1 Thursday, 31 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. This morning we
9 will have the rebuttal argument.
10 Mr. Scott? Do you have any rebuttal argument?
11 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, thank you very much. Good morning.
12 Mr. Stringer will begin our closing arguments -- comments, and then I will
13 have a few myself.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer.
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. Good
16 morning, Your Honours.
17 After last night's proceedings I found it quite difficult to try
18 to prepare some crisp remarks that we could offer in rebuttal to a full
19 day's worth of assertions made by the Defence which, for the most part in
20 our view, do not reflect the reality of the evidence in the case. But in
21 any event, there are a number of assertions which time just prevents us
22 from addressing and rebutting. All I can do is to urge the Trial Chamber
23 to do what I'm sure it will do, which is to carefully consider our written
24 submission which contains detailed discussion of all of the evidence
25 relating to all of the counts in the indictment.
1 The Trial Chamber, just like any finder of fact, should never rely
2 on a single piece of evidence if it doesn't have to. In this case, it all
3 fits and we have in our brief made painstaking efforts to make that clear
4 to the Trial Chamber. It all fits. The testimony fits with the
5 documents. The documents themselves fit together with each other, and
6 that is the strongest way that we can suggest to the Trial Chamber that
7 the evidence proves the guilt of both of the accused. I'm focusing today
8 on Mr. Martinovic, but it all fits together.
9 This leads in one respect to some general assertions made by my
10 learned friend Mr. Seric yesterday, some observations questioning the
11 Prosecution decision, the Prosecution exercise of its discretion to even
12 prosecute Vinko Martinovic in the first place. The discretion of the
13 Prosecutor is something that's not before the Trial Chamber in this case.
14 It's our assertion and our submission that the evidence, everything the
15 Trial Chamber knows about Vinko Martinovic and his conduct, fully
16 justifies the decision that's been taken to move forward with this
17 Prosecution. But the assertions about OTP policy, the assertions about
18 statements published in an interview with the former judge of the Tribunal
19 for which we hold deep respect are not evidence in the case and are not a
20 consideration for the Trial Chamber, and are in fact not the least bit
21 mitigating in any respect of Vinko Martinovic. If this office is not
22 going to find itself in a position in future months and years to prosecute
23 every notorious perpetrator whose crimes achieved and reached the scale as
24 those committed by Vinko Martinovic, then it's a shame but it's certainly
25 not any sort of a mitigating factor in Mr. Martinovic's case.
1 In respect of international armed conflict, the Defence makes an
2 assertion which is among many in which they've attributed a position or a
3 requirement or an obligation to the Prosecution which doesn't exist. In
4 this case, it's asserted that our reliance on the ICJ decision, the
5 International Court of Justice decision in the Nicaragua versus United
6 States case is misplaced. In fact, we have never relied on the Nicaragua
7 case; it's not found in any of our submissions in respect of international
8 armed conflict. Our reliance is placed in the Appeals Chamber decision in
9 the Tadic case, which sets out clearly the conditions and the
10 circumstances in which an armed conflict which, perhaps on its face,
11 appears to be internal can in fact be transformed into an international
12 armed conflict, and that can happen through either the direct
13 participation of a third country in that conflict, and it can also be
14 transformed through proof that a third country or state exercised overall
15 control over the participants or one of the participants in what appears
16 to be an internal armed conflict.
17 Mr. President, it's our submission that the evidence amply
18 establishes both the direct participation of the Republic of Croatia in
19 this conflict, that is the conflict between the HVO and the Army of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina that occurred in the Mostar region, western
21 Herzegovina, during 1993. We are not talking about an international armed
22 conflict that might have taken place up in Orasje. The conflict in
23 Sarajevo, other places alluded to by Mr. Seric in his remarks. Our
24 conflict, the international armed conflict, in this case, is the one that
25 happened in western Herzegovina during the period between April 1993, at
1 the latest, and January and February of 1994 when the Washington Agreement
2 was signed.
3 In Mostar, there was no parallel armed conflict which
4 Mr. Martinovic was himself participating in. Perhaps an example of a
5 parallel armed conflict could be that which was still in some sense taking
6 place in respect of the Serb forces found east of Mostar, who, as the
7 evidence indicates, did from time to time shell Mostar or take other
8 military activities in the region. But that perhaps is a parallel
9 conflict. It has nothing to do with this case.
10 The Trial Chamber should reject Mr. Martinovic's assertion that
11 only individuals acting on behalf of a state may be parties to an
12 international armed conflict. That is certainly not the findings of other
13 Trial Chambers in this Tribunal, and particularly it's not the finding of
14 other Trial Chambers which have considered this very same conflict between
15 the HVO and the Armija which occurred farther north in central Bosnia
16 during 1993.
17 Mr. President, it's absurd, in fact, to assert that a Croatian
18 Army soldier participating in the conflict in Mostar or in western
19 Herzegovina might be subject to the Geneva Conventions and that his
20 victims might benefit from the protection of the Geneva Conventions when,
21 on the other hand, a victim of Vinko Martinovic does not merit the
22 protection of the Geneva Conventions. The fact is that the evidence, both
23 of direct participation and overall control, make this an international
24 armed conflict, and at the moment it's an international armed conflict,
25 then every participant in the conflict is subject to the Geneva
2 The Defence asserts that the Prosecution has some obligation to
3 prove that Mr. Martinovic knew that he was participating in an
4 international armed conflict; that's not true. It's only required that we
5 prove that his crimes have a nexus or a connection with the international
6 armed conflict, and it's our assertion that that nexus is self-evident.
7 The Geneva Conventions themselves do not require and state, in
8 fact, that an international armed conflict does not require that one of
9 the parties to the conflict declare war. The fact that there is no
10 declaration of outright war between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia is not
11 a requirement. Nor is it required that there be some suspension of
12 bilateral contracts or agreements between the states. It's not required
13 that there be any suspension of trade. It's not required that there be
14 some acts to confiscate moveable property of the other state. These are
15 all illusory requirements suggested by the Defence that in fact don't
17 The Trial Chamber should consider Croatia's dual policy in respect
18 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in considering the relations between those two
19 countries, that dual policy is described in detail in our written
21 Mr. Seric was right to prove or to point to the cooperation
22 between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and other regions such as Orasje,
23 Sarajevo. It's well known there was cooperation throughout 1993 among
24 those two groups in the area of Bihac. The Trial Chamber will note,
25 however, that all of those areas in which there was cooperation between
1 Croats and Muslims against the Serbs all fell outside the territory of the
2 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
3 The Trial Chamber will note and should note the inconsistent and
4 mutually exclusive characterisations of the HVO as an armed force which
5 are found in the Defence submissions. In paragraph 55 of the Defence
6 brief, in respect of the issue of nationality, the Defence assert that in
7 fact the HVO was a legal armed force of a state, Bosnia-Herzegovina. They
8 assert also that the Armija was a legal armed force of a state. They take
9 this position in respect of nationality in order to assert that the
10 victims of the crimes also being citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were not
11 in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they were not nationals.
12 The Trial Chamber will note that the Defence takes a completely
13 different position in its characterisation of the HVO in paragraphs 51 and
14 74 of its brief, in discussing the issues of international armed conflict
15 and command responsibility. On those issues, it's the Defence assertion
16 that Martinovic is acting on behalf of a non-state entity or an armed
17 force of a non-state entity. In an attempt to avoid his clear obligations
18 as a military commander, he even takes the rather absurd and, if I may
19 suggest, cowardly position that the HVO was a quasi-military, quasi-civil
20 defence structure. That's in paragraph 84. That's -- that
21 characterisation is offered to support his assertion that in fact the
22 obligations and the requirements that ought to be imposed on him as a
23 military commander should somehow be minimised because in fact the HVO was
24 a quasi-military, quasi-civil defence structure - completely at odds with
25 the assertions about the HVO being a legitimate legal armed forces of a
2 In respect of command responsibility, the Defence, throughout
3 their submissions yesterday, repeatedly refused and ignored the bases of
4 Mr. Martinovic's individual criminal liability under Article 7(1) of the
5 Statute, not one word about that in three and three hours -- three quarter
6 hours of submissions. They have refused to address the fact that his own
7 conduct instigated and supported the crimes of his subordinates. We ask
8 the Trial Chamber to closely consider his own conduct and the effect it
9 would have had on his subordinates in our written submissions. We have
10 focused on the very close link between Article 7(1), instigation, aiding
11 and abetting, the link between those concepts under 7(1) and a commander's
12 repeated failure to prevent and punish crimes by subordinates. Clearly,
13 Mr. Martinovic in his own conduct sent the green light to his subordinates
14 that all crimes were possible.
15 On the 17th of September, 1993, as I said in my submissions on
16 Monday, those prisoners brought to Vinko Martinovic were his
17 responsibility, and he had a responsibility to ensure that they were
18 treated properly and humanely. The Trial Chamber should reject the
19 Defence repeated request that the Trial Chamber somehow attempt to
20 strictly delineate the zone of responsibility of Mr. Martinovic as if he's
21 not responsible for the deaths and injuries and mistreatment of prisoners,
22 his prisoners, signed out to his unit, that occurs perhaps some metres
23 beyond his strict zone of responsibility. We know from the Aleksovski
24 case that a military man who is responsible for prisoners is responsible
25 for ensuring their proper treatment even when they are outside the camp,
1 which was the Aleksovski case. I'm speaking in particular of those two,
2 three prisoners who died on this area of the Bulevar confrontation line on
3 the 17th of September. I want to be very clear about our submissions in
4 that respect. We did in fact concede a no case to answer in respect of
5 the assertion in paragraph 42 of the indictment that those prisoners, it
6 could not be proved, died when they were being used as human shields.
7 I wish to draw the Trial Chamber's attention to its decision on
8 the motions for acquittal filed on the 28th of February, 2002. The
9 findings of the Chamber of no case to answer in paragraphs 42 and 47 do
10 not affect the integrity of counts 2 through 8 and 9 through 12
11 respectively. The Trial Chamber ultimately found that the evidence
12 presented with regard to the incident described in paragraph 42 may serve
13 as a basis for the Chamber's findings in relation to the allegations set
14 out in paragraphs 35 to 41 of the indictment.
15 Mr. President, it has always been our position that the events of
16 17 September, particularly the deaths of Aziz Colakovic, Enes Pajo in
17 particular fall squarely within the allegations found in paragraph 38 of
18 the indictment and fully support a Trial Chamber finding that
19 Mr. Martinovic is responsible for their death. The evidence establishes
20 overwhelmingly that they were his prisoners on that day.
21 In respect of those prisoners, the Defence have relied and pointed
22 to an Exhibit 612.1 which indicates that the prisoners were returned to
23 the Heliodrom some days after the 12th or the 17th of, I'm sorry,
24 September. I should be clear about how I characterise this document
25 because I referred to in my opening submissions. It's not a false
1 document. We don't doubt that it's an authentic document of the HVO,
2 written by Mr. Josip Praljak, who has written many of the documents in
3 evidence in this case. And I can't say that I doubt that he thought he
4 was writing correctly when he put the information in this report.
5 Mr. President, we have never asked the Trial Chamber to consider
6 any piece of evidence in a vacuum. Every document in evidence ought to be
7 considered together with the other evidence and the other things that the
8 Trial Chamber knows took place. We know that at least two of the
9 prisoners brought to Vinko Martinovic on the 17th were killed on the
10 confrontation line. We know that the four gentlemen who were forced to
11 carry the wooden rifles managed to escape and to pass over to the other
12 side; they didn't return to the Heliodrom. And so in that respect, this
13 document is wrong.
14 The document indicates that some of the prisoners, some 18, were
15 returned to Mr. -- to the Heliodrom on the 20th of September, and that
16 another 12 detainees were kept for an additional ten days and did not
17 return to the Heliodrom on the 27th of September. Whether those detainees
18 ultimately returned to the Heliodrom are the same 30 that were brought to
19 Mr. Martinovic on the 30th it's our submission it's wrong, because we know
20 in fact that a number of those prisoners were not returned to the
21 Heliodrom after the events of 17 September.
22 For the Trial Chamber to conclude otherwise, it has to -- it has
23 to reject the testimony of all of those witnesses who came and testified
24 about the wooden rifles incident. The Trial Chamber heard before it the
25 testimony of three of those individuals who in fact carried wooden
1 rifles. The Trial Chamber heard the testimony of an additional two
2 witnesses who were members of Mr. Martinovic's unit, Witness Q and Allan
3 Knudsen, the Danish mercenary. We refer the Trial Chamber also to the
4 deposition testimony of Witness I who was present in the zone that day and
5 talks about both the wooden rifles incident and the death of
6 Aziz Colakovic.
7 In order for the Trial Chamber to reject all that testimony, the
8 Defence asserts apparently that all of those witnesses not only appeared
9 before the Trial Chamber and lied but that they did so in a way in which
10 their lies were completely consistent with each other, because certainly
11 their testimony and their description of the events of 17 September are
12 completely consistent in every important respect. That's the victim
13 witnesses, that's the mercenaries, that's all of the evidence.
14 The Defence perhaps mistakenly, in our submission,
15 mischaracterised some of the evidence regarding Mr. Harmandic's death in
16 their submissions yesterday, and it's also in the brief, to support or
17 prove their assertion that Mr. Harmandic had already been beaten at the
18 time he was brought to Mr. Martinovic's headquarters. The Defence rely on
19 the testimony of Witness AD and AE. In fact, the testimony of Witness AE
20 in particular relates to the time that he and Mr. Harmandic were detained
21 together at the Heliodrom in May of 1993 during the first -- after the
22 first wave of expulsions that occurred on the 9th and 10th of May.
23 Mr. Harmandic, Witness AE, and all of the other Muslim detainees
24 at the Heliodrom returned home after some ten to 12 days in the
25 Heliodrom. So this assertion that Witness AE's testimony somehow proves
1 that Harmandic had been beaten when he was brought to Martinovic's
2 headquarters is simply wrong. It's not the evidence.
3 The Trial Chamber is obviously going to have to very carefully
4 consider Mr. Ajanic's testimony.
5 In our brief at paragraph 7.112, we cite the testimony of
6 Mr. Ajanic about the beating that was taking place. He says the first
7 time he, or Harmandic, was bloody. The second time he was black and
8 blue. And the third time, he looked as if he had gained at least 15 or
9 kilograms. So imagine, you can imagine what he looked like.
10 Maybe Mr. Harmandic had been beaten at the Heliodrom before he was
11 brought to Vinko Martinovic's headquarters. That certainly doesn't mean
12 he wasn't beaten in the manner described by Mr. Ajanic after he arrived
14 Finally, my last point, Mr. President, we heard a great deal of
15 submissions yesterday about the lack of discriminatory intent on the part
16 of Mr. Martinovic, that he loves everybody, he loves all the Muslims, he
17 honoured the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural tradition of Mostar. It's
18 also been asserted many times that the Prosecution failed to link him
19 directly to any individual act of persecution or of looting, which of
20 course is not in the least bit supported by the evidence.
21 The Trial Chamber may wish to recall the testimony of Witness WW,
22 who was expelled with her husband from their flat in Mostar twice by
23 Mr. Martinovic and his subordinates, first in May, on the 9th of May, and
24 secondly on the 13th of June, as part of the wave of expulsions that I
25 described in my submissions on Monday. On the 9th of May, she testified
1 that Martinovic knocked her down and kicked her. "He kicked me with my
2 boot so that I felt if and I was left speechless with a tremendous pain in
3 my spine." This because she wouldn't give him her hand bag, because she
4 had some feminine products that she needed in the bag to take with her to
5 Heliodrom, which she was not allowed to take.
6 On the 13th of June, she testified that again Mr. Martinovic was
7 there with Takac, Dolma, and the others. And Stela was there also. The
8 HVO soldier entered their apartment and took their identification card.
9 Stela and Takac were there. She was asked,
10 "Can you provide the Chamber with any assistance on whether one of
11 these soldiers, HVO soldiers, appeared to be in charge of what was
13 The answer: "Yes, Mr. Stela.
14 "What was he doing?
15 "He was standing in the past age between the buildings. We had to
16 communicate with him, to give him our IDs, which were then thrown in a
17 place and then burnt."
18 She goes on to talk about how she saw Mr. Stela angrily shaking
19 and pushing an old man, a sick man. That's not enough? Go to Exhibit
20 456. This is under seal. Paragraph 5, we could go into private session
21 for just one brief moment?
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we will go to the private session, please.
23 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
16 MR. SCOTT: If I can have the assistance of the usher please.
17 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
18 MR. SCOTT: If I can have the assistance of the usher please in
19 providing those to the Judges and one to each Defence team, please?
20 I will come to those documents, momentarily, Mr. President.
21 Mr. President, Judge Clark, Judge Diarra, I'm going to respond only the
22 most briefly to the considerable volume of personal attacks, personal
23 feelings, assertions by counsel, not supported by evidence in the record,
24 that the Chamber witnessed in the last two days. I don't believe that in
25 my years of experience, I have ever heard closing arguments so full of
1 expressions of personal feeling such as, "I'm worried that the judges
2 won't follow the law or I'm afraid that you don't really understand the
3 evidence." Political views, personal attacks on counsel, and factual
4 assertions by counsel not supported by evidence in the record.
5 Mr. Meek and Mr. Stringer will know from our common experience,
6 and Judge Clark coming from another common law system, I don't know if
7 there is a similar saying in your country or not but we have a saying in
8 the United States in defending a criminal case, and that is if you don't
9 have a case, or if you can't deal with the evidence, attack the
11 That's what the Chamber has witnessed here.
12 To this, a further saying might be added at the Tribunal, if you
13 cannot deal with the evidence, make political speeches, attack the
14 Tribunal and its judges, attack the international community, and attack
15 the Prosecution. Mr. Krsnik attacked the ICTY and quote "The mindset that
16 prevails in this building." According to Mr. Krsnik, this Tribunal and
17 the indictment in this case are both entirely political. We reject that.
18 One can only conclude, Mr. President, that these speeches were
19 meant for political and media consumption in Zagreb and Herzegovina. Look
20 how tough I was standing up to that Tribunal in The Hague.
21 The Defence counsel's closing arguments raise the question: Why
22 do we need evidence when we can just have speeches of counsel? Let me
23 give you only a few examples. Mr. Krsnik asserted that Mr. Naletilic
24 never authorised Andabak to sign documents for him and that Mr. Naletilic
25 had no knowledge that Andabak was signing documents over his typed name.
1 Mr. President, Your Honours, respectfully there is no evidence in the
2 record to support that, and Mr. Krsnik is not allowed to give evidence.
3 Second, the assertion flat out assertion, "The wooden rifle was
4 planted by AID," there is no evidence in the record, none, none, on which
5 to make such a statement.
6 Mr. Krsnik on Tuesday at 11.53, and I checked the transcript and I
7 have it in we need to refer to, "Let me tell you. It was really very
8 simple. The AID organised and prepared everything and offered it as if on
9 a platter, everything they found suitable." Mr. President, there is no
10 evidence to support that, and I am pretty confident that since Mr. Krsnik
11 has never worked in the office of the Prosecutor, I'm sure he has no basis
12 to make the assertion.
13 False assertion number 4: "The Prosecution's documents largely
14 come from AID." False. As we state in our final brief, of the
15 approximately 1700 exhibits that the Prosecution has tendered to the
16 Chamber, approximately 89 or less than 5 per cent of the total were
17 provided to the OTP by the authorities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. 89 out of
18 approximately 1700. In addition, some of those documents, Mr. President,
19 came -- the same copies of the same document came from more than one
20 source. The Chamber will recall a number of instances in which a document
21 that had been obtained through the Bosnian embassy in The Hague was also
22 found in the Zagreb archive. But I'm sure that was all a matter of some
23 conspiracy to put the documents in both places.
24 The Martinovic Defence asserted that it has been the Prosecution's
25 position that Mr. Martinovic is required to prove his innocence. I ask
1 Mr. Stringer about that, what that is based on. Mr. President, we haven't
2 the slightest idea where that assertion comes from. It's never been our
3 position. It's not our position today. We have not the slightest idea
4 what that comment is based upon.
5 The statement that Sead Smajkic was not a brave man, he was here
6 to manipulate his political future, no evidence to support that, simply a
7 bald attack on a religious leader.
8 And the final example I will give, that Naletilic and Martinovic
9 were given up to protect others higher up, apparently in Croatia, or as
10 scape goats. Now, perhaps in their rejoinder, they can tell us where is
11 that evidence in the record, what transcript and what exhibit indicates
12 that these two men were given up as scape goats, and who made them skate
13 goats? Tudjman? Susak?
14 There has been, of course, the usual complaint that the OTP has
15 infinite power and resources. First of all, I am, grateful for the
16 resources that the international community and the Security Council have
17 provided, and I'm not going to apologise for those resources. However, I
18 must note that these so-called powers and resources are not nearly so vast
19 as the Defence wants to suggest. The Prosecution trial team that you've
20 seen before you day in and day out, together with a small number of people
21 outside the courtroom, have worked extremely hard to present this case to
22 you as well as we could. The Chamber will certainly understand from its
23 own experience the difficulties in bringing evidence to the Court, as the
24 Chamber will recall from its own efforts to bring witnesses to The Hague,
25 even when the Chamber ordered them to come, it is not so easy.
1 But we are told it's easy to be a Prosecutor. I appreciate being
2 told that. After all these years, I never realised it. I have passed
3 that on to Mr. Bos and Mr. Poriouvaev and others in my office, and I've
4 told them that they must have been mistaken these past 14 months in
5 thinking they were working very hard. But now we are told it's easy.
6 Mr. President, I hope nobody tells my wife that.
7 The Defence has asserted that everyone cooperates with the OTP,
8 definitely not true. The Chamber may wish to take judicial notice of
9 President McDonald's reports to the Security Council concerning the
10 Croatian government's failure to produce this man to the Tribunal. Judge
11 McDonald, President McDonald, filed a report with the Security Council on
12 Croatia's failure to produce Naletilic to this Tribunal, but we get full
13 cooperation on everything.
14 The Chamber may wish to take judicial notice of the Tribunal's
15 years of efforts seeking to obtain documentation from the Tudjman
16 government which were constantly blocked and denied.
17 But of course, we get full cooperation on everything.
18 I can tell the Chamber this and moving to my next topic: The
19 Prosecution has worked very hard to present to you the best available
20 evidence. If some evidence has not been forthcoming, if a witness has
21 refused to appear, it is not because the Prosecutor has not tried its very
22 hardest to bring that evidence to you.
23 I might say for those who might be following these proceedings
24 elsewhere, on that point, if the Chamber will allow me, I would send this
25 message: If witnesses will not come to The Hague, if witnesses refuse to
1 testify, if witnesses will not come, this Tribunal cannot do its work.
2 Naletilic counsel says that there is no evidence against their
3 client, again confirming that apparently these past 14 months, contrary to
4 appearances, we really haven't been in the same courtroom. Counsel has
5 repeatedly said there was no evidence of this and no evidence of that. No
6 evidence that Tuta did everything -- did anything. Let's start with
7 Sovici-Doljani. Here of course, of course, both Mr. Meek and Mr. Krsnik
8 attack the witness Simang as an unscrupulous of course, a witness who is a
9 liar and shouldn't be given any credibility at all. Now, the evidence is
10 clear. Mr. Simang is convicted of what he's convicted of. He was a paid
11 mercenary in this war. By the way, a paid mercenary for who? And for --
12 who was his commander? Who took his services quite willingly? But they
13 attack Mr. Simang again and again and again.
14 The problem that the Defence has with Mr. Simang, Mr. President?
15 The problem is that Mr. Simang's testimony in these respects is completely
16 consistent with and completely corroborated by the other evidence in the
17 case. Let me momentarily, Your Honour, because I know we have to move
18 rather quickly, let me direct your attention to one of the handouts that I
19 just gave you. It is the two-page table on might say landscape mode.
20 Mr. President, on the left column is the testimony -- the relevant
21 testimony of the witness Simang related to Sovici-Doljani, and in the
22 right column is that evidence that is absolutely, completely consist with,
23 and corroborates that testimony. I'm only going to pick a couple of
24 specifics examples.
25 Mr. Simang -- the first one, Mr. Simang said, "Tuta was the
1 overall commander of the operation." Now, you will see immediately to the
2 right, numerous exhibits, including from the Rados diary directly
3 supporting that fact.
4 I will highlight only one. Exhibit P368, the report by Blaz
5 Azinovic, an HVO report, "Mr. Tuta commanded the overall operation in this
6 area, Risovac, Sovici, and Doljani in which troops from elsewhere also
7 took part."
8 Mr. Krsnik said, and this is from the transcript, "There was
9 absolutely no evidence of any operation in Sovici after the death of
10 Cikota." Well, that's not what the evidence indicates. Going to the
11 middle of the second page, Mr. Simang says, "It was after Cikota's funeral
12 in Siroki Brijeg that the Muslim houses and mosques were deliberately
13 destroyed on Tuta's orders." Well, look at the Rados diary entries. Look
14 at the second one for the 21st of April, 1993, "Tuta ordered that all
15 Muslim houses in Doljani be burned because of the death of four members of
16 the Siroki Brijeg Convicts Battalion."
17 Simang confirmed in the next item, "Simang confirmed and described
18 the intentional burning of Muslim houses after the fighting was over."
19 Next item, "Simang saw Convicts Battalion members attaching
20 explosives to the mosque." It was to be blown up because, "It was a
21 Muslim house of God." Rados diary for the 21st of April, "Tuta ordered
22 that all Muslim houses in Doljani be burned, Convicts Battalion members
23 mined the mosque themselves. It was no longer there."
24 I'm sure counsel just forgot that evidence.
25 Going on, continuing, Mr. President, very quickly, to the -- a
1 handout that I gave you this morning, that's titled, "Evidence concerning
2 Tuta and his subordinates at the fish farm," I can't read this document to
3 you. At one point, I thought if we had more time we would go through it
4 even put it on the ELMO but we can't. Let me just hit the highlights.
5 Four witnesses, Mr. President, four witnesses all of whom were
6 either directly beaten by Tuta himself or by his assistants or were eye
7 witnesses to that happening to others. Salko Osmic, Witness RR, was
8 interrogated by Tuta and beaten by his soldiers and was eye witness to
9 Tuta's mistreatment of Fikret Begic. Witness TT was personally beaten by
10 Tuta, threatened with execution.
11 Witness B, which is closed session, I will only say was personally
12 interrogated by Tuta, eye witness to Tuta's mistreatment of Fikret Begic.
13 Not one piece of hearsay. Four direct witnesses who were either beaten by
14 Tuta themselves or saw it happening.
15 Same can be said concerning the tobacco institute in Mostar,
16 Mr. President, if the Chamber will direct its attention very briefly to
17 that handout that I provided to you a few moments ago. Evidence
18 concerning Tuta and his subordinates beating Muslim men at the tobacco
19 institute. Again, Witness AA was personally beaten by Tuta and so
20 testified. Witness CC testified to Tuta hitting Alica Pobric and another
21 man with his Motorola radio. Witness DD on page 2 was a direct eye
22 witness to Tuta beating a prisoner. Witness E testified to Tuta beating a
23 man named Zigic and about Tuta giving Witness E a paper for free passage,
24 which I'll come back to momentarily -- well I'll come to now.
25 Attached to the document is the pass, Exhibit P54, because it
1 might have been placed on the ELMO if we had had time. It's the name of
2 the witness was redacted, but the pass from Tuta given to him and directly
3 verified, handed to him, watched the Witness watched Tuta write it on a
4 piece of paper, watched him write it, no question it's Tuta's
5 handwriting. Tuta handed it to him and a free pass. Again confirming the
6 considerable power of this man in Mostar. A piece of paper -- a piece of
7 paper with about four words on it meant the difference between freedom and
9 There are no documents -- according to the Defence counsel, there
10 is no documents to support the case. Mr. President, the last handout that
11 I provided to you this morning and I'll briefly refer to shows these, and
12 we believe these numbers are conservative. There are at least 17 exhibits
13 admitted which we assert and contend were signed by Naletilic, including
14 P54, the one that I just showed you. 31 exhibits that were signed over
15 the name -- over his name, many by Andabak. And at least, I say again at
16 least, 95 exhibits which in the text or body of the documents themselves
17 refer to Naletilic as commander. But Mr. President, according to counsel,
18 there are no documents connecting with Naletilic to the case.
19 The Defence of course completely attacked the evidence of Sir
20 Martin Garrod, Witness LL and Van der Grinten, saying that the basis for
21 their conclusions and assessments were suspect and not reliable.
22 Mr. Krsnik apparently considers Mr. Naletilic not a reliable source, since
23 both Garrod and Witness LL derived and told this Chamber they derived most
24 of their information directly from Naletilic's own mouth.
25 In Exhibit P327, Tuta told Witness LL that he was "a personal
1 friend of Franjo Tudjman, that he, that is Tuta, asked Boban and Tudjman
2 for permission to create his own ATG. Tuta told Witness LL in early April
3 1993, just days before Sovici-Doljani, that, "Jablanica was his," that is
4 Jablanica was Tuta's, and that,"given the behaviour of the Muslim
5 extremists he should return adding that the position of the Spanish
6 Battalion is unfavourable as it is in the zone of a future conflict."
7 Conflict that began just days later. A mere prediction by Mr. Naletilic
8 or did he already know?
9 Tuta told Witness LL, "He considered Boban to be unambitious for
10 contenting himself with the border on the Neretva, although Tuta
11 identifies with the ideas of Boban who follows Tudjman's orders."
12 But according to Mr. Krsnik, Mr. Naletilic is not a source to be
13 believed or Ivan Andabak or the senior HVO officer Slavko Puljic,
14 consulted by Major Van der Grinten.
15 Greater Croatia and the international armed conflict, Mr. Stringer
16 has touched on again today, I'm going to try to move few a few points
17 about it again very quickly. Mr. President, Mr. Seric in particular
18 attacked the Prosecution for having the nerve to talk about Franjo Tudjman
19 and Janko Bobetko in connection with Croatia's both direct and indirect
20 control and the involvement in the war in Bosnia. But, Mr. President,
21 that is simply what the evidence unequivocally shows. He also attacked
22 the Prosecution's position on international armed conflict and the
23 widespread and systematic nature of the HVO-HDZ conduct. He seems to
24 forget that in doing so he apparently attacks not only me but he attacks
25 and disagrees with six judges of this Tribunal who unanimously found in
1 the Blaskic and Kordic cases, and I might say, in all fairness and
2 respect, on substantially less evidence than presented here, that Croatia
3 controlled the HVO in the Croat Muslim war. We have given those citations
4 in our brief. The Blaskic judgement said the attacks were widespread,
5 systematic, and violent and formed part of a policy to persecute the
6 Muslim population. The Kordic judgement said at paragraph 142,"President
7 Tudjman harboured territorial ambitions in respect of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina and that was part of his dream of a greater Croatia, including
9 western Herzegovina and central Bosnia."
10 And there are more, but I won't take the time now to read those.
11 Let's go back to basics on this, Mr. President. It seems to
12 bother the Defence and their experts to no end not to acknowledge and
13 start with the proposition that the Serb and Bosnian Serb leadership
14 started the war. Fine. We agree. No dispute. We agree on that. The
15 Serbs started it. Next, there were many victims among all three principal
16 ethnic groups, Croats, Muslims, and Serbs. Tremendous victims on all
17 sides. Apparently there is some agreement there. Finally -- next, crimes
18 were committed by members of all three principal ethnic groups, Serbs,
19 Muslims, and Croats. Now, again, apparently here at least at some level,
20 the Defence is prepared to admit this, although they don't tell us who it
21 was among the senior HDZ and HVO officials and officers who committed
22 these crimes which they concede occurred, but apparently by faceless
23 people. The Tudjman-Boban group engaged in an international armed
24 conflict in connection with a programme for a greater Croatia.
25 Now, let me be clear about this if there is any doubt, and again I
1 say this because -- well for a number of reasons but including the
2 reporting of these comments. The Prosecution has never -- is not today,
3 and never will, attack every Croat, every citizen of the Republic of
4 Croatia. Only a particular group that was in power at that time
5 unfortunately carried out this programme. The Tudjman, Susak, Boban
6 group. The Prosecutor bears no ill will to the Croatian people and
7 clearly, clearly, and undoubtedly there were many Croats who never
8 supported Tudjman's policy and I'm sure there were Croats who opposed his
9 policy, and this Prosecution does not criticise those people but it would
10 only in fact support them for their political courage. We are not
11 attacking Croatia or the Croatian people. But the evidence, Mr.
12 President, is clear, that the Tudjman government engaged in an
13 international armed conflict in connection with the programme seeking a
14 greater Croatia. If that makes some people uncomfortable, well, that's
15 the way it is.
16 The presidential transcripts, only briefly, Mr. President. There
17 is no evidence that put -- that's been put forward, again this is one of
18 those instances in the case where there has been assertion after assertion
19 but no evidence, that justifies questioning their fundamental authenticity
20 and accuracy. In fact, whenever the matter of the presidential
21 transcripts come up, the Defence seem consistently to forget the
22 substantial evidence in the record which clearly authenticates the
23 transcripts. I don't know how many times in the course of the trial this
24 issue would come up and all the evidence about that, a person who took the
25 transcript -- who operated the machinery, the person who transcribed them,
1 Mr. Prelec about the whole chain of custody, about going into the
2 presidential offices, about going into the vault, that just seems to be
3 forgotten consistently.
4 There is an a abundance of evidence, Mr. President, Judge Clark,
5 Judge Diarra, establishing the authenticity of these transcripts. Is
6 counsel suggesting that Franjo Tudjman was somehow slanting his words in
7 1993 so they would be favourable to this Prosecution in 2002? Is counsel
8 suggesting that when Tudjman was talking about the banovina in his own
9 words, that you read, that you've read, that when he talked about
10 appointing the Herceg-Bosna government, and appointing the entire HVO
11 general staff and chastising Bobetko for creating a document that proved
12 that, was he really just talking about having lunch at the
13 Intercontinental Hotel?
14 Transcript evidence is supported, clear, and powerful.
15 Having said that, there is -- there was the assertion that the
16 Prosecution is relying almost entirely on the presidential transcripts to
17 prove international armed conflict. That is not true, Mr. President, Your
18 Honours. There is an extensive amount of both testimonial and documentary
19 evidence that supports the existence of an international armed conflict
20 separate and apart from the transcripts.
21 Mr. President, I would appreciate the Chamber's indulgence for a
22 few more minutes if I can finish.
23 I just want to quickly touch on a few other items. I won't
24 probably have the opportunity to go into quite as much detail on some of
25 these. [redacted]
12 Page 16847 - redacted
1 [redacted] You may proceed,
2 Mr. Scott.
3 MR. SCOTT: Defence position, I think it was clear in their
4 closing arguments, is that this man was in fact Stela's superior and not
5 Naletilic. Mr. President, there is substantial evidence in the record to
6 the contrary, both testimonial and documentary, and off the top of my head
7 and given the limitations of time, I will just mention two.
8 The Chamber will recall the incident where there was the fighting,
9 the shooting that broke out between the Vinko Skrobo unit and the Benko
10 Penavic unit when Mr. Martinovic was summoned to Siroki Brijeg. It's one
11 of the exhibits, it's a military police report, I don't have the number,
12 but it's been prominently mentioned in the record. And I do remember the
13 rather colourful phrase of Martinovic saying to earners Takac, "Come on
14 Brada, away to Siroki Brijeg with me. We have to report to Tuta." And
15 then there is the documentation showing clearly that it was Tuta that
16 planned and ordered the 17th September Mostar action. Those are just two
18 Further, it's the Prosecution position even assuming, only
19 assuming for purposes of argument, that this other man had some role for
20 some purposes concerning the Vinko Skrobo ATG, for example perhaps,
21 perhaps the provision of ammunition, the Prosecution contends that it
22 always -- the Vinko Skrobo unit always was and always remained at all
23 relevant times part of the Convicts Battalion and subject to Tuta's
24 ultimate control.
25 Considerable attack has been directed from time to time to
1 Sead Smajkic and his initial failure to be able to read certain Islamic
2 words on a flag shown in a videotape. It is making a mountain out of a
3 mole hill, Mr. President. It was clarified by questions from Judge
4 Clark. I have the transcript here, on the 18th and 19th of October, and
5 Mr. Smajkic said, "Yes, I recognised it, yes, I did, I feel there is some
6 confusion here. I said I did not recognise the text on the flag. I did
7 recognise the flag itself but not the text." Today --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Can you please slow down, Mr. Scott?
9 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
10 "Today the image was better and I could recognise the text. And
11 in fact, on the 18th of October, this is just to further indicate this,
12 Mr. Krsnik himself said, "Your Honours, I think that the outside monitors
13 are projecting an image that is five times better. I don't know why we
14 have such a poor quality image in the courtroom."
15 The attack on Mr. Smajkic for not being able to read Arabic
16 printing on a flag blowing in the wind on a poor quality video is making a
17 mountain out of a mole hill.
18 Only have a couple of more points, Mr. President. I appreciate
19 the Chamber's patience. Another thing that the Chamber heard throughout
20 the trial and heard again during closing arguments was the ever-changing
21 character of the HVO itself. A point already alluded to to some extent by
22 Mr. Stringer. The Chamber was given a dual view of the HVO. For some
23 purposes we have the highly organised and efficient HVO, everything done
24 exactly properly, all signatures, stamps, records pristinely kept, every
25 signature in place, every stamp in place. And no one, no one in the HVO,
1 ever signs a document for somebody else. Then on other days, on other
2 days, when it served the Defence, and in the closing argument, we had the
3 HVO, the rag tag barely holding together unit hardly to be held
4 accountable to a NATO standard but just barely functioning. Mr. Krsnik
5 did this yesterday when he said this was like holding the HVO to the
6 standard of government found in London, as if they were somehow the same.
7 Two different views of the HVO served up to the Chamber, one or the other,
8 whenever it served the purpose to do so.
9 Finally, Mr. President, sentencing. References were made to the
10 Krstic Blaskic cord ditch and Cerkez cases. In all of those cases, the
11 Prosecution requested life sentences, in the Krstic case, the Prosecution
12 requested consecutive, multiple life sentences for the horrendous crimes
13 at Srebrenica. And respectfully, Mr. President, I submit, the Prosecution
14 submits that the problem in comparing the Prosecution's requested or
15 recommended sentences here with those in Krstic, Kordic, and Cerkez is not
16 that the Prosecution's recommended sentences here are too severe but again
17 respectfully, that the sentences given in Krstic, Kordic, and Cerkez were
18 too late. It appears that in national courts around the world, a
19 convicted accused can get even the death penalty or a life sentence or 35
20 or 45 years of imprisonment for killing one person, one person. But at
21 the Tribunal, if you're involved with killing hundreds or thousands of
22 people, you get a much more lenient sentence. However, it was only in
23 recognising the Tribunal's sentencing practices, whether I personally
24 agree with them or not, that we consistent with those practices made the
25 recommendations that we did, 35 years for Tuta and 25 years for Stela.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. President, the Prosecution has proven its case. Our arguments
2 are based upon a clear presentation of the law and detailed analysis of
3 the evidence, not political speeches, not personal political views. The
4 evidence speaks for itself. And at the end of the day, the argument that
5 Mr. Stringer has made and that I have made, I hope they assist the
6 Chamber. But at the end of the day, the evidence speaks for itself, and
7 the evidence in all cases, in all cases, shows that both these men are
8 guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
9 Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Think we will make a break and we will
11 resume at quarter to 11.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 10.10 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Any rejoinder argument?
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I've been thinking, Mr. President,
16 whether it is at all necessary for me to reply. I'll be very brief.
17 Mr. President, Your Honours, I believe that if something is clear
18 in this courtroom, it is the fact that Defence is not Prosecution and that
19 Defence does not have to prove anything. It is up to the Prosecution to
20 prove things. It is not up to us to do it, and it has never occurred to
21 us to do so. However, we did something else. When we realised what the
22 Prosecution was doing, then we did our best to show as much evidence,
23 because of you, because of us, we called as many witnesses as possible
24 and, as you know, we have called the highest-ranking political leaders
25 from Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is from the HZ HB, and from the Republic
1 of Croatia.
2 We have not introduced politics into this courtroom, and that is a
3 fact. It was the Prosecution who has introduced politics into this
4 courtroom, with their indictment and with their positions, and we were
5 only forced to reply to that, especially if the politics are interpreted
6 in a one-sided way. Look at the background. 90 per cent of the
7 indictment is politics. My learned friend has ended on a political note
8 when he was explaining about the Croatian people. I really do not have to
9 worry about the Prosecution's positions on the Croatian people. What I'm
10 concerned with is my client, and whether my learned friends from the
11 Prosecution have proven what they have alleged or not. Their positions,
12 however, are political positions. Their interpretations are political
13 interpretations. And it is from this framework of theirs that I have
14 taken out my client -- actually, it was the Prosecution who has taken my
15 client from that framework and found evidence to prove his thesis. Thank
16 you very much and for providing me with this piece of paper. It would
17 have taken me about a week to do all this.
18 This list of admitted exhibits, where is evidence that this indeed
19 is Mr. Naletilic's signature? Where -- when and where did we hear that?
20 When was that proven? Do we have evidence that this is his signature or
21 not? We don't. This is what the Prosecution claims. They may, if they
22 wish to do so, but it is your role to decide whether this is really true.
23 We claim that this is simply not true. Have we seen a single piece of
24 evidence proving that this is his signature? No, we haven't. When the
25 Prosecution claims that there were two operations, two actions, in Sovici
1 and Doljani, who is it who asserts that? One single man: Falk Simang,
2 and nobody else. Nobody else. And it is a fact.
3 On the 21st of April, I believe that we managed to show that and
4 prove that, when I say "prove that," I don't mean that the Defence has to
5 prove anything, but we have shown you that on the 21st, nobody could have
6 been in Sovici or Doljani because it was the day of Cikota's funeral. At
7 least that. How come that no exhibits testified to that fact? Rados's
8 diary, the Prosecution refers to the pages of Rados's diary. Why? If we
9 know that according to your ruling, this diary has not even been
10 translated, the blue ink version, and we have also established that the
11 people who are mentioned in this diary do not correspond to what the
12 witnesses have said. We have also established that the person who claims
13 that it was his handwritings, he said that he is not an expert on
14 handwritings. We proved to him, we pointed to him, that there were
15 several hand writings involved. So where is the proof here? Maybe the
16 Prosecution wants this to be proved, but you are here to decide that. And
17 I only agree with my learned friend when he says that everything has been
18 recorded, and that is why, Your Honours, you are here and that is we place
19 our trust in you.
20 As for efendi Smajkic, Your Honours, things are very simple. The
21 least important thing is the flag and the Arabic script. If anybody has
22 to be able to learn the Arabic script, it is certainly an efendi. We know
23 that the Muslim sacred book, Koran, has been written in Arabic. So an
24 ordinary man does not have to speak Arabic, but an Islam priest has to be
25 able to do so. We heard that he completed his religious education in
1 Iran. He said that himself. But that is the least important thing.
2 When you read his testimony and compare it with the testimonies of
3 other witnesses, just a tiny little detail he spoke about the war against
4 the Serbs in Mostar and he wasn't in Mostar at the time, just a tiny
5 little detail. Obviously you're going to compare all the testimonies
6 given by all the witnesses. And yet another detail, please bear that in
7 mind. What has a religious official got to do with politics? And he said
8 here in this courtroom that he was the one who removed
9 Mr. Hadziosmanovic. A political move that was. That means that this
10 priest was directly involved in all the events. And in what way was he
11 involved? Through the Muslim council, via the extremist Muslim politics,
12 and he is certainly one of the main culprits of the war in Mostar, if not
13 one of its main instigators.
14 So these are just the tiny little details and I don't want to go
15 on about that. I believe that we are all very tired. And this closing
16 argument makes sense only to the extent to which it summarises things. I
17 have stated all the facts. I never attack anybody. And today's rebuttal
18 was the way how things are done when there are no arguments, and there was
19 a high degree of nervousness on the part of my learned friend as well.
20 When one speaks about the tobacco institute, again, Your Honours,
21 very briefly, you will certainly remember that I asked every witness to
22 point to the place in Mostar where they used to gather, and you will
23 certainly remember, as soon as you see their testimonies, they all -- they
24 shared four different locations. The tobacco institute, Your Honours, is
25 on the eastern side of Mostar, at the far end, close to Hum. That's where
1 the tobacco institute is in Mostar. That is about two kilometres as the
2 crow flies from the border and it is a common knowledge fact. Another
3 witness said that it was in front of the Zagrebacka bank. That is close
4 to Bijeli Brijeg, when you look at the map I'm sure you will see it.
5 You will draw a conclusion. I'm not the one to do it for you.
6 Four of them were there and yet all four of them point at
7 different places because they were never there. And since they were not
8 there, they could not see what happened there, if whatever happened, and
9 what happened in front of the provisional Ministry of Defence, that is
10 Witness MP [as interpreted], a participant who described it all and I'm
11 not going to repeat it. Who said, yes, I was the one who I was, and so on
12 and so forth.
13 Not MP, but NP, Witness NP.
14 These are facts. That is how it is. This is what is written, and
15 we cannot distort facts for the sake of a good impression, and I do not
16 really care what will be transmitted from this courtroom to the public.
17 What matters to me is what I managed to convey to you and that I'm doing
18 my best and I'm really doing my utmost, whatever God has given me, I'm
19 investing all my intelligence and everything in order to work for my
20 client, and I really don't care who thinks what. I told you a long time
21 ago that I've never been a politically engaged and I never will be. I
22 said that that is a profession and a man who has any self respect and who
23 thinks well of himself will not go into it.
24 But here theses are constantly twisted and substituted whenever
25 and however it suits the gentlemen from the Prosecution. Well, let them,
1 I don't care, but thank God, that is why you are here, that is why you are
2 here, Your Honours, and you can hear what the Prosecutor is saying and
3 what I'm saying, but I think it is really more or -- it does not really
4 matter what we are saying. More important is what was done in this
6 Your Honours, tell -- no, sorry, you will, of course, say in your
7 judgement what evidence have we heard here, a witness or something else,
8 that volunteers or, if you call them, but we can call them whatever, I
9 don't really care, who came to defend their homes, to Bosnia -- in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that that means that the Croatian state had control
11 over them? What is it that was shown? What? Nothing. We've got
12 transcripts. Well, I think that to put it mildly, these transcripts in
13 the form that they were offered to you, when a well-bred man, and I
14 believe that I am a well-bred man except that perhaps I'm a bit
15 short-tempered but -- and if I go wrong I will always own up to and I will
16 apologise to everybody, perhaps, if I flare up and I offend somebody, I
17 will apologise. But nevertheless I always have this -- these reins which
18 are called good manners and I think I was brought up well. The
19 Prosecution offers in evidence a transcript which has not been translated
20 fully, and how can it be that Your Honours are given only what the
21 Prosecution wants to you see? Because we must have evidence or an exhibit
22 in full because otherwise one has reason to doubt that somebody is trying
23 to fish in troubled waters. Why hasn't it been translated in full?
24 History has already testifying about these transcripts especially
25 in my small countrylet, nobody believes them. The only person who
1 believes those transcripts is the Prosecution and they are trying to talk
2 you into believing it. You know how -- what were the testimonies in other
3 cases. Do you really think that we can believe something that can be
4 confirmed by nobody except those who attended those meetings, and I tried,
5 and we brought people and we allowed the Prosecution to cross-examine
6 them, and we remember what happened, or a man who was there is not, or he
7 is but he was not. If the presidential transcript says Mr. Andabak, then
8 it is Mr. Andabah and nobody can say that it is Mr. Andabak. This is just
9 an example.
10 If the transcript says that Mr. Kovac was at a meeting in Split
11 and he sat here and publicly that he had never been there, the Prosecutor
12 cross-examined him and did not manage to refute that. And the least one
13 can say is that the -- this -- all this evidence is highly questionable,
14 and I think it must be addressed with extreme caution. Your Honours, do
15 you really think that we have so much time and space? And I always
16 remember this message. We are not little children. Do you really think
17 that this building is protected against interests, that this building is
18 protected against spying, against some other logistics and other
19 interests? Do you really think that this building is immune from all
21 And tell me, who are these investigators? They are all former
22 retired policemen or spies and who do they cooperate with? I haven't made
23 this up. When I heard the word AID, it's as if I've been pricked with a
24 needle, and I admit that. Precisely because I think that it is
25 impermissible for a serious organisation, if it considers itself a serious
1 organisation, admits, and publicly at that, cooperation with the secret
2 political police, which has its departments, as any other secret police,
3 for sabotage, for the psychological warfare, for rumours spreading.
4 That's their job. And in this case, they've succeeded. I mean, as far as
5 the OTP is concerned, they escort marvelously. They've managed to push
6 through everything they have wanted to and yet they are no where to be
8 That is what the reality is showing us because there is no -- the
9 indictment for Trusina, for the massacres of the Croat population in
10 Konjic, persecution in Doljani, the massacre, civilian persecution, prison
11 camp in Jablanica for women and children. There is no indictment, East
12 Mostar, camps, persecution, expulsion of 7.000 Croats, no indictment, but
13 the other side is accused of everything. And then we are told that
14 justice is being done, and then somebody talks about the tears of victims
15 and about compensation of the victims. Yes, but for all the victims,
16 justice, yes, but for all those who are responsible.
17 Mr. Garrod does not trust Mr. Naletilic. So what? Why should I
18 trust him? Well, he didn't come to Bosnia-Herzegovina on a friendly
19 mission. What do I care what Mr. Martin Garrod thinks? Let Martin Garrod
20 produce some evidence. "I was present and I saw this and that." He was
21 never in Mostar prior to 1994. Witnesses LL, JJ, and all the others said
22 here very clearly, "We were for the safety -- we know what SpaBat did."
23 This kind of information is at the lowest possible level. Where are the
24 analyses? Where are the documents to show that what they say was truly
25 like that? Excuse me, when he meets Andabak in Mostar and Andabak is
1 surprised. Well, excuse me, so what?
2 Are we going to go into psychology now? Who what thinks? Are we
3 to interpret that? Well he could have met him in Mostar a hundred times.
4 He could go to Mostar whenever he wanted. So what did he see Mr. Andabak
5 persecute people? No. He did not see that, nor could he confirm that.
6 But he confirmed that he was receiving that he had been receiving
7 information from his interpreters, and we know who they belong to. Did he
8 check that? He didn't.
9 Van der Grinten is sitting with Stojic and Tuta is there. Well
10 that's not true that Tuta was there. Tuta was at another table, as he
11 said in some corner over there. He wasn't sitting with them, but that
12 does not trouble the Prosecutor, even though the transcript says very
13 clearly Tuta was here and that is proof that they are cooperating closely
14 and what proof do we have that Mr. Stojic and Mr. Naletilic are
15 cooperating closely? None. We have not a single proof. We do not have a
16 single exhibit showing that. Which document shows that? The only
17 document you much respected friend, the great in -- in Herceg-Bosna, do we
18 have anything like that? Do we have such a letter? Do we have a log, do
19 we have appointments, Your Honour? No we don't, but that doesn't stop
20 them from claiming what they claim.
21 We are a case -- a low level case, that is how the registry treats
22 us and everybody. Remember Van der Grinten, when we asked him and Witness
23 LL, where have you been before that? Of course, they were all at a
24 briefing, but we were not allowed to hear what was the briefing about.
25 But when we ask about the most important document of that, there is no
1 document. How can that be if it was all that important? And even the
2 transcripts, if we insist. The transcript says, well, that small man. Of
3 course he's small. Did we produce anything else to learn that he was
5 When we talk about the command in Mostar, do you really believe,
6 Your Honours, we are not military experts - ladies, of course, you - about
7 army. Of course I know that army is something that is foreign to you
8 ladies, but I -- but Mr. President, and I served, I suppose, the regular
9 army service. We know how armies are organised. Armies cannot have two
10 commanders. It was impossible that two or three or five people commanded
11 in Mostar, all you can have is a chain. And who is commanding on the
12 front lines and who is commanding at leisure time? When there is leisure
13 time, then nobody is commander. And if an outburst happens, if an
14 incident happens, then if there is a state then it is punished, that is
15 the military police, the civilian police, everywhere, if there has been
16 such an incident. That is all it is all over the world so it must have
17 been in Mostar, but on the front line though they most certainly didn't
18 have two commanders. And what kind of evidence did the gentlemen from the
19 Prosecution produce to that effect? Papers with names. And then we
20 learned that these -- that among those names there are women's names,
21 children's names, dead people's names and so on.
22 Your Honours, I have no intention at all to engage in the polemics
23 about the attitude presented today, because I'm a professional. And in my
24 closing argument I asked for the same thing that I'm asking now, for these
25 five minutes, my friend, without whom I don't think I would have managed
1 to survive all this, but we tried to do it quickly and let's move on to
2 specific matters so as not to wear you down. I cannot resist the
3 impression that that was said about us confirms that that is exactly what
4 the Prosecution is doing about the lack of. But I am speaking about
5 specific things but when one acts as one has said today, even if I were
6 the President of the HDZ of Croatia or if I were -- if I worshipped Franjo
7 Tudjman, what does that have to do, what would that have to do with what
8 I'm doing here? I didn't write the indictment. I'm not saying there was
9 a greater Croatia plan, and I must respond then and ask you: When did
10 things that are in those transcripts ever come true? Never, because they
11 are not true. When did Bagaric become the Minister of Health? When did
12 those men become commanders of the HVO? Never. Never. Not one of them.
13 The only name we have is Mr. Biskic's and that is only in late
14 1993, that is the beginning of 1994, when Washington is already here for
15 them. When they are allies again, Muslims and Croats. And when they
16 liberate the territories together. So when it suits the Muslims and it
17 suited them in 1992, because Croatia armed them and admitted their
18 refugees, trained. And we are still waiting for the referendum because
19 without Croat votes, the Muslim aspiration cannot come true. And then
20 when the Muslims established their army of 300.000 strong, and when they
21 start attacking in March all the Croatian -- in January, 1993, all the
22 Croatian enclaves, then they ask me about racist declarations and what --
23 who thinks what? Well, what can a Croat whose whole family has been
24 killed or whose property has been looted or burned down, what can such a
25 man think? I do not really think how low can we stoop here?
1 Discriminatory statements well to this day, and the elections have
2 shown --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Will the counsel please slow down?
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, now we have the
5 official results. Three parties won. And you know which one? The same
6 ones as in 1990. And now it's 2002, the SDA, the HDZ, and the SDS won
7 these elections. And what? And that is how it is going to be in Bosnia
8 until doomsday comes. That is how it will be. That is why this country
9 can never come together. That is why it will never come together, because
10 when we have three clearly defined entities in that country, perhaps there
11 will be peace because there are three owners of that state.
12 And then I hear yesterday or rather in the Prosecution's closing
13 argument for the first time I heard that the HVO was a militia. Now, if
14 the HVO was a militia, then the Army of BH was a militia because it is not
15 government forces as we are trying to -- as they are trying could convince
16 us, as they are trying to convince the world public, because then the Army
17 of Republika Srpska is a militia and then the HVO will also be a militia,
18 but then the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina is Lebanon and perhaps we are
19 coming closer to these theses. And of course history will tell.
20 But international conflict -- excuse me, 500.000 Croats born in
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina live in Croatia. And now excuse me, are you going to
22 prohibit me or Mr. Prosecutor will prohibit me. And in 1992,
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina was recognised with its external boundaries and not its
24 internal order. I repeat for the umpteenth time, the internal order, and
25 that was the question at the request of Banditeur and the international
1 community that the internal order will be negotiated and agreed upon and
2 then the international community started from Cutilheiro to Dayton,
3 started negotiating the internal order.
4 And now Mr. Prosecutor will forbid me from coming to defend my
5 brother and my mother and my sister such as Praljak, such as Roso, such as
6 everybody else. What right does anybody have to forbid me to do that?
7 That is a natural right to defence. They are all citizens of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. You know, it is difficult to understand that
9 situation. They are nationals of Croatia, but at the same time they are
10 nationals of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 I apologise to the interpreters.
12 During Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia, when Croatia was attacked, those
13 same from Bosnia-Herzegovina came to defend their brethren and sisters in
14 Croatia but it was Yugoslavia. It was all one country with one
15 nationality, one citizenship. These are common facts, and one cannot come
16 up with a thesis which will suit the Prosecution. They were Yugoslav
17 nationals and those who joined the HV.
18 Depending on which unit they belonged to or those who perhaps had
19 some commanding posts, because at that time the HV did not have ranks,
20 just like Bosnia didn't have them until 1994. They were -- they were
21 given ranks later on, whether active or honorary, such as, for instance,
22 myself, who was conferred upon an honorary rank, and all of us who in 1991
23 joined the army. And you know following which principle? On a voluntary
24 basis, because there was no such army, the Croatian Army did not exist, it
25 only emerged that 1991. First it was called the National Guard because
1 the laws -- and the Yugoslav laws, you know, they did not permit Croatia
2 to have its army, but then this same army attacked this same Yugoslavia
3 attacked Croatia. And I couldn't understand really that when there --
4 when aggression was started on Croatia and I was in Zagreb and I had my
5 wife and I had my two children, it was even beyond me to imagine what
6 would have happened had Croatia been truly occupied. And that was why all
7 of us went and reported. Of course, each one of us did what he knew, and
8 of course I knew law and that is why I did that.
9 So what is so strange about this? Before this world Tribunal, in
10 The Hague, which does -- which is not familiar with all these details,
11 they will say look at this Croatian officer, what officer? Officer
12 because of what he did for the Croatian Army in 1991, and witnesses told
13 us all that very clearly. For instance, Witness Glasnovic who is a
14 Canadian national to this day, he's a Croatian national but does that mean
15 that Canada is also involved?
16 But there is one thing that is beyond doubt, the mujahedin and
17 figures are quite open so I won't talk about them because witnesses came
18 up with different figures. But even if there was only one mujahedin, whom
19 did they come to defend in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Their brothers and their
20 sisters, their next of kin, their blood relations? No, only their
21 religious brothers. So let them.
22 But what does it mean? Are we going to draw then a parallel
23 conclusion that Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia are also involved
24 because their nationals were there? All right. If we are making such
25 conclusions about Croatia, then all these were also involved. And let us
1 then write this judgement publicly or say what was the truth. Nobody --
2 not even 100 prosecutors will prevent me from going to defend Mostar,
3 where my mother, brother, sister and are and who are targeted by snipers
4 where their lives are threatened. And at the same time the Republic of
5 Croatia provides camps for children and women, although their husbands at
6 the same time were attacking HVO, that is the Croats in Mostar at that
7 same time, and now I'll be told that this was an aggression? Who is it?
8 I mean, Croatia spent billions to defend its Bosnia-Herzegovina, and now
9 somebody tells me that it wanted to attack them? Well, who it not been
10 there, Bosnia-Herzegovina would be no more.
11 I am moving towards the end. I don't want to speak any longer,
12 and I know that Your Honours know everything and I really trust you. I
13 trust -- I do not really place much trust in courts after 20 years of my
14 professional career, and we will all -- there will be a judgement day for
15 all of us. And I do not place much trust in earthly courts in must be day
16 courts because we shall all appear before our creator, and then we will be
17 judged. But the Court is a court on earth, so you will pass certain
18 judgement, but the true court is up in heaven and that is the only court
19 that I fear, and I think we should all fear that one.
20 Am I to tell the Court who committed a crime? 1500 people and if
21 I'm wrong, I will apologise immediately, there are 1500 people working in
22 the OTP and they have unlimited resources. And then I am asked the
23 question who committed the crime? Three years after my client has arrived
24 in this prison, ill as he is, and then they talk about the kind of illness
25 or so. Are we now doctors? You have all his medical documentation. Of
1 course he is ashamed. He was brought up differently. He did not want his
2 illness to be mentioned. And only when he couldn't really stand it any
3 longer, he said that he wasn't really feeling well, just as we didn't want
4 to bring any character witnesses.
5 Are we now -- if we have no proof, are we now going to shed tears
6 and say he's a good man? No. The evidence is here and it will be up to
7 you to judge. My client doesn't like it. He doesn't want me to talk
8 about his illness and he is making signs to me now. But to this day, Your
9 Honours, let me inform you, no expertise has been done but I won't --
10 protecting us. What would have happened had he died? He has four hands
11 on his heart with all the rest that he has, and when one says -- I mean
12 within that context, 35 years, you know -- well, there are judgements, the
13 Prosecutor speaks about judgements even though they are not valid. If 15,
14 if somebody was sentenced to 15 years like Mr. Cerkez, but that is not
15 final, the final judgement, and we shall yet see what will happen because
16 there are thousands of documents which have been produced during the
17 appeals procedure. So we'll see what will happen.
18 So if somebody is sentenced for life, but there are some command
19 responsibilities which are major. But yet we have not established what is
20 the Convicts Battalion, we do not know yet what it is. According to the
21 documents, although I attach no importance to documents because we have
22 not even cross-examined anywhere, we have not proven who issued a
23 particular document, who didn't, who is behind it or what, but it clearly
24 says that the Convicts Battalion had 55 members and I think we all realise
25 that it was an ATG. I don't know which level. It is up to you, Your
1 Honours, to say that. But in 35 years, my client will have, I am sure,
2 the chance to start his life all over again. I mean, how cynical is
3 that? Don't we all see it?
4 When we talk about extradition, Your Honours, Croatia has adopted
5 a law on cooperation with The Hague Tribunal, and we use the legal
6 remedies. And we will use legal remedies again for anyone if we defend in
7 time, especially if we are talking about the illness, where the doctors
8 appointed by this Tribunal examined my client in Zagreb but they didn't do
9 it here to this day, but they went to Zagreb twice, twice, two teams. But
10 here nobody condescended for the past 15 months, and there is complete
11 documentation. He was incapable of coming, that is what the doctors said
12 the first time, that he wouldn't even take a flight here and when they
13 said that he could fly, then we came. So what is the problem? What are
14 we talking about? And of course, I'm not happy that one of the parties to
15 the case has powers that the other party can never have and never will
17 But I would not want my client to be built into the foundations of
18 the new international justice, only for everybody to learn something new
19 in 10, 15 years because the errors of this Tribunal or of this OTP will be
20 the foundations of the ICC. Its laws are different, its procedure is
21 different, but the countries from which my learned friends, Stringer and
22 Scott, come, that country does not even want to hear about the ICC and now
23 it is putting pressure on all of us small countries to sign a
24 non-extradition agreement with them, and our citizen -- if our citizen is
25 not extradited, then America threatens to impose sanctions on us. All of
1 us are fighting for big justice, but the justice for others not for
2 ourselves it seems --
3 MR. STRINGER: I object to this line of rejoinder, Mr. President.
4 It's beyond the scope. It's improper.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] You are right. This is not indeed
7 what you said, ever said, or will ever say. However, the truth is here.
8 It cannot be escaped. Your Honours, I don't want to wear you down again.
9 I'm grateful for your patience and I apologise once again for my quick
10 temper. Thank you for all your efforts which are so visible. Your
11 efforts have been great, you haven't had an easy time, neither have we.
12 You have made an effort to understand this case. I am grateful for that,
13 and I believe that your final decision will be based on that and I'm not
14 afraid of it. You have really patiently followed the procedure. And with
15 a little help from God, I believe that your final decision will be just
16 what it should be. Thank you once again.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, are you going to do your rejoinder
18 argument now or we'll have a break and we'll come back?
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I would like to speak now, Your
20 Honour, and I would like to use the break for -- to take my therapy
21 against pain in the kidneys. So I'm sorry if we could have just a short
22 break now?
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we will break until 12.00. Yes.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.34 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 12.04 p.m.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, whatever I could reply
3 to Prosecutor's words would take a whole day. What I'm not going to say
4 will last my whole life and will never be said, and I believe that all of
5 you know exactly what is it that I am not going to say.
6 I am not going to say that Vinko Martinovic belongs to the group
7 of those who didn't have anything to do with any international armed
8 conflict, which wasn't international in the first place. What I'm not
9 going to say is that Vinko Martinovic, as a foot soldier, according to Sir
10 Martin Garrod, the Prosecutor's witness, could not either plan or decide
11 anything because he didn't have any authority to do that. Sir Martin
12 Garrod said that Vinko Martinovic could only think for 24 hours in a day
13 as to how to save his own life.
14 I'm not going to say that witnesses with wooden rifles are not
15 consistent at all, contrary to what my learned friend has said. They have
16 contradicted each other. I'm not going to say that the Prosecutor has
17 referred to decisions in the Blaskic and Kordic cases and they are not
18 final, which means that they don't even exist. I will also not say that
19 among the transcripts there is not a single one recording Tudjman's
20 conversations with foreign diplomats.
21 I'm not going to say that the Prosecutor is not consistent in its
22 practice and policy of Prosecution, because if he were consistent, Vinko
23 Martinovic would not be accused at all.
24 Another thing that I'm not going to say is that Sead Smajkic was
25 the commander of the Muslim armed forces in Mostar, who had planned and
1 carried out the attack on Mostar. I'm also not going to say that Witness
2 MA, a Muslim, testified that he had sent Vinko Martinovic to Dum to save
3 his wife and his child and that is why he may have been seen there by
4 Witness WW.
5 Your Honours, I'm not going to say that some witnesses blackmailed
6 the OTP, asking for money or relocation to third countries, and for that
7 reason they should have been corrupt -- contaminated. This was directly
8 proven the testimony of investigator Apolonia Bos. I am also not going to
9 say that it is inappropriate to compare Vinko Martinovic with some of the
10 commanders in the area of responsibility or a general in the Drina corps.
11 I'm also not going to say that the Prosecutor's comment that evidence
12 speaks for itself means that the Defence evidence really speaks for itself
13 and especially its witnesses.
14 I'm not going to say how painful it was for me to feel how
15 inferior the Defence was in fighting the Prosecution. I am not going to
16 say that I asked just for the illusion of justice. I am not going to talk
17 about all the tricks used by the Prosecution which are allowed under the
18 law, but law should be used rather than abused. Utianus a Roman author
19 said that. He said, "uti; non abuti."
20 I'm not going to say anything about the Prosecutor's comment in
21 respect of a one single instance when Vinko Martinovic was not feeling
22 well and he asked you, Your Honours, for a permission to leave the
23 courtroom, and then he -- you allowed that. The Prosecutor's comment was
24 that that was no accident.
25 I'm not going to say anything about their cross-examinations going
1 on forever in order to elicit the answers that they wanted to hear. I'm
2 not going to say anything about the Prosecutor's word at the address of
3 the Defence, because whatever they said about us, they were standing in
4 front of a mirror. They were talking about themselves. For I've been in
5 front of this Court for the first time, the first time in front of a court
6 that abides by the common law rules, I was following my learned friends'
8 I'm not going to say anything about the fact that the Prosecutor
9 considers you to be a maid or a beach guard or a -- members, just members
10 of the jury, which was -- were found on the street.
11 MR. SCOTT: Now it's my turn. This is enough. Enough of these
12 personal attacks. There is no basis for this. Counsel stand up and says
13 that I consider the Chamber as -- whatever it was, a maid. I object.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, this is a rejoinder argument. I
15 believe that your argument should be directed against whatever the
16 Prosecution said in his rebuttal argument, rather than pose some
17 statements on this matter.
18 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he wanted to impress you
19 by putting up a show. That's why he showed you a footage. That's why he
20 showed you a photo. And accused, both Tuta and Stela, without any
21 foundation whatsoever.
22 Your Honours, you have warned all of us here on several occasions
23 and you've told us on several occasions that you are no children.
24 However, the Prosecutor behaving in that way, does portray you as children
25 who -- and woos you with sweets and chocolates. That is why I'm only
1 going to say this and remind you of the Biblical words of St. Paul in his
2 address to the Romans:
3 "None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If
4 we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then,
5 whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. For to this end
6 Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and
7 the dead. Why do you pass judgement on your brother? Or you, why do
8 despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement seat of
9 God; for it is written, 'As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to
10 me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.' So each of us shall give
11 account of himself to God."
12 Mr. President, Judge Clark, Judge Diarra, it's been my honour and
13 pleasure to work with you in this courtroom.
14 JUDGE LIU: Does Mr. Par have something to add?
15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have nothing
16 else to say. But I would like to join my colleague, Seric, in his words
17 of gratitude and appreciation for working with you.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
19 Are there any other matters that both parties would like to bring
20 to the attention of this Trial Chamber at this stage? Mr. Scott?
21 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, except to add our thanks to the Court
22 staff, to the translators, to the registry, to the security guards, who
23 have served faithfully, as everyone has. We express our appreciation to
24 the entire courtroom staff and for their patience with us from time to
25 time as well. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Krsnik?
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have nothing further
4 to add, and Mr. Meek has expressed gratitude on behalf of the entire
5 Defence. I do not want to repeat anything that he has said, but we are
6 all grateful to all those that we have worked with, and who have helped us
7 during the past 14 months. Thank you very much.
8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Mr. Seric?
9 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I would like to join these words of
10 gratitude, and I would especially like to thank the interpreters. Thank
11 you very much.
12 JUDGE CLARK: Can I on my own behalf, this is a very emotional
13 moment for all of you, and I have to say it was my first time to be
14 honoured to serve, to be asked to serve in an International Tribunal. Can
15 I thank all of you very sincerely, every last one of you, for the amount
16 of work and effort that you have put in? The Prosecution, to elucidate
17 the issues, and the Defence, to do everything they could within the law to
18 protect and represent their clients.
19 Can I assure all of you that speaking for myself, when I arrive at
20 a final decision, it will be on the basis of the evidence which I heard in
21 this Court. It will not be on the basis of how talented a witness was in
22 presenting the evidence or how talented counsel were in testing that
23 evidence. It will be on the evidence as we accept it.
24 Somebody will walk away feeling sad about the decision, but I hope
25 that you all walk away feeling that it was a just decision. And you can
1 rest assured that I will do my best, and I thank you. I will be grateful
2 to the end of my days for the experience that I have had in this Court.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: Judge Diarra?
5 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. This is
6 really a very emotional moment. During the past 14 months, we have been
7 faced day in, day out, with a lot of evidence, and this has resulted in
8 the emotion that I'm not able to qualify. But in any case, I would like
9 to thank the interpreters because without them somebody like me, who
10 speaks only French, would not be able to follow these proceedings, and
11 that's why I would like to thank the interpreters for their kind
13 I would also like to say that all the emotions I have experienced
14 here will not have a bearing on the decisions once I arrive at that
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, in accordance with Rule 87 of the Rules of
17 Procedure and Evidence, this Trial Chamber believes that both parties have
18 completed their presentation of the case. Therefore, I declare the
19 hearing of this case closed.
20 Since September 10th, 2001, this hearing has been going on for 14
21 months. We heard over approximately over 130 witnesses and admitted over
22 18.000 pieces of evidence in this case. We would like to thank both
23 parties for their tremendous effort in presenting their case and in
24 helping us understand this case.
25 We also would like to express our appreciation to the devotion
1 made by the Registrar, court deputy, court reporters, security guards,
2 interpreters and the translators, and the technicians working behind those
3 glasses. Without their help and assistance, it is simply impossible to
4 hear a case for 14 months.
5 From now on, this Trial Chamber will deliberate in private, and
6 the date of announcing judgement will be arranged by the Registrar at a
7 later stage.
8 Having said that, we will rise.
9 ---Whereupon the proceedings adjourned at
10 12.22 p.m.