writing signed by
4 the witness. I think that is an extremely narrow
5 definition and a dangerous definition. It would, if
6 that were the proper definition of a witness statement,
7 permit the Prosecutor to avoid this court's orders
8 altogether and never turn over a witness statement to
9 the defence merely by the tactic of interviewing the
10 witness orally, making a Memorandum of that interview
11 and yet never having the witness sign it and therefore
12 being able to say: "It's not a witness statement." I'm
13 convinced that the witnesses that we're talking about
14 here today the Prosecution has talked to at length,
15 probably made memoranda of those conversations or notes
16 of those conversations and when the witness gives
17 factual information to the Prosecutor, my view is that
18 is a statement of the witness that should be turned over
19 to the defence. Otherwise you give the Prosecutor the
20 power to totally flaunt the rules of this court.
21 MR. GREAVES: Can I just refer your Honours to Rule 6,
22 please? The only people who are entitled to propose
23 amendment to the rules are the judges, the Prosecutor or
24 the Registrar, not the defence. That is why we have to
25 ask your Honours to use Rule 89 to stop this thing
1 happening, as it has been happening time and time again
2 throughout this trial. This is just another flagrant
3 and blatant example of what has been going on. There
4 is another argument that Rule 6 and possibly all the
5 rules are ultra vires, because the defence do not have
6 any rights under that Rule, but that is another argument
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I believe the defence feels
9 incapacitated continuing with the hearing because of
10 this lapse. This is the argument. Is that the
11 argument, that you cannot follow the proceedings because
12 you do not have these witnesses' statements in whichever
14 MR. GREAVES: In a nutshell.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think we will get on with the
16 witnesses so that you will be able to cross-examine them
17 as best as you can.
18 MS. McHENRY: Thank you, your Honours. The Prosecution
19 calls Mr. Regis Abribat.
20 (Witness enters court)
21 Mr. Regis Abribat (sworn)
22 Examined by Ms. McHenry
23 MS. McHENRY: Sir, would you please state your full name?
24 A. (In interpretation): My name is Regis Abribat. I am a
25 French citizen. I work for the police as a Division
2 Q. How long have you worked for the French police?
3 A. About 20 years ago I began working for the French
4 police. Basically I was a commissioner in the fight
5 against organised crime and against terrorism.
6 Q. Has there been a time when you worked for the Office of
7 the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the
8 former Yugoslavia?
9 A. Yes. Through 1995/1996 I was recruited to the
10 International Criminal Tribunal for the former
11 Yugoslavia. I was responsible for heading an
12 investigative team in the Office of the Prosecutor.
13 Q. As head of the investigative team -- of an investigative
14 team within the Office of the Prosecutor, were you
15 involved in an investigation into crimes alleged to have
16 been committed in the Celebici detention camp?
17 A. Yes, that is correct. I was involved in this
18 investigation. I set it up. I was involved in
19 managing the record, the case file, yes.
20 Q. As part of the investigation and Prosecution were there
21 interviews of any persons accused?
22 A. Yes, there were. These were carried out by
23 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor. They
24 were questioning of people who were subsequently
1 Q. Did you participate in any interviews of persons who
2 were subsequently accused by the Tribunal?
3 A. Personally I did, yes. I was present at a hearing, the
4 one of Mr. Mucic.
5 Q. Can you please tell us when Mr. Mucic was interviewed by
6 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor?
7 A. Mr. Mucic was questioned after he had been arrested. He
8 was arrested in Vienna and we questioned him after that.
9 Q. Do you know when Mr. Mucic was arrested and who arrested
11 A. I think that I recall it he must have been arrested on
12 18th March 1996 in Vienna by the Austrian police.
13 MR. GREAVES: Well, your Honour, I object to this
14 evidence. Unless the Prosecution can lay a proper
15 foundation for introducing hearsay evidence under the
16 decision in Tadic, this evidence should not be given.
17 I invite the court to exclude it.
18 JUDGE JAN: I thought you were interested about the date on
19 which he was arrested by the Vienna police.
20 MR. GREAVES: I am very interested but the Prosecution have
21 still got to go through the process of adducing its
22 evidence properly. If it does not do so, it should not
23 be permitted to give that evidence.
24 MS. McHENRY: May I continue, your Honours?
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you may continue.
1 MS. McHENRY: Thank you. Were you present during the
2 arrest of Mr. Mucic?
3 A. I was in Vienna but I wasn't present at the location
4 itself, because we were in the police facilities in
5 Vienna, the Vienna police facilities and we were
6 waiting. I wasn't at the place where he was arrested
7 but I was working on this case very actively.
8 Q. Who else from the Office of the Prosecutor was in Vienna
9 around the time that Mr. Mucic was arrested?
10 A. We asked for permission to be in Austria when Mr. Mucic
11 was arrested. There were four of us representatives of
12 the office of the prosecutors, plus an interpreter.
13 Q. Can you tell us who was present from the Office of the
15 A. You want the names?
16 Q. Yes, please.
17 A. There was a legal officer, Mr. du Toit. I don't
18 remember what the position of the second person was but
19 I think he was an expert of some sort, Peter
20 Nicholson. There were two investigators. There was
21 an investigator from my group, myself and an
23 Q. Okay. What was the name of the other investigator?
24 A. Du Toit, Nicholson, Bart d'Hooge and myself.
25 Q. How did you learn that Mr. Mucic had been arrested on
1 18th March?
2 A. We were in Vienna. We had contacted the authorities in
3 Austria. After that we were sent to a police
4 service. We met the person who was in charge who was
5 the one who were carrying out the investigation and the
6 arrest of Mucic. He gave us details. He said that
7 everything was set up, that they were waiting for the
8 perfect time to do what had to be done. We did not
9 know how long it would take. Therefore they suggested
10 to us that we wait somewhere else if we wanted, go
11 somewhere else in the city, and they would contact us
12 once it was carried out. We had a portable
13 telephone. It was very easy for him to contact us.
14 We went out. I think we must have gone out to have a
15 drink in the meantime.
16 Q. Were you subsequently informed when Mr. Mucic was
18 A. Yes, we were. As I said, we had a portable
19 telephone. We were informed that Mr. Mucic had been
20 arrested and so we went back to the police station.
21 Q. Okay. On 18th March did you or anyone from the Office
22 of the Prosecutor have any contact with Mr. Mucic?
23 A. On the day that he was arrested? On that day all five
24 of us went back to the police station. We had a
25 discussion with the police officer who was responsible
1 for the operation, and after the discussion I asked him
2 whether I could meet Mr. Mucic to explain to him who we
3 were and what procedure would be -- could be followed
4 should he accept to give testimony -- make a statement
5 rather. Then I asked to see him.
6 Q. What happened, please?
7 A. The Austrian police officer said that that was all
8 right. He said that I could come with him as well as
9 the interpreter, and that he would let us speak with
10 Mr. Mucic. That is what was done. I went with the
11 police officer and the interpreter. He took us to a
12 kind of a cell, like the cells we have in my country,
13 and there I met Mr. Mucic.
14 Q. Can you please tell us what happened when you met
15 Mr. Mucic?
16 A. I introduced myself. I told him who I was.
17 I introduced the interpreter and I told him that we were
18 members of the Office of the Prosecutor of the
19 International Tribunal, that there were specific
20 proceedings that were followed at the International
21 Tribunal, and that we wished to ask him questions and
22 that in order to do so we would have to honour the rules
23 of procedure and evidence. That's what it was.
24 I spoke to him for maybe one minute, maybe two minutes.
25 Q. In what language did you speak -- did you use when
1 speaking to Mr. Mucic?
2 A. To speak with him I spoke in English at the request of
3 the police officer from Austria, because that person did
4 not speak French and he asked me to speak in English,
5 because he understood English. So I spoke English and
6 the interpreter interpreted into Mr. Mucic's native
8 Q. Was the Austrian police officer present the whole time
9 that you were with Mr. Mucic?
10 A. Yes. Actually it lasted so little time.
11 Q. Did Mr. Mucic say or indicate anything to you after you
12 explained who you were and that any interview would have
13 to be done according to the rules of the Tribunal?
14 A. There was no real discussion, because I simply came in
15 to see Mr. Mucic and to explain who I was, that is to
16 introduce myself, to explain the rules and I simply
17 wanted to know whether he agreed or not to be
18 questioned. He answered -- he nodded. Actually, which
19 meant "yes" and that's all.
20 Q. On 18th March did you or, to your knowledge, anyone else
21 from the Office of the Prosecutor have any contact with
22 Mr. Mucic other than what you have just described?
23 A. Aside from what I have just told you, no. Nobody, no
24 member of the team had contact with Mr. Mucic.
25 Q. Going to the next day, sir, 19th, can you please tell us
1 what happened on 19th?
2 A. The day after the arrest the entire team, that is the
3 five people, we went to the investigating judge's office
4 in Austria, the person who was in charge of the case.
5 We met him. He explained to us that there would be a
6 discussion with Mr. Mucic in order to tell him that there
7 was extradition proceedings going on and that after
8 that, if possible, we ourselves would proceed to ask the
9 questions that we wanted to speak. We had asked very
10 specifically that we be the ones to carry out the
11 questioning of Mr. Mucic for the Prosecutor.
12 Q. What happened next?
13 A. Together with the judge we went to the facilities that
14 were used as a prison, because, if I remember correctly,
15 it was in the same building where the judge's offices
16 were as well as the facilities use for a prison. We
17 went to that part which was used as a prison. We went
18 into an office. The investigating judge was there, his
19 interpreter, the five members of the team -- their names
20 I have already given you -- from the Office of the
21 Prosecutor. Mr. Mucic was brought in. The
22 investigating judge spoke with Mr. Mucic. He spoke in
23 German. That was interpreted for Mr. Mucic through the
24 judge's interpreter. We said nothing. We did not
25 participate in that discussion. We have simply
1 listened, and I asked our translator to give me a
2 synopsis of what the judge was saying to Mr. Mucic. That
3 is how I was able to understand that the judge was
4 apparently explaining the extradition proceedings, after
5 which, with his authorisation, we could ourselves
6 question him.
7 Q. When you say that the Tribunal interpreter gave you a
8 synopsis, does that mean that she did not translate word
9 for word what was being said by the judge or by
10 Mr. Mucic?
11 A. No, she didn't translate word for word. We weren't --
12 it was not a comfortable situation. There were eight
13 of us in the room. We were in one corner of the
14 office. We didn't want to disturb anybody and we
15 really didn't want to disturb anybody. So she was
16 whispering and telling me what was said.
17 Q. Can I ask you to speak a little slower so the
18 interpreters ...
19 A. Bien sur.
20 Q. Do you remember whether or not there was any discussion
21 of attorneys during the judge's interview with Mr. Mucic?
22 A. If I recall correctly, I followed these things in a
23 really synoptical form, what my interpreter was saying
24 to me. It seemed to me that the Austrian investigating
25 judge must have said to Mr.. Mucic that he was entitled or
1 he should insist on his right to having an attorney
2 during the extradition proceedings.
3 Q. What happened at the end of -- let me go back. Was
4 there any discussion that you are aware of whether or
5 not Mucic wished to or should have an attorney with
6 respect to any interview to be conducted by the Office
7 of the Prosecutor as opposed to the extradition
9 A. No, not at all. From what I remember, and I think I do
10 remember things rather well, it was a question of a
11 lawyer but only for the extradition.
12 Q. What happened at the end of the judge's interview with
13 Mr. Mucic?
14 A. It seems to me that the judge must have explained that
15 we would then have a hearing, but that before that took
16 place if Mr. Mucic wanted to rest a bit, wanted a break
17 before we began, I think he must have asked him that
18 question, because Mr. Mucic, in fact, did say that he
19 wanted to have a break before we would begin.
20 Q. What happened next?
21 A. The guards must have asked Mr. Mucic to withdraw. We
22 also left the office. The judge told us that we could
23 not use the office we were in because it had to be used
24 for something else. I do not really remember what it
25 was but it had to be used for something else in any case
1 and that we would have to go into an adjoining room.
2 It was actually adjoining the office. It could be
3 compared to a kind of a place where people speak to
4 prisoners in a prison. It was a narrow room. That's
5 where we went. When I say we, it means the second
6 investigator of the group, Bart d'Hooge, the
7 interpreter, Peter Nicholson, who was responsible for
8 the recording equipment that we had brought with us and
9 myself. So then there were four of us only. The
10 legal expert, Mr. du Toit, was involved doing other
11 things with the Austrian authorities, so he didn't stay
12 with us.
13 We went into that room, as I said, which was right
14 next door. We prepared the recording equipment, that
15 is the tape recorder and the camera. It took us a
16 little bit of time because it was a very small room.
17 We had to find the proper angle where we would be able
18 to take pictures properly. That was not an easy thing
19 to do. Then we waited until Mr. Mucic came back.
20 Q. What happened when Mr. Mucic came?
21 A. When Mr. Mucic arrived he sat down in front of us and
22 then at that point we began to ask the questions.
23 Q. Can you tell us more exactly what exactly -- when
24 Mr. Mucic entered the room, was the recording equipment
25 already going? Can you just explain exactly how that
1 worked, and if any conversation occurred before the
2 recording equipment started, can you please just tell us
3 about that?
4 A. Mr. Mucic arrived. He sat down. I think I said
5 "Hello" to him again. I must have shown him the
6 camera and I said to him: "This is the equipment that
7 we're going to use in order to record this hearing.
8 I'm also going to show you the video recorder", saying:
9 "This is the other piece of equipment we are going to
10 use, and with respect the formulas that I gave to you
11 yesterday". I told him: "We can begin when you
12 want." He must have said: "All right" and then we
14 Q. When you said -- what happened then? Was the recording
15 equipment turned on?
16 A. From the point on that he said: "All right", that is
17 from the point that he agreed to our recording what he
18 said, we started the equipment and I again told him what
19 point we were at, who was there. I don't exactly
20 recall all the legal formulas that I had. Do you want
21 me to repeat exactly what they were, these legal
22 formulas, saying what was said at that point, exactly
23 what was said to him?
24 Q. You are asking whether or not -- you have already told
25 us what occurred before the recording started; correct?
1 Was anything else said to Mr. Mucic before the recording
2 started other than what you have just testified to?
3 A. No. Not at all. After that everything that was said
4 was recorded.
5 Q. Okay. On March 19th was there ever a time when you
6 were alone with Mr. Mucic?
7 A. No, absolutely not.
8 Q. Was there ever a time when Mr. d'Hooge or Mr. Nicholson
9 were alone with Mr. Mucic?
10 A. No, not at all.
11 Q. Did you always use an interpreter when talking with
12 Mr. Mucic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Okay. At any time prior to or during the interview did
15 Mr. Mucic ever suggest that he might wish to have an
16 attorney present when he spoke with representatives of
17 the Office of the Prosecutor?
18 A. No. This was a problem which had been clearly brought
19 up. He had answered very clearly and had said that he
20 agreed to cooperate, that he didn't need an attorney at
21 that point.
22 Q. Okay. With the assistance of the Registrar, I would
23 now like to show the witness a transcript of the
24 interview. Maybe while the Registrar is marking those
25 exhibits I will just go on, Mr. Abribat, with a question,
1 which is: when Mr. -- the Office of the Prosecutor,
2 were they in charge of Mr. Mucic; in other words, were
3 you permitted to speak with Mr. Mucic whenever you
4 wanted? Could you just have authority to do that by
6 A. No, not at all. You know, in this type of proceedings
7 I am familiar with the police, traditional police
8 procedures, but you are in a foreign country to carry
9 out a rogatory commission for an international body, you
10 are at the disposal of the local authorities and you are
11 subject to the local rules. You have absolutely no
12 initiative that you should take. You are simply there
13 to carry out procedural matters but not to take any
14 initiative if you are on your own.
15 Q. Sir, I'm showing you what has been marked for
16 identification purposes as Prosecution exhibit 101.
17 Copies of this have previously been provided to the
18 defence. Three extra copies are provided for the
19 judges. Sir, I ask you to look at that and tell me if
20 you recognise what that is.
21 A. Yes, in principle this is the translation of the
22 questioning of Mr. Mucic. The translation into English
23 of the questioning that I carried out.
24 Q. Just so the record is clear, what language did you use
25 in asking questions?
1 A. When I questioned Mr. Mucic I spoke in French, which was
2 translated into his native language by an interpreter.
3 Q. Thank you. Have you had occasion to review the
4 transcript or the interpretation of the interview of
5 Mr. Mucic at least -- and let me be clear now -- at least
6 with respect to March 19th?
7 A. About two weeks ago I leafed through the English
8 translation of what had been done, yes.
9 Q. With respect to the interview on the 19th, is it a
10 complete and fair transcript of the interview you
11 conducted with Mr. Mucic on the 19th?
12 A. I assume that this reflects everything. I can't tell
13 you this word by word because it's a translation into
14 English and I spoke in French.
15 Q. But without saying whether or not the word to word
16 translation is correct, is it a fair reporting of your
17 interview with Mr. Mucic?
18 A. Yes, absolutely.
19 Q. Does the interview correctly reflect that when the
20 interview started Mr. Mucic was advised of his rights
21 pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and
23 A. Could you ask that question again, please?
24 Q. Does the transcript of the interview correctly reflect
25 that at the commencement of the interview you advised
1 Mr. Mucic of his rights under the Tribunal's rules of
2 procedure and evidence?
3 A. Yes, absolutely, of course. I did it several times,
4 because I did it during the interview when I said: "This
5 is the procedure which is in effect of the Tribunal."
6 I told him the rules that were followed, what were his
7 rights. When we began the recording I told him once
8 again what the defence's rights were.
9 Q. Among the rights that you advised Mr. Mucic of, did you
10 advise him that he had the right to an attorney and that
11 if he did not have the possibility of getting one
12 himself, one would be assigned to him?
13 A. Yes, absolutely. I said it twice before we began the
14 questions, so that he might do what's necessary if he
15 wanted him, which would give him some time, because I
16 had seen him on the 18th when I explained that to him as
17 well, and I gave him enough time in order for him to get
18 into contact with counsel. The next day, when I saw
19 him again in order to hear his statement I asked him.
20 I said: "Do you want an attorney? You are entitled to
21 have an attorney." He said that he was prepared to give
22 a statement without an attorney being present.
23 Q. Was Mr. Mucic advised that he had the right to remain
25 A. Yes, absolutely, yes. It was the same thing under the
1 same circumstances. Before the interview I told him
2 that and even before the interview of the 19th, yes.
3 Q. Was Mr. Mucic advised that everything he said would be
4 recorded and could be used in evidence?
5 A. Yes, that as well. Since what he said had to be
6 recorded, he had to agree with that. I asked him
7 whether he agreed to its being recorded. "In that case
8 you know anything you say may be used in evidence." He
9 was informed of that on two separate occasions.
10 Q. Was Mr. Mucic asked whether he was willing to provide an
11 interview without the presence of an attorney?
12 A. Yes, absolutely. I explained how things worked and
13 I asked him: "Do you agree to speak without counsel
14 being present?" He answered: "Yes" and then we began.
15 Q. Did you make any reference to the fact that he had
16 previously spoken, albeit briefly, with Mr. Mucic in the
17 recorded part of the interview?
18 A. Yes, of course. I referred to that, because for me
19 I simply had to refer to the first explanation of his
20 rights. That would seem normal to me for us to speak
21 what had been said. I said. "I have already explained
22 your rights to you. I am going to repeat what I have
23 said and afterwards you will give your answer and say
24 whether or not you agree to speak".
25 Q. Was Mr. Mucic willing to provide an opportunity without
1 the presence of an attorney?
2 A. Yes. He gave a declaration and then he answered our
3 questions in an ordinary way. There were no problems.
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think it is convenient for us to
5 stop for lunch here and come back at 2.30.
6 (1.00 pm)
7 (Luncheon Adjournment)
1 (2.00 pm)
2 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Have you anything to say, Mr. Greaves?
3 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, yes. A situation has come to my
4 attention during the course of the luncheon
5 adjournment. There is a person who is a potential
6 witness in this case in relation to this matter who has
7 chosen this morning to come and sit in the public
8 gallery. She must know she is a potential witness,
9 otherwise she would not have bothered to come and sit in
10 the public gallery, she having other duties within this
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can carry on.
13 MR. GREAVES: There are two matters. First of all, she
14 should not be in the public gallery if she is a
15 potential witness as to these matters. The second
16 matter is this: it seems to me that is an indication
17 that she wishes to know what is being said in this court
18 and to hear examination-in-chief and cross-examination
19 and re-examination so that she may prepare herself in
20 the event that she is called as a witness.
21 Your Honour, in my submission the defence of
22 Mr. Mucic now should have the opportunity to take a
23 statement from her. Your Honour knows that there is a
24 particular problem in relation to that. It is a matter
25 that was explained to you today. I renew my
1 application. She is plainly there preparing to give
2 evidence in this case in that eventuality, and only by
3 granting the defence the opportunity to interview her
4 and take a statement from her can this court ensure that
5 she does not so prepare herself that an injustice is
6 going to be done. I would, therefore, renew the
7 application that I made this morning and invite also
8 your Honours to order that she be removed from the
9 public gallery forthwith.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I am not sure your proposition applies
11 to everybody who sits in the gallery is a potential
12 witness. That is not my knowledge and I do not know
13 there is any such proposition that whoever sits in the
14 gallery is a potential witness. Apart from that you
15 have suggested that she should be a witness. I think
16 it is your own arrangement if you want that. The Trial
17 Chamber has ruled in the application you brought. We
18 never indicated that she is a potential witness for
19 you. You may make whatever arrangement you like to get
20 her to be a witness. In that regard perhaps she will
21 come within the parameters of the law prohibiting
22 witnesses to sit in the public gallery, but for now
23 I think I see nothing which disqualifies her.
24 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, if it was not for the difficulty
25 over the Convention of 1946 I would ask for a subpoena
1 to be issued immediately. I am not allowed to issue a
2 subpoena, because of the United Nations it is claiming
3 immunity in respect of her. If a subpoena was issued
4 against her, she becomes a witness in this case. I am
5 not allowed to issue a subpoena. Therefore, if your
6 Honour is right, it is impossible for her to be removed
7 from the gallery, but if I am permitted to issue that
8 subpoena, and I wish to do so, then she must be removed
9 from the public gallery. That is why your Honour has
10 to rule on the issue of whether or not a subpoena can
11 issue in the light of the Convention of 1946.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, as I told you, what you have
13 done was an application. You have made an
14 application. We might have not ruled on that aspect,
15 because we did not consider it for the application you
16 made. If you want compulsorily for anybody who is even
17 unwilling to be a witness to be brought to testify in
18 your favour, I suppose you know how to go about it. Do
19 not bring the Trial Chamber into that.
20 MR. GREAVES: With respect, your Honour, it is for the Trial
21 Chamber to issue subpoenas under Rule 54. I make
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do know that. Then that
24 application must state specifically she is your
25 witness. Then we will see to it how that could be done.
1 MR. GREAVES: Then I ask for her to be a defence witness and
2 I ask your Honours to issue a subpoena.
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That was not your application this
5 MR. GREAVES: I think your Honours will find that I used the
6 word "subpoena" during the course of the application.
7 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Mainly because you use the word does
8 not mean you really want her as your witness.
9 MR. GREAVES: I am sorry, your Honour.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I explained to you if you really want
11 her as your witness, I will consider that.
12 MR. GREAVES: Well, I have made my application.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, I know you have. Can we carry
14 on with the witness?
15 MR. OSTBERG: Your Honour, as far as the Prosecution is
16 concerned, everybody is speaking in riddles. We have
17 not the faintest idea what this proposition made in open
18 court is all about. The Prosecution is left totally in
19 the dark as to what has gone on in the courtroom in
20 which it is bringing its case, which for me is a very,
21 very unusual situation. I know nothing of this that is
22 right now discussed in this room. The same goes for my
23 learned colleagues at my side. I think we should be
24 invited to take part in the discussions made in the
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: An application ex parte was made. It
2 was not made on notice so it did not concern you.
3 MR. OSTBERG: Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: An application was made suggesting a
5 particular person be summoned as a witness. That was
6 what was said.
7 MR. OSTBERG: That was ruled on by the court.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes.
9 MR. OSTBERG: Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: So let us carry on.
11 MS. McHENRY: Your Honours, just while the witness is coming
12 in, I previously spoke with defence counsel about the
13 fact that the defence has suggested that certain
14 corrections should be made to the transcript. A copy
15 of the defence submission was -- is attached to the
16 Prosecution exhibit and the matter has been referred to
17 the interpretation section and if they decide that
18 certain corrections should be made we will, of course,
19 notify defence counsel and your Honours and submit a
20 revised one, but just so you know.
21 MR. GREAVES: Your Honours, I have managed to leave some
22 papers in the defence room. I wonder if you would
23 excuse me a moment or two whilst I just go and fetch
24 them please.
25 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can.
1 MR. GREAVES: Thank you very much indeed.
2 (Witness re-enters court)
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Remind the witness he is still on his
5 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Abribat, may I remind you that you are
6 still under oath?
7 A. D'accord.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can carry on.
9 MS.. McHENRY: Your Honour, do you wish me to carry on or do
10 you wish me to wait until defence counsel returns?
11 JUDGE JAN: Defence counsel is here.
12 MS.. McHENRY: Thank you. Mr. Abribat, you previously
13 testified about what occurred on the 19th with respect
14 to the interview of Mr. Mucic. Was the interview in its
15 entirety concluded on the 19th?
16 A. Well, yes, as far as I was concerned, because I had to
17 come back to the Tribunal on the 20th, on the morning of
18 the 20th, so after the first interview of the 19th I did
19 not see Mr. Mucic after that, but the interview did go on
20 with the investigator from the Tribunal who had been
21 there with me.
22 Q. Okay. Excuse me one minute. Your Honour, that
23 concludes the Prosecution questions for this witness.
24 As your Honours know, we will be calling another witness
25 and after that witness, we will actually seek to
1 introduce the statements into evidence. So we do
2 realise that we have not yet sought to introduce the
3 statements into evidence. Thank you.
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Any cross-examinations of this
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Greaves
7 MR. GREAVES: Would your Honour just give me a moment,
8 please? Mr. Abribat, I want to ask you, please, about
9 your first meeting with Mr. Mucic on 18th March. That
10 was with the agreement of the Austrian police officer;
11 is that right?
12 A. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. And who was the Austrian police officer who allowed you
14 to do that? What was his name?
15 A. I'm afraid I couldn't tell you. I don't remember his
16 name at all.
17 Q. Do you remember his rank?
18 A. No, certainly not. It was the one who was in charge of
19 the unit who'd gone ahead with the arrest but he'd not
20 told me what his exact rank was.
21 Q. You can't remember what the officer's name was, although
22 you've told us in evidence this morning that you do
23 remember things rather well, Mr. Abribat, but you can't
24 remember that?
25 A. Yes, that's right. I remember what happened quite
1 well, but I don't remember the names that well and
2 especially in Southern France. When it comes to German
3 names, it's quite different, then that's how it is.
4 Q. I want to ask you what took place during that
5 conversation with Mr. Mucic. Can you help us about
6 this: you took him through the procedure that would be
7 followed; is that right?
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. What exactly did you say to him about the procedure?
10 A. I must have given him a summary of the various stages
11 that have to be abided by in going through such an
12 interview when somebody is questioned as a suspect.
13 Q. You were talking in English; is that right?
14 A. I spoke English so that the Austrian police officer
15 could understand me, yes.
16 Q. Are you fluent in English, Mr. Abribat?
17 A. I speak well enough English to get by, yes.
18 Q. Well, -- so you're not fluent?
19 A. Well, that all depends what you mean by "fluent."
20 I mean, that's a personal judgment really.
21 Q. In what language were the rules explained to Mr. Mucic
23 A. I thought I answered that. I explained the procedure
24 in English so that the Austrian police officer could
25 understand me, but the texts are worded in English and
1 in French.
2 Q. Who carried out the interpretation at that point?
3 A. It was the Tribunal's interpreter who was with me.
4 Q. She was translating your English into Serbo-Croat for
6 A. Yes, that's right.
7 Q. Your intention by having this meeting was to explain the
8 rules and also to ask him the question as to whether he
9 wished to be interviewed by you; is that right?
10 A. I wanted to explain the Rules of Procedure that applied
11 in questioning a suspect and then on that basis to know
12 whether he would agree to an interview.
13 Q. You wanted to ask him some questions; isn't that it?
14 A. No, absolutely not. I was clear on this this
15 morning. I simply wanted to explain the rules of
16 procedure with him and I didn't enter into any dialogue
17 with him.
18 Q. You wanted to know if he wanted to have a lawyer
20 A. I told him that according to the procedure if he wanted
21 to have a lawyer present, he could have one present at
22 the interview. So if he wanted to have one there he
23 would have to make the necessary arrangements.
24 Q. Did you ask him the question: "Do you want a lawyer?"
25 A. No, I did not put that question to him. I explained
1 the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal to him and told
2 him the conditions in which and circumstances in which
3 he could have a lawyer.
4 Q. But you wanted to know whether he was going to be
6 A. I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength here. I
7 didn't put any questions to him. I explained the rules
8 of procedure that applied to him.
9 Q. Well, just explain what explanation you gave. Explain
10 the rules as you explained them to him so that we may
11 know how you explained them to him?
12 A. I told him simply that as a suspect he had rights, that
13 those rights were the following. There were three
14 categories, that is to say he had a right to counsel, he
15 had a right to an interpreter to speak his language and
16 everything he said could be used as evidence, and that
17 the interview, if he agreed to an interview would be
18 recorded and that the interview could take place in the
19 presence of his lawyer or it could take place without
20 the presence of his lawyer, if he agreed there to.
21 Q. Well, that is Rule 42(A) of the Rules of Procedure and
22 Evidence. Did you explain Rule 42(B) to him,
23 Mr. Abribat?
24 A. Rule 42(B), could you tell me exactly what you are
25 referring to?
1 Q. You mean you do not know what Rule 42(B) is, Mr. Abribat?
2 A. Well, I have to have a look at it to really ...
3 Q. We may be able to let you have a look in a moment, but
4 you were the one who were there in March 1996,
5 purporting to explain all the rules of procedure and
6 evidence to this man, whom you had never met before.
7 Did you not know --
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Do you not think if he has explained
9 the rights which the suspect really was entitled to,
10 that would be sufficient whether it is in category A or
11 B or C, if he has explained those rights which the
12 suspect is entitled to?
13 MR. GREAVES: With respect, your Honour, could you please
14 look at Rule 42(B)? That contains additional rights
15 which, in my submission, have properly to be explained
16 to a suspect before he is questioned.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, he should have explained that to
19 MR. GREAVES: You did not explain the detail of Rule 42(B)
20 to him, Mr. Abribat; is that it?
21 A. May I answer you, your Honour?
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you may.
23 A. Well, my feeling is that I said that precisely. The
24 presence of a counsel was necessary for the interview
25 unless he accepted to speak without counsel being
1 present. I thought I told you that.
2 Q. Did you explain to him that if he subsequently wanted
3 counsel, he could do so and questioning would cease?
4 Did you explain that to him?
5 A. Yes, absolutely. Now before having an interview I had
6 taken the precaution of coming to see Mr. Mucic to
7 expressly explain what his rights were, to tell him that
8 the interview was take place only in accordance, strict
9 accordance with the rules and therefore I didn't want to
10 enter into any discussion before he'd fully understood
11 the rules and his rights, and that's what I did before
12 starting the interviews.
13 Q. Did you explain Rule 43 to him, the details of that
15 A. Well, I explained Rule 43 to him. This is the
16 recording of the interview; is that right?
17 Q. You just answer the question, please, Mr. Abribat. Did
18 you explain or not Rule 43 to Mr. Mucic?
19 A. Yes, I did explain it to him.
20 Q. When you say "explain", do you mean simply tell or did
21 you explain what it means?
22 A. No, no. I think I made it clear. I said precisely
23 what the procedure was, how it was going to happen, how
24 it might happen with his agreement.
25 Q. Would your Honours give me a moment, please? You told
1 us this morning that this conversation lasted only for a
2 minute, perhaps two minutes. You were able to explain
3 all of this in just two minutes, were you, Mr. Abribat?
4 A. Yes, absolutely.
5 Q. So it really was just simply a question of you reading
6 out what was or reciting what's in the rules; is that
8 A. I explained it to him. I had written down a number of
9 points on a piece of paper and I explained those
10 different points to him.
11 Q. Did you make any attempt whatever to see if he
12 understood what you'd been saying to him?
13 A. Yes, well, I put the question to him. I asked him
14 whether he'd understood clearly what I'd told him.
15 Q. So you did question him then?
16 A. That's a question, if you will, but it wasn't one that
17 called for any answer other than "yes" or "no".
18 Q. And what precisely was the question that you asked and
19 the exact words, if you can remember it, Mr. Abribat?
20 A. Well, the exact words I'm not really sure, but the sense
21 of my question was very clear. I wanted to be sure
22 that he'd understood his rights and whether he would
23 agree going along with the procedure that applied for
24 the Tribunal.
25 Q. So the next time that you saw Mr. Mucic was in the court
1 in front of Judge Sada the following day; is that right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. And you were not allowed to take part in those
5 A. No, that's right.
6 Q. You had those proceedings translated to you by an
8 A. Yes, but translated not in any literal fashion, as
9 I explained this morning, but rather I asked, since I
10 didn't understand what was going on -- I just wanted to
11 get a sense of what was being said.
12 Q. Well, you were aware that there was some conversation
13 about a lawyer being required, were you not?
14 A. Yes. I was told by the interpreter that there was a
15 question about a lawyer in connection with the
16 extradition proceedings. That's right.
17 Q. In the record of the hearing that we have there is no
18 reference to it being a request for a lawyer concerning
19 extradition proceedings, Mr. Abribat. Did you not take
20 any steps to check what the position was?
21 A. Check what? What is the effect?
22 Q. Check for a lawyer, Mr. Abribat?
23 A. I thought I told you what I understood on the basis of
24 the translation I received it was a matter of a lawyer
25 in connection with these extradition proceedings. That
1 was it.
2 Q. You did not want to check and make sure once again
3 whether or not he wanted a lawyer for the interview with
4 the Office of the Prosecution?
5 A. Well, I did that a second time and it was recorded at
6 the beginning of the interview, because at the beginning
7 of the interview before going into the substance of the
8 matter I asked him whether he wanted to have a lawyer
9 there and his answer was "no".
10 Q. What was the Office of the Prosecution going to ask for
11 at the end of all these proceedings? It was
12 extradition, was it not, to The Hague?
13 A. Am I supposed to answer that question?
14 Q. What was going to happen to Mr. Mucic at the end of your
15 dealings with him, you were going to be asking for him
16 to be extradited to The Hague, were you not, Mr. Abribat?
17 A. I'm sorry but I'm not qualified to seek extradition.
18 Q. Why were you in Vienna, Mr. Abribat?
19 A. To hear Mr. Mucic if he agreed to speak to us according
20 to the rules of the Tribunal.
21 Q. What did you think was going to happen at the end of
22 that procedure, Mr. Abribat?
23 A. I've no idea. I was there to do something quite
24 specific, and I did it.
25 Q. Well, you've told their Honours this morning:
1 "I was involved in this investigation. I set it
2 up. I was involved in managing the record, the case
3 file, yes".
4 Do you mean to tell us this, that you did not know
5 what the purpose of and the end result of what you were
6 doing in Vienna was going to be?
7 A. No, I didn't tell you that. I told you I'm not
8 qualified to seek extradition. I am qualified to carry
9 out investigation. I did everything that I was
10 authorised to do in the framework of that investigation.
11 Q. You having completed your investigation, what did you
12 think was going to happen in relation to Mr. Mucic and
13 the Tribunal?
14 A. Well, listen, between what I think and what I might have
15 wanted to happen is two different things. What I might
16 have wanted is Mr. Mucic and the other persons who were
17 suspects would be brought before this Tribunal but that
18 was just what I might hope might happen, nothing more.
19 Q. Well, forgive me. Were you aware that a request for
20 provisional detention had been issued under Rule 40 in
21 connection with Mr. Mucic when you started this procedure
22 with Mr. Mucic?
23 A. Yes, absolutely.
24 Q. What do you think the end result of such a provisional
25 detention would be? Letting the man go or someone
1 asking for his extradition to The Hague?
2 A. Well, the outcome of the procedure is unforeseeable,
3 because it was also a matter of the Austrian authorities
4 stating their position in respect of extradition.
5 Q. You had plainly contemplated, had you not, the question
6 of him being handed over to the Tribunal, and that would
7 have to be by way of extradition, would it not?
8 A. No. I think we have to be specific on this. I did not
9 envisage or consider anything. I just carried out my
11 Q. Do you remember sending a Memorandum to one Cees
12 Hendriks on 6th March 1996, Mr. Abribat?
13 A. I sent several of them, so maybe you have to be a bit
14 more specific.
15 Q. Let us just refresh your memory. I suggest to you
16 this. You sent a Memorandum on 6th March by fax at
17 13:58 hours on that date. It was addressed to a man or
18 woman -- I don't know whether it's man or woman -- Cees
19 Hendriks. The subject was questioning with German and
20 Austrian authorities concerning the arrest of Delalic
21 and Mucic. Does that refresh your memory at all?
22 A. Not really in terms of detail, but it's quite possible
23 I might have informed Mr. Cees Hendriks of how things
24 were going in terms of the procedure and investigation,
1 Q. Cees Hendriks was the person you were dealing with in
2 Vienna; is it?
3 A. No, not at all. I think there's a mistake there.
4 Q. Would you have sent that -- were you sending memoranda
5 in English, French or German?
6 A. It depends. Both languages, English and French, are
7 official of the Tribunal, so I could use either.
8 Q. Have a look at the German and see if you recognise this
9 document, please.
10 MS. McHENRY: May the Prosecution see that first, please?
11 MR. GREAVES: Of course. I hope my learned friend's German
12 is as good as mine.
13 A. Well, I don't speak any German at all, so it's a bit
14 difficult for me to tell you what this is.
15 Q. Well, just have a look, please, at the second page,
16 Mr. Abribat.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I think there is a paragraph at the end which is ten
19 lines long which happens the word "Osterreich" in it.
20 Do you see that, about eight or ten lines up from the
21 bottom? . Would it assist you if I show you where I am
22 referring to, Mr. Abribat? I do not want to be unfair to
24 A. Yes, please, if you would.
25 Q. Would your Honours excuse me for a moment?
1 (Indicating). Now appreciating that you do not read
2 German, what I suggest to you is contained in there, and
3 this is an approximate translation:
4 "After the arrest there are possibilities for the
5 handover of the arrested persons:
6 1: Opening of the legal proceedings under
7 Austrian law by the Austrian authorities. (The law
8 should be passed). After they enact the law, the
9 Tribunal should make a request for the handing over of
10 the arrested persons.
11 2: At a request or with the approval of the of
12 the accused, he could choose to be handed over to the
13 Tribunal instead of Bosnia. If he decides to make this
14 choice, would the Austrian government hand him over to
15 the Tribunal? Concerning that the death penalty exists
16 in Bosnia, this alternative should be more practical and
18 I suggest to you that you were well before
19 arriving in Vienna to see this man already contemplating
20 the idea that he would be extradited to the Tribunal,
21 Mr. Abribat. That is right, is it not?
22 A. Well, as I've already told you, yes, I did hope that he
23 would be transferred here. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. So when he was talking to the court about having a
25 lawyer concerning extradition, that covered being
1 extradited to The Hague, didn't it?
2 A. I don't know. I can't really say, because the
3 extradition procedure, I don't know whether it was for
4 the extradition by the Tribunal or to another country.
5 Q. Mr. Abribat, you knew full well at the end of the
6 interview with Judge Peter Sada, which completed itself
7 at 3.10, you knew, didn't you, that Mr. Mucic wanted to
8 have a lawyer?
9 A. No, absolutely not.
10 Q. And that, I suggest, came as a blow to you, didn't it?
11 A. No, absolutely not, and I don't really see why you're
12 insisting on that part, because I told you that there
13 was the matter of whether there was going to be a lawyer
14 there or not. I didn't get a full translation. I was
15 told that it was in connection with the extradition
16 procedure and that's all.
17 Q. Did you know that an indictment was already almost
18 complete and all the material to support it had been
19 gathered together? Did you know that, who you were in
20 charge of this investigation?
21 A. An indictment by the International Tribunal, do you
23 Q. Yes, Mr. Abribat.
24 A. Well, the indictment I don't know where it stood when we
25 were in Vienna. I don't recall. But I did hope there
1 would be an indictment, yes.
2 Q. I think it is a matter of public record that it was 21st
3 March 1996, Mr. Abribat, three days after you went to
4 Vienna to go and have a chat with Mr. Mucic. Are you
5 saying to us that you didn't know that that was about to
6 be placed before His Honour Judge Jorda, you who set up
7 this investigation and were in charge of it? You did
8 not know that?
9 A. Well, with regard to the dates you mentioned, no, but
10 you say a chat. Well, I don't agree to the use of that
11 term, a chat. We are talking about something that was
12 quite in accordance with the rules and the procedures.
13 Q. Are you saying you did not know that an indictment was
14 about to be placed before Judge Jorda? Is that your
16 A. I knew that an indictment was being prepared and what
17 I've told you is that I didn't know exactly where it
18 stood, and what the dates at which it was submitted or
19 finalised and brought before Judge Jorda, no, I didn't
20 know what those dates were, no.
21 Q. You were in a terrible hurry to interview this man, were
22 you not?
23 A. No, I've never had that kind of an attitude in
24 investigations. I go ahead with the investigations at
25 the right speed, taking the right precautions and
1 abiding by the procedures. It is the procedures which
2 dictate the speed at which you proceed, not how fast you
3 want to go yourself.
4 Q. I suggest you knew full well there was an indictment
5 about to be placed before the court for confirmation?
6 A. Yes, yes, I knew that an indictment was being prepared.
7 Q. You wanted to complete interviewing this man before he
8 got back to The Hague, didn't you?
9 A. No, absolutely not. You are misinterpreting things
10 there, because I left Vienna before the questioning was
12 Q. And you wanted to question him and complete that process
13 before he got back to The Hague in order to take
14 advantage of the confusion of his being arrested, didn't
16 A. No, absolutely not. I do not know where you get these
17 kind of illusions from. Those are just -- I don't work
18 on that basis.
19 Q. You see, what I suggest happened was that you became
20 angry before the court hearing before Judge Sada and the
21 knowledge that you -- that he wanted to have a lawyer;
22 isn't that right?
23 A. No, absolutely not. I wasn't angered at all. Quite
24 frankly I don't understand the point of your
25 questions. You make these illusions, you make these
1 statements, but that's not it at all.
2 Q. You then conducted a short, 20 minute conversation with
3 the defendant after seeing Dr. Sada?
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 Q. During the course of which you told Mr. Mucic that he
6 could go home at the end of questioning if you talked to
7 him without a lawyer; isn't that right?
8 A. No, that's absolutely wrong.
9 Q. But made it plain to him if he wanted to hang on with a
10 lawyer that he was going to be there forever and kept
11 locked up; is that not it?
12 A. I do not know which country you come from and what rules
13 you have, but in my country that's not how it works.
14 We have rules of procedure. We have texts and we stick
15 to the texts. So what you're saying is absolutely
16 untrue. I saw Mr. Mucic on two occasions, as I've
17 already explained. The first time it was on the 18th
18 for two or three minutes simply to explain to him the
19 stages of the procedure and the second time it was on
20 the 19th to go ahead with the interview, but I strictly
21 abided by the letter and the spirit of the texts I was
22 bound to.
23 Q. When you spoke to Mr. Mucic with the cameras rolling for
24 the first time, Mr. Abribat you said this, amongst other
1 "The first question is: do you agree to answer
2 our questions without the presence of an attorney in
3 accordance with our previous conversation".
4 Which previous conversation are you referring to
5 there, Mr. Abribat?
6 A. Well, I thought I explained that this morning, that
7 I was referring to the two or three minutes conversation
8 I had with Mr. Mucic on the 18th, that is to say when
9 I told him what the procedures of the Tribunal were and
10 I referred back to that so that there would be no
11 problem in that. I'd seen Mr. Mucic for three minutes
12 on the 18th, so I stated that I had seen him.
13 Q. That, I suggest, was in the 20 minutes -- that
14 conversation was in the 20 minutes between Dr. Sada
15 seeing him and you starting the interview?
16 A. No, no. I am sticking to what I said. That is not
17 true. I never saw Mr. Mucic for any 20 minutes.
18 That's absolutely untrue.
19 Q. You did that because you were determined that he should
20 be interviewed somehow or another without a lawyer?
21 A. Listen, sir, I think you have certain desires. You'd
22 like things to be what they're not. I've been involved
23 in questioning for 20 years. I always prepare my
24 questions and I had prepared things for Mr. Mucic.
25 Maybe I could find my notes, my preparatory material.
1 In that material I have a reference to the presence of
2 an attorney. If I might just add something, your
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: If it is answered with reference to
5 the questions put to you, if it has any relevance to it?
6 A. Yes, absolutely, and you'll judge for yourselves. It's
7 not for me to say.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, you can?
9 A. Simply before going on an assignment -- before going to
10 Vienna in connection with the arrest of Mucic we asked
11 for a list of the lawyers available on call in Vienna so
12 that we don't have to waste time if Mr. Mucic decided
13 that he did want a lawyer.
14 MR. GREAVES: When you gave evidence this morning, you told
15 us concerning what happened before the cameras began and
16 you said this:
17 "This is the equipment we're going to use in order
18 to record this hearing. I'm also going to show you the
19 video recorder saying this is the other piece of
20 equipment that I'm going to use and we will respect the
21 forms that I gave to you yesterday."
22 What forms did you give to him?
23 A. Meaning that I'll follow the Rules of Procedure that
24 were in effect at the Tribunal for the interview.
25 Q. What do you mean by the word "forms" Mr. Abribat? Are
1 you talking about some document that you gave to him?
2 A. No, when I talk about these -- by this term I mean the
3 Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
4 Q. So what you mean, in fact, is the word "formalities",
5 not "forms"?
6 A. I don't know how it was interpreted into English or what
7 the interpretation would be, but yes, that's possible.
8 Q. Mr. Abribat, just let me make it absolutely plain once
9 again what I'm suggesting to you. You, during the
10 course of the 20 minutes said things to Mr. Mucic
11 designed to persuade him to do without a lawyer, a
12 lawyer you knew he wanted.
13 A. I too will be very clear. Why do you refer to this 20
14 minutes that I'm not even aware of? What allows you to
15 assert that I had a private 20 minute discussion with
16 Mucic? I really don't understand.
17 Q. You also told us this morning this, when you were asked
18 by Ms. McHenry -- you were asked this question:
19 "Among the rights that you advised Mr. Mucic of,
20 did you advise him that he had the right to an attorney
21 and if he had not had the possibility of getting one
22 himself, one would be assigned to him".
23 Your reply was this:
24 "Yes, absolutely. I said it twice before we
25 began the questions"?
1 A. Yes, I said it twice. I said it on the 18th when I saw
2 him for the first time, and on the 19th, when we began
3 the interview. That's the two times.
4 Q. You go on in the course of your evidence:
5 "It was the same thing under the circumstances."
6 I'm sorry. That is not a good point. I do
7 apologise. I suggest what you meant there was you had
8 had a conversation with him prior to commencing the
9 formal part of the questions under Rule 43?
10 A. No, I had no conversation with Mr. Mucic. I can tell
11 you for the nth time that I saw him for two minutes on
12 the 18th with the translator and the Austrian police
13 officer, and then I saw Mucic for the interview after
14 having been with the judge in his office a little while
15 the judge explained to me what Mucic's status was.
16 I never saw him outside those two very specific
18 Q. Immediately before the luncheon adjournment you were
19 asked this question:
20 "Question: Did you make any reference to the fact
21 that he'd previously spoken, albeit briefly, with
22 Mr. Mucic in the recorded part of the interview?
23 Answer: Yes, of course. I referred to that
24 because for me I simply had to refer to the first
25 explanation of his rights. That would seem normal to
1 me for us to speak what has been said. I said: "I have
2 already explained your rights to you. I'm going to
3 repeat what I've said and afterwards you will give your
4 answer and say whether or not you agree to speak".
5 When did you have that conversation with the
7 A. Could you ask that question again, please?
8 MR. GREAVES: Certainly, Mr. Abribat. You gave evidence
9 this morning in the following terms. The question was
10 asked of you in this way:
11 "Question: did you make any reference to the fact
12 that he had previously spoken, albeit briefly, with
13 Mr. Mucic in the recorded part of the interview?
14 Answer: Yes, of course. I referred to that
15 because for me I simply had to refer to the first
16 explanation of his rights. That would seem normal to
17 me for us to speak what has been said. I said: "I have
18 already explained your rights to you. I'm going to
19 repeat what I've said and afterwards you will give your
20 answer and say whether you agree or not".
21 When do you say that that conversation I've just
22 read out took place?
23 A. What I said this morning is that before the recording
24 began I saw Mr. Mucic and I said to him that: "We're
25 going to begin the recording of the interview if you
1 agree that this be done without a lawyer and we'll begin
2 by reading your rights". Then I began the recording by
3 reading out the rights. The first sentence of the
4 interview I believe that we are this or that place
5 before this or that person, that we're in the presence
6 of Mr. Mucic and then I think that I have to ...
7 Q. You see, Mr. Abribat, that conversation that you related
8 to us this morning, that's not recorded in the
9 interview, is it?
10 A. That isn't a conversation. That's simply setting up
11 the process to be used -- the procedure to be used for
12 the interview.
13 Q. You see, I suggest that you did -- that's an indication
14 that you did have a conversation about having a lawyer
15 with him before the cameras started to roll and that
16 you're not telling the truth to this Tribunal about
17 that, are you?
18 A. No, I think that you are making an incorrect
19 interpretation. You're playing with words. I'm
20 telling you the exact truth, the exact truth to this
21 Tribunal, that I never attempted to take away any of the
22 Mucic's rights or betray the spirit of the Rules of
23 Evidence and Procedure. Perhaps in your country that
24 is the way people work, but not in mine.
25 Q. So is it your evidence that despite what you said this
1 morning that you had had this conversation, you are now
2 saying you did not have this conversation?
3 A. I think that you're playing with words. I did not have
4 a conversation. I simply explained to Mr. Mucic and
5 this is what you're trying to show, that when explains
6 things too much, it could be a mistake. So contrary to
7 what you might think I took my time to explain it but I
8 didn't have a conversation at all. As far as the
9 second time was concerned, I was with Mr. Mucic.
10 I recorded the interview and I simply said that: "We are
11 now going to ask you questions according to the
12 formalities that are in effect at the Tribunal, that is
13 we are going to record what we're going to do" and
14 I showed him the equipment.
15 Q. Were you present during each of the interviews that was
16 conducted by the OTP with Mr. Mucic?
17 A. No, I was only there on the 19th. After that I came
19 Q. At the interview on 19th March was there any particular
20 reason why you did not set out in that interview that he
21 was a suspect in a war crimes matter?
22 A. I'm sorry. I didn't really understand the sense of
23 your question.
24 Q. I think it is quite simple, Mr. Abribat. In that
25 interview you did not say to him in terms: "You are a
1 suspect in connection with war crimes committed at the
2 Celebici camp between May 1992 and November 1992", did
3 you? You never said that?
4 A. I don't know. I don't remember.
5 Q. Well, will you accept from me that it isn't there,
6 Mr. Abribat?
7 A. Why could I agree with what you're saying? I'm just
8 saying I don't remember. However, what I do remember
9 is that it was clearly pointed out to Mr. Mucic for what
10 reasons the international Tribunal wished to meet him.
11 Q. But you didn't do that at the beginning of the formal
12 interview with him, did you?
13 A. I don't know. We'd have to listen to the recording.
14 Q. Well, we've got the transcript, Mr. Abribat. Will you
15 accept from me or not that it isn't there?
16 A. I don't know what has to be accepted or not from you.
17 I really do not know. You said a little while ago that
18 I had spoken for 20 minutes with Mr. Mucic. You assert
19 this in a way in my opinion which is completely false.
20 I just don't know.
21 Q. At the conclusion of the interviewing that you carried
22 out why didn't you offer him an opportunity to clarify
23 anything he had said or to add anything that he wished?
24 A. The questions were interrupted. The guards of the
25 prison interrupted us and said that things were over,
1 that their shift was over and we had to stop. I asked"
2 could we go on?" They said "no, that's it". Therefore,
3 we stopped the questioning, but I can tell you it was
4 not complete, because the next day it was taken up
5 again, it was resumed and that's what happened.
6 Q. There was nothing to prevent you complying with Rule
7 43(3), was there, at the end of that interview,
8 Mr. Abribat?
9 A. The interview was not complete and I didn't want to say
10 anything further.
11 Q. Forgive me, Mr. Abribat. The interview came to an end,
12 didn't it.
13 MS. McHENRY: Objection. I think this is arguing with the
14 witness. The witness has been very patient. The
15 transcript speaks and I think he has answered this
16 question very clearly.
17 MR. GREAVES: With great respect, I don't think he has
18 answered the question at all clearly.
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: He can answer it again. It's a
20 simple question. It's quite simple. You can answer
22 A. The answer is that the interview had been interrupted by
23 the guards. Is that what you are asking me?
24 MR. GREAVES: It is quite simple, Mr. Abribat. Did the
25 interview come to an end?
1 A. The interview was interrupted by the guards. They told
2 us to stop at a specific point.
3 Q. So you are saying that it didn't come to a conclusion.
4 Is that what you're saying?
5 A. I'm telling you it was finished because we had been
6 interrupted by the guards but that the questioning
7 resumed the next day with another investigator.
8 Q. And so the fact that it was merely interrupted rather
9 than concluded, that is a justification for you not to
10 ask him whether he wishes to clarify anything; is that
12 A. I couldn't even ask that question because we were
13 stopped by the guard. They took him away because their
14 shift was over.
15 Q. Yes. No further questions. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You also want to ask questions?
17 MR. OLUJIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I thought Mr. Greaves was asking them
19 on behalf of --
20 MR. OLUJIC: Yes, your Honour.
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Well, you can do so if you want to.
22 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour --
23 MR. OLUJIC: Mr. Greaves carried out the cross-examination on
24 behalf of the defence, but I would like to join in this
25 cross-examination of Mr. Abribat. Thank you, your
2 MS. McHENRY: Excuse me. I'm sorry, counsel. May I be
3 heard just for one minute?
4 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Yes, let us hear you.
5 MS. McHENRY: The Prosecution does object. The judges made
6 it very clear in the beginning that one counsel would be
7 expected to ask. There are, I believe, ten defence
8 counsel appointed to represent the accused, and I think
9 it would be unfair to witnesses in general. If it's
10 just one or two questions for this witness, we will not
11 particularly stand on this objection, but the
12 Prosecution does object to multiple counsel for the same
13 accused asking -- cross-examining the witnesses.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually one is getting a little fed
15 up with the difference of professional practice being
16 demonstrated here. I thought if Mr. Greaves has gone
17 into such details in asking questions, cross-examining,
18 at least he had the leave of lead counsel to do so.
19 I did not expect lead counsel to get up to ask questions
20 again over and above whatever has been done. I think
21 you should understand what professional practice looks
23 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, I understand, but your Honours
24 have already allowed me to put my questions and it was
25 after that that my learned colleague from the
1 Prosecution objected, so I think that I have been given
2 the opportunity to cross-examine the witness but, of
3 course, it is up to you to rule on this, whether I may
4 begin the cross-examination, but let me repeat: you
5 allowed me to speak and only then did the representative
6 of the Prosecution object.
7 JUDGE JAN: I am not sure two counsel for the same accused
8 unless it is stated right at the beginning of the
9 cross-examination can be allowed to cross-examine the
10 same witness. Mr. Greaves has done that. He should
11 have told us that he is going to cross-examine on
12 certain aspects and the lead counsel will cross-examine
13 on the other aspects. This is just not done. You
14 cannot have two cross-examinations going on like this.
15 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Obviously there is no consultation
16 between you and your co-counsel. I have observed that
17 not only in this instance. You will try and consult
18 properly with co-counsel so that you know how to
19 organise the defence of your client. This is not the
20 first instance. That is why it is giving one a little
22 JUDGE JAN: That can come to harrassing a witness. You
23 are covering the same ground all over again.
24 Mr. Greaves could have told us right at the beginning he
25 is cross-examining with regard to this aspect of the
1 evidence and the lead counsel will do it with the other
3 MR. OLUJIC: Your Honours, I respect your position and I
4 will withdraw my questions, but the questions that
5 I wished to put to Mr. Abribat will be possible for me to
6 put to the next witness when I shall take advantage of
7 that right that I have.
8 JUDGE JAN: I have a question to ask from the witness.
9 While you were explaining the rights to the suspect that
10 he did not have to make a statement, he had a right to
11 counsel and he had to -- he could remain silent if he
12 wanted, and if he made a statement that it was used in
13 evidence against him, was it also video recorded?
14 A. On 18th, when I explained the rules of procedure -- no,
15 of course not. It was not recorded. I explained to
16 him merely what the stages were, and then on the 19th
17 when we began the interview I repeated his rights to him
18 and his rights were recorded.
19 JUDGE JAN: Why was that not video recorded? That would
20 have ended some of the controversy which is being raised
21 before us. You were questioning him whether you want a
22 counsel, whether you want to remain silent, whether you
23 know that this evidence will be used in evidence before
24 you. Why was that not video recorded if you were
25 questioning him within the meaning of Rule 43?
1 A. It was recorded during the interview on the 19th.
2 Everything was recorded on the 19th including the rights
3 according to rules 42 and 43. The difference that
4 I was making was on the 18th I explained it to him,
5 because I explained that in order to record he had to
6 authorise my doing so. So first I printed things to
7 him and at the time that the interview took place, that
8 is on the 19th, it was recorded, including the rights,
9 of course.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, counsel for Mr. Delalic does
11 have questions for this witness, but given the time I am
12 not sure whether you want to start now or perhaps take
13 the break. Whatever you feel is best.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: The break is at 4 o'clock. We can
15 break at 4 o'clock and come back.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. O'Sullivan.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: May it please the courts ...
18 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can proceed.
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Good afternoon, sir. I have a few
20 questions for you as well. Could you remind us when
21 you joined the office of the OTP as an investigator?
22 A. I was recruited by the Tribunal in March or April of
24 Q. When did you leave the office of the OTP?
25 A. January 1, 1997.
1 Q. You were the person responsible for investigation in the
2 Celebici case; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. When did you become responsible for investigations in
5 this case?
6 A. From the beginning when I was sent to the Tribunal I was
7 sent to be the head of the investigating team. That is
8 from the very beginning.
9 Q. Was all or only a part of your time spent investigating
11 A. I devoted a lot of time to investigating Celebici, but
12 that was not the only investigation that we had begun.
13 Q. How many other cases were you working on?
14 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to other
15 questions about other investigations. I think that the
16 matter of what is going on in the Prosecutor's Office
17 with respect to other investigations, including how many
18 investigations this particular team was working on, are
19 improper and irrelevant.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, perhaps I can ask this question.
21 I just wonder what percentage of his time --
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can ask your questions. I do not
23 see any relevance in it.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Aside from Celebici how many other cases
25 were you investigating?
1 A. We were carrying out investigations in two other areas,
2 two other directions as well.
3 Q. So how much of your time would you say in percentage, if
4 you will, was spent on Celebici?
5 A. Percentage of time depended on the organisation of our
6 work. When we were working on Celebici we did it 100
7 per cent, and when we were working on other
8 investigations, we did the same thing for them.
9 Q. You were in the Office of the Prosecution for how long?
10 A year and a half; correct?
11 A. A little longer than that. 21 months, I believe.
12 Q. Out of those 21 months, how many were spent on Celebici?
13 A. The entire first year and I would say about -- so
14 I would say about fifteen months.
15 Q. Fifteen months, 100 per cent of your time was spent
16 investigating Celebici; is that correct?
17 A. No. I worked for fifteen months but I am talking about
18 the first fifteen months of my work within the
19 Tribunal. During the first fifteen months I also
20 looked at other possibilities which might lead to
22 Q. If I've understood you correctly while you were working
23 on Celebici for fifteen months, that's the only case you
24 were investigating; is that correct?
25 A. Perhaps I didn't express myself right, the first fifteen
1 months were devoted to the Celebici investigation. The
2 team worked on the Celebici camp, but during the first
3 fifteen months I also had occasion to work in other
4 areas of investigation.
5 Q. You were the head of a team. Is that the proper way to
6 explain your role in investigations?
7 A. Yes, that's right. I was responsible for the
8 investigating team.
9 Q. How many people were in the team that investigated
11 MS. McHENRY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to questions
12 about how the Office of the Prosecutor is organised and
13 set up.
14 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Why do you object to how the
15 particular investigation was organised?
16 MS. McHENRY: Because I think matters of how the Office of
17 the Prosecutor is set up and conducts its investigations
18 are privileged, and it's --
19 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: There is no such privilege.
20 JUDGE JAN: What privilege are you claiming?
21 MS. McHENRY: With respect to the internal workings of the
22 Office of the Prosecutor.
23 JUDGE JAN: You are talking about privilege now so I would
24 like to know what is the basis of your claiming
1 MS. McHENRY: Maybe I expressed myself badly with respect to
2 privilege, but I don't believe that questions about
3 exactly how the Office of the Prosecutor is organised
4 and conducts its investigation are proper. I believe
5 they are irrelevant.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: There might be questions leading us to
7 how far he could have effectively have done some of the
8 things he stated he has done, so let him answer the
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Perhaps I will repeat my question to him,
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please answer the question.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In your team how many people worked under
14 you while investigating Celebici?
15 A. It fluctuated. I could say about 12.
16 Q. And all 12 of these people reported back to you; is that
18 A. Yes, that is correct.
19 Q. What were the backgrounds of these people?
20 A. The professional training or background of those people
21 really went into three areas. They were professional
22 investigators. Most of them come from police
23 services. There were also legal specialists. Then
24 there were analysts.
25 Q. In these three categories, you say they all reported
1 back to you; is that correct?
2 A. Yes, that is correct.
3 Q. What do you mean by "analysts"? What kind of people are
5 A. The analysts are people who are responsible for studying
6 and synthesising all the documents and anything which
7 may have to do with the conflict which took place in the
8 former Yugoslavia.
9 Q. Typically what would their background be? The first two
10 categories was police and second legal. What would the
11 analysts' background be typically?
12 A. Well, I cannot tell you what the traditional analyst's
13 background is, but I can tell you these people who were
14 specialists in studying documents somewhat like a
15 historian or a journalist.
16 Q. Did you yourself work directly out of an office of this
18 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand that question.
19 Q. I'm sorry. Did you spend most of your time in the
20 office or in the field yourself?
21 A. I hadn't really calculated the exact percentages, but I
22 can say that I was on many assignments in Bosnia, about
23 fifteen or 20.
24 Q. Fifteen or 20 dealing with Celebici?
25 MS. McHENRY: Object as to relevance.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: More than fifteen for 20 times in the
2 field? That's what you are suggesting.
3 A. I travelled to Bosnia between fifteen and 20 times, yes,
4 that is correct.
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Of those fifteen or 20 times how many times
6 were you there investigating as to Celebici.
7 MS. McHENRY: Objection as to relevancy.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Why don't you leave him to answer the
9 question? Please kindly answer the question.
10 A. About ten missions.
11 MR. O'SULLIVAN: As you know, there are four co-accused in
12 this case. Did the members of your team investigate
13 all four of the co-accused?
14 A. That's not quite what the methodology was. Within the
15 team we all worked on Celebici, which means that there
16 was not any kind of division between those investigators
17 who were specifically charged with working on one of the
18 accused, but it was a distribution which had to do with
19 the interests of the work. It was not done according
20 to the name or the position of the accused, if that's
21 what your question is.
22 Q. Well, on what basis was it done, if it's not according
23 to the person's name? How was work divided up in
24 investigating among the four accused?
25 A. The investigating work is work which I think of as
1 typical police work. Therefore there is a police
2 investigation which takes place in four stages. First
3 of all, one must establish the facts. After that, one
4 must find witnesses and victims. Then one must collect
5 evidence, and the last stage is arresting people and
6 bringing them before the court. So depending on the
7 organisation of these four steps you organise your work
8 and the first work which had to do with analysing the
9 facts, this was the work which everybody worked on, but
10 specifically the analysts. We evaluated the facts and
11 then we sought out the victims and witnesses, which took
12 us the most time, and this is why for this case we went
13 to Bosnia about ten times in order to try to find
14 people. After the end of the missions we were in a
15 position to meet many of the victims and the witnesses
16 and after that we tried to collect as much evidence as
17 possible in order to implicate people.
18 Q. Through your investigations I'm sure you learned about
19 the military structures in Bosnia-Herzegovina as they
20 existed in early 1992?
21 A. Yes, that's true.
22 Q. Do you know the names of these military structures?
23 A. The military structure at that time, the beginning of
24 the war, that is through 1992 it evolved, because Bosnia
25 was not prepared for this type of conflict and they were
1 attempting to try to find a traditional military
2 structure, as would be found in countries with their own
3 military institutions. Therefore what had to be done
4 at that time was to try to understand what the situation
5 of the forces were. They had to set up a military
6 hierarchy and an organisation. There was an
7 organisation, but it evolved as the conflict went on and
8 was constantly being changed and it was never set up in
9 a traditional sense as it would be found in another
11 Q. In early 1992 did you know the names of the military
12 structures in Bosnia?
13 MS. McHENRY: May I ask for the relevance -- well, may
14 I object without any kind of showing of relevance.
15 This witness has not been established as an expert in
16 military structures and I don't see the relevance for
17 this witness.
18 JUDGE JAN: Well, he is the head of the investigating team,
19 so they can ask him questions maybe not relevant
20 entirely to the evidence which he gave in direct
21 examination but he is the head of the investigating
22 agency. Therefore they probably want to find something
23 from him which he learned as head, because everyone is
24 reporting to him.
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Shall I repeat my question for you? We are
1 talking about the names of the military structures and
2 I'm asking you: do you know the names of the military
3 structures in Bosnia in early 1992?
4 A. The structure of the Bosnian Army around 1992 was what
5 was known as the Territorial Defence. The Territorial
6 Defence was an old structure that dated from the time of
7 Yugoslavia, which was composed of what one could say, a
8 kind of a people's defence, people who were in their
9 villages or who worked -- or in their workplaces who
10 could be put into a kind of military structure as it
11 existed in the former East Block countries. Therefore,
12 the Bosnian Army was constituted on that basis, and on
13 that basis they tried to set up a military structure
14 which would be divided region by region, which had its
15 own hierarchy and which had to report to the Supreme
16 command at Sarajevo. Additional difficulty at that
17 time is for a great deal of time and throughout 1992
18 there were no ranks within that military Bosnian
19 structure. It was not an army, as I said, not a
20 traditional army. So one does not have references to
21 specific ranks, but rather to responsibility, functions.
22 Q. Did you ever hear of an organisation called MUP?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What was MUP?
25 A. For me MUP was the police service.
1 Q. Did your investigations show that in early 1992 both MUP
2 and TO were composed of Muslims, Croats and Serbs?
3 A. Yes, of course. The three communities were represented
4 within the Bosnian structures, but very quickly there
5 was total control of everything that had to do with
6 giving out orders by the Muslim community.
7 Q. This composition of MUP and TO existed in the Konjic
8 municipality; is that not correct?
9 A. As far the Muslim and Croatian communities, yes, but not
10 for the Serbian community, as you have alluded to
11 because in that region there was a great preponderance
12 of Croats and Muslims. There were very few Serbs.
13 They were very much in the minority. There were only
14 about two or three villages. More specifically Serbian
15 and the percentage of those cities was really quite low.
16 Q. But you do know that in the Konjic municipality there
17 were Muslims, Croats and Serbs who were members of MUP
18 and TO in early 1992?
19 A. MUP, Territorial Defence. MUP certainly; Territorial
20 Defence, I'm not so sure.
21 Q. Through your investigations did you learn about civilian
22 structures in the municipality of Konjic?
23 A. Yes. The municipality was under the authority, under
24 the war council. I think that's what it was called.
25 They had set up structures which derived from the
1 conflict, from the events.
2 Q. And your information showed as well that within the
3 civilian structures they were composed of Muslims,
4 Croats and Serbs as well?
5 A. One could see those communities, but as far as the
6 Serbians were concerned, they were removed very quickly
7 from any leadership bodies, any representative bodies,
8 in fact. The Croats were set aside a little bit later
9 during 1994. Afterwards the representative organs and
10 the decision-making organs, that is the organs that made
11 the decisions, were under total control of the Muslims.
12 Q. I take it this information about military and civilian
13 structures came to you in part from the people in your
14 team who reported to you; is that correct?
15 A. That's part of investigating work, yes, and then there's
16 the analytical work of all the documents that we'd
18 Q. At any point did you yourself verify the accuracy of the
19 information you have received from your investigators?
20 A. Our work consisted, in fact, of verifying as much as
21 could be verified having to do with the initial
22 information and to the extent that could be verified,
24 Q. So it would be looked at and checked or double checked;
25 is that what you are saying?
1 A. One checks what one can. In so far as one has several
2 -- a delay of several years -- this is not an ordinary
3 criminal investigation. We came to Bosnia in 1995,
4 1996. That is three -- three or four years had already
5 passed since the time the acts had been committed. What
6 gives strength to an organisation is if one can arrive
7 early, one can congeal, if you like, a situation and
8 then base the direction of your investigation on that.
9 That was not the case in this case. When there is --
10 where there was a conflict. What was possible for us
11 to check, we did try to check, yes.
12 Q. My last question on this point is I assume you yourself
13 collected some of this information personally on
14 military and civilian structures through your trips; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. So you'd agree with me that it's fair to say that you
18 were familiar with the military structures and
19 organisation in the Konjic municipality in early 1992?
20 A. I know about that structure. I was not -- I did not
21 have expert knowledge perhaps, but sufficient knowledge,
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Professor O'Sullivan, I think the
24 Trial Chamber will rise now for 30 minutes.
1 (Short break)
2 (4.30 pm)
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Can you please invite the witness?
4 (Witness re-entered court)
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Please inform Mr. Abribat he is still
6 on his oath.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. Abribat, may I remind you that you are
8 still under oath.
9 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You can carry on.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, your Honours. Sir, before the
11 break you recall that we were discussing your knowledge
12 of the military and political structures in Konjic
13 municipality. Do you recall?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You told the court that based on investigations that
16 your team had carried out and that you had carried out
17 you knew that there was a TO and MUP?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. And you also told the court that in early 1992 TO and
20 MUP were composed of people from three groups: Muslim,
21 Croat and Serbian?
22 A. Well, with regard to MUP, yes, but with regard to
23 Territorial Defence I said that I didn't necessarily go
24 along with that.
25 Q. So you're saying your investigations showed that the TO
1 was not composed of Muslims, Croatians and Serbs?
2 A. No, in the Konjic region in particular I don't think
3 that there were any Serbs in the Territorial Defence
4 once the conflict started.
5 Q. Do you recall on March 14th, 1996 that you prepared a
6 declaration regarding the background in Konjic
7 municipality and Celebici camp in particular?
8 A. I don't recall the specific date, but if you have the
9 note, then that must be it.
10 Q. Perhaps with the assistance of the usher we could show
11 this document to the witness.
12 A. Yes, fine.
13 Q. So you recognise this document as your own?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you prepared this document yourself on 14th March
17 A. Yes, unless they have done this with the team, yes.
18 Q. And the information contained in this declaration is the
19 result of your investigations?
20 A. It's a summary. It's quite succinct. It's just to
21 outline the situation.
22 Q. But this declaration is based on your knowledge of the
23 situation at that time, is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. On the first page I'm looking at the third full
1 paragraph, the first sentence, which reads:
2 "Beginning in the latter part of May 1992 forces
3 consisting of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats ...".
4 Why did you choose to refer to the forces as
5 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, knowing that there
6 was a TO and a MUP?
7 A. Why did I refer to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats?
8 That's the question?
9 Q. Instead of using the correct designation of TO and MUP,
10 which you knew existed?
11 A. Yes, yes, but this isn't wrong either. The TO, as
12 I told you earlier on, you had to make things more
13 distinct. You had to talk about the Konjic TO. For
14 example, if you look in Sarajevo, there you would have
15 had Serbs in the TO. So just to make clear here that
16 we are talking about Bosnian Muslims, etc. So I wanted
17 to make that clear. That's why I used these terms.
18 Q. Sir, we're talking about the Konjic municipality, are we
19 not, in this declaration?
20 A. Yes. So to make clear that there were Bosnian Muslims
21 and Bosnian Croats I used those terms.
22 Q. Have you ever heard of the HVO?
23 A. Yes, of course.
24 Q. What is the HVO?
25 A. HVO I believe it's an organisation that was made up of
1 Bosnian Croats.
2 Q. And did they exist in the municipality in the latter
3 part of May 1992?
4 A. Yes, they existed, I believe.
5 Q. So in writing a report for this Tribunal, why did you
6 use terminology which may not correctly reflect military
7 structures in the region of Konjic?
8 A. On the contrary, I think I used the right terms. I'm
9 not sure you know just what the HVO is.
10 Q. I asked you if you knew what it was.
11 A. Yes, I know what the HVO is. The HVO is not a military
12 force in the strict sense. There's also a political
13 side to it. So if you're going to refer to a military
14 structure with the term HVO, you've got it wrong.
15 Q. You were the author of this report and you chose to use
16 terminology which I put to you is incorrect?
17 A. I don't see what you say is wrong here. When I say it
18 is Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat forces, to make
19 clear there weren't any Bosnian Serbs there, what's
20 wrong with that?
21 Q. It is incorrect, is it not? That's the problem.
22 A. But I fail to see what's wrong. There's forces there
23 made of up of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.
24 I fail to see what's wrong.
25 Q. I put it to you it is a simplification of a more complex
1 situation. Wouldn't you agree?
2 A. Well, this war is an extremely complicated matter.
3 Neither you nor I are perhaps sufficiently qualified to
4 sum things up in just a few words and here in this
5 declaration I was trying to be very succinct, so I tried
6 to be as specific as possible referring to the people
8 Q. Let us back up just a second. What did you say the HVO
10 A. That it's an organisation that consisted of the Bosnian
11 Croat population.
12 Q. Is it not correct to say that it's the military wing of
13 that organisation?
14 A. No, no, absolutely not. HVO is more than just
15 something military. Now a lot of people have, to
16 simplify, used HVO to refer to the military wing but at
17 the time the HVO had a President who was not a military
19 Q. Is it not correct that the HDZ is the civilian branch?
20 A. Well, there again you've got it wrong. HDZ is the
21 political branch that was representing a part of the
22 Bosnian Croat population and not all the Croats.
23 Q. Is it not correct that the two legal entities at the
24 time in Bosnia were the TO and the MUP?
25 A. I really don't know what you mean by legal entities.
1 Q. The two constitutionally recognised entities?
2 A. They were among the entities recognised by the
3 constitution, but I think that's also true for the HVO,
4 because there have been some high level negotiations in
5 the Bosnian Republic.
6 Q. So what you're saying is that you're aware of some of
7 the complexities in the situation, yet you chose to
8 simplify for your superiors by using the expression
9 Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats?
10 A. It's a simplification that is wholly consistent with
12 Q. Wasn't the reality of the situation complex?
13 MS McHENRY: Your Honour, I'm going to object to this
14 argument between defence counsel and the witness.
15 I think the facts and the different positions have been
16 made very clear and I object to any further discussion.
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think it's not necessary pursuing
18 this part of the argument.
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, your Honour. This declaration,
20 your declaration of 14th March 1996, was used in support
21 of the Prosecutor's request for provisional arrest, was
22 it not?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. And that was the extraordinary measure under Rule 40 of
25 our rules for provisional arrest?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know what Rule 40 states?
3 A. Well, by memory I think this relates to provisional
4 measures taken by the Prosecutor to secure the presence
5 of people who are suspects.
6 Q. Do you know the basis on which the Prosecutor relied on
7 Rule 40 in relation to Mr. Delalic?
8 A. Well, he must have referred to the notion of urgency.
9 Q. Sir, is there anything in your declaration that suggests
10 that there was a situation of urgency as regards
11 Mr. Delalic?
12 A. Yes, yes. The urgency was to prevent any flight or the
13 loss of documentation or pressure that might --
14 intimidation that might occur, because we want to be
15 sure that we would have sufficient evidence to go ahead
16 with an indictment.
17 Q. Could you show me where in your declaration you make
18 reference to this state of urgency?
19 A. I don't really know. I'd have to have a look at
20 this. I would have to have a French translation of
21 this, but I just --
22 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Why are you asking him that?
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I did not hear you. Sorry.
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: What is the relevance of that
25 question? .
1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: The Rule 40 measures taken by the
2 Prosecutor was supported by this declaration of the --
3 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That might not be the only document in
4 support of that declaration.
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That is correct. I believe he said there
6 was some mention of the urgency in his declaration.
7 I was wondering where it was.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: The Rule is very clear on the basis on
9 which the application can be made.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Sir, in early March 1996 did you know where
11 Mr. Delalic lived?
12 A. February 1996? I think we had had some information on
13 the basis of which we thought -- well, we were
14 hesitating between Germany and Austria at the time.
15 Q. And eventually you discovered he was living where?
16 A. Mr. Delalic, we discovered that he was living in Germany.
17 Q. Did your investigation show that Mr. Delalic was
18 registered as a foreigner in Germany?
19 A. I wasn't involved in the arrest in Germany, so I can't
20 answer that question.
21 Q. Well, my question wasn't about his arrest. My question
22 was did your investigations tell you that Mr. Delalic was
23 registered as a foreigner in Germany?
24 A. Well, I don't know if that was something that was
25 covered in our investigation, whether he was registered
1 there properly or not.
2 Q. So to your knowledge you were not informed that he was
3 registered as a foreigner in Germany. Is that what you
4 are saying?
5 JUDGE JAN: He didn't say that. He says he doesn't know.
6 Q. You do not know?
7 A. I didn't know whether he was correctly registered in
8 Germany or not.
9 Q. Do you know whether someone else investigated that?
10 A. No, I don't know.
11 Q. At no time yourself, even after or prior to his arrest,
12 you yourself never verified whether he was registered as
13 a foreigner? Is it correct to say that?
14 A. No, not quite. We did try to check to see if he was in
15 Germany. Let me repeat, though, I don't know at all
16 whether he was properly registered in Germany or not.
17 We just wanted to see whether he was in Germany.
18 Q. Are you saying there was no search done to see whether
19 he was registered? Is that what you are saying?
20 A. Well, there's some terms -- register? What do you
21 mean? Do you mean abiding with German legislation?
22 What do you mean?
23 Q. That is correct. A German citizen, a person in
24 Germany, a foreigner or not, is registered in the city
25 in which they live, in the federal state capital. Was
1 this search conducted as to Mr. Delalic?
2 MS McHENRY: I am going to object as to asked and answered
3 and relevancy.
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, he has said yes or no or and
5 now he's not sure.
6 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think it is consistent that he
7 didn't know about it.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No one ever informed you that he was or was
9 not registered; is that correct? None of your
10 investigators told you this?
11 A. I don't recall that specific detail.
12 Q. With the help of the usher I would like to show
13 Mr. Abribat a document, please.
14 MS. McHENRY: I renew my objection as to relevancy, your
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Do you know what the document is all
18 MS McHENRY: I have a pretty good idea. You're right,
19 your Honour. Maybe I'll wait and see it and then
20 object. May the Prosecution see the document?
21 (Handed.) Your Honour, the Prosecution objects on
23 JUDGE JAN: What is this document?
24 MS McHENRY: I believe it is a document previously shown to
25 another witness about specific information about whether
1 or not the accused was or was not registered.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: May I ask --
3 JUDGE JAN: Is this a document prepared by the witness
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It is addressed to him. Sir, you see that
6 document in front of you, dated 6th March 1996?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It's from Sabine Manke to you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You've seen this document before, haven't you?
11 A. Well, let me have a look at it and then I can tell you.
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Actually, are you trying to refresh
13 his memory or you think --
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I am trying to refresh his memory.
15 Perhaps to save some time, sir, I'm looking at the first
16 paragraph, down four lines, the last word in that
17 line. I'll read it to you. It says:
18 "Delalic, however, was never entered in German
19 central registry of foreign citizens in February 1996".
20 Is there some reason why you would disregard the
21 memos from Sabine Manke?
22 MS McHENRY: Objection, your Honour.
23 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: What is the objection? Actually what
24 is the question, that he disregarded the --
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Yes. You have seen this memo before.
1 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That he disregarded the memo. Did
3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That is what I am asking him, your
5 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: You have concluded. You asked if
6 there was any reason why he disregarded. That's a
7 conclusion that he did.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Did you see and disregard this memo from
9 Sabine Manke?
10 A. I don't remember this memo in particular, but the fourth
11 sentence you have referred to, "Mr. Delalic has not been
12 registered in Germany", that's what you're referring
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Uh-huh.
15 A. And what is the oversight? What's ...
16 Q. When I asked you whether you knew whether he was
17 registered or not, you said you did not know or you
18 couldn't recall. I'm asking you here whether you have
19 seen this memo before and read it?
20 A. Yes.
21 MS McHENRY: I believe that has been asked and answered.
22 With respect to both questions the witness has said he's
23 not sure. He doesn't remember.
24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: You don't know whether you've ever seen
25 this before?
1 A. I don't recall quite frankly.
2 Q. Right. Sir, while you were the head of investigations
3 was it the policy of the OTP to have investigators
4 present during arrest procedures and in particular in
5 this case?
6 A. Well, Mucic and Delalic's arrest was a first for this
7 Tribunal, so you can't say that there was any procedural
8 what have you, but we had asked to be allowed to be
9 present at the place of arrest, yes, because this is
10 something that is quite common in all countries
11 throughout the world when the police ask for judicial
12 cooperation from the authorities of another country.
13 Q. Again with regard to Celebici, was it the Tribunal's
14 policy to provide written translations of indictments
15 and arrest warrants to the accused persons?
16 MS McHENRY: I am sorry. I don't understand the
17 question. Is the question did this happen in Celebici.
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In Celebici was it your policy to provide
19 written translations of indictments and arrest warrants
20 to the accused persons.
21 MS McHENRY: Your Honour, then I will object because
22 I believe it has already been established that at this
23 time there had been no indictment.
24 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: There were no accused persons in
25 Celebici, were there? They were all suspects at that
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In regards to arrest warrants then, was it
3 your policy to provide written translations of arrest
5 MS McHENRY: Your Honour, I must object to that. I believe
6 the record reflects that there was no arrest warrant
7 issued by this Tribunal.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: All right. My final question for you,
9 sir: is it correct there was no country seeking the
10 extradition of Mr. Delalic, only this Tribunal?
11 A. I do not know at all.
12 Q. No further questions, your Honours.
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Yes, it's up to
14 you, Mr. Moran.
15 MR. MORAN: Thank you very much.
16 Cross-examination by Mr. Moran.
17 MR. MORAN: Good afternoon, sir. My name is Tom Moran and
18 I represent Hazim Delic in this case. I understand you
19 are Divisional Superintendent with the French police; is
20 that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. So your correct title is Superintendent so I use your
23 correct title. Is that fair enough?
24 A. That's fine.
25 Q. Superintendent, you have been a police officer for about
1 20 years; right?
2 A. Yes, that's right.
3 Q. In that 20 years you've testified a lot of times,
4 haven't you?
5 A. Yes, I've testified.
6 Q. So you're not unfamiliar with the process?
7 A. This is the first time I'm involved in this kind of
8 proceedings. The proceedings events are totally
9 different so it's fair.
10 Q. So to be fair with you, if I ask you a question and you
11 don't understand it, will you stop me and I'll rephrase
13 A. Fine.
14 Q. I'll make a deal with you. I'll try to ask you a
15 direct question. Will you try to give me a direct
17 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Do you want us to be parties to that
18 deal too?
19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if I can put my amicus curiae hat
20 on too, if I can make the same deal with the court. Can
21 we have that deal, Superintendent and include the court
22 in this?
23 A. Well, I'll answer all of your questions as best I can.
24 Q. In a direct manner. Some of them may just call for a
25 "yes" or "no." Can you just answer a "yes" or "no" yes
1 with a "yes" or "no"?
2 A. Well, in so far as the question is clear, I'll answer by
3 "yes" and by "no", yes.
4 Q. If it's not clear, you will stop me and ask me to
5 rephrase it, won't you?
6 A. Fine.
7 Q. Okay. Let me start off with this. On I believe it
8 was Professor O'Sullivan's cross-examination you were
9 talking about the military structure in Bosnian
10 Herzegovina, the BH army in 1992 -- 1991/92 time
11 frame. You said there was no rank structure, only
12 functions. What did you mean by that? Did you mean --
13 let me give you an example. Okay? At one point in my
14 life I was an army officer and I had a rank. I wore it
15 on my shoulders. I also had a function, a job
16 assignment. Was what you mean that someone may have
17 that job assignment but no rank to go with it? Is that
18 what you were saying?
19 A. What I was trying to say was there wasn't a hierarchy in
20 the Bosnian Army at the time like there wasn't
21 lieutenant, captain, general, etc, but there were people
22 who had command positions.
23 Q. That's what I'm getting at. Someone may be the
24 Commander of a unit -- pick a unit title, anything --
25 and yet he may not be called captain, lieutenant,
1 colonel or sergeant. Is that what your testimony was?
2 A. They were called "commander".
3 Q. Okay. So that was the only title there was in the
4 Bosnian Army at the time, commander; right?
5 A. Well, you shouldn't really talk about rank rather; just
6 a title, as it were.
7 Q. Okay. That was the only military title in the
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina army at the time we are talking
9 about, commander; is that right, is that correct, sir?
10 A. Yes, I believe so.
11 Q. Okay. Fine. Let's go on to another subject. Let me
12 talk to you a little bit about your investigation.
13 Because you're the chief investigator for the Tribunal
14 as it applied to this case, you're familiar with the
15 investigation, aren't you?
16 A. Yes, I think I'm familiar with the investigation.
17 Q. And isn't it true that the investigation was difficult
18 because of the reluctance of the parties to cooperate?
19 A. Yes, that's true. We didn't receive any cooperation
20 and we didn't get the cooperation we would have desired.
21 Q. And at some point in this investigation some
22 non-government organisations, NGOs, started aiding your
23 investigation, didn't they?
24 A. Well, taking it in chronological order, it's more us who
25 worked on the basis of reports drawn up by international
1 organisations or NGOs and on the basis of those reports
2 we tried to verify the facts that were written here.
3 The first report that we used was the Maisiski report.
4 Q. One of the associations you dealt with as the
5 Association of Detainees in Belgrade, wasn't it?
6 A. I don't remember exactly the title, but if that's what's
7 written down there, no doubt about it.
8 Q. What the Association of Detainees in Belgrade did was
9 provide written statements from witnesses, perhaps
10 people that were in the Celebici camp, in English,
11 signed by the witness, and sent them to you or some
12 other representative of the Office of the Prosecutor; is
13 that right?
14 A. Well, with regard to the origin of the first statements,
15 I'm not sure that they were from that association, but
16 the principle was that we'd received all sorts of
17 information referring to testimony or specific acts in
18 respect of which people had testified for whatever
19 organisation. On that basis we tried to get in direct
20 contact with these people to hear their testimony and
21 would have only used testimony that we heard ourselves.
22 Q. Okay. So you got from somebody in Belgrade statements
23 from witnesses, and those statements had the witnesses'
24 signature on the bottom of them; is that right? Let's
25 start with that. Let's take it one step at a time?
1 A. No, it wasn't from Belgrade that we obtained the first
3 Q. Where was it?
4 A. It was an association which is not in Belgrade, but for
5 security reasons I don't know if I'm authorised to say
6 what it was, the name -- to say what its name was, but
7 it was not in Belgrade.
8 Q. Okay, from some place. The information you got
9 included statements from witnesses in writing with their
10 signatures on the bottom; isn't that right?
11 A. I'm not 100 per cent sure. I synthesised the
12 information that we had. I began with information
13 which, as I said, was found in the Maisiski report.
14 From that I tried to contact people who could put us in
15 contact with the victims and witnesses. Whether we
16 received copies of testimony from these people there can
17 be no doubt but that was not the basis of our
18 investigating work, which consisted of identifying the
19 victims and witnesses, to try to meet with them and then
20 to take testimony from them.
21 Q. Okay. Now let's try it again, Superintendent. Did
22 you or other representatives of the Office of the
23 Prosecutor get from someone outside of the Office of the
24 Prosecutor testimonies, statements, whatever of various
25 witnesses prior to the time you interviewed those
1 witnesses? Now I think that calls for a "yes" or "no"?
2 A. Well, we must have received testimonies, yes, but I do
3 not know specifically from what people.
4 Q. But it did happen; right?
5 A. That the Tribunal received a great deal of documents,
6 including testimonies, yes, of course.
7 Q. And if I were to tell you that there were about 50 or 60
8 people on the Prosecution witness list who were somehow
9 connected directly with the Celebici camp, you wouldn't
10 dispute that, would you?
11 A. The total number of people that we met with and spoke to
12 was much greater, of course, but that depended on the
13 conditions and the will of the people to testify or lack
14 of will to testify.
15 Q. Okay. Some of these people -- let me try it this way:
16 if I were to read out some random names from the
17 Prosecution witness list in a private session and
18 essentially just random, would you remember whether or
19 not you'd gotten testimonies, as you call it, or
20 statements from those witnesses from another source
21 other than your own investigators?
22 A. No. To that I can answer no, because my work method was
23 to meet with the people. I wanted to find out
24 identities. From that point onwards I could take the
25 statements. I could try to give you the names, but
1 that's not the way I worked.
2 Q. Okay. So on at least some of these people you talked
3 to before you went and talked to them, you had something
4 in writing from them about what they were going to talk
6 A. No. Perhaps the Tribunal did have testimonies, but
7 I myself, I always refused to have testimonies before
8 I met the people. What I wanted was to find out their
9 identity and to go to a place where I could question
10 them and then take the statement.
11 Q. Prior to testifying today, did you talk to anyone in the
12 Office of the Prosecutor about what you were going to
13 testify to, and let me narrow that down just a little
14 bit; okay? Did you know that either late Friday or
15 early today the Prosecution filed a Prosecution response
16 to Mucic defence motion to exclude evidence? Did you
17 know anything about that?
18 A. No, not at all.
19 Q. Okay. Did you provide any facts to anyone on the staff
20 of the Office of the Prosecutor in the last two or three
21 weeks about the background of Mr. Mucic's arrest, that
22 kind of thing?
23 A. No, not at all. I don't remember it, not at all.
24 Over the past three weeks, no.
25 Q. Okay. You are familiar with the statement that
1 Mr. Mucic gave the Office of the Prosecutor, aren't you?
2 MS. McHENRY: Just because this came up with a prior witness
3 maybe I might suggest for clarification that the defence
4 counsel ask whether or not anyone from the Office of the
5 Prosecutor had asked him any questions about it.
6 I think there might be some confusion and so later on
7 there's no confusion or accusations, maybe I could ask
8 defence counsel to clarify the question.
9 MR. MORAN: Well, your Honour, I will ask that question at
10 the request of the Prosecutor, but I would kind of like
11 to do my own cross.
12 MS McHENRY: It's entirely up to the defence. I'm sorry
13 if I was giving unsolicited advice.
14 MR. MORAN: You talked to someone from the Prosecution
15 before you have testified today, didn't you?
16 A. In so far as I was asked to testify, that's all.
17 Q. Sure. You went over your testimony with someone from
18 the Office of the Prosecutor, the testimony you were
19 going to give today?
20 A. No. I was merely asked to come testify and I was
21 explained that my testimony had become necessary,
22 because there were changes, but I don't remember what
23 kind. I don't -- I have not been following this trial
24 at all since I left the Tribunal.
25 Q. So since you arrived back -- when did you arrive in The
1 Hague? Today or yesterday or?
2 A. Yesterday evening at 11 o'clock.
3 Q. And so you didn't talk to, say, Ms McHenry or any of the
4 prosecutors about what you were going to testify to
5 today? You just walked over to the Tribunal, went
6 through the security guards and sat down on the witness
8 A. No, it's not as simple as that, not even to get into
9 this Tribunal, but I did meet with Ms. McHenry.
10 Q. Okay. So you went over your testimony with Miss
11 McHenry before you got on here. That is all I'm trying
12 to get. Nothing wrong with that?
13 A. We have to be clear here. We have to understand one
14 another. I did not review my testimony. I was simply
15 told: "You're going to testify. It's going to take
16 place under these conditions", but no details of the
17 testimony were given.
18 Q. So she didn't sit there and say: "I'm going to ask you
19 something along these lines and what would be the answer
20 to that be?
21 A. No, they didn't tell me what my answer would be.
22 Q. I understand that but she didn't say something like:
23 "What would be your answer be to that question?", or
24 something along those lines?
25 A. No, she merely told me that I would be asked a certain
1 number of questions including by herself and then by the
2 defence attorneys and that I should try to remember all
3 the different elements of the investigation.
4 Q. Fair enough. You are familiar with Pavo Mucic's
6 A. I remember what I took. It was the first, the first.
7 Later on not so much.
8 Q. It kind of stuck in your mind because it was the first
9 one of these statements from a defendant that you'd
11 A. No. No. No. No. No. It didn't remain there in my
12 mind. I have taken hundreds of statements in my
13 professional life.
14 Q. I understand that and in 20 years as a police
15 investigator you have taken more statements than you
16 probably care to remember, but what I want to get at is
17 this: my client's name is mentioned all over that
18 statement, isn't it?
19 A. Yes, I must have referred to his status.
20 Q. Sure. Would it be possible to go through that
21 statement with, say, a black marker and cross out every
22 place my client -- every reference to my client?
23 A. I do not know. I'm not sure what it is you're asking
25 Q. I'm asking if you could edit that statement in such a
1 way to remove all references to Hazim Delic?
2 A. References to Hazim Delic in Mr. Mucic's statement? Is
3 that what you mean?
4 Q. Yes. Can you edit them out?
5 A. Frankly I don't think that I had -- in the statement
6 that I took from Mr.. statement (sic) I had no occasion to
7 speak about Hazim Delic and I didn't have time to.
8 I if I did speak about him or mention his name, I don't
9 think I have could have done that very much because
10 I had to leave Vienna after the first interview and
11 unfortunately I was far from having asked him all the
12 questions I could have asked him.
13 Q. Let us try it again, Superintendent. Would it be
14 possible to take some kind of a black marker or
15 something and edit out of that statement in that
16 notebook sitting next to you -- and edit out all
17 references to Hazim Delic? . That is a "yes" or a
19 A. "Yes" or "no", as you say. If it involves only the
20 part that I participated in in the hearing, that is
21 one-quarter or one-fifth of the total statement, in my
22 opinion you are not going to find many references to
23 Mr. Hazim Delic.
24 Q. Let us try it one more time, Superintendent. Is it
25 possible to go through that statement, Pavo Mucic's
1 statement that is sitting in that -- transcript sitting
2 in that notebook right next to your left elbow and edit
3 out all references to Hazim Delic, and if there aren't
4 any, you don't edit any of them out and if there are a
5 whole lot of them -- can you do that? Is it physically
6 possible to do it?
7 A. I suppose physically it's possible to do it if there are
9 Q. A couple of other quick questions and then I think we're
10 done. I don't -- do you have any specialised training
11 in the law beyond that given to police officers? Are
12 you a lawyer? That's --
13 A. I have a degree in civil law from the University of
14 Bordeaux. Then I studied at the National School for
16 Q. So you are admitted to practice law if the Republic of
17 France. If you decided you didn't want to be a police
18 officer tomorrow, you could be a lawyer, God for bid.
19 We've got enough lawyers already, judge. Too many of
21 JUDGE JAN: There is plenty of room for more.
22 MR. MORAN: It's awful tough out there where I come from.
23 You could practice law tomorrow?
24 A. In France in principle advanced studies at the
25 university allow you to go through competitions. I had
1 the proper level for a Magistrates' position, but then
2 as the career would go forth, it would be very different
3 from that of a policeman.
4 Q. I understand but what I'm getting at is if you retired
5 from the police department tomorrow you could go into
6 the private practice of law. You could get a licence
7 to do that?
8 A. No. I have the proper diplomas in order to take the
9 competitions, but not because you have this diploma --
10 that does not mean you can enter the profession in
11 France. There are rules governing them. You have to
12 meet certain requirements in examinations, specifically
13 specialised training.
14 Q. Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. Your Honour,
15 I pass the witness. Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. Mr. Ackerman,
17 I think you want to start now?
18 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have a comment and
19 announcement. During the cross-examination conducted
20 by Mr. Moran Ms. McHenry rose to make a suggestion. It
21 is my position, and I think I have stated it before,
22 that if during a cross-examination of a Prosecution
23 witness it becomes clear to the Prosecutor either that
24 the witness is not being truthful or that the witness
25 has misunderstood the question in such a way that
1 someone is being misled, that it is their obligation to
2 bring that to the attention of the court and counsel.
3 I would not like her to be disabused of that notion by
4 Mr. Moran's remarks, and that I still consider that to be
5 a prosecutorial obligation.
6 The announcement is that I have no questions.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: Thank you very much. That's
9 excellent. I think you must have taken the hint, if I
10 can say that.
11 MS McHENRY: No questions for this witness in
13 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I think that concludes this witness'
14 examination. He is accordingly discharged.
15 (Witness withdrew from court).
16 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I do not think it will be necessary to
17 take any other witness today. So we will have to rise,
18 but before we do, Mr. Greaves had an ex parte motion
19 which we decided this morning. We hope to give a
20 considered ruling about it in due course. It will not
21 be a long time. We will try and give the position of
22 the Trial Chamber on what we said. Thank you very
24 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I am assuming from what was told
25 to us on Friday that the Prosecution's next witness is
1 MR. d'Hooge. Is that still the case?
2 MS. McHENRY: That is correct. He will testify about the
3 circumstances with respect to Mr. Mucic, Mr. Delic and
4 Mr. Landzo's statements.
5 MR. ACKERMAN: That was my understanding. Thank you.
6 MS RESIDOVIC (in interpretation): Your Honours, I would
7 ask if the Prosecutor could, if not today, then tomorrow
8 morning tell us which other witnesses they intend to
9 call, because as things stand the two witnesses may be
10 through tomorrow, and we don't know who will be called
12 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: I thought that was the last thing that
13 was just said.
14 MS. McHENRY: If it will assist, I thought Mr. -- I believe
15 Mr. Ostberg had said this Friday, but just so that
16 there's no confusion, it's the Prosecution's intention
17 after Mr. d'Hooge on Wednesday morning to have Captain
18 Gschwendt -- excuse my pronounciation -- of the Austrian
19 police and after him Mr. Moerbauer, also of the Austrian
21 JUDGE KARIBI WHYTE: That is the list of witnesses you are
22 expecting within the week. The Trial Chamber will now
24 (5.25 pm)
25 (Hearing adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow morning)