1 Monday, 1st September 1997

2 (10.00 am)

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

4 Nice to be back after a fortnight's break. I hope you

5 are a little more refreshed. Can we have the

6 appearances, please?

7 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, my name is Niemann and

8 I appear with my colleague Mr. Turone and Ms. van

9 Dusschoten and Mr. Karin Khan. Mr. Khan is joining the

10 Prosecution team, your Honours, because unfortunately

11 Ms. Van Dusschoten is going to leave the Tribunal and

12 will no longer be with us after the September sittings,

13 so Mr. Khan will then take over in her place, if your

14 Honours please.

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Congratulations, Mr. Khan. Nice to meet

16 you. Can we have the Defence?

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I am Edina Residovic,

18 appearing on behalf of Mr. Zejnil Delalic. With me is my

19 colleague, Eugene O'Sullivan, professor from Canada.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. OLUJIC: Good morning, your Honours. I am Zeljko Olujic,

22 attorney from Croatia, appearing on behalf of Mr. Zdravko

23 Mucic. With me is colleague Michael Greaves, attorney

24 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

25 Ireland.

1 MR. KARABDIC: Good morning, your Honours. I am Salih

2 Karabdic, attorney from Sarajevo and defending Mr. Hazim

3 Delic. With me in the team is Mr. Thomas Moran, attorney

4 from Houston Texas.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: Good morning your Honours, I am John Ackerman

6 and along with my co-counsel Cynthia McMurray --

7 something is wrong with the system here -- we represent

8 Mr. Esad Landzo. Thank you.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we know what the Prosecution is

10 about this morning?

11 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, your Honours, the

12 Prosecution is ready to call Mr. Panzer, the witness, but

13 before I do that, might I pick up from where we left off

14 on the last occasion, if your Honours please, with

15 respect to the outstanding motions. It is the

16 Prosecution's intention, subject to the orders of the

17 court, to call Witness R during the course of next

18 week. There are two outstanding motions in relation to

19 Witness R, one relating to the question of calling him

20 in the first place and, secondly, the restrictive

21 measures that we seek to have applied to him. At some

22 convenient time to the court during the course of this

23 week, if it is suitable to your Honours, we submit that

24 it may be an appropriate time to hear those motions so

25 that we can be in a position to call him next week, if

1 it is convenient to the court. In the event that

2 your Honours are prepared to hear us on those matters,

3 Mr. Turone will argue the two motions that are

4 outstanding in relation to Witness R.

5 In relation to Witness S, we will be seeking to

6 withdraw in relation to that witness, but I will leave

7 that to Mr. Turone to formally do when he opens

8 submissions in relation to Witness R.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Is the Defence aware of these arguments

10 which you want to make?

11 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honours, we filed motions -- your

12 Honour, I may have mis-spoke. We are withdrawing in

13 relation to Witness S, and proceeding in relation to

14 Witness R, just in case I mis-spoke there. Yes, your

15 Honours, we filed motions in relation to this on 22nd

16 July 1997, so the motions have been filed for some time.

17 JUDGE JAN: I thought you were giving us Witness R.

18 MR. NIEMANN: We are proceeding with witness R.

19 JUDGE JAN: You have decided to produce him.

20 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, we are proceeding with Witness R.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I know there was some confusion.

22 MR. NIEMANN: There was, your Honour. I hope that I have

23 resolved the confusion now. We have advised the Defence

24 that the list that they request is available. So

25 Witness R we are proceeding with next week, Witness S we

1 will seek to withdraw. Thank you, your Honours.

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not know whether the Defence is

3 keen on arguing that this afternoon. If the Defence is

4 interested in the argument this afternoon, at about

5 2.30, I will take that.

6 MS. RESIDOVIC: As far as the Defence of Mr. Delalic is

7 concerned, we feel that we are ready to argue these

8 motions today.

9 MR. OLUJIC: We agree that these motions be discussed this

10 afternoon.

11 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, if 2.30 pleases the court it pleases

12 us.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We will take the argument on protective

14 measures at 2.30.

15 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please.

16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, if I might? Just before the

17 next witness is called, if I may address you briefly on

18 a request that we filed on 29th August, requesting

19 clarification on your order of 1st August 1997. Part of

20 the contents of this request for clarification appear to

21 have been resolved since we filed this request on

22 29th August because the Prosecution has indicated they

23 intend to call officer Panzer in relation to the

24 allegedly seized items from Vienna. There is a second

25 part which is outstanding on which we sought

1 clarification and that is the use of the word "verify"

2 which is in your Honour's order, but is also used in the

3 motion filed by the Prosecution on 1st August 1997. The

4 Prosecution claims they can verify the proper procedures

5 and chain of custody by calling these police officers.

6 We hope there is no presumption in the use of the word

7 "verification" and the issue is still outstanding and

8 must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Definitely in every criminal

10 Prosecution it remains until everything has been

11 admitted and not before that. Verification does not

12 necessarily mean a concluded admission of whatever has

13 been tendered. It does not mean that.

14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Before perhaps one forgets, let me give

16 a few announcements: according to our schedule, we are

17 not sitting on Friday the 5th, we will be not be

18 sitting. We also will not be sitting on Monday the 8th,

19 these two dates, because we are taken over by another

20 Trial Chamber. That is all for the time being. Can we

21 have the Prosecution witness?

22 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours pleases, I call Mr. Panzer.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Lest I forget, there is another

24 announcement I intend to make re the Prosecution motion

25 on handwriting samples which is still outstanding for

1 argument. We would like to take it on Wednesday morning

2 at 10.00 am, 3rd September. That is before we start any

3 other proceedings. Thank you very much.

4 (Witness entered court)

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Will you kindly swear the witness? The

6 interpreter should be sworn first. Swear the

7 interpreter and the witness.

8 THE INTERPRETER (sworn)

9 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. You can swear the

10 witness.

11 WOLFGANG PANZER (sworn)

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed, Mr. Niemann.

13 Examined by MR. NIEMANN

14 Q. If your Honour pleases. Sir, would you please state

15 your full name.

16 A. Wolfgang Panzer.

17 Q. What is your date of birth?

18 A. 12th May 1956.

19 Q. Are you a citizen of Austria?

20 A. Yes, I am an Austrian.

21 Q. What is your profession?

22 A. I am a detective at the Vienna police department.

23 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what functions you perform in

24 the Austrian police department and what unit you are

25 attached to?

1 A. I work for Division 1 of the Vienna police department.

2 I work with several fellow officers in connection with

3 the former Yugoslavia and the successor states.

4 Q. What position did you hold in March 1996?

5 A. District Inspector is what I am now and at the time

6 I was team leader.

7 Q. When did you become a team leader prior to March 1996?

8 A. Since May 1995.

9 Q. Can you describe to the -- briefly describe to the

10 Chamber the responsibilities and duties of a team leader

11 as you performed them in 1996, March 1996?

12 A. I am in charge of all the case files that have to be

13 processed and passed on to the court.

14 Q. How many members did you have in your team in 1996?

15 A. There were four of us, so I worked together with three

16 other people.

17 Q. Could you name those three other people, please?

18 A. Bycek, Moerbaur, Hiermann were the fellow officers.

19 Q. In 1996, what was the nature of the crimes or the type

20 of crimes that you investigated?

21 A. Various areas were involved. Our division does not deal

22 with criminal matters per se, our division deals with

23 things related to national security and the protection

24 of the state.

25 Q. Thank you. In March 1996, can you tell the court when

1 you first learnt of the circumstances relating to this

2 matter in which you are now testifying in connection

3 with.

4 A. It was a Monday, 11th March, after the consultations.

5 I was provided with a file that came from department

6 210, Interpol, and therein it was stated that one,

7 Zdravko Mucic, who resided in the 17th District, should

8 be investigated on a count of a request from the Federal

9 Ministry of Justice.

10 Q. Were you told what role you were to perform in relation

11 to this?

12 A. To process the file.

13 Q. What did that entail so far as you were concerned?

14 A. I gathered the information I could about Zdravko Mucic

15 on the basis of the information in police records.

16 Q. Were you to be assisted in this process by any parties

17 either inside or outside of your department?

18 A. On Monday I worked alone gathering this information.

19 Other officers were not around for whatever reason, so

20 I carried out this investigation on my own. Then it was

21 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself who proceeded to

22 gather further information about him, and the

23 fourth person in the team, Mr. Hiermann, had been

24 assigned to a different unit, he was working together

25 with people from the Ministry of the Interior on a

1 different case.

2 Q. Were any persons from the court assigned to assist with

3 preparation of documentation?

4 A. Well Monday, on 11th March, I did not know at all that

5 there was any connection with the International

6 Tribunal. That only emerged in the course of discussion

7 with the colleague from Interpol on 12th March, around

8 noon time, then I learned that there was this request

9 from the International Tribunal.

10 Q. Did you examine or read any documentation from the

11 International Tribunal at that stage, or were you just

12 simply informed of the interest of the Tribunal?

13 A. On Tuesday 12th, around 12.00, there was a meeting in

14 our office and there were people from Interpol present.

15 Mr. Gschwendt a supervising officer was there, a legal

16 expert, Hiermann and our team, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek

17 and myself, and on that occasion I received a

18 translation of the request for extradition from Belgrade

19 that had been submitted to the Austrian Federal Ministry

20 of Justice, and in that connection I was told in the

21 course of the morning, that is to say on Tuesday

22 12th March at 10.00, there had been a discussion at the

23 Ministry of the Interior, that is to say my superior

24 authority, and the file I dealt with on Monday and that

25 I passed on Tuesday, that that had been submitted to a

1 representative of the Tribunal, Ms. Manke, and on the

2 basis of the information I provided, a photo that

3 I provided, it was confirmed that that individual was

4 indeed Zdravko Mucic and as against the Interpol

5 document, the first and last name indicated were right;

6 the birth date indicated there was 1956 and the place of

7 birth was mistaken, erroneous as well, so my task was to

8 determine -- I am talking about what I was doing on

9 Monday 11th -- whether that individual as described in

10 the Interpol document was the same person as found in

11 our registry and police files.

12 Q. So there was an interest both from Belgrade and from the

13 International Tribunal in relation to Mr. Mucic and it

14 was in relation to both these requests for extradition

15 that you were carrying out your enquiries?

16 A. I am only familiar with the document from the Belgrade

17 Ministry of Justice that was submitted to the Austrian

18 Ministry of Justice, and in that document it says that

19 should Austria not extradite Mucic to Belgrade that he

20 should then be prosecuted in Austria, and there was also

21 reference made to the possibility of him being

22 extradited upon a request by the Tribunal.

23 Q. Yes. I was not specifically asking about documentation,

24 merely the fact that you knew the two organisations were

25 interested.

1 Moving on, what was the next stage you took in

2 relation to this matter?

3 A. The next step was to ascertain whether Mucic was in

4 Vienna at all.

5 Q. How did you go about establishing that?

6 A. There is the address at which he is registered with the

7 police as living, so we checked that on a sporadic

8 basis, as it were, and on 13th or 14th, I believe it was

9 the 14th, we began putting that address under

10 observation.

11 Q. Did you participate in the observation of the address

12 that you had?

13 A. Yes, I was involved in that as well.

14 Q. What happened next? What was the next stage?

15 A. Tuesday and Wednesday, after two days of observation we

16 were not sure he was there, we came up with a pretext

17 and rang at his door and we asked about -- after the

18 door was opened we asked about someone. First his

19 daughter appeared, and she went and got her father, and

20 at that point in time it was clear to us that Mr. Mucic

21 did reside at the address indicated in the 17th District

22 of Vienna.

23 Q. Once you had confirmed that what was the next step that

24 you took?

25 A. Let me see now. On Tuesday 12th, in the course of the

1 discussion with Interpol, the people there, Magister

2 Gross, indicated that there was an arrest warrant

3 against Zejnil Delalic. We were familiar with him by

4 name from previous cases. The information we received

5 from Interpol indicated that there should be joint

6 action on the part of ourselves and the German police.

7 Mr. Delalic was to be arrested in Munich; Mr. Mucic was to

8 be arrested in Vienna. The whole matter was to take

9 place on Tuesday 19th March at 6.00 in the morning.

10 That was the plan. At the time we did not know whether

11 the German police knew where Delalic was, so our task

12 was, in the coming days, to establish whether Mr. Mucic

13 was still living in the 17th District and to make it

14 possible then to subsequently arrest him.

15 Q. In relation to this arrest that was to take place on

16 19th March, was any documentation being prepared or

17 prepared?

18 A. Yes, fellow officer Bycek dealt with that. There is

19 the deposit, deposit 150 in the police headquarters, and

20 he started preparing a document and he put -- filled in

21 the relevant form. He put in the date, the name of the

22 person, the address involved, and then on that document

23 it is also indicated on what basis this was going ahead,

24 that is to say there was a reference to the court, the

25 fact that there was this court issued search warrant,

1 and then the date that had been issued, so this

2 preparatory work was carried out by Officer Bycek.

3 I think that had been done on Saturday or Sunday

4 evening.

5 Q. This document prepared by Officer Bycek, does that have

6 a particular name?

7 A. That is referred to as a Niederschrift, a record and

8 this is filled out on the spot and the grounds for a

9 search are indicated and the seized items are listed

10 there, so that is referred to -- that is what I referred

11 to as deposit 150, that is the Niederschrift and a copy

12 of that is handed over to the person involved, to the

13 accused.

14 Q. Is it partly -- is it correct to say that it is partly

15 prepared at the department and sometimes filled out at

16 the premises where the search is being executed?

17 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, that is a leading question.

18 I would ask my learned friend not to ask leading

19 questions. A sentence that starts "is it correct

20 that" --

21 MR. NIEMANN: I do not need to be instructed in leading

22 questions, your Honour.

23 MR. GREAVES: I would be grateful if my learned friend could

24 wait until I have finished and not interject like that.

25 It would be very helpful if my friend could not ask

1 leading questions.

2 MR. NIEMANN: Actually, your Honour -- never mind.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It was rather leading.

4 MR. NIEMANN: Very well, your Honour, I will rephrase the

5 question. The Niederschrift document, where is that

6 prepared?

7 A. It is a form that is printed by the relevant authorities

8 on behalf of the police. We have this in the police

9 headquarters, police station, I fill it out, somebody

10 else, whoever fills it out and it goes into the file for

11 the court.

12 Q. But where is it actually completed and filled out? Is

13 it completed and filled out in one place or a number of

14 places?

15 A. As a rule, it is filled out at the premises where the

16 search takes place.

17 Q. Is that rule universally followed, or are there

18 exceptions to that?

19 A. The preparatory work, the fact that I fill some things

20 in in advance, is just meant to make life easier for the

21 officers who then complete the document at the

22 premises. Let us take the case with -- it is an ongoing

23 affair, there may be several searches that are involved

24 in that case. I may, in fact, fill it out at the

25 office.

1 Q. You mentioned earlier that the Niederschrift document

2 was prepared in connection with a search warrant. Who

3 prepares the search warrant?

4 A. The search warrant was drawn up by Dr Seda, the

5 investigating judge from the Vienna district court. He

6 issued both the search warrant and the arrest warrant.

7 These can be issued only by a judge of the competent

8 court.

9 Q. I take it Dr Seda was such a judge?

10 A. Dr Seda is a judge at the Vienna district court, he is

11 an investigating judge, examining magistrate if you

12 will, and he was in charge of all the procedures

13 involving foreign countries, so that is the area for

14 which the court has competence, that is what he dealt

15 with.

16 Q. Where does Dr Seda get the information from that he

17 relies upon in order to draw up the search warrant?

18 A. From the security authorities of which I am a member.

19 In this case, Dr Seda obtained the information from

20 fellow officers at Interpol, and he was informed of this

21 well in advance, in fact, because with Felsenstein from

22 the Ministry of Justice, he had already been contacted

23 in relation with the request for extradition from

24 Belgrade.

25 Q. What was the next step that you took in these

1 proceedings in relation to this matter?

2 A. From Thursday 14th , there were these teams there at the

3 address in the 17th District, keeping the address under

4 observation, either there or in the 14th District at the

5 INDA-Bau company. The observation was carried out on

6 Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday until the

7 time of the arrest of Mr. Mucic.

8 Q. Moving up to the time of the arrest, can you tell us

9 what time you arrived on the scene on that day?

10 A. The arrest of Mr. Mucic occurred on Monday, 18th March at

11 2.15 pm in the 17th District of Vienna in front of

12 Natagasse 11 and at that point in time, together with a

13 fellow officer, I was 100 metres away from that house,

14 Natagasse 11, because ten minutes before that he came to

15 his car that was parked there and then he went back into

16 the building, Moerbaur and Bycek --

17 Q. When you say "he went back into the building", who is

18 he?

19 A. Mr. Mucic. So the arrest was at 2.15 pm. You asked me

20 where I was at that point in time. I was in the area of

21 Natagasse 11 at my observation post, together with

22 fellow officer Borlak. Prior to 2.15 pm, I do not know,

23 some 5 or 10 minutes before that, Mr. Mucic came out to

24 his car, he put a bag in there or something and then he

25 went back into the building. Mr. Moerbaur and Mr. Bycek

1 were at the INDA-Bau company. In the meantime, it must

2 have been 2.10, something like that, I got in touch with

3 my superior, Mr. Gschwendt and I told him by phone -- or

4 to be correct, Mr. Gschwendt informed me that the German

5 officers were going ahead with the arrest of Delalic, do

6 we know where Mucic is, and I said yes, he has gone

7 inside the building and I take it he is still there.

8 Two minutes later, the phone rings again, Gschwendt

9 gives me a call and says "the German officers have

10 arrested Mr. Delalic in Munich, where is Mr. Mucic?"

11 I said I cannot tell you exactly, but I assume he is in

12 the apartment.

13 At that point in time, Mr. Mucic comes out and goes

14 to his car, so I tell Mr. Gschwendt, "he is back, let us

15 get going", so that is when we went ahead with the

16 arrest.

17 Q. This was a day earlier than had originally been planned

18 as the day of the arrest, is it?

19 A. On Tuesday, 12th March, for the first time, Magister

20 Gross informed us that both individuals should be

21 arrested; that is to say one in Germany by the Germans

22 and one in Vienna by us, and that these arrests should

23 take place on Tuesday morning, the 19th, at 6.00 am.

24 Now this matter was broached again on Saturday, that

25 would be Saturday 16th May, in connection with the

1 observation activities. We found that Zejnil Delalic

2 was in Vienna. He was driving a vehicle with German

3 licence plates, Munich licence plates at that, and he

4 was driving from Taubergasse 15 over to INDA-Bau in the

5 16th District. The message we received said we would

6 only go ahead with the arrest if both individuals are

7 there or if we know where both individuals are because

8 what we wanted to do was have the German officers arrest

9 Delalic in Munich and go ahead with a search there in

10 his apartment or on his company premises.

11 On Saturday 16th we spotted only Mr. Delalic, and

12 at that point in time we did not know where Mr. Mucic

13 was. We did not proceed with the arrest, it was not

14 possible.

15 Q. Was Mr. Delalic put under observation?

16 A. He was observed that day, in the morning he came out of

17 the building at Taubergasse and went back in. In the

18 afternoon he drove to INDA-Bau. He went into the

19 company premises there, he took out some folders, put

20 them in the trunk of the car, hopped in the car and

21 towards 3.00 pm he took the west autobahn, the motorway

22 towards Salzburg and we assumed he was going on towards

23 Munich from there. At around 5.30 pm at the Moserberg

24 border crossing he entered Germany.

25 At the time we took up contact with Magister Gross

1 again and he said once again that the arrest should

2 occur on Tuesday 19th March at 6.00 am. On Monday the

3 18th at 10.00 there was a meeting between a gentleman of

4 the Tribunal, this was at Interpol's premises. There

5 were people from Interpol, people from the Tribunal, and

6 my superior, Mr. Gschwendt was there, and once again it

7 was decided that the arrest would take place at 6.00 am

8 on Tuesday unless the Germans were to arrest Mr. Mucic --

9 no, let me correct that, Mr. Delalic, by 4.00 pm; again

10 only if we in Austria know where Mr. Mucic is, but the

11 Germans went ahead and forgot about us, as it were.

12 Fortunately we happened to know where Mr. Mucic was, and

13 that is then how things proceeded. Mr. Delalic was

14 arrested in Munich and Mr. Mucic was arrested in Vienna

15 by our officers on Monday the 18th at 2.15 pm.

16 Q. When you went to the premises of Mr. Mucic on that day,

17 March 18th, did you have that documentation with you

18 that you described earlier in your evidence, namely the

19 search warrant and the Niederschrift?

20 A. We had several files along. We had the court issued

21 search warrants, and the Niederschrift were in there,

22 because there were six places that were to be searched

23 on the basis of a court order. Now in my folder I had

24 the court issued arrest warrant against Mr. Mucic, the

25 court issued search warrant for his apartment,

1 Taubergasse 15, door 10, and the 150 document, the

2 so-called Niederschrift.

3 Q. Might the witness be shown Exhibit 151, please? Perhaps

4 I could just have a look at it for a moment? (Handed).

5 Could you look at this document you are now being shown,

6 please? Do you recognise that document, Mr. Panzer?

7 A. Yes, I do recognise it, of course. This is the

8 Niederschrift, this is this 150 document which was

9 prepared in advance by Mr. Bycek.

10 Q. Is it all filled out by Mr. Bycek, or has some of it

11 been filled out by somebody else?

12 A. I cannot really say. He prepared it in advance. With

13 regard to the information, this was filled in at police

14 headquarters, I assume it was Officer Bycek, but

15 I could not swear to it, but at all events, this was

16 filled out at police headquarters.

17 Q. Do you see your signature appearing on this document at

18 any place?

19 A. Yes, it is above my name.

20 Q. Do you see on the second page of the document there is a

21 reference to a number of listed items there. What does

22 that mean?

23 A. This means that these items were found in the apartment

24 pursuant to the search warrant and they were seized.

25 Q. The handwriting that appears on the front page of the

1 document which appears to be where the officers' names

2 are inserted, do you know whose handwriting that is?

3 A. That is Mr. Borlak's handwriting. He was along with me

4 in the apartment of Mr. Mucic. That is his handwriting.

5 Q. Do you see a signature on the second page under that

6 part which is entitled "signatures

7 concerned/representative". Do you see a signature

8 there?

9 A. Yes, I do see a signature. Mr. Mucic signed this.

10 Q. Were you there when he affixed his signature to this

11 document? Were you present?

12 A. One of the officers, I cannot tell you which now, but

13 after everything took place, at the police headquarters

14 -- only Borlak, Bycek, Moerbaur and myself were at

15 police headquarters, that is 331 I am referring to.

16 There was someone in the room, but I cannot tell you

17 that I did see him sign it.

18 Q. Although you may not have actually watched him affix his

19 signature, were you in the room or nearby at the time,

20 so far as you can recall?

21 A. I was in the room throughout, just about all the time.

22 MR. NIEMANN: I tender that, your Honour.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any observations from the Defence about

24 tendering it? What number is it?

25 MR. NIEMANN: 151.

1 THE REGISTRAR: It will be admitted as Exhibit 151 and the

2 English translation 151A.

3 MR. NIEMANN: Might the witness be shown document 163,

4 please? (Handed). Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to look

5 at this document you are now being shown. Do you

6 recognise this document?

7 A. I recognise this document. This is the court issued

8 search warrant relating to Zdravko Mucic and others.

9 There is the six addresses where searches were

10 carried out.

11 Q. Is that the document you said that you had in your

12 possession when you went to the premises on that day,

13 18th March?

14 A. Yes, I had this along.

15 MR. NIEMANN: I tender the search warrant, your Honour. It

16 is numbered 163, if your Honours please.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, that can be admitted.

18 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please. Your Honours, is that

19 a convenient moment before I move on?

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: No, you can carry on. We will break in

21 30 minutes.

22 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Panzer, you said in your evidence that you

23 saw Mr. Mucic come back out to his car again after he had

24 gone in and you had the conversation with your

25 superior. What happened then? What happened when he

1 came out to his car for the second time?

2 A. That was Monday 18th then, shortly before 2.15 pm,

3 I already knew Mr. Delalic had been arrested in Munich,

4 and in the meantime Moerbaur and Bycek were called over

5 from INDA-Bau. It took them about two minutes to come

6 along, it is about two minutes away, it is just round

7 the corner, and at 2.15 pm, Mr. Mucic went back to the

8 car through the Meisengasse, it was a white Suzuki, it

9 was parked in front of the building at Natagasse 11. He

10 had a key and unlocked the door to the car. At that

11 point in time, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek, they had already

12 arrived, along with myself and Officer Borlak, and we

13 drove up to the level of Natagasse 11. Bycek and

14 Moerbaur leapt out and Mr. Borlak, and I was at the

15 wheel, so I was the last one to alight from the vehicle,

16 and then at 2.15 pm Mr. Mucic was arrested on the

17 sidewalk in front of the building at Natagasse 11.

18 Q. Was Mr. Mucic restrained in any way at that time?

19 A. What do you mean by restrained, if you please?

20 Q. Was he prevented from leaving or prevented from moving

21 in any way, and in which way, if that is so?

22 A. On the basis of Austrian law, when you arrest someone

23 there is no question of leaving. Mr. Mucic was arrested,

24 he was held. He had handcuffs put on with his hands

25 behind his back as per regulations, and Mr. Mucic had

1 absolutely no possibility at that point in time to leave

2 for anywhere.

3 Q. Did anyone say anything to Mr. Mucic at that time?

4 A. Mr. Moerbaur spoke to Mr. Mucic. He told him first of all

5 that he was under arrest pursuant to a court issued

6 arrest warrant, and as -- this is as he was putting on

7 the handcuffs. At that point in time I was already out

8 of the car and I stepped up several feet to Mr. Mucic.

9 I showed Mr. Mucic the warrant issued by the Vienna

10 district court. I asked him whether he was Mr. Mucic.

11 He said yes. There upon I told him that he was under

12 arrest pursuant to a court issued arrest warrant, that

13 he had the right to remain silent, that he had the right

14 to have -- to notify a member of his family, and that he

15 was entitled to consult a lawyer. I asked him whether

16 he understood that, I addressed him in German. He said

17 yes.

18 In the course of our talk, he also told me and

19 told Mr. Moerbaur, "oh, it is you, you were at my

20 apartment a few days ago".

21 Q. Who did he address that to when he said that? Who was

22 Mr. Mucic addressing when he said that?

23 A. To me. You have to picture this. This is all in a side

24 street in a two square metre big area. There are five

25 people, the person arrested, Bycek, Borlak, Moerbaur

1 and myself.

2 Q. What was the next thing to occur after that?

3 A. I asked him whether he had understood all that. He said

4 yes, and he was very calm. He was not worked up or

5 surprised or anything at all really. After that I told

6 him that we also had a court issued search warrant which

7 we were now going to execute. Fine, there upon we

8 boarded the car, drove round the block and then entered

9 the building Taubergasse 15, door 10. First we locked

10 up the car, and then we went up to the apartment.

11 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that you had had a

12 conversation with Mr. Mucic when he said you were the one

13 that had come to the door. In what language was

14 Mr. Mucic -- what language was Mr. Mucic using at the

15 time?

16 A. Each and every conversation I had with Mucic, there were

17 in fact only two of them, one -- I forget, that was

18 Wednesday, Thursday, when we checked out to see if he

19 was in the apartment and then when I talked to him at

20 the time of the arrest in front of Natagasse 11, both of

21 those conversations were in German. Mr. Mucic, on

22 Wednesday, Thursday, we were in front of the apartment,

23 when we had come up on the pretext to see if he was

24 there, he answered my question in excellent German.

25 When I asked him whether he understood why he had been

1 arrested, he answered yes, and that conversation was in

2 German as well.

3 Q. You then went to the apartment, the address that was

4 mentioned on the search warrant, is that right?

5 A. Yes, that is right. We went to the apartment. This was

6 about five minutes after the arrest. He unlocked the

7 apartment door and we entered.

8 Q. When you say he, again who are you referring to? When

9 he unlocked the door?

10 A. He, Mr. Mucic, or rather we had the key to the apartment,

11 he had had that in his pocket. He handed it over, we

12 uncked the door. He had his hands handcuffed behind his

13 back and then we entered the apartment, Mr. Borlak,

14 Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and myself.

15 Q. Did Mr. Mucic accompany you into the apartment?

16 A. Yes, naturally. In the street I told him that we were

17 going to proceed with a search and he said, "sure, let

18 us go over".

19 Q. When you entered the apartment, was there anybody else

20 in the apartment?

21 A. I cannot really remember, all I know is that we unlocked

22 the door and very shortly thereafter from a neighbouring

23 apartment his daughter Sanda came over, that is how

24 I remember it.

25 Q. Can you describe the apartment, the physical layout of

1 the apartment?

2 A. There is a small hallway, kitchen, bathroom and three

3 rooms. That is how I remember it. You go in and then

4 on the right up against the window there is a small

5 table, that is where we sat down and then behind that

6 I think there was Sanda's room. To the left of that was

7 the living room and then there was a connecting door

8 there to the room which I believe was Mr. Mucic's room.

9 That is all I can recall.

10 Q. Who, apart from you and Mr. Mucic, went into this

11 apartment at that time?

12 A. Mr. Mucic, myself and the three police officers entered

13 the apartment, Mr. Bycek, Mr. Borlak and Mr. Moerbaur.

14 Very shortly thereafter, Sanda came into the apartment.

15 That is how I remember it. I think she had been over at

16 a neighbour's. We sat down and I said "Sanda, look

17 here, we have got an arrest warrant for your daddy, a

18 court issued search warrant. I have already explained

19 everything to your father, everything we have to do

20 pursuant to the code of criminal procedure, so if you

21 would be so good, you could translate this for your

22 father into Yugoslavian". Sanda did so and Mr. Mucic was

23 acquainted then with the two warrants, not only in

24 German but also in his native language.

25 Q. Why did you have it translated considering that you had

1 already been speaking to him in German?

2 A. That is a practice that I always use when dealing with

3 foreigners. It is a preventative measure, as it were.

4 When I say foreigner, I mean any non-Austrian. That is

5 to preclude the possibility that such a person might

6 later say in court that he did not know why and on what

7 basis the operation was carried out.

8 Q. Did you then have a conversation with Mr. Mucic

9 concerning what it was that you were interested in

10 finding?

11 A. I talked to Mr. Mucic and I told him we were looking for

12 documents relative to war crimes in Bosnia, in

13 particular there were to be videotapes of Celebici camp

14 that he had made and he said he did not have anything of

15 the sort, but there were videos with footage from the

16 Celebici camp. I asked, "where are those video tapes?"

17 There upon we entered the living room and there is a

18 piece of furniture there up against the wall and he took

19 out some tapes, a dozen or so. He put those on the

20 table and then he picked out from that pile four video

21 tapes, and in respect of those he said that there were

22 reports about the war, footage of destruction and

23 footage of, shall we say, entertainment activities at

24 the camp.

25 Q. When you say "the camp", did you understand that to mean

1 any particular camp?

2 A. By "camp" what I am referring to is the Celebici camp,

3 that is the only camp I am familiar with.

4 Q. The conversation you had with Mr. Mucic about these

5 videos, was that conducted in the German language or was

6 it being translated for him?

7 A. That was in German.

8 Q. When he selected the four videos, did he then hand them

9 to you?

10 A. He took out the four videos. He told me that there were

11 images of war events, including footage of him and then

12 he handed those over to me. I asked whether we could

13 have a quick look at them and he said yes, and I think

14 Sanda, that is to say his daughter, turned on the VCR.

15 I put the videos in there, Sanda perhaps used the remote

16 control and then on fast forward had a look at a bit of

17 footage. I saw some footage there. There were some

18 officers, soldiers there, including Mr. Mucic, in

19 uniform, so I did this with the videos, just had a quick

20 look at them and then we seized those video tapes.

21 Q. When the video tapes were being played on the VCR, did

22 Mr. Mucic say anything at that time or did he remain

23 silent?

24 A. I cannot really say. It did not take very long. You

25 have to picture the scene in the apartment at the time;

1 there were four searches going on, Mucic's apartment.

2 Then I briefly went up to Delalic's apartment. There

3 the officers asked me something, then in the meantime

4 Mr. Bycek went down to Zejnil Delalic's, to the premises

5 of the BiH Club, the premises of the MAS Company. I was

6 up and about and when I found the time I put in a

7 videotape and had a quick look at it. As to whether he

8 said anything, quite frankly, I cannot answer that

9 question.

10 Q. You said you seized the videos. What precisely did you

11 do with them when you took the four videos?

12 A. I took the videos, put them on the table that we sat at

13 after we came in, alongside other seized items which

14 Mr. Borlak or Mr. Moerbaur had brought to me. Now as you

15 can see on the record, the notebooks, the passports, the

16 papers and the telephone information.

17 Q. When you actually seized these videos, did anyone raise

18 any objection or say anything to you about the seizure

19 of the videos?

20 A. I do not know.

21 Q. Besides the four videos that you have mentioned, were

22 any other videos seized by you on that occasion?

23 A. In Mr. Mucic's apartment all we seized were the four

24 video tapes. Just to play it safe, I had a look at the

25 other video tapes. He told me that they contained

1 movies, Sanda and he said that, and I put those in, just

2 had a quick look, and in fact there were but movies on

3 there, so they were not relevant to the case and I left

4 those other video tapes in the apartment. So in

5 Mr. Mucic's apartment all that we seized were those four

6 video tapes, the four video tapes that he had handed me.

7 Q. You mentioned a moment ago that these video tapes were

8 referred to among the other items in the Niederschrift

9 or record document which is now Exhibit 151; is that

10 correct?

11 A. Yes, that is right.

12 Q. When was the entry made into Exhibit 151, the

13 Niederschrift, in relation to the items that are

14 mentioned on the second page? When was that actually

15 put on to the Niederschrift?

16 A. I assume that it was immediately after we reached police

17 headquarters and we began the inventory.

18 Q. Why did you not fill it out at the premises, as opposed

19 to police headquarters?

20 A. Because the person concerned, i.e. Mr. Mucic, was taken

21 by us to police headquarters, and we were going to be

22 interviewing him and that is why it was not necessary to

23 fill out this Niederschrift on the premises.

24 Q. Physically, where did you put the videos when you were

25 in the premises of Mr. Mucic in order to take them back

1 to the police headquarters? What did you carry them in?

2 A. The four video tapes and the items listed there were

3 placed together on the table, the one we had set near

4 the entrance, all items were placed in several plastic

5 bags and taken to police station headquarters.

6 Q. I take it they were taken to the police car and then

7 taken to police headquarters?

8 A. They went into plastic bags, then together with

9 Mr. Mucic, we drove to police headquarters. These seized

10 items had been placed in the trunk. We drove to police

11 headquarters; Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek went up to room 331

12 with Mr. Mucic, Mr. Borlak and myself also went up to

13 331. Mr. Borlak was carrying the items seized at

14 Delalic's apartment and I was carrying the items seized

15 at Mucic's apartment.

16 Q. Did you carry the items seized at Mr. Mucic's apartment

17 to the police car?

18 A. Two fellow officers from our department carried out the

19 search in the apartment of Mr. Mucic. Mr. Moerbaur went

20 up to Delalic's apartment and I went up to Delalic's

21 apartment and they would ask "is this relevant, should

22 this be seized or not?" After the search in Delalic's

23 apartment was over I happened to see a gym bag there,

24 I took that along and I put all the items seized in the

25 apartment of Mr. Delalic in that. That bag, I took that

1 to the car as well, and it said -- I think Mr. Borlak

2 carried the things upstairs at police headquarters with

3 me.

4 Q. The question though is who carried the items seized in

5 Mr. Mucic's apartment to the police car?

6 A. I did.

7 Q. When you arrived at police headquarters, who took the

8 items seized from Mr. Mucic's apartment upstairs into

9 police headquarters?

10 A. I did.

11 Q. When you went to, I think you said room 331, what did

12 you then do with the items that had been seized from

13 Mr. Mucic's apartment?

14 A. First of all in the hallway I got hold of a cardboard

15 box that happened to be lying there. I took that

16 cardboard box and I put all the items from Mr. Mucic's

17 apartment into that box, I stuck a white card on it, a

18 reference card, as it were, and I wrote on that "search

19 Mucic apartment Taubergasse 15, door 10", and then

20 I wrote down the reference number of the court warrant

21 and then I put that in a cabinet.

22 Q. Was this cabinet -- perhaps you might describe the

23 cabinet for me.

24 A. Office furniture, one going from the floor to the

25 ceiling, 60 or 70 centimetres deep, one that can be

1 locked up.

2 Q. Does it have shelves in it?

3 A. Several shelves, yes.

4 Q. When you put the items that had been seized from

5 Mr. Mucic's apartment, which at this stage was in the

6 cardboard box, did you put it with any other items or

7 was it on its own?

8 A. There had been three searches where items had been

9 seized, Mr. Mucic's apartment, Mr. Delalic's apartment and

10 on the premises of the INDA-Bau company, the search

11 carried out by Mr. Navrat. When we reached that office

12 with Mr. Mucic and the seized items -- there had been a

13 separation from the outset, because there had been the

14 plastic bag in Mucic's apartment; then there had been

15 the gym bag in which the items from Mr. Delalic had been

16 placed, so all the items were always kept separate.

17 There was never any possibility of there being any

18 mixup, so even though everything already was separate

19 for security reasons, everything was placed in a

20 cardboard box and then the reference was put on there.

21 In the meantime, Mr. Navrat turned up with the things he

22 had seized, the folders and a box with the video tapes

23 and the same procedure was followed there; a box was

24 used, things put in there. Then there was this index,

25 reference cards put on there and then on its own shelf

1 in the cabinet, so for each of those was on each shelf,

2 Mucic, Delalic and INDA-Bau.

3 Q. When Mr. Navrat brought the material that had been seized

4 from INDA-Bau, can you recall who was in the room at the

5 time when he brought them in?

6 A. There was Mr. Mucic who had been arrested, Mr. Borlak,

7 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek, myself, and in the room next

8 door there were two other officers who were writing

9 something about the search at Mr. Delalic's and they were

10 just on the other side of a connecting door there, in

11 the next office.

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you mind if you leave the next

13 question to the next part of the session?

14 MR. NIEMANN: Not at all.

15 MR. GREAVES: There is a matter I would like to raise before

16 you rise, please.

17 On 5th August this year, during the evidence of

18 Officer Navrat, I drew to your Honours' attention the

19 fact that whilst Navrat was still in the process of

20 giving evidence, he was seen to be engaged over the

21 luncheon adjournment in conversation with one Sabine

22 Manke. The fact that Sabine Manke was talking to

23 Officer Navrat whilst he was giving evidence was

24 objectionable for a number of reasons.

25 She is an employee of the OTP, and prima facie it

1 is a serious impropriety for an employee of the OTP to

2 be talking to a witness whilst that witness is on oath

3 and giving evidence.

4 Secondly, she is someone who has been engaged in

5 investigating this case, as part of her duties. Prima

6 facie that also makes it a serious matter for her to be

7 talking to witnesses giving evidence in relation to this

8 case.

9 Thirdly, some weeks earlier, I had adverted to her

10 presence during the evidence of Officer Moerbaur in the

11 public gallery. She immediately left the public

12 gallery, and was therefore on notice that she should not

13 have anything to do with witnesses whilst giving

14 evidence.

15 Fourthly, because she had had something to do with

16 transferring documents to The Hague from Vienna, she was

17 a potential witness. At that stage, your Honours, my

18 learned friend Mr. Niemann promised to make enquiries.

19 He has not thus far, a month later, reported back to

20 your Honours. I seek for him to give a report on the

21 incident of 5th August. I invite him to tell us what

22 steps have been taken in relation to this matter, and in

23 order to establish a proper control over OTP employees

24 and witnesses coming into contact whilst witnesses are

25 giving evidence.

1 We need to know what steps in particular have been

2 taken in relation to the conduct of Sabine Manke on

3 5th August, and I would respectfully submit we ought to

4 know why it has taken him so long to report back to

5 your Honours as he indicated he would.

6 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much Mr. Greaves.

7 MR. GREAVES: I raise it now because, of course, we have a

8 witness giving evidence in relation to this very matter.

9 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour, I am happy to respond to

10 that. First of all, the question of OTP employees

11 speaking to witnesses, being offensive as it may to

12 Mr. Greaves, of course, is not universally offensive in

13 all jurisdictions. It may be in his jurisdiction but it

14 is not in others. There is no prohibition on the

15 practice here, so I suggest what may be objectionable to

16 in England is not necessarily objectionable here.

17 I would ask and invite him to give some authority for

18 the proposition which he expounds, particularly

19 authority based in international law.

20 With respect to the question of speaking to

21 witnesses, I had spoken to Ms. Sabine Manke, and I had

22 asked her the nature of her conversation. It is quite

23 common for employees of the OTP to speak to witnesses

24 when they arrive, it happens on a regular basis, but it

25 is always on the understanding that evidence of one

1 witness against another is not compared. We are not

2 suggesting that Ms. Sabine Manke is a witness in these

3 proceedings. If Mr. Greaves chooses to make her one in

4 the course of the Defence case, then he must bear the

5 consequences of the fact that she has not been so

6 nominated by the Prosecution.

7 Your Honours, it is well understood by officers of

8 the Prosecution that they are not to in any way

9 manufacture evidence or endeavour to make a farce out of

10 these proceedings. The officers of the Prosecutor are

11 professional people, they are not in any way personally

12 or in any other direct way involved in these

13 proceedings, from a political or other point of view.

14 They try to do their job in a professional way. We are

15 not here to win, but to see that justice is done.

16 I assure your Honours that officers of the Prosecutor

17 behave in a proper and professional manner. They are

18 aware of the consequences of speaking to witnesses, as

19 is Ms. Sabine Manke, and your Honours, as far as the

20 Prosecution is concerned, we are satisfied that there

21 has been no attempt to fabricate the evidence of any of

22 these witnesses.

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think what Mr. Greaves is referring to

24 is not a question of whether anything amiss has

25 happened, but he wants your report on your undertaking

1 you made to make an investigation. That is his main

2 complaint.

3 MR. NIEMANN: I have done that, your Honours and I am

4 satisfied that there is no impropriety.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think before now, that is why he

6 raised it. If perhaps such a report had been made

7 before now, perhaps he might have not raised the issue

8 at all, it would not have been necessary.

9 MR. NIEMANN: Possibly so, your Honour, except I apprehend

10 that Mr. Greaves is proceeding on a basis of ethical

11 standards which apply in his own country and not

12 necessarily in all jurisdictions.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is still some suspicion that

14 something amiss might be happening. I think it is fair

15 that the Prosecution should take that into consideration

16 in determining how its own witnesses or officials or

17 possible witnesses would be associating with witnesses

18 already who are in the Tribunal and are likely to give

19 evidence, because the suspicion is still there.

20 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, the officers of the Prosecutor,

21 it is imperative that they have access to witnesses,

22 otherwise we simply cannot do our work and indeed we all

23 from time to time have access to witnesses, but in so

24 doing, we are aware of our professional

25 responsibilities. I am satisfied that Ms. Sabine Manke

1 is aware of her professional responsibilities and

2 behaved in an appropriate and proper manner.

3 JUDGE JAN: One thing I am not able to understand, do

4 ethical standards differ from country to country, what

5 is good and what is bad? I do not think you have really

6 national standards for that.

7 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I understand that in the

8 United States, I will no doubt be corrected if I am

9 wrong, but the concern of counsel talking to witnesses

10 is not a concern. In the United States, counsel

11 regularly proof witnesses and do so right through the

12 proceedings. In some states, I am informed that indeed,

13 counsel will speak to witnesses whilst they are indeed

14 under cross-examination, which is not something I am

15 familiar with, but I know that in other jurisdictions

16 such as in England, counsel does not speak to

17 witnesses. There are differences right throughout the

18 world in relation to this. I understand in Europe it is

19 not common for prosecutors to speak to witnesses. In

20 the jurisdiction I come from, it is the same as the

21 United States.

22 Your Honours, there is a great deal of

23 difference. In my submission, when we are in this

24 situation, it is essential, your Honours, that the

25 primary concern, and that is the fabricating of

1 evidence, be avoided, but it does not necessarily have

2 to be resolved in the way it is resolved in some

3 jurisdictions, such as by putting prohibition on counsel

4 from speaking to witnesses.

5 JUDGE JAN: I thought fabrication of evidence was unethical

6 everywhere. That was the word you were using.

7 MR. NIEMANN: That is the very point I am making, your

8 Honours, that it is essential that people be aware that

9 the fabrication of evidence is something which is

10 entirely unacceptable and completely unethical no matter

11 where it happens, but the way to prevent it is not

12 necessarily done the same way in every jurisdiction.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Mr. Moran, any contribution?

14 MR. MORAN: I think Mr. Niemann may be labouring under some

15 kind of misapprehension that Ms. Manke is not a

16 witness. Ms. Sabine Manke has testified for the Office

17 of the Prosecutor. I know that Mr. Niemann is new to the

18 case and he may not have known that fact and I am sure

19 that he was not aware of that when he made his statement

20 a little earlier. I would suggest that Rule 90(d),

21 along with the order from the Tadic case, decision on

22 Defence motion to prevent contamination of testimony,

23 which the court has discussed at some great length,

24 would be the authority for Mr. Greaves' assertion that

25 witnesses, be they witnesses off the street or employees

1 of the Office of the Prosecutor, should not be

2 discussing this case with other witnesses in this case.

3 The one exception, of course, being Rule 90(e), that if

4 it is the lead investigator for the Prosecution and has

5 been designated as the lead investigator, then that

6 witness can sit in the courtroom and is not prevented

7 from being called as a witness.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think Mr. Greaves' observation is a

9 very pertinent one and I think he did not do anything

10 more than reminding the Prosecutor about this

11 undertaking, and as I said, if it had been already made,

12 and then given to the Tribunal, this would never have

13 arisen. Despite the differences in ethical standards,

14 I think there is still a general one which will enable

15 the Tribunal to ensure that justice is seen to be done,

16 because if people outside who understand the situation

17 appreciate that a Prosecution witness is getting too

18 familiar with an official of that nature who also has

19 already given evidence, this might raise a few

20 eyebrows. But as far as you giving the undertaking, we

21 expect you to ensure that it does not continue. That

22 makes life better for everyone. I think we will have to

23 break now and come back at 12.15.

24 (11.45 am)

25 (A short break)

1 (12.15 pm)

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed.

3 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you.

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Before we continue, may I say that we

5 will still stop at 1.00 instead of eating into the lunch

6 break. You have to be aware of that.

7 MS. RESIDOVIC: If it may please the court, I would like to

8 draw your attention to one thing. Several months ago,

9 when the breaks were only 20 minutes, our clients were

10 unable to leave the courtroom and the court at the time

11 decided to have a half hour break. After today's break,

12 I wish to inform the court that my client practically

13 does not have ten minutes of break because the way the

14 defendants exit and reenter the courtroom is organised

15 in such a way that practically we do not have time to

16 talk to our clients, nor does the client have time to

17 have a cup of coffee and rest and be prepared for the

18 continuation of the trial.

19 Therefore, I would like to ask the court to give

20 instructions to the Registrar to request organisation of

21 the break in such a way that would allow our clients to

22 have a rest during the break and to give their full

23 attention to the continuation of the trial. Thank you.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I think we will

25 try and arrange that so that the Registry can make the

1 necessary adjustment to their movements.

2 THE REGISTRAR: We will do so, your Honour.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, Mr. Niemann, you can proceed.

4 MR. NIEMANN: As your Honour pleases. Mr. Panzer, the cabinet

5 that you had referred to earlier in your evidence in

6 which the various items were placed, who had access to

7 that particular cabinet?

8 A. The people who had access to that cabinet were

9 Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and myself, no one else.

10 Q. And the room in which you operated I think you described

11 as room 331, who had access to that room?

12 A. Our fourth colleague, who was not there most of the

13 time. Otherwise, it was only Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur and

14 myself.

15 Q. The cabinet in which you placed these items, at the time

16 that you put them in there, did the cabinet contain

17 anything else or was it empty at the time?

18 A. Completely empty.

19 Q. After the documents and items had been placed, including

20 the videos, had been placed in the cabinet, did you then

21 late in the day or during the course of the next day

22 proceed to do anything with the items that had been put

23 into the cabinet?

24 A. The items that had been seized from Mr. Mucic, Mr. Delalic

25 and the INDA-Bau firm were stored, sealed and the items

1 from the search were put in a specific compartment and

2 then late in the afternoon, in the evening of the

3 Monday, that is the 18th, those items that were seized

4 from Mr. Mucic were put in the inventory.

5 Q. By putting in the inventory, what does that entail?

6 A. What it means is that -- it is basically the same thing,

7 you have the document 150, and these items have to be

8 catalogued or put in the inventory so we can access them

9 later through the analysis report.

10 Q. With the items themselves, did you do anything to them?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Did you subsequently deal with these particular items

13 that had been seized yourself, personally?

14 A. The labelling procedure was carried out, that is to say

15 you have a letter and then a figure. I did that.

16 Q. When did you do the labelling procedure?

17 A. It was in the early evening, I think, for Mr. Mucic and

18 for the other seized items it was in the morning of the

19 Tuesday, I think.

20 Q. Is that Tuesday 19th?

21 A. Yes, that is right, the 19th.

22 Q. When you labelled the items from Mr. Mucic's apartment,

23 did you use any -- what particular letters and numbers

24 did you use to identify those particular items?

25 A. The system was that I took letter M for Mucic, and the

1 video cassettes were given M1A through to D, and the

2 other documents, those I listed with M5, 6, 7. I cannot

3 remember how far it actually went.

4 Q. Okay. You mentioned earlier in your evidence that

5 during the course of this day, that is the 18th, that

6 Mr. Navrat had come into the office and brought in some

7 materials that he had seized; is that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. Can you recall what it was that Mr. Navrat had brought in

10 as a result of his search?

11 A. Mr. Navrat brought to me twelve folders with various

12 papers, newspaper cuttings were there, and there was

13 also a box with video cassettes.

14 Q. With the twelve folders, did you do anything with them

15 in terms of identification of them?

16 A. I took a quick look at them with Mr. Moerbaur, just

17 flicked through them and then put everything into a box

18 and put them in the cabinet we described earlier. The

19 drawing up of the inventory of the twelve folders and

20 the cassettes only took place, I think it was the next

21 day, Tuesday 19th.

22 Q. When you drew up the inventory in relation to these

23 items, the twelve folders and the videos that had been

24 seized by officer Navrat, did you proceed to use the

25 same identification labels as you had used from the

1 items seized from Mr. Mucic's apartment, or did you do

2 with them something different?

3 A. Basically it was the same system, but there were a lot

4 of video cassettes that had been seized, and so what we

5 did was take I for INDA-Bau, I A, B, C, D, as we had

6 with Mucic. You only have 26 letters, and for INDA-Bau

7 I started with I for INDA-Bau and then the 12 folders

8 and then the video cassettes. It was probably 13 to 64,

9 I cannot remember.

10 Q. After you had marked each of these items with a label

11 and after you had entered them in the inventory, what

12 happened to the documents, the materials that were

13 contained in the locked cabinet?

14 A. That stayed with us until the analysis of the seized

15 items. There was a report subsequent to the analysis

16 and the items and the analysis report were passed on to

17 the appropriate authorities.

18 Q. By the appropriate authorities, are you able to tell us

19 who they were?

20 A. The way it works is that all the items that our

21 department had went to the chancery of our division or

22 department, it is then recorded and the seized items,

23 plus this document, are taken by somebody from the

24 police department in a vehicle to the place where they

25 are stored in the district court. They are taken in

1 there, that process is certified by a stamp, then these

2 are sent to the competent judge, who was Dr Seda in this

3 instance.

4 Q. The analysis of the documents that you referred to that

5 was carried out by the police, did you participate in

6 that analysis?

7 A. To a certain extent. All the documents were analysed by

8 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and I gave some support with the

9 video cassettes.

10 Q. When you say you gave some support with the video

11 cassettes, are you able to tell us what it was that you

12 did with them?

13 A. The four seized cassettes from Mr. Mucic -- we looked at

14 those and there were also the 26 from INDA-Bau and the

15 10 or 15 from Delalic.

16 Q. Might the witness be shown Exhibit 166? (Handed).

17 Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to open this and go through

18 the contents of that box and then I will ask you some

19 questions about it.

20 A. Can I take them out?

21 Q. Please do. Please take them out and look at them.

22 A. Looking at the first ones here, these are the folders

23 that -- I remember from what it says on the front of

24 them there. I recognise them from what we have on the

25 cover, I have my label, that is my signature that I put

1 on there.

2 Q. For the record, the witness pointed to the top

3 right-hand corner of the exhibit. When you say the

4 label, just give us the number of the label -- withdraw

5 that. That label you then pointed to, is there any

6 writing on that label?

7 A. On this one you have I, then a dash and 1. In other

8 words, it was the first folder that Mr. Navrat gave to me

9 and that I listed or labelled with I for INDA-Bau, that

10 is the first INDA-Bau folder.

11 Q. The I stands for INDA-Bau?

12 A. Yes, I stands for INDA-Bau.

13 Q. And the 1 stands for the document?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you go through each one of them now in order and see

16 if you can see those labels and tell us if you see the

17 labels, what is written on them? Just put them to one

18 side, please, when you have done that for me.

19 A. This one, I for INDA-Bau 1. I made that label myself.

20 This one, I for INDA-Bau 2 is the figure. I did that.

21 Here you can see I for INDA-Bau 4. I did that too. I

22 for INDA-Bau 5, I did that too.

23 I for INDA-Bau 9. That was me too. As far as

24 I remember there were nine folders that were quite full

25 of documents just for Mr. Mucic. There were all sorts of

1 things, pay slips and that sort of thing. I for

2 INDA-Bau 12, that was me. I for INDA-Bau 6, that was

3 me, too. I for INDA-Bau 7, that was me, I put that on

4 there.

5 I for INDA-Bau 8. I wrote that. It is the

6 document concerning the premises of Faukerplatz in the

7 5th District, it concerns a steak house Mr. Delalic and

8 his brother were involved in. I for INDA-Bau 11,

9 I wrote that and stuck the label on. I for INDA-Bau 10,

10 I wrote and stuck that. I for INDA-Bau 3, I wrote and

11 stuck that one, too. I am not sure about that.

12 That probably has come off, I think. It should go

13 with that cover, but there is my writing, I put that on

14 too. As far as I remember, in this folder number 8,

15 Mr. Moerbaur found the sentence by a Bosnian court, it

16 was Mr. Mucic who was condemned in absentia, I think, 15

17 years, but in the other folders there were just

18 newspaper cuttings concerning Mr. Delalic.

19 Q. Are you aware of what either you or members of your team

20 did with the documentation that was contained in these

21 twelve folders?

22 A. The only thing done with these documents was done by

23 Mr. Moerbaur. No one else was involved.

24 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. I tender those, your Honour.

25 I tender the twelve folders as one exhibit, 166.

1 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We object, your Honour. The whole issue of

2 admissibility is one that has not been determined yet by

3 this Tribunal in hearing evidence on this matter. It is

4 premature to attempt to tender this evidence. That is

5 our submission.

6 MR. NIEMANN: In my submission, your Honour, the question of

7 tendering them, it has reached the point in the evidence

8 where they should be tendered in the ordinary course of

9 proceedings. It is appropriate for me now to seek to

10 tender them, having regard to the stage of the evidence

11 reached by this witness. If my friend has any objection

12 to that, he may raise the objection now and we will deal

13 with it.

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What are your objections to the

15 admissibility at this stage? The witness has already

16 indicated he gave them those marks, having received

17 these documents from the person who brought them.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There are several points I would like to

19 make on that, your Honour.

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Let us hear it.

21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: We have been hearing evidence now over the

22 last three months at different times, starting with

23 Gschwendt and Moerbaur back in early June. The

24 Prosecution has been held to strict proof on two counts;

25 first that proper procedures were followed and that the

1 chain of custody can both be proven, and in our

2 submission it must be proven beyond all reasonable

3 doubt. To determine that issue, final argumentation,

4 based on what is going to be close on 1,000 pages of

5 transcript, five or six Austrian police officers and one

6 OTP investigator, is necessary.

7 We received a letter from the Prosecutor last week

8 saying that we would have final argumentation, he would

9 be prepared to have final argumentation at some point

10 after the testimony of Officer Panzer. So we are

11 somewhat surprised now that halfway through the

12 testimony of this witness, he is tendering evidence

13 before the Tribunal.

14 It is understood there will be final

15 argumentation, both on fact and law, and we submit that

16 should take place after Officer Panzer has been

17 cross-examined and after the Prosecution decides that

18 they have called enough evidence, in their estimation,

19 when they think they can prove beyond reasonable doubt

20 that procedures and chain of custody have been proven.

21 It is premature, your Honours.

22 What is more, at this point there has been no

23 proof of the documents, which of course would be, in our

24 submission, part of our final submissions. We have to

25 consider everything that went on in Vienna and the whole

1 transfer of those documents, the care, the handling, the

2 processing and the transfer to this Tribunal, so it is

3 premature, in our submission, to deal with these issues

4 until final argumentation so that your Honours can

5 evaluate all the evidence you have heard and review all

6 the documents that have been tendered in support of all

7 these alleged searches and seizures.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I accept that the Prosecution has any

9 other thing to say about these particular documents, and

10 I think these are the documents he wishes to tender now,

11 not all the others. There are still other documents

12 which are coming, because all he is now saying is that

13 the twelve files which he is now tendering are files

14 which were so identified by this witness when they were

15 brought to him.

16 MR. O'SULLIVAN: But your Honour, to admit these twelve

17 files, we have the issue of the chain of custody between

18 Navrat, Moerbaur and this -- in our submission, it is

19 premature to admit these. We have not even dealt with

20 the final argumentation on the chain of custody issue,

21 let alone proper procedures followed in Vienna in March

22 and April. Your Honour should hear all of that evidence

23 summarised and argued by counsel for the Defence before

24 arriving at a conclusion, and, in fact, the Prosecution

25 must prove beyond reasonable doubt that those aspects of

1 the search and seizure are proven. They have not done

2 that.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Beyond reasonable doubt is a different

4 matter, but I think it is for him to put up his argument

5 as to why he thinks they ought to be admitted now

6 without indicating how it came to be tendered.

7 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honours. Firstly the question of

8 beyond reasonable doubt that counsel keeps referring to,

9 I do not know the basis of that. It would be of great

10 assistance to everybody if he could point to some

11 authority in support of that proposition. If all

12 documents had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt in

13 the course of the trial, then I think that the concept

14 known as circumstantial evidence would never exist.

15 I am not aware of it and I am not aware of the need to

16 be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in

17 the statute that suggests it has to be done. Certainly

18 if the Prosecution wishes at the end of the day to rely

19 on a document as proof of an element of the offence then

20 that is a different matter, but it is not one single

21 document in our submission that we are purporting to do

22 that with, and in any event, that would be something

23 that would happen very much later in the proceedings

24 when it came to either the prima facie case or at the

25 end of the proceedings altogether. In my submission,

1 your Honour, there is no support for the proposition

2 that these have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt at

3 all. The rules governing admissibility are very well

4 and clearly set out in the statute, my friend knows

5 that, and they are the rules by which we are bound.

6 Your Honours, these particular documents, as

7 I said earlier, and counsel knows full well what these

8 documents are sought to be tendered for, is the very

9 issue which he complains about, and that is the chain of

10 custody. These documents, your Honours, go to show that

11 the documents were in a particular state, we have heard

12 from Navrat as to the state that he found them in. The

13 next stage of the proceeding is when they came to the

14 police station, then this witness proceeded to deal with

15 them, and in my submission, that is evidence of the

16 chain.

17 We are not seeking to rely on the contents of

18 these documents for any other purpose than that, and in

19 my submission, they are properly admissible, they are

20 properly admissible now. They go to the very point that

21 my friend complains about, and in my submission, without

22 establishing this, he can argue about nothing because

23 nothing has been established in terms of tendering the

24 documents.

25 JUDGE JAN: This witness can depose about what was found in

1 the premises of Mr. Mucic and Mr. Delalic and this is all

2 he is saying. He is not talking about the contents of

3 the document. These documents were found in those

4 premises. Why can he not prove that?

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you remember in an earlier hearing

6 we kept on emphasising that these twelve files can only

7 be tendered by the person who identified them, and so

8 designated them. This is why it is necessary to bring

9 this witness to indicate the files which he so

10 identified. I do not think the Prosecution is even

11 insisting that the contents of the documents which he

12 has so identified belong to a particular category, I do

13 not think they are saying that. All they are saying is

14 these items were those which were collected by Navrat

15 from the INDA-Bau offices or Mucic's house and then when

16 they were brought to the police station they were

17 categorised by a certain officer, and this is the

18 officer who categorised them.

19 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, without -- which one of us do you

20 want to hear first? Ladies first?

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes.

22 MR. MORAN: Yes, your Honour.

23 MS. RESIDOVIC: Thank you, your Honour. The Prosecutor has

24 not proved what you are drawing our attention to. This

25 witness, everything that has been done by this witness;

1 he recognised the label with his handwriting. This

2 witness is not a witness who took items from any space

3 that could have perhaps been the origin of items related

4 to Mr. Delalic. We have heard, and my colleague

5 Mr. O'Sullivan this moment said before us, we have 800

6 pages of testimony of witnesses from the moment they

7 entered any space where there could be any items related

8 to Mr. Delalic, including these.

9 Mr. Navrat has spoken about these items totally

10 differently during his testimony, different to what the

11 witness is saying today. Therefore, it is necessary for

12 us to have the possibility of final arguments for the

13 court to see once again the irregularity in the attempt

14 until this day for items to be brought to this court and

15 be presented as legal. In our law, there is a Latin

16 proverb which says what is irregular and illegal from

17 the beginning cannot become during the proceedings.

18 Therefore, I would like to ask you and to repeat

19 the argument of my colleague once again, this is not the

20 time where we can discuss the admissibility of

21 evidence. One witness recognises the colour, another

22 one recognises the handwriting on a very small label.

23 The content is not recognised by anyone. I would like

24 to wait for the witness to be cross-examined and then

25 after 1,000 pages of the transcript we can give our

1 final decision, when the court will be able to make a

2 fair and final decision. Thank you.

3 MR. MORAN: Your Honours --

4 MR. NIEMANN: I object, your Honour, to counsel joining in

5 these debates when it has nothing to do with this

6 counsel.

7 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, as long as the Prosecution wants to

8 stipulate that these documents are not admissible in any

9 way against my client, either for inferences or anything

10 else, then that is fine. If he is making a limited

11 offer of these documents as only against some defendants

12 and not against others, that is fine. Otherwise, if

13 these documents are to have any admissibility or any use

14 in evidence against my client, I believe I have standing

15 to, in the words of Mr. Niemann, join into this.

16 I represent Hazim Delic and if this evidence is to be

17 used against Hazim Delic or used by the court in any way

18 to determine Mr. Delic's guilt, innocence --

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, I see. There is a point there.

20 If counsel is likely to be affected by admission of the

21 document, he is entitled to --

22 MR. NIEMANN: And insofar as counsel wishes to limit himself

23 to that, your Honours, perhaps my objection was

24 premature and I apologise.

25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, with that, I do not recall hearing

1 any testimony today from Herr Panzer concerning the

2 content of those documents. As I understood it, there

3 was a limited offer from the Prosecution not to offer

4 the contents of the documents. As I understand

5 Mr. Panzer's testimony, all he testified to -- I may have

6 missed something, if I did, I apologise -- he identified

7 twelve file folders as opposed to any of the contents of

8 those, so with that, as long as all they are trying to

9 introduce is simply the orange, green and whatever, all

10 rainbow coloured cardboard files, I do not know that we

11 would have any objection to that. Once they start

12 talking about the contents, that is a different matter.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that Delalic's counsel is

14 extending the argument beyond what was presented. The

15 witness did not, in any of the cases, indicate any

16 contents of the labels he is giving to those documents.

17 In the case of the files, the folders had nothing in

18 them. There might be things in them, but he said

19 nothing about anything in them.

20 The argument now which Delalic's counsel is saying

21 is that there should be a link between how he got these

22 folders and how he indicated those identification

23 marks. I think this has started all the way from Navrat

24 and he brought it to the police office, and then all he

25 did is try and identify them by the labels he put on

1 them and this is the identification he is now telling

2 us. What is in the folders, a particular document or

3 not, he does not know and I think he is not testifying

4 as to that. This is the position at this stage.

5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, one further point in this

6 matter. I am holding the letter of 28th August 1997

7 sent to us by Mr. Niemann, in which he says:

8 "At the conclusion of the evidence of Mr. Panzer,

9 it will be the condition of the prosecutor that all the

10 preconditions to admissibility are met."

11 He then asks our advice as to whether we

12 anticipate any objections and if we do, whether we have

13 general objections, submissions to make on

14 admissibility. He asked us to inform him whether we

15 would be making such objections, making such argument

16 and submission this morning. We told him we would, he

17 agreed and that such argument to his attempt to tender

18 would take place after Panzer and before or during

19 Defence having an opportunity to present to your Honours

20 our arguments based on the testimony of all these

21 witnesses which covers hundreds of pages which is not

22 simply -- it is contradictory in our position, there are

23 many things that are inconsistent between witnesses,

24 documents improperly prepared, things that appear and

25 disappear. Your Honours, this is premature, the

1 understanding this morning was that we would not proceed

2 halfway through this person's testimony, that we would

3 wait until the end of this week, which is what we agreed

4 at 9.55 this morning and it is inappropriate

5 procedurally for the Prosecutor to attempt to tender

6 these limited number of items at this point.

7 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Frankly, I agree to you entirely as to

8 the contents of these things being tendered. You know

9 nothing about the contents, so there is no way of

10 admitting them. The fact he organised the folders in

11 that way, I do not see much of an objection to that,

12 that he organised the folder in the way it has been.

13 This is all I think his testimony leads to.

14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: In our submission, that certainly does not

15 satisfy any burden of proof as to whether or not these

16 items are admissible. This is premature to attempt to

17 admit these things.

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Which are the items to be admitted?

19 The documents or the folders?

20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is my friend admitting the folders or their

21 contents?

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: This is the question I expected. What

23 is being admitted? Is it the folders as they are, or

24 the contents of those folders?

25 MR. NIEMANN: For about the third time, your Honour, we are

1 merely seeking to tender the folders, not their

2 contents. We are not asking any inferences to be drawn

3 and it arises because counsel are insisting we prove

4 chain of custody. This is a process that one ordinarily

5 goes through when one proves chain of custody and we are

6 endeavouring to do it. We are not asking that the

7 contents of the documents be tendered at all. It merely

8 proves they came in this form.

9 While I am on my feet, perhaps I might proceed.

10 This notion, your Honours, that seems to be created here

11 that one does not tender something during the course of

12 the evidence of a witness is frankly, in my submission,

13 unheard of. The idea that counsel can have the luxury

14 of hearing all Prosecution witnesses, evidence-in-chief,

15 cross-examination, re-examination and then wait until

16 all the witnesses have ended is something unheard of.

17 Something similar of that has been provided for

18 your Honours in rule 73.3, which permits the preliminary

19 objection to be taken by motion prior to trial in

20 relation to the exclusion of evidence obtained from the

21 accused or having belonged to the accused.

22 I suggest, your Honours, that if the Defence had

23 availed themselves of the provisions of the rules in

24 order to do that at an appropriate and opportune time,

25 the idea of being able to argue the whole matter en

1 masse may well have been available to them. They did

2 not take advantage of the rules as they are provided, so

3 they cannot now come along and complain that they are

4 being deprived of an opportunity to argue the matter in

5 a global sense. They have to be content with dealing

6 with them document by document.

7 Insofar as the letter that has been referred to,

8 yes, I wrote a letter to them. Considering that counsel

9 chose not to rely on the provisions of 73.3, in order to

10 deal with this matter as a preliminary motion, I wrote

11 to counsel in an effort to see how agreement could be

12 reached between the Prosecution and the Defence on these

13 issues in order not to labour the court with the tedious

14 and long drawn out process of having to produce these

15 documents one at a time. The only response I got to

16 that, notwithstanding the fact that I asked to be given

17 a letter in reply this morning, was; leave it until the

18 end of the week and we will deal with it then. That is

19 fine, your Honours, and in relation to some of the

20 documents that is exactly what I intend to do. There is

21 a large bundle of documents I will seek to tender at the

22 end of the week because it seems to me to be

23 inappropriate to have Prosecution witnesses sitting

24 around waiting to give their evidence while we argue

25 points of law on the admissibility of each particular

1 document, the documents we allege came from these

2 particular folders. In our submission, counsel can

3 certainly argue those points then. These particular

4 documents are documents peculiarly relative to this

5 witness. This is the witness that received them and he

6 placed his label on them. Seeing that they are tendered

7 for the very limited purpose of establishing the chain,

8 in my submission, there can be no objections to their

9 admissibility.

10 JUDGE JAN: Admissibility to the extent they were found in

11 the premises occupied by the two accused. Nothing

12 beyond that.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I thought my explanation was fairly

14 clear.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I do apologise to my

16 distinguished colleague, he does not know this because

17 he joined the trial later, but the Defence for

18 Mr. Delalic has submitted a request to the court denying

19 the validity of these documents and their

20 admissibility. Therefore, objection regarding all the

21 cases before the court stands in accordance with the

22 instruction of the court for the admissibility to be

23 discussed, once the evidence is discussed. Therefore

24 regarding the question raised, we are asking to be given

25 the possibility for final argument regarding all the

1 evidence. As for the concrete situation, and also

2 regarding Rule 73 as well as Rule 95 in that respect,

3 I believe that the court would allow us after 1,000

4 pages of the transcript and several witnesses heard to

5 give our final arguments regarding the legality of the

6 proceedings and the relation from the moment the

7 document is seized until it arrives here and the

8 admissibility of every individual piece of evidence.

9 I would like to emphasise that during the hearing with

10 Mr. Delalic in August, at my objection that my defendant

11 is being shown documents allegedly seized during the

12 search, Ms. McHenry said at the time that that was not

13 used for that purpose and Defence did have the right to

14 question the admissibility of evidence once it is

15 offered to the court, using the American term, that

16 issues are discussed once you step on to the bridge.

17 As for the identification of the cases of items

18 that the Prosecutor is trying to tender and request a

19 decision of the court, I believe that also regarding the

20 fact that the witness spoke about today, we have totally

21 contradictory statements of witnesses before the court.

22 Everything this witness confirmed was that the sticker

23 in a corner of this folder was in his handwriting and we

24 have heard several witnesses until now that stickers

25 have been placed and have vanished, that stickers can be

1 easily removed and moved on to other items. Previously,

2 this witness has not identified in any way even the

3 folder that the sticker with this handwriting is on.

4 I do not want to give my final arguments now, but all

5 that justifies our request that the admissibility of

6 evidence, even what the statement has just said before

7 the court, cannot be decided on now, that is premature.

8 Until we show the court once again everything that has

9 happened from the moment a third party seized an item,

10 who and how brought it to the police station and who and

11 when placed stickers on it and where items were kept.

12 All those facts have -- there are different statements

13 from different witnesses on all those items. We cannot

14 be absolutely certain because we have a witness in front

15 of us, that everything he said can be a basis for a

16 decision to be made that everything is exactly as we

17 have just heard it. I am appealing once again that

18 admissibility of all the evidence is discussed after the

19 cross-examination of the witness and after the final

20 arguments have been presented.

21 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Counsel appears to be putting two quite

22 different issues. What the Prosecution is now putting

23 forward before the Trial Chamber is admissibility of the

24 folders which this witness identified as created by

25 him. He was the one who made the folders and labelled

1 them. You are insisting on the question of the contents

2 of these folders which might be admitted into evidence

3 when it comes to be argued. Definitely that is not the

4 issue now. The issue is not a question of any

5 documents, the issue is whether the folders which were

6 collected by Navrat and brought to the office was kept

7 by this witness who is identifying them as the folders

8 which he kept. That is all the Prosecution is trying to

9 show.

10 MR. GREAVES: Your Honour, I do have some observations but

11 I see it is 1.00 and I remember your Honour saying as we

12 started this part that you were going to rise at 1.00.

13 May I make those observations at the end of the luncheon

14 adjournment please?

15 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. I thought we had

16 finished the last sentence. We will break now and come

17 back at 2.30.

18 (1.05 pm)

19 (Adjourned until 2.30 pm)

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (2.30 pm)

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can you invite the witness?

3 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps, your Honour, while the witness is

4 returning, may I mention something? It seems I was

5 given some incorrect information in relation to the

6 filing of a Rule 73 motion. It would seem that such a

7 motion was filed, though it is imprecise as to what the

8 final outcome of that was and what argument was mounted

9 in relation to it. Insofar as I said that a motion had

10 not been filed, I was wrong in that and I apologise to

11 the court and to Madam Residovic.

12 Your Honours, while I am on my feet, it was

13 mentioned by Mr. O'Sullivan that I had written a letter

14 saying that I would not deal with the exhibits until

15 after the conclusion of Mr. Panzer's evidence.

16 Your Honours, the letter is quite precise in saying

17 specific exhibits 109 to 147C. It makes no reference

18 whatsoever to Exhibit 166 which is the exhibit we are

19 now seeking to deal with. Lest there be any confusion

20 about the matter, whilst this witness is in the witness

21 box, and because of the specific evidence he will give

22 in relation to four videotapes, I will be seeking to

23 tender those and I put the Defence on notice of that,

24 your Honours.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I had thought when we started

1 this morning that you had announced we would argue the

2 Witness R motion at 2.30 today.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We still will. Actually, we are minded

4 first in admitting the twelve folders under the rule of

5 this chain of custody, because I think the chain of

6 custody was properly established. All the Prosecution

7 is saying and I still remember him and the witnesses is

8 that they are tendering the folders not the contents in

9 respect of the witness himself. He is the one who was

10 in charge of those folders and it is he who is now

11 tendering it in evidence. It could be admitted for that

12 purpose: you can still invite him.

13 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour --

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Trial Chamber notes the objection

15 of the Defence. They can raise whatever objections they

16 would wish to at a time when the documents in the

17 folders are being tendered. They can also in their

18 final submissions still object to it and put whatever

19 arguments they would want to. Even finally on appeal

20 they can still raise it, if the judgment relies on those

21 documents as evidence. You are still free, you are open

22 at any stage to rely on arguments which you are putting

23 on, but definitely we will admit it in evidence for this

24 purpose. You are not inhibited from whatever you want

25 to do with your objections. You understand what I have

1 said? You are free at all stages to raise the argument

2 that you pose to the admission of these documents.

3 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I have understood what you

4 said and I have understood that perhaps I should not be

5 presenting some of the arguments, but before I left this

6 courtroom I had also understood that you had given the

7 possibility to my colleague Mr. Greaves to give arguments

8 for the same issue for the chain of custody, and in that

9 respect I wanted to offer some more arguments before you

10 make a decision. We did not believe that you would be

11 doing during the recess, but I would like to ask you,

12 your Honour, to tell you precisely exactly what time can

13 the Defence of Mr. Delalic present its arguments related

14 to the incomplete chain of custody, which is something

15 that we have heard so many witnesses on and we have been

16 working on this for three months; and secondly, when

17 would we be able to ask you, if this witness identified

18 his own label and packaging, the folder, to ask the

19 Prosecutor for everything that is in the folder to be

20 presented to us at this time and then give our

21 objections to the content, because I can be neither wise

22 enough nor informed enough to know every detail that we

23 have discussed in the past three months. My remark not

24 to judge things in advance this morning, that we should

25 be expressing ourselves clearly, I do not wish by

1 defending the interests of my client at any time to

2 think that by offering us the frame and the label that

3 this witness placed not on the spot but at a certain

4 time later in the police station, that that could be any

5 indication that something that is in that document did

6 not come from somewhere else.

7 Just one more thing: the Defence will prove that

8 those materials contain things from Munich and from

9 Bosnia because the letter the Prosecutor has just

10 referred to, there are four pieces of evidence that were

11 given to Mr. Delalic during his interviews, those are not

12 documents coming from Vienna. That is why we believe

13 that without analysis and without arguments for

14 everything the witnesses have said, the chain of custody

15 nor what the witness has said here can be accepted

16 integrally.

17 Another question: if we are accepting something in

18 advance, why should the Defence --

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I have the intention of arguing this

20 issue. Before we went on break, what I was reacting to

21 was Mr. Greaves' reminder that we intended to close at

22 1.00. When we resumed what we initially had in mind was

23 the question of argument on the application for

24 protective witnesses. This is what we had and this was

25 what I stated in the morning when we resumed. What

1 I have just told you about arguments is that all the

2 Prosecution is trying to show is that this witness,

3 Panzer, was responsible for these folders. He was not

4 talking about the contents of the folders. If what you

5 are arguing is the legality of the folders, the chain of

6 custody of them, obviously there is clear evidence that

7 he handled these folders and these were the folders he

8 handled. There is nothing wrong in his telling the

9 Trial Chamber these were the folders he handled.

10 But when it comes to introducing evidence as to

11 documents in those folders, then you have a right to

12 challenge whatever, the legality of those things. At

13 this stage, you really have no problem, except assuming

14 that the moment the folders have been admitted,

15 everything goes with it. It does not. This is what

16 I am saying. At every stage you can still challenge

17 whatever documents are in these folders if it is

18 intended to use them against you. I think that is the

19 position. It is not final, you can still challenge it

20 later. Let us invite the witness. Let us take the

21 application for ...

22 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Turone, my colleague would like the bench,

23 your Honour.

24 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, before I sit down may I ask:

25 after that, do we have the possibility for

1 cross-examination with the witness for the chain of

2 custody, and after that to ask you to change the

3 decision that you have just made. Thank you.

4 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: He has not completed his evidence.

5 When you examine him, you will find out whatever you

6 think are the flaws in his chain of custody, if there

7 are any. Yes, Mr. Turone.

8 MR. TURONE: Thank you, your Honour. First of all, we

9 confirm that we are now in the position to definitely

10 clarify that we withdraw any request of protection

11 concerning Witness S, since the Prosecution is not going

12 to call this witness any more. On the other hand, the

13 Prosecution maintains the request of protection for

14 Witness R. Actually, there are two different motions

15 concerning Witness R, both filed on 22nd July, a motion

16 seeking leave to call this witness and a motion for his

17 protection from the public and the media.

18 It is not very clear from the transcript of

19 7th August whether the leave for Witness R was already

20 implicitly granted in the ruling of that day concerning

21 a group of new witnesses, but since formally maybe the

22 leave was not yet granted -- anyway, it is not clear to

23 me whether it was already implicitly granted or not --

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Because on that day you were not too

25 sure whether it was R or S. It was not easy to make any

1 decision on either -- you were not sure about the

2 witness.

3 MR. TURONE: We filed a motion to seek leave for calling

4 Witness R on July 22nd. I believe that this motion was

5 not yet decided even implicitly in the ruling, in the

6 later ruling given on 7th August. This is why I would

7 illustrate this motion too.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: If you remember, that day there was

9 argument between you and the Defence about who that

10 particular witness was. You have given several names

11 about this certain witness. It was not set.

12 MR. TURONE: It was not set, thank you, your Honour.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may continue.

14 MR. TURONE: Witness R has very recently informed the office

15 of the Prosecutor that he is willing to testify. He is

16 a relevant witness for a number of counts, a number of

17 killings and the count of inhumane treatment, and the

18 Prosecution provided the Defence with the identity of

19 witness R who was detained in the Celebici camp.

20 Moreover, in November 1996, the Prosecution provided the

21 Defence counsels with unredacted copies of the statement

22 made by Witness R to the Office of the Prosecutor. The

23 reason for which we seek leave to call this witness is

24 that a number, a relevant number of Prosecution

25 witnesses have decided not to testify in this trial, and

1 so we did not think Witness R to be absolutely necessary

2 when we filed our witness list on March 7th, but now the

3 Prosecution deems that this witness becomes important

4 because of the witnesses we lost in the meantime, and we

5 reapproached the witness in the meantime, and the

6 witness is now willing to testify.

7 Your Honours know that there have been a number of

8 circumstances such that we had to seek leave to call

9 other witnesses, we are still trying to figure out which

10 of our past witnesses will and will not testify. On the

11 other hand, as your Honours ruled already, what is the

12 root of contention in this issue is the Prosecution's

13 compliance with the disclosure obligations and the OTP

14 statement was disclosed in November 1996 and the

15 intention to call this witness, Mr. R as a witness, was

16 also made clear more than one month ago.

17 About the request of protective measures

18 concerning Witness R, we previously filed a number of

19 requests for confidentiality for a number of witnesses.

20 Witness R would have been in that group, but at that

21 time Mr. R had not agreed to be a witness in this trial.

22 Only recently, as I said, he reported to OTP that he is

23 willing to testify, but he fears reprisals for his

24 testimony, particularly after the recent publication of

25 the Prosecution witness list in a Bosnian newspaper, so

1 he requested the lowest level of protection, which is

2 protection from the media and the public. It is the

3 submission of the Prosecution that there is a need to

4 consider the different psychological approaches of the

5 different witnesses, witnesses being particularly

6 sensitive and vulnerable, maybe stressed by the fact

7 itself of seeing the Prosecution witness list published

8 with unpleasant comments in the daily newspapers, so

9 this is the reason for which we insist that these

10 protective measures be granted to Mr. R.

11 The trial, as we had already to consider many

12 times, would not become a secret trial anyway because

13 Mr. R would anyway testify in open session, only with

14 face distorted and a pseudonym. Thank you, your

15 Honour.

16 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any opposition to this?

17 MS. RESIDOVIC: I apologise, your Honours. I get the

18 translation much later, so I was waiting to hear exactly

19 what Mr. Turone said. That is why I have been standing

20 and keeping quiet for a couple of minutes and

21 I apologise.

22 I should like to ask the Trial Chamber and my

23 learned colleague the Prosecutor to give us a list of

24 all the protected witnesses, because last time we saw

25 that there was a certain degree of confusion. Some

1 protected witnesses renounced their protection, others

2 insisted on it, so that actually we do not have complete

3 insight into all the witnesses that need to be

4 protected, and this is very important so that we can

5 respect those protective measures.

6 I am saying this because this morning when the

7 request was made for protection of Witness R, in the

8 translation we heard "witness A", so you see, all this

9 would facilitate the proceedings. As for the proposals

10 themselves that were made, I understand the need of the

11 Prosecution, given the circumstances, to provide

12 witnesses who would confirm the allegations of the

13 Prosecution. However, my learned colleague Mr. Turone

14 has just informed us that there will be a number of --

15 that a certain number of witnesses who were on the list

16 refused to testify in this court, so this is one of the

17 reasons why this witness who was not on the list is

18 being offered.

19 The Prosecution has so far informed us that only

20 two witnesses out of a list of 66 will not come to

21 testify in the Trial Chamber, and if that is correct,

22 and if the Prosecutor will have to provide additional

23 witnesses, could the Prosecution please inform us of

24 this larger number of witnesses who were on the list,

25 but who will not be coming to testify, so that the

1 Defence need not necessarily waste time preparing for

2 witnesses who will obviously not be coming. That is as

3 far as the general arguments are concerned.

4 As for this particular witness, regarding the

5 statement he made to the Prosecution more than a month

6 and a half ago, I accept that the court will assess all

7 the elements appropriately and pass the proper ruling.

8 I would also like to ask the Prosecution, regarding

9 Witness S: is this a witness that the Prosecution does

10 not wish to call or is it a witness who has refused to

11 testify since this is a witness from whom the Defence

12 took a statement before the Prosecution and informed the

13 Prosecution about it; then the Prosecution took a

14 statement from this same witness and put him on the

15 list. As far as the Defence of Delalic is concerned, it

16 is irrelevant who will provide the witness, because it

17 is important that they tell the truth, that is all. So

18 I am asking again whether it is the Prosecution that has

19 decided not to call this witness or is it the witness

20 himself who has decided not to come. Thank you.

21 MR. TURONE: We have no difficulty in telling the Defence

22 counsel that in this particular case of Mr. S, the

23 Prosecution decided not to call the witness. From the

24 other hand, for the other request of our learned

25 colleague on the Defence, we sent to Defence lawyers a

1 letter on August 22nd providing -- making available a

2 list of all protected witnesses with names and letters.

3 This list is available to all Defence lawyers.

4 JUDGE JAN: Her point is slightly different. What she says

5 is a number of witnesses are being dropped and they

6 should be informed about the names of those persons so

7 they do not waste time working on the statements of

8 those witnesses.

9 MR. TURONE: We will inform the Defence lawyers about that.

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Those witnesses whom you no longer wish

11 to pursue, that is what she means.

12 MR. TURONE: The witnesses who refuse to testify, refuse to

13 come, so that the Defence lawyers might know exactly

14 which witnesses not to prepare.

15 JUDGE JAN: Whom you do not want to examine.

16 MR. TURONE: Even also, both the ones who do not want to

17 come, for being afraid or any other reason, and the ones

18 we decide not to call.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: How do you know these things until they

20 actually refuse?

21 MR. TURONE: Actually we do our best in order to inform the

22 Defence lawyer as soon as we receive information that a

23 witness is not coming, refuses to come. This sometimes

24 happens in a very sudden way as it was, for instance,

25 for the two witnesses we had to examine through video

1 link, they notified that they were not willing to

2 testify any more in the very days in which we were

3 preparing the testimony and the hearing, but I emphasise

4 that we will do all our best in order to inform the

5 Defence lawyers as soon as possible of the witnesses

6 who, for any reason, are not going to testify

7 immediately when we know that.

8 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, with all due respect to the

9 Prosecution, I know they have their witness problems.

10 At this point there are about as many characters here as

11 in War and Peace. It would be very helpful to me if the

12 Prosecution would take its witness list of March 7th or

13 whatever date it was, take a look at that witness list,

14 take off the names of the people they are not going to

15 call, put on the names of the people they are going to

16 call, put a pseudonym next to the ones they are going to

17 have a pseudonym for, so that we can --

18 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I see your point, you are saying that

19 for those who the Prosecution do no longer want to call,

20 they can be sure of those ones.

21 MR. MORAN: That is correct.

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: But those who might refuse to attend

23 when they are called, they cannot be sure of those

24 witnesses.

25 MR. MORAN: I understand that, your Honour.

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: They can perhaps give you the list of

2 those who they no longer want to come.

3 MR. MORAN: What I would respectfully request is the reverse

4 of that, just give us a list of who they want to call.

5 For instance, there is an expert witness they

6 designated, a retired officer in the Dutch army.

7 I believe the Prosecution is not going to call that

8 man. I do not know that, I have just heard that. It

9 would be nice to know. That is the type of thing I am

10 suggesting, your Honours. I am not asking for the world

11 and I understand that there is going to be times when

12 something happens, with these two video link witnesses

13 is, I guess, the best example, at the last minute

14 somebody says no, I am not going to do it. At this

15 Tribunal, we cannot send out the marshals and bring the

16 witnesses down in handcuffs. I understand the

17 Prosecution's problems in that and I am sympathetic to

18 them. On the other hand, if they could be sympathetic

19 to us, I have four file boxes full of documents and at

20 some point it would be a whole lot easier to get rid of

21 those documents and get it down to one document.

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think this should not be too

23 difficult for them to -- when they make up their mind

24 they will not call a witness, they can inform the

25 Defence about that. I think that is easy.

1 MR. GREAVES: I think what we are after is a definitive list

2 of what the Prosecution knows today about its

3 witnesses. We understand entirely that they are going

4 to get taken by surprise from time to time by someone

5 who says I am not coming for whatever reason, or

6 I cannot come for whatever, we understand that entirely,

7 but if they know now that somebody is not coming it is

8 going to save us all a lot of time and wasted effort in

9 looking at those witnesses' statements in the future.

10 That is what we are after, a definitive list of what

11 they know now. I see my learned friend has risen

12 probably to acknowledge that is what we are all after.

13 MR. TURONE: If I may add something. I would like to

14 emphasise that we do our best and we will try to do

15 better. For instance, there are some witnesses right

16 now we are not even -- they disappear. We are trying to

17 find where they are. They gave us the information about

18 their being willing to testify, but now they disappear

19 and they -- so there are situations like that, this is

20 why we have some difficulties, but we assure Defence

21 lawyers that we do our best to inform as soon as

22 possible whenever a real information about a witness

23 coming or not coming will be in our possession.

24 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, no one I think is questioning the

25 good faith of the Prosecution. I acknowledge that they

1 have behaved in a professional manner throughout this

2 entire trial, it is just a matter of -- there is a

3 dribble of information here and a drab of information

4 there and if we could just get it all put together.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose what you are requesting is

6 not a difficult point. If the Prosecution has made up

7 its mind not to call a particular witness, they inform

8 you. For those where they have not made up their mind,

9 they do not have to tell you. They can wait for the

10 person. I do not see the problem about it. It is only

11 those you are sure you are not calling, then you tell

12 the Defence that. For all those which are borderline,

13 you still wait until you make up your mind not to call

14 them.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honour, I just wanted to repeat the

16 same as colleague Turone has just said, that a certain

17 number of witnesses have said they would not come, so we

18 are just asking that we are given the names of those

19 witnesses, this number of witnesses, so that we should

20 not waste time preparing for their statements. So far

21 we know only about Witness S.

22 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: We are still on the question of the

23 protection. You have not reacted to the particular

24 application.

25 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I will react to that. No objection.

1 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is what we wanted to hear.

2 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I think I have said nothing today

3 so let me very briefly enter this discussion. When this

4 case started, I understand that we all had a list of

5 witnesses that the Prosecution expected to call. The

6 court had it, the Defence counsel had it, we all had it

7 and we had a definable universe. We are in the position

8 now, all of us over here, of not knowing whether the

9 Prosecution intends to put on ten more witnesses or

10 twenty more witnesses or forty more witnesses. What

11 I would really like to have is not any kind of a final

12 decision by the Prosecution but they must have a working

13 list similar to the one that we had on March 7th. If

14 they could just give us a list "these are the witnesses

15 we intend to call between now and the end of this

16 trial", with the understanding that some of them may

17 decide not to come, that will let us know what the

18 universe is in terms of planning our cross-examination

19 of those witnesses, but trying to get our own cases

20 prepared in a manner that would allow us to start the

21 Defence cases reasonably close to the time that the

22 Prosecution ends theirs. Boil it all down, that is

23 probably what we are asking for.

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Thank you very much. It appears there

25 is no objection to the application for the protection of

1 Witness R. All the others I think you can take care of

2 it, giving them your list of witnesses, those you know

3 you are likely to call.

4 MR. TURONE: We will do our best, your Honour, certainly.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can we now have the witness?

6 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour. Might the witness be

7 recalled? I take it from what fell from your Honour

8 immediately after we returned from luncheon adjournment

9 that your Honours have admitted Exhibit 166?

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Yes, with the limitation that it is

11 just the --

12 MR. NIEMANN: That is understood, your Honour.

13 (Witness entered court)

14 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Panzer, you said earlier in your evidence

15 today that you had dealt with the videotapes that you

16 had received from Mr. Mucic's apartment, the four

17 videotapes, in a similar way that you had dealt with the

18 twelve folders. I ask that the witness now be shown the

19 four videotapes which are Exhibit 109, 110, 111 and

20 112. Mr. Panzer, the first one you have there in your

21 hand, do you see on that video anything that causes you

22 to recognise it?

23 A. This video is one I recognise on the basis of the label

24 and the sticker, which I put on there. That is my

25 writing on there. On the first line, it says "Celebit"

1 that I recognise. There were two videotapes that we

2 found at Mr. Mucic's apartment that had such a

3 reference. One of them said "Celebit", and the other

4 one said "Celebici" on it.

5 Q. Is that one of the videotapes you had inserted into the

6 video recorder and examined when you were at the

7 premises of Mr. Mucic?

8 A. I had a look at all four videotapes. They were put in

9 the VCR and I had a look at them. M1D, that tape,

10 I believe, has the footage where Mr. Mucic can be seen

11 together with other people in uniform. They are in a

12 room and there is some singing and drinking going on

13 there.

14 Q. That is one of the four videos that was actually handed

15 to you by Mr. Mucic?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And the label that you identify or see on the video that

18 causes you to recognise, is there writing on that label?

19 A. What do you mean by label?

20 Q. The label or the sticker on the video that you

21 recognised it by.

22 A. There are two stickers that have been put on here.

23 These are the ones I put on. I put them on and I wrote

24 on them.

25 Q. The smaller of the stickers, what is written on the one

1 that you have in your hand?

2 A. I am not sure I know what you mean.

3 Q. The small sticker that you put on the video that you now

4 have in your hand, what is written on it?

5 A. There are these two small stickers, it says M for Mucic,

6 1 for the listing system and then D, meaning that this

7 is the fourth of the four videos.

8 Q. Now would you look at the next video, please -- perhaps

9 look through them and you might give them to us in their

10 correct order, that is A, B, C. Starting with the one

11 with A on it, would you look at that one, please?

12 A. I have had a look at them, because I did not understand

13 that there was not a sticker on here, but I see that

14 there is a sticker here under this small note, because

15 I put a sticker both on the tape as well as on the box.

16 This tape is one I recognise.

17 Q. What is written on the sticker? Can you see the

18 sticker?

19 A. I recognise this sticker on the basis of what is written

20 here, Velija, that is a name I remember and I recognise

21 it on account of this sticker here, which I put. M1A, M

22 for Mucic, 1 for the tape and A because this is the

23 first tape that was seized.

24 Q. That was a tape that you played at the premises of

25 Mr. Mucic?

1 A. Yes, this tape as well, just very briefly.

2 Q. That was a tape that was handed to you by Mr. Mucic?

3 A. This is one of the tapes that Mr. Mucic handed me.

4 Q. Would you please look at the next one in order.

5 A. So, this is the right one here. I can remember this

6 tape as well, for two reasons. First of all because of

7 the word written here, "Celebici" that is written on

8 there, and then secondly because of this sticker, M1B.

9 I wrote that on here and I put the sticker on the tape

10 and then the case has the same sticker, M for Mucic, 1

11 for the tape and B because it is the second tape that we

12 seized. As I said, with regard to these four tapes,

13 I did not number them 1, 2, 3, 4; rather M for Mucic, 1,

14 I put that on all for tapes and then I made the

15 differentiation on the basis of the letters A, B, C and

16 D for each of the tapes.

17 Q. Was that one of the videos that you had inserted in the

18 video recorder and played while you were on the premises

19 of Mr. Mucic?

20 A. Yes, just briefly also, and this is also a tape that was

21 handed me by Mr. Mucic.

22 Q. Could you look at the next and final number?

23 A. This tape is one I remember, not on account of the label

24 but rather on account of the sticker I put on here, M1C,

25 once again M for Mucic, 1 because it is a tape and C

1 because this was the third tape. As you can see, I put

2 a sticker with the same reference on the case of the

3 tape and this is also a tape that was handed to me by

4 Mr. Mucic and one that I had a brief look at in his

5 apartment in his VCR.

6 MR. NIEMANN: I ask that those tapes be now handed to the

7 technicians in the booth in order that they might be

8 played one after the other on the video.

9 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, I think it would be helpful to the

10 record, if these are going to be Prosecution's 109 to

11 112, if we got in the record in some way whether

12 Prosecution 109 is M1A or M1B or M1C. I think that

13 would make the record somewhat clearer.

14 MR. NIEMANN: I am happy to oblige my friend with that

15 your Honours.

16 JUDGE JAN: Another thing, he said briefly viewed, how long

17 each tape, a minute, two minutes?

18 MR. NIEMANN: Hopefully it will be just a few moments each

19 tape, your Honour.

20 JUDGE JAN: Are moments extending? What period of time?

21 MR. NIEMANN: I have not mentioned the time, but a total of

22 ten minutes.

23 JUDGE JAN: How long did he watch of each tape?

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: It is just merely to recognise the

25 tapes or to have a fairly good view of the contents?

1 MR. NIEMANN: I will be seeking to do two things,

2 your Honours. Firstly for him recognise --

3 your Honours, what I will be seeking to do with the

4 witness is to have him identify as he has seen them,

5 which will take, as I understand it, a few seconds, but

6 as I indicated earlier I will be seeking to tender these

7 videos now and I will be seeking to play so much of them

8 as is necessary to show their relevance, but from either

9 event, it is very short. I am not going to labour the

10 court with the whole viewing of the whole videos which

11 would take, as I understand it, a few hours. I expect

12 the whole process to be over in ten minutes in total,

13 but I will be showing it for both purposes. I do have a

14 transcript of them which I can make available.

15 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, I apologise once again.

16 Though this is not evidence that may have direct bearing

17 on Mr. Delalic, but after this witness has identified his

18 markings on the tapes and after all of us having heard

19 that he briefly viewed very short segments, I do not

20 know what will be shown, whether this insert seen by the

21 witness or something else that he watched much later and

22 analysed, and when things were changing so much from the

23 moment of seizure to this moment when he sees, for

24 instance, that a label is missing on one of his tapes,

25 I really do not know whether in the name of

1 identification, we are actually again admitting these

2 exhibits as evidence. In my system this is quite

3 different, but to me this appears like prejudicing the

4 outcome.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I have one concern. Apparently,

6 these tapes contain perhaps as much as an hour of video

7 in each tape. I do not think the court can make a

8 ruling about the relevancy of what is contained on the

9 tapes by looking at three or four minutes of a tape

10 because as I understand these tapes, they are vignettes

11 that have a lot of different things on them. If what

12 Mr. Niemann wants to do is let you see five minutes of a

13 tape which is relevant and based upon that five minutes

14 being relevant introduce in the record of this case an

15 additional 55 minutes that may be totally irrelevant,

16 then I think we all would have a substantial objection

17 to that. If what Mr. Niemann believes is that there are

18 only five minutes on each tape that are relevant to the

19 issues in this case, then it seems to me extracts should

20 be made from those tapes and the extracts admitted, but

21 to judge relevance of a 60 minute tape on a five minute

22 segment of it seems to me to be impossible and

23 relevance, of course, is important in terms of what gets

24 into this record.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I did not understand him to mean that.

1 Here is a witness who is in control of certain tapes.

2 He made his markings on them and they have been played,

3 he has viewed the tapes, so he should be made to say

4 whether these are the same tapes which were viewed at

5 the time when he had them.

6 MR. ACKERMAN: I agree with that. If that is all that is

7 being done, I have no objection. I understood he wanted

8 to play part of them to show the entire tape was

9 relevant. I cannot imagine that would work.

10 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours, I was seeking to tender them for

11 both purposes now, to play them for the purpose of this

12 witness's identification of them and then to play a

13 segment of them for the purposes of identification.

14 Your Honours, the whole tape will be tendered, so it is

15 not as though -- if there is any argument of

16 completeness going on here then in my submission, your

17 Honour, the whole tape is available and the Prosecution

18 is not selectively trying to produce to the court as an

19 exhibit a redacted version of the tape, hence be

20 confronted with an objection by the Defence that we are

21 trying to put forward only those parts which we say suit

22 our case and not the Defence's.

23 Conversely, your Honours, I do not believe that it

24 is ever incumbent upon a party who has a video, a film,

25 a document or any other to be precluded from tendering

1 the whole document and reliance being only put on part

2 of it. In numerous incidences, for example invoice

3 books in a fraud case, there may be only three invoices

4 in a bound volume which are relevant to the case. For

5 all sorts of reasons the Prosecution may tender the

6 whole book as an exhibit in the proceedings, but only

7 seek to draw attention to three of the invoices. If

8 another party seeks to rely on parts of the invoices

9 which have not been raised by the Prosecution, well and

10 good, that is available to them to do that. But in my

11 submission, your Honour, I know of no rule which says

12 that you have to proceed to extract all that is

13 relevant. What I am trying to do is to achieve

14 efficiency. It seems to me, your Honours, that we could

15 sit here and listen to tapes -- I believe there is 17

16 hours in total.

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There might be some difficulties in

18 this one because here the witness is only saying that

19 these are the tapes he received and not what they were.

20 MR. NIEMANN: But there are two issues your Honour that

21 I would have thought it was necessary for me to

22 demonstrate if I am to tender them for contents. The

23 two issues are firstly his identification of them

24 because he has identified the case but it is necessary

25 to go further, I would have thought and to have him

1 identify the actual video film itself because the case

2 itself is probably not sufficient.

3 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I suppose that is when the issue of the

4 contents arises. That is not the issue at this stage.

5 MR. NIEMANN: No, your Honour, but at the same time they are

6 there and for the sake of efficiency, having regard to

7 the fact that I submit that there could hardly be any

8 argument about the chain of evidence in relation to the

9 testimony this witness has given so far concerning these

10 particular four tapes; these tapes were given to him by

11 Mr. Mucic. He had them, he took them back, he labelled

12 them, he played them, he saw them, and how could it

13 possibly be argued that the chain of evidence is

14 anything but complete?

15 The next step, your Honours, is to seek to tender

16 them as an exhibit in the proceedings. The chain of

17 evidence may be satisfied to your Honours' satisfaction,

18 but it may not be satisfied in terms of relevance. All

19 I am seeking to do, your Honours, is while the videos

20 are being played is to address both issues for the sake

21 of efficiency, firstly to deal with the question of the

22 chain and him identifying the tape as the one that was

23 shown to him by Mr. Mucic. The second issue,

24 your Honours, is while the tape is in the booth, in the

25 machine, to play them so I can address the question of

1 relevance and then seek to proceed to tender them. In

2 my submission, your Honours, if your Honours do not wish

3 me to do that I do not mind, but it seems to me an

4 efficient way to go about it.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Actually, I would prefer you to confine

6 yourself to the chain of custody issue on the tapes.

7 When the issue arises on the contents of the tape, you

8 might be able to do that, because you might not be able

9 to do it through him.

10 MR. NIEMANN: If your Honours please, I am happy to tender

11 them as part of the chain of evidence.

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think that is appropriate.

13 MR. GREAVES: Can I address your Honour as a matter of

14 relevance please? My learned friend has said he is

15 going to play only those parts of the tapes which are

16 relevant. It follows from that that there are large

17 parts of the tapes which are not relevant. What he is

18 trying to do is to admit effectively evidence which is

19 not relevant and, of course, Rule 89 says "only that

20 evidence which is relevant may be admitted". Therefore

21 those parts which he says are not relevant are going to

22 be admitted by his producing these items. It seems to

23 me he has some difficulty there. He may well talk about

24 efficiency but he has also to remember Rule 89 as well.

25 In my submission, Rule 89 takes precedence over

1 efficiency.

2 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What we think he should do now is to

3 show that these are the tapes which this witness had and

4 which he took from Mr. Mucic. I think that is all he

5 need do at this stage. If there is any other issue

6 which arises as to the relevance of these tapes to

7 whatever evidence he wants to give, he might at that

8 stage bring that in, but not at this stage when all he

9 is saying is he got these tapes from Mr. Mucic, nothing

10 more.

11 MR. NIEMANN: I will proceed accordingly, your Honour, to

12 deal with them only on the basis of the chain. Might

13 the four videotapes be taken to the booth, please?

14 MR. MORAN: Your Honour, while that is being done, I think

15 Mr. Niemann said he was going to recite into the record

16 some kind of cross-reference so we know which

17 Prosecution exhibit equals M1A, B, C and D.

18 MR. NIEMANN: I am happy to do that. M1A, your Honour, is

19 Exhibit 109. M1B is Exhibit 110. M1C is Exhibit 111,

20 and M1D is Exhibit 112. Your Honour, there is a series

21 of translated transcripts that are attached which are

22 given the numbers 109a, 110A et cetera, in that order,

23 but it is the videotapes that we are concerned with at

24 this stage.

25 Now that the videos have been handed to the booth,

1 might we start, your Honour, with the first one, which

2 is Exhibit 109? I have prepared a transcript,

3 your Honours, but seeing as we are dealing with it only

4 on the basis of this witness identifying it for the

5 chain of evidence, I do not think it is necessary to

6 trouble your Honours with the transcript.

7 Mr. Panzer, I want you to, when the people in the

8 technician's booth are ready, I want you to look at your

9 video monitor in front of you and if you see anything

10 you recognise there, can you please say so and at that

11 stage I will ask that the tape be stopped and which will

12 move on to the next one. Would you please watch what

13 you are shown? The moment you recognise, if you

14 recognise anything at all, can you please say so. Might

15 be start with 109, which is video M1A?

16 MS. RESIDOVIC: Your Honours, we hope that the Prosecutor

17 is not showing this tape with the sound, because as far

18 as I understand, the witness does not speak Bosnian and

19 when he was watching it, he did not have a translation.

20 MR. NIEMANN: I do not know how my friend is aware of that,

21 but nevertheless I do not mind whether the sound is

22 turned on or off. I assume the sound was turned on, and

23 the fact that it is in a language the witness may or may

24 not know, and I am not sure that is established, one can

25 still identify language notwithstanding the fact that

1 one does not speak it. I have no problem with that,

2 your Honour, if they want to turn it off. There is more

3 to sound than simply language, your Honour, there is

4 music.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I do not think that is the issue at

6 this stage. He just should identify what he saw.

7 MR. NIEMANN: But he could have heard as well your Honour,

8 there could be sounds like music, cars braking, all

9 sorts of things he might recognise which do not

10 necessarily relate to what is said. Mr. Panzer, would

11 you now please look at your screen.

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I hope the witness understands we are

13 not having an extensive viewing.

14 A. I do not have anything on my screen here, it is all

15 dark. Oh, here it comes.

16 (Videotape played)

17 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps your Honours, we can ask the booth to

18 fast forward. It may be quicker to deal with it that

19 way. Mr. Panzer does not seem to recognise anything so

20 far, so if it could be fast forwarded through and he

21 sees something he recognises we might stop at that

22 stage.

23 (Videotape stopped)

24 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: All we want to know is whether these

25 are the tapes he viewed.

1 MR. NIEMANN: That is what we want to do. There are parts of

2 it which he now remembers, as I understand it, which he

3 did not remember before. Perhaps if it could be fast

4 forwarded?

5 A. May I put a question to you, Prosecutor? This tape,

6 could you play it on fast forward?

7 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps it might played on fast forward.

8 (Videotape played)

9 A. I think I recall that this woman on the phone here is a

10 relative of Velija and subsequently there is going to be

11 several people sitting in a living room. There is a

12 picture on the wall, I presume it is Velija. There is

13 Mr. Mucic there and I think that this is subsequent to a

14 funeral.

15 (Videotape stopped)

16 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps it could be played fast forward.

17 Please watch the screen and make sure you have it on

18 your screen. Could you play it fast forward and look at

19 it. If you see any part that you recognise, tell us

20 quickly and we will stop the video at that point, but it

21 is not -- I notice it is not on my television screen at

22 the moment. Could it be fast forwarded?

23 (Videotape played)

24 A. Stop.

25 (Videotape stopped)

1 A. Prior to that there were the images that I referred to,

2 that is to say a picture of a young person on the wall

3 and then if you could play on from that point.

4 MR. NIEMANN: Play on, please.

5 (Videotape played)

6 A. Stop.

7 (Videotape stopped)

8 A. I remember this scene with the woman crying and now

9 shortly, we should be seeing Mr. Mucic in the group. If

10 you could please play on?

11 (Videotape played)

12 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: What is the witness expecting? We just

13 want to know whether he viewed the tape and if he viewed

14 it, whether these were part of the scenes which he

15 viewed.

16 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, your Honour. I think the witness has

17 probably seen enough, but he has indicated that there is

18 a scene of Mr. Mucic which is about to come on the screen

19 and for the sake of completeness, unless it be said that

20 it was not shown and any opposition by the Defence,

21 I thought it might be appropriate to wait.

22 A. Stop.

23 (Videotape stopped)

24 A. I remember this scene as well, where one of the men

25 shows a photograph. I take it Velija is on it.

1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. I do not think it is necessary to

2 see any more of that particular video. I would now ask

3 you to play the next video, number M1B, which is exhibit

4 number 110. Again, perhaps it could be -- I think if it

5 is played from the start, this may be more successful

6 this time, so could you play it from the start but not

7 at fast forward.

8 (Videotape played)

9 MR. NIEMANN: Perhaps we could fast forward. If you see a

10 part you recognise, Mr. Panzer, please tell us to stop.

11 Could we fast forward, please?

12 A. M1B, there was landscapes shown and then there was a

13 parade where Dzemal Delalic and Zejnil Delalic appeared

14 in uniform and this -- this scene, stop, hold it.

15 (Videotape stopped)

16 A. I remember this as well.

17 (Videotape played)

18 A. Are you sure this is M1B?

19 MR. NIEMANN: I think the wrong tape has been put in the

20 video.

21 (Videotape stopped)

22 A. I ask because there is a tape with three references

23 on -- rather licence plates, there are three licence

24 plate numbers, two Viennese and one from Munich and

25 I think that is M1C.

1 MR. NIEMANN: Can I ask that it be checked and see what one

2 they put in?

3 THE REGISTRAR: It is M1B.

4 MR. NIEMANN: It is M1B. Could you continue looking at it

5 and see if there is any part of it that you recognise.

6 Perhaps it should be gone through on fast forward.

7 (Videotape played)

8 A. Stop.

9 (Videotape stopped)

10 A. I remember this scene at the cafe with cases of beer and

11 the people there sitting on the chairs in front of the

12 cafe.

13 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. Could you now please proceed to

14 the next video which is marked M1C and given the number

15 Exhibit 111. Could you play that, please, again on fast

16 forward and Mr. Panzer when you see it, if you see any

17 part of it that you recognise, would you please ask for

18 them to stop the video?

19 (Videotape played)

20 A. Hold it.

21 (Videotape stopped)

22 A. This looks familiar. This is a scene of the car going

23 through the countryside, there is Konjic in the

24 background. This goes on for quite some time, but this

25 is something I do recall.

1 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. Can we move to the final tape

2 which is M1D and given the number Exhibit 112. Again

3 could that be played on fast forward to commence with

4 and Mr. Panzer, if there is any part of it that you

5 recognise, would you please ask them to stop the tape.

6 (Videotape played)

7 A. Hold it.

8 (Videotape stopped)

9 A. This is the tape where for an hour and a half you can

10 see Mucic and his friends, fellow soldiers, they are in

11 a room there, there is just one woman there with them

12 and there is some singing and drinking going on there.

13 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you. When the tapes are returned from

14 the booth, I tender them, your Honour. No further

15 questions after that, your Honour, after I have dealt

16 with the question of tendering those four tapes.

17 (Handed). I tender those tapes, your Honours, on the

18 basis of establishment of the chain.

19 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: They are admitted. In

20 cross-examination?

21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour we will proceed in this way.

22 First counsel for Mr. Delalic, second counsel for

23 Mr. Mucic, third counsel for Mr. Delic and fourth counsel

24 for Mr. Landzo. Thank you, your Honour.

25 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: You may proceed, Mr. O'Sullivan.

1 Cross-examined by MR. O'SULLIVAN

2 Q. Thank you. Mr. Panzer, I have a few questions for you

3 relating to this matter. To begin, I have a few

4 questions about you. To begin with, you have told us

5 you are a member of Division 1 of the Vienna police

6 department, is that correct?

7 A. Well, counsel for the Defence, our division is

8 Division 1 or department 1 and is one of five of the

9 police directorate in Vienna.

10 Q. In March 1996, you were known as a group leader; is that

11 right?

12 A. No, that is not true. I was leader of a group in May

13 1995.

14 Q. What was your position in March 1996?

15 A. I was also group leader.

16 Q. How many years have you been a police officer, in total?

17 A. Since 1974.

18 Q. I take it that you have had a number of years of

19 training, both practical and theoretical, concerning the

20 handling of physical evidence; is that correct?

21 A. In the police school and in the detective course we were

22 shown how to deal with these matters of the code for

23 criminal procedure, yes.

24 Q. During your many years of experience, I would assume you

25 have had occasion to seize evidence pursuant to search

1 warrants?

2 A. Yes, over the years a number of seizures in the

3 execution of orders from the court.

4 Q. I believe you just told the Tribunal that you carry out

5 these searches and seizures pursuant to the code of

6 criminal procedure; is that correct?

7 A. That is correct. The code of criminal procedure states

8 that when you -- on the basis of certain facts, the

9 investigating judge will draw up an order. There can be

10 initiative taken by the police itself. There are

11 provisions in the code that make that sort of procedure,

12 upon very strict criteria.

13 Q. In all respects regarding the alleged searches of

14 Taubergasse 15 and the premises of INDA-Bau that were

15 carried out pursuant to the code you have just

16 mentioned; is that right?

17 A. All searches in this case were ordered by Dr Seda, the

18 investigating judge.

19 Q. And they were carried out in their entirety pursuant to

20 the code; is that correct?

21 A. The order to carry out a house search was given to us by

22 the investigating judge. The people in Division 1 tried

23 to execute the order in compliance with the law.

24 Q. My question was quite simple: was it carried out in

25 pursuance of the code of criminal procedures; yes or no?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. There were two search warrants issued in connection with

3 the arrest of Mr. Mucic; is that correct?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Before seeking to have the search warrants issued, you

6 had in your possession registration about the people who

7 were registered as living at Taubergasse 15 in Vienna;

8 is that not correct?

9 A. Correct.

10 Q. And you also had information concerning INDA-Bau, such

11 things as the structure, the company, the names of

12 directors, the names of shareholders?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Going back to Taubergasse 15, it was your colleague

15 Moerbaur who collected the information on the

16 individuals registered at that address, was it not?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honours, with the assistance of the

19 usher I would like the witness to be shown a document.

20 I have a copy for the witness which I ask be shown to

21 the Prosecution and a copy for each one of

22 your Honours.

23 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be marked D62/1.

24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Mr. Panzer, I would ask you to have a look at

25 this document. It is in the German language with the

1 English translation attached. I would ask you to look

2 at the German, perhaps. You will see a cover letter

3 dated 15th March 1996, followed by registration

4 information for Taubergasse 15. Do you recognise this

5 document?

6 A. Yes, it is a registration note about all the people who

7 were living at Taubergasse 15 who reported to the police

8 as having been there or still being there.

9 Q. In fact this document contains both the names of people

10 who are registered and those although are deregistered;

11 in other words no longer living at Taubergasse 15; is

12 that not correct?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. Looking at the first page, page 1 of the German version,

15 do you have that? The first name there is Sefika

16 Rizvanovic, born 14th December 1939, do you see that?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It says she was registered as living at Taubergasse 15,

19 door 15, since 13th January 1995, correct?

20 A. Yes, that is what it says.

21 Q. And door 15 is on the second floor next to door 14 at

22 Taubergasse, is it not?

23 A. I do not really know exactly where it is. 14 was on the

24 second floor. I do not know whether 15 was next door to

25 it or not.

1 Q. You knew that Sefika Rizvanovic is the sister of Zejnil

2 Delalic, did you not?

3 A. It says Nee Delalic. Whether it was his sister or not

4 I do not know.

5 Q. But you knew she was present the day the alleged search

6 of door 14 took place, do you not?

7 A. I do not really know. Hariso Delalic was there, but

8 Sefika, I really do not know. Hariso Delalic --

9 Q. For now I am asking you about Sefika Rizvanovic. Do you

10 know whether she was there that day and whether she was

11 the sister of Zejnil Delalic?

12 A. No, I do not know.

13 Q. On the same page, page 1 of the German version, the

14 third name down is a Salem Halilhodzic, born 5th July

15 1942, correct?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. He is registered at Taubergasse 15, door 14, living

18 there since 19th October 1995; is that correct?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. You knew he worked at the BH club located on the ground

21 floor of Taubergasse 15; is that not correct?

22 A. I do not know.

23 Q. You knew he was present at Taubergasse 15 the day of the

24 alleged search that took place at Taubergasse 15, do you

25 not?

1 A. I do not know.

2 Q. On the same page, the next name down is Jasmina

3 Halilhodzic born 12th November 1950, correct?

4 A. Yes, I can see it.

5 Q. She is registered as living at Taubergasse 15, door 14,

6 since 11th January 1995, correct?

7 A. Yes, I can see that.

8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is it an appropriate time to take a break,

9 your Honour?

10 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Do you mind if we have a break and come

11 back at 4.30?

12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Very well, thank you.

13 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: The Trial Chamber will break.

14 (4.00 pm)

15 (A short break)

16 (4.30 pm)

17 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Can I interrupt you for a few seconds

18 by making an announcement? The Trial Chamber will sit

19 at 11.00 am tomorrow, because of a hospital appointment

20 a member of the Trial Chamber has. We will sit at that

21 time. Thank you. You may continue.

22 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, your Honour. Officer Panzer,

23 before the break we were looking at the exhibit marked

24 as D62/1 and you recall that this -- you have identified

25 it as the document that contains the names of the people

1 who were registered as living at Taubergasse 15 in the

2 middle of March, March 18th 1996, correct?

3 A. It is from 18th March, it is true -- it is not from

4 18th March. This does not necessarily mean though that

5 the people are living in the place that they were

6 reported as living to the police.

7 Q. But they were, in fact, registered as living there; is

8 that correct?

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. This is also the document that accompanied the letter of

11 March 15th 1996 in support of the search warrants; is

12 that correct?

13 A. You are talking about this one? Do you mean this one?

14 Q. This document we are looking at --

15 A. Are you asking whether this was the basis for the search

16 warrant?

17 Q. It was attached to the letter of March 15th 1996 which

18 is the first page in the bundle you have there. It was

19 attached to that letter of March 15th in support of the

20 issuance of the search warrant. If you go back a page,

21 I think. Is that correct?

22 A. I cannot really say. I do not know. This piece of

23 paper, I do not think it is something that went to the

24 court, because there was a report of several pages sent

25 to the court of 15th March through Interpol, in which it

1 was stated what was the information for the basis of the

2 search, but I do not think this was the paper.

3 Q. I ask you to look at the page just before the one you

4 have in front of you. That is the letter of March

5 15th to which you make reference. Attached to that

6 letter was this document regarding registration at

7 Taubergasse 15, correct?

8 A. You would have to ask Mr. Furst because he was the person

9 who sent this to the district court, not me.

10 Q. But you are familiar with this document we are looking

11 at regarding registration.

12 A. The first page is not mine. That was written by one of

13 my colleagues, the registration information. That is

14 not something I did. That was produced by Interpol, by

15 Mr. Furst, the administrative officer there.

16 Q. But the question is, you are familiar with the

17 pages that follow, the pages that list the names of the

18 people registered at Taubergasse 15.

19 A. Yes, I am familiar with those. I recognise them. It

20 was the Tuesday or the Wednesday that I gave documents

21 to Mr. Furst and I would assume that he used those and

22 that then he was in contact -- Interpol was in contact

23 with the district court, but it is not something that

24 I produced myself or sent.

25 Q. I draw your attention to the first page of the

1 registration, the one we were looking at before the

2 break. I ask you to find the name Ines Halilhodzic,

3 born 30th August 1970, can you see that there?

4 A. Yes, I can see it.

5 Q. This person is shown as registered as living at

6 Taubergasse 15, door 14, since 11th January 1995; is

7 that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. The next name down is Damir Halilhodzic born

10 28th January 1977?

11 A. Correct.

12 Q. This person is also registered as living at Taubergasse

13 15, door 14, since 11th January 1995?

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. If you turn the page, still in the German version, the

16 fourth name down is Sanda Mucic born 27th April 1979,

17 correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. She is registered as living at Taubergasse 15, door 10;

20 is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. You know she is the daughter of Zdravko Mucic?

23 A. Yes, I do know that.

24 Q. She is the same Sanda Mucic who was present at apartment

25 10 after the arrest of Mr. Mucic.

1 A. I suppose that it is, I only know one Sanda Mucic.

2 Q. Could you also confirm that on the day of the alleged

3 search and seizure at Taubergasse 15, Hariso Delalic was

4 present?

5 A. She was there, Mr. Moerbaur gave her a key to the

6 apartment.

7 Q. You know she is the sister-in-law of Zejnil Delalic?

8 A. I know Hariso Delalic, it is the widow of the Sefik

9 Delalic who died. This is what Mr. Moerbaur told me.

10 Q. The deceased is the brother of Mr. Delalic which makes

11 Hariso his sister-in-law, correct?

12 A. Yes, one of the six or seven Delalic brothers, right.

13 Q. Also present on 18th March was Dzemal Delalic, present

14 at Taubergasse 15, who is the brother of Zejnil

15 Delalic.

16 A. That is correct.

17 Q. If I could direct your attention to page 3 of the same

18 document, D62/1, looking at the top of that page, it is

19 headed "former registrations for Taubergasse 15"; is

20 that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. This is the list of people who were registered as living

23 at Taubergasse 15 but who no longer live there, correct?

24 A. What you can see from this registration where it says

25 "earlier registrations" is that all the people there at

1 one time lived at Taubergasse 15.

2 Q. Turning to page 4 of the German version --

3 A. I do not have 4. Then I have this (indicates). My

4 registration report stops at page 3.

5 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: That is correct.

6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Is there a page missing? It is a four

7 page document.

8 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is no page 4 on my document.

9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There must have been a mistake in the

10 photocopying. This is the fourth page which should be

11 added to that document, your Honours. (Handed).

12 A. So that is page 4.

13 Q. Yes, you can see at the top of page 4 Zejnil Delalic

14 born 25th March 1948?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. You will see he is no longer registered as living at

17 Taubergasse 15, door 14 after 20th November 1995,

18 correct?

19 A. That is what it says here.

20 Q. It says he moved to Germany.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I would like to talk to you a little bit about the

23 information you had concerning INDA-Bau prior to the

24 issuance of the warrants for that premises. Before

25 seeking that warrant, the part when your division looked

1 at the public records for the company INDA-Bau to

2 ascertain certain things about the company, did you not?

3 A. That is correct, and we carried out an investigation or

4 several investigations on the spot.

5 Q. You knew that that company was created in 1984; is that

6 correct?

7 A. I do not really know that. Mr. Moerbaur carried out that

8 investigation, it concerned INDA-Bau. I just went to

9 see if the firm actually existed and people working

10 there. There was some economic matter that was raised

11 concerning INDA-Bau, but I do not really know any more.

12 There was a sign up saying it was INDA-Bau and another

13 sign saying MAS, that is all I know really. That is all

14 I can tell you about INDA-Bau.

15 Q. My question for you deals more with your knowledge of

16 the documentation, the public records of the company.

17 The question is this: you knew that Zejnil Delalic was

18 not and had never been a director or shareholder of

19 INDA-Bau, is that not correct?

20 A. Yes, I knew that.

21 Q. You knew that no one named Delalic had ever been a

22 director or shareholder of INDA-Bau; is that not so?

23 A. Yes, I also knew that. Mr. Moerbaur told me that.

24 Q. You knew that Mr. Delalic lived and worked in Munich

25 Germany and not for INDA-Bau Vienna.

1 A. I did not know that. I did not know where he was

2 working. I was told by Interpol that Mr. Delalic was

3 residing in Munich. That is all I knew. Whether he was

4 actually there or not, I did not know.

5 Q. You were in charge of operations concerning the arrest

6 of Mr. Mucic, correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. You were also in charge of the searches and seizures

9 that occurred in connection with the arrest of Mr. Mucic

10 that took place at Taubergasse 15.

11 A. That is correct.

12 Q. You also did quite a bit of the paperwork in connection

13 with the arrest of Mr. Mucic.

14 A. Correct.

15 Q. As well as the paperwork for alleged search and seizures

16 which followed his arrest; that is the searches of

17 Taubergasse 15 and INDA-Bau.

18 A. Yes, in conjunction with other officers, that is

19 correct.

20 Q. Your signature, for instance, appears on the record, the

21 Niederschrift prepared in connection with Taubergasse

22 15, door 10.

23 A. Yes, that is my signature, that is correct.

24 Q. And your signature appears on the report, the Bericht

25 inventory prepared for door 10 which is dated 22nd April

1 1996?

2 A. Yes, that must be my signature too. There is not only

3 mine though, there must be others.

4 Q. Your signature also appears on the report, the Bericht,

5 the evaluation prepared for door 10 dated 22nd April

6 1996.

7 A. Not necessarily, but basically I usually sign any piece

8 of paper that is produced by someone working for me.

9 This analysis or evaluation does not only concern the

10 documents, it also relates to the video cassettes and

11 Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself worked on that, so

12 I imagine three signatures ought to appear there. There

13 are three names and three signatures.

14 Q. I am not suggesting there are other signatures or not on

15 the document, I am just saying that your signature is on

16 it; do you understand?

17 A. Yes, I would suppose so.

18 Q. With regard to INDA-Bau, your signature appears on the

19 report, the inventory, dated 22nd April 1996.

20 A. With regard to INDA-Bau, no, that would not be me,

21 Navrat was working with that. I was at Taubergasse 15

22 and Officer Navrat was at Koupstrasse 40.

23 Q. You are saying that on the report, the inventory for

24 INDA-Bau dated April 26th 1996 you did not sign that

25 document?

1 A. We are talking about different things here. I am

2 referring to the report that was drawn up on the 18th by

3 Mr. Navrat. I am not sure which document you are

4 referring to.

5 Q. I will repeat my question. The date of the document is

6 April 22nd 1996. It is a report, an inventory prepared

7 in connection with INDA-Bau. Your signature is on that

8 document, is it not?

9 A. This is after the analysis had been carried out by our

10 group, so yes, my signature would be on that.

11 Q. That is all I am asking. Your signature also appears on

12 the report, the evaluation prepared for INDA-Bau which

13 is also dated April 22nd 1996?

14 A. I would assume so.

15 Q. You are not sure if you signed that document?

16 A. The analysis report concerns the documents and the video

17 tapes and since I was working with the video tapes,

18 I take it my signature would be on there.

19 Q. With regard to Taubergasse 15, door 14, you signed the

20 report, the inventory dated April 22nd 1996.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Still in regards to door 14, you signed the report, the

23 evaluation dated April 22nd 1996.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Just a couple more questions about documents. You

1 signed the search of the BH club at Taubergasse 15; you

2 signed the record, the Niederschrift of that alleged

3 search.

4 A. I was down there with Bycek for a short time and with

5 Dzemal Delalic and then I went back upstairs to Mucic's

6 apartment. I was at various places in the course of the

7 search on 18th March.

8 Q. And you signed the Niederschrift for that BH club.

9 A. I really do not know, I might well have but I really do

10 not know. Were you to show me the document then I could

11 tell you whether I have signed it or not.

12 Q. Still in keeping with the BH club, did you sign the

13 report, the house search prepared in connection with

14 those premises?

15 A. Mr. Bycek wrote that report because he was executing

16 that search and I do believe that I signed that

17 document, yes.

18 Q. Finally, you also signed the report April 24th 1996 the

19 final report prepared in connection with all these

20 searches and seizures, did you not?

21 A. Yes, I did sign that.

22 Q. At Taubergasse 15, four premises were searched, correct?

23 A. Three places, door 10, Mucic's apartment, door 14, the

24 apartment of Zejnil Delalic and then on the ground floor

25 the premises of the BiH club which was also used by the

1 MAS company.

2 Q. So those are the only three searches at Taubergasse 15,

3 is that what you are saying?

4 A. That is right.

5 Q. Aside from you, there were several other police officers

6 at Taubergasse 15 that day, March 18th 1996.

7 A. Taubergasse 15, besides Borlak, Moerbaur, Bycek and

8 myself, there were two other officers, Unger and

9 Vinkelmann. They were in the apartment of Mr. Delalic

10 and Mr. Vinter and another officer, they were carrying

11 out a search at MAS in a house nearby.

12 Q. His name was Theringer?

13 A. Yes, thank you.

14 Q. Were there any other police officers at Taubergasse 15

15 that day?

16 A. We did not know how things were going to develop, but

17 otherwise I cannot remember; Tott, Graznek were at

18 Taubergasse 15 briefly in Mr. Dzemal Delalic's apartment,

19 they searched there, so they were there briefly as well.

20 Q. So aside from yourself and the seven police officers we

21 have named, how many police officers were there that day

22 at Taubergasse 15? You have just named one; could you

23 repeat his name?

24 A. In the building as a whole? On that day, if you take

25 the time between 2.15 pm and, say, 5.00 pm, somewhere

1 around that, I do not know when we left, maybe it was

2 closer to 4.00, but take everybody who was there at one

3 time or another, Mr. Borlak, Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur,

4 Mr. Vinter, Mr. Theringer, Mr. Unger, Mr. Vinkelmann,

5 Mr. Tott, Mr. Graznek and myself.

6 Q. Okay. Who conducted the alleged search and seizure of

7 the MAS company?

8 A. That was Taubergasse 28, is that right? Is that what

9 you are referring to?

10 Q. Yes.

11 A. Mr. Vinter and Mr. Theringer.

12 Q. Who conducted the search and seizure at the BH club?

13 A. In the BiH club there was a search but nothing was

14 seized. Mr. Bycek was in charge, I was down there at

15 certain periods of time and Mr. Dzemal Delalic was

16 present there.

17 Q. No other police officer was present?

18 A. Perhaps Mr. Moerbaur was down there briefly. After Mr. --

19 rather since Mr. Moerbaur was the one most familiar with

20 the case, he was the one who knew what was most relevant

21 and that is why he was in Mucic's apartment at door 10,

22 he was in Mr. Zejnil Delalic's apartment in door 14

23 upstairs and he was also at one or other point in time

24 downstairs at the BiH club as well.

25 Q. Okay. Who conducted the search at door 10?

1 A. Mr. Borlak, Mr. Moerbaur, Mr. Bycek and myself were there

2 initially.

3 Q. Who conducted the search of door 14?

4 A. Door 14, Mr. Unger and Mr. Vinkelmann. I was up there

5 when they had some questions and then Mr. Moerbaur was up

6 there occasionally as well.

7 Q. So I take it you were involved in the planning and

8 execution of this operation at Taubergasse 15?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. It is fair to say that this was a well manned, well

11 prepared operation?

12 A. I cannot really judge that.

13 Q. You cannot judge that based on your experience as a

14 police officer, that it was well manned and well

15 prepared?

16 A. It is not for me to pass judgments. That is something

17 for my superiors. I think that we had sufficient

18 manpower there, for each search we had two officers on

19 the scene.

20 Q. You were at Taubergasse 15 for close to three hours in

21 total, give or take; is that correct?

22 A. I cannot say precisely, I just know that with regard to

23 Mucic's apartment, we started at 2.20 pm and we finished

24 with the record at 3.40 pm.

25 Q. But in total, you were at the premises, Taubergasse 15,

1 not searching the whole time, but in total about two and

2 a half or three hours.

3 A. It did not last that long. I cannot say exactly when we

4 left, but we should have been back at police

5 headquarters by 5.00 pm at the latest.

6 Q. How long does it take to drive from Taubergasse 15 to

7 police headquarters?

8 A. Depending on traffic, it can vary. We drove in in the

9 afternoon, rush hour in other words, so it would take

10 about 15 or 20 minutes, something along those lines.

11 Let us say rather 20 minutes.

12 Q. That is about three hours in total you were at

13 Taubergasse 15, is that not right?

14 A. If you take 2.20 in the afternoon, you add 20, that is

15 2.40, if I say I was back at the police headquarters

16 before 5.00, as I calculate, that totals up to 2 hours

17 and 20 minutes, not three hours. I said, I really

18 cannot say precisely when we were there, when we left.

19 Q. Given the number of people, police officers with you and

20 the time you had, it is fair to say things went smoothly

21 and there was no pressure on you to hurry your

22 operations; would you agree with that?

23 A. One could agree with that, yes.

24 Q. Did all four of the searches we have been talking about

25 begin at the same time?

1 A. On the whole there were six searches. With regard to

2 when they began, the searches at Taubergasse 15 began

3 pretty much at the same time because there were three

4 localities there, then right next door the MAS company

5 at Taubergasse 28 and the search at the INDA-Bau

6 company, that started a bit later, because Mr. Navrat and

7 two officers from the 16th District police station

8 carried out that search, and those officers were

9 borrowed, as it were. With regard to the Koupstrasse and

10 the Hasnastrasse, that is where Mr. Delalic lives,

11 I could not really tell you when those searches got

12 underway.

13 Q. What you are saying, if I understand you correctly, is

14 that door 10, door 14 and the BiH club, those searches

15 all started at about the same time?

16 A. In the building there at Taubergasse 15, yes, it is fair

17 to say that.

18 Q. Could you tell us how long the search of the BiH club

19 lasted?

20 A. I could not say, I do not know.

21 Q. You were present, were you not?

22 A. I was present occasionally, and occasionally I was also

23 upstairs in the apartment at door 14. Most of the time

24 I was in Mr. Mucic's apartment.

25 Q. You said that the daughter of Mr. Mucic, Sanda Mucic, was

1 present at Taubergasse 15 that day.

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. She arrived home after Mr. Mucic had been arrested.

4 A. As best as I can remember, practically right after we

5 entered Mr. Mucic's apartment, she came in.

6 Q. I realise it has been a while and as you have just told

7 us, you do not recollect everything about the BH

8 search. Might I remind you that, and would you agree

9 with me, that on that day, Sanda Mucic had been at work,

10 she had been to the dentist's and she arrived home at

11 about 15.30; do you recall that?

12 A. That may well be. I do not know. The fact of the

13 matter is that she was in the apartment very shortly

14 after we entered it with Mr. Mucic. Whether she was at

15 the neighbour's or whether she was at the dentist's,

16 I really cannot say.

17 Q. Do you recall her showing up at approximately 15.30 that

18 day? Does that sound right?

19 A. 3.15 -- could you please repeat the question.

20 Q. I said, does it sound right when I say that she arrived

21 at the premises, Taubergasse 15, you saw her for the

22 first time at approximately 15.30 on that day?

23 A. No, that is not right.

24 Q. What time did you say she arrived?

25 A. The arrest took place at 2.15 pm. About five minutes

1 later we were in the apartment and a few minutes after

2 that Sanda turned up.

3 Q. But do you recall her being at work and being at the

4 dentist, do you not?

5 A. I do not remember that, no.

6 Q. You knew that Sanda Mucic was only 16 years old, did you

7 not?

8 A. No, I did not. I knew she was a young girl, but I did

9 not know her precise age.

10 Q. When she arrived, you did not ask for her identification

11 to identify her?

12 A. No, I did not. She introduced herself as Sanda Mucic

13 and on Wednesday or Thursday of the previous week, she

14 had called her father over and as I saw it, on that

15 basis it was perfectly clear that she was the daughter,

16 he was the father.

17 Q. Based on the information we just looked at in the

18 document that was marked D62/1, we saw there she was

19 born in 1979 which makes her 16 years old in March 1996,

20 does it not?

21 A. Yes, that is what it says here, but I was not aware of

22 that.

23 Q. But your colleagues who were with you were aware of this

24 document, were they not?

25 A. I do not know. With regard to the Mucic case file,

1 Mr. Moerbaur and myself had most of the information. The

2 others were helping out, as it were. Mr. Bycek was

3 acquainted with the case to a certain extent as well.

4 Q. So both Bycek and Moerbaur knew that Sanda Mucic was

5 only 16 years old; is that not correct?

6 A. I do not know whether they knew that.

7 Q. At the conclusion of the events that day at Taubergasse

8 15, did you not get involved in the welfare of Sanda

9 Mucic, knowing that she was a minor, and requesting that

10 either she be turned over to child care services or put

11 in the custody of another adult?

12 A. As far as I know, there was some talk with Hariso

13 Delalic. She was told that her father was being taken

14 along, we did not know for how long. She said she would

15 look after the daughter and the son and I talked to

16 Mr. Dzemal Delalic, who also said that he would be

17 looking after the daughter and the son. Any reference

18 to the social services or whatever of the city of Vienna

19 was not required.

20 Q. The reason that was done regarding Sanda Mucic was

21 because everyone knew she was 16 years old, right?

22 A. I did not know that she was only 16.

23 Q. With the assistance of the usher, I would like to show a

24 document to the witness, please. There is a copy for

25 the witness, the Prosecution and your Honours.

1 (Handed). There is an English translation followed by

2 the German. What you are looking at is a report

3 prepared and signed by your colleagues Bycek and

4 Moerbaur, dated 14th March 1996. The second

5 paragraph says:

6 "In so doing, it was ascertained that Zdravko

7 Mucic resides along with his son Zoran, born on 23rd May

8 1977 in Konjic BH, and his daughter Sanda, born

9 27th April 1979."

10 I will stop there. It is clear that your

11 colleagues Bycek and Moerbaur who were with you in

12 number 10 knew that Sanda was only 16 years old based on

13 this document, would you not agree?

14 A. Yes.

15 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Mr. Registrar, what is the number of this

16 document?

17 THE REGISTRAR: It is document D63/1.

18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I move to have this document admitted, your

19 Honour.

20 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: Any objections?

21 MR. NIEMANN: I have never seen it before, your Honour. If

22 I might have a minute to look at it?

23 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: There is nothing to object to.

24 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I believe it is from the file provided to us

25 by the Prosecution.

1 MR. NIEMANN: I have no objection, your Honour.

2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: It is correct, going back to Sanda, that she

3 translated the arrest warrant into German for her father

4 because he did not understand German very well, did he?

5 A. Mr. Mucic speaks and understands German. I mentioned

6 that earlier when I was talking to the Prosecutor, but

7 I did ask when we were in Mr. Mucic's apartment, I did

8 ask his daughter to be so kind as to translate the

9 search warrant and the arrest warrant into Yugoslavian,

10 that is to say into her father's mother tongue, and

11 I wanted to be sure to preclude any problems in future,

12 so that is why that was done.

13 Q. I take it you do not speak or understand Mr. Mucic's

14 mother tongue?

15 A. That is right.

16 Q. Is it also not the case that Sanda Mucic acted as

17 interpreter between the police officers and her father,

18 more than just translating documents?

19 A. No, that is not right. I simply asked her to translate

20 that and the rest was said by myself or by fellow

21 officers directly to Mr. Mucic. Perhaps one question or

22 other went through the daughter, but otherwise

23 everything else was spoken in German to Mr. Mucic, with

24 Mr. Mucic I should say.

25 Q. But she did interpret certain things, is that not what

1 you just said?

2 A. She interpreted for me the search warrant and the arrest

3 warrant.

4 Q. Did you not just say she interpreted some of the

5 conversation between you and Mr. Mucic?

6 A. I never said that.

7 Q. At door 10, there were allegedly documents seized; is

8 that correct?

9 A. There was notebooks, sheets that were seized, yes, that

10 is right.

11 Q. None of these documents were marked before being taken

12 away, were they?

13 A. Not with these stickers, that is right.

14 Q. They were not marked in any way, were they?

15 A. That is right.

16 Q. You said that you allegedly seized some videos from door

17 10 and they were not marked in any way before being

18 taken away?

19 A. No, that is right. They were not marked there.

20 Q. I believe you told us this morning that you put these

21 items into plastic bags to take back to police

22 headquarters; is that right?

23 A. These seized items found in Mr. Mucic's apartment were

24 put into plastic bags and then taken via a motor vehicle

25 to the police headquarters.

1 Q. These plastic bags were not marked in any way before

2 leaving the premises, were they?

3 A. Not there, no.

4 Q. And they were not sealed in any way, were they?

5 A. They were not sealed, no.

6 Q. I have a few questions about door 14. You told us that

7 that search was allegedly carried out by your colleagues

8 Unger and Vinkelmann?

9 A. Yes, that is right.

10 Q. I believe earlier you said your signature appears on two

11 reports dated April 22nd 1996 in connection with door

12 14; is that correct?

13 A. That is right.

14 Q. Among the items that were allegedly seized were some

15 documents from door 14, correct?

16 A. Door 14 seizure occurred through officers Unger and

17 Vinkelmann.

18 Q. My question was: they allegedly took some documents from

19 that premises, correct?

20 A. There is one folder that was seized containing various

21 documents. As to exactly which documents they were,

22 I cannot really say.

23 Q. I was only asking you whether there were documents. So

24 there were documents and they were not in any way marked

25 before leaving door 14, were they?

1 A. That is right.

2 Q. There were also videos from that apartment which were

3 taken away and not marked before being taken away; is

4 that right?

5 A. That is also correct.

6 Q. They were taken back to police headquarters in a

7 container which was not marked, correct?

8 A. All the seized items in this apartment, Mr. Delalic's

9 apartment, were put in a sports bag. We also put the

10 report, the papers from the seizure in there as well,

11 the 150.

12 Q. That bag was not marked before leaving the premises?

13 A. No, it just stayed in the premises. I asked Mr. Dzemal

14 if we could take it, he said "yes, sir", and we took the

15 bag with the things in it.

16 Q. When you left the premises you had not put a police mark

17 on the bag; is that correct?

18 A. No, there was no police mark.

19 Q. And the bag was not sealed in any way, was it?

20 A. No, it was not sealed. It was sealed in the court, not

21 before. It can only be sealed on the request of the

22 person concerned.

23 Q. Let us turn to INDA-Bau for a second where again you

24 have prepared reports, I think you have confirmed that,

25 two reports on April 22nd 1996. Do you recall saying

1 that?

2 A. These reports on 22nd April, they are reports concerning

3 the seizure where we produced a categorisation. It says

4 in the report an inventory of the items seized from door

5 15, 14 and INDA-Bau and it says in this report of

6 22nd April, there is an analysis of those seized items,

7 Mr. Moerbaur wrote that and signed the reports.

8 Q. But your signature also appears on the two reports of

9 April 22nd 1996?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. The documents which were allegedly taken from INDA-Bau

12 were not marked before leaving the premises, were they?

13 A. Counsel, I have -- I took no documents from the INDA-Bau

14 firm.

15 Q. That is correct, but to your knowledge, nothing was

16 marked before leaving?

17 A. I do not know. That was Mr. Navrat who did that. Then

18 back in the office he gave me all the seized items from

19 INDA-Bau.

20 Q. Okay. And the videos that he allegedly seized, they

21 left without being marked as well, correct?

22 A. Marking of all seized items during a search -- there are

23 only three, that was what I did on the 18th, maybe in

24 the afternoon or maybe on the next morning, on the

25 morning of the next day.

1 Q. You say that back at police headquarters, Navrat handed

2 you the items he allegedly took from INDA-Bau; is that

3 right?

4 A. Yes. Mr. Navrat came out of his office into mine and had

5 the twelve folders in a cardboard box with the video

6 cassettes and the seizure report, document 150, put it

7 on the table. We were all in the room there with

8 Mr. Mucic, Moerbaur, Bycek, Mr. Borlak and he put it on

9 the middle of the table and gave it to us in that way.

10 Q. Everything was inside the cardboard box?

11 A. He gave me twelve folders and a cardboard box with

12 videos.

13 Q. With the folders in the cardboard box?

14 A. No, they were put in a box later.

15 Q. So they were brought in loose, he was carrying the

16 folders loosely and he had a cardboard box as well?

17 A. I think he had a number of plastic bags.

18 Q. None of the containers were marked or sealed, were they?

19 A. No.

20 Q. On 18th March, you said you returned to police

21 headquarters after leaving Taubergasse 15; is that

22 correct?

23 A. On the 18th, Monday 18th March, after the arrest, after

24 the house search, we went directly in a police car from

25 Taubergasse to the police headquarters into the internal

1 courtyard.

2 Q. What time did you arrive at headquarters?

3 A. I am not sure. I cannot say exactly. Around 5.00, a

4 bit before 5.00.

5 Q. What time did you leave headquarters that day?

6 A. It was on the next day.

7 Q. At what time?

8 A. It was probably around 1.30, so it was on Tuesday 19th,

9 1.30, around that time I left headquarters and then

10 I went back home, about 2.30.

11 Q. When we say 1.30 we mean 1.30 am, an hour and a half

12 after midnight, just for clarification.

13 A. That is correct, in the night from Monday to Tuesday

14 19th, 1.30 am.

15 Q. You say you were in room 331; is that correct, at police

16 headquarters?

17 A. That is my office.

18 Q. What are the approximate dimensions of that room

19 generally, approximately?

20 A. There are four people in it, around 40, probably, square

21 metres.

22 Q. Who were the four people that use that room?

23 A. Mr. Bycek, Mr. Moerbaur, at the time the officer who was

24 working on it, Mr. Herman and myself, but he was not

25 there at the time, he was being sent to the Interior

1 Ministry.

2 Q. This is your regular office; is that correct?

3 A. Yes, that is my office, my and my staff's office, my

4 colleagues' office.

5 Q. What kind of furniture is there in this room?

6 A. Various desks, chairs and a cabinet.

7 Q. So it is one desk -- four desks, one desk per person?

8 A. No, there are several others. It was actually designed

9 for more people, there are seven or eight desks but only

10 four people in there.

11 Q. You told us this morning that all the allegedly seized

12 items from the three locations, door 10, 14, and

13 INDA-Bau, were put into a cabinet in room 331; is that

14 right?

15 A. That is correct.

16 Q. If I heard you correctly, you said that only Bycek,

17 Moerbaur and yourself had access to this cabinet?

18 A. Yes, only the three of us had access to that cabinet.

19 Q. The only people who had access to room 331 were you,

20 Moerbaur, Bycek and your fourth colleague, Hiermann,

21 I believe you said?

22 A. Yes, only the four of us, but other people do come in

23 for an interview or a superior comes in. It is an

24 office, you know.

25 Q. I am thinking of the evening of 18th March. The only

1 three people who had access to this room were you,

2 Bycek and Moerbaur, is that right?

3 A. On the 18th, in that room, for the most part, until the

4 prisoner was handed over, the lady who was interpreting,

5 Ms. Supert; Mr. Borlak; Mr. Moerbaur; Mr. Bycek; myself;

6 Mr. Gschwendt, my superior on this case; Magister Famler,

7 who was the legal adviser from the department;

8 Mr. Navrat, who came in to give me the items. I think

9 Mr. Unger and Mr. Vinkelmann were in the next office

10 writing a summary report. As I remember, those were the

11 people.

12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, perhaps this may be a good time

13 to break?

14 JUDGE KARIBI-WHYTE: I think you can stop now. We will

15 continue at 11.00 am tomorrow. We are enjoying your

16 cross-examination.

17 (5.30 pm)

18 (Court adjourned until 11.00 am the following day)

19

20

21

22

23

24

25