1 Thursday, 2nd December, 1999

2 [Rule 77 Hearing]

3 [Open session]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.35 p.m.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the Registrar call the

6 case, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your

8 Honours. Case number IT-95-9-R77.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: May I say at the outset that

10 we're making every effort to complete the case today,

11 and I ask all parties to take that into consideration.

12 Mr. Haynes.

13 MR. HAYNES: Your Honour, I'm going to call

14 Igor Pantelic.

15 [The witness entered court]

16 WITNESS: IGOR PANTELIC

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Have the witness make the

18 solemn declaration.

19 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

21 truth.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be seated,

23 Mr. Pantelic.

24 A. Thank you, Your Honours.

25 Examined by Mr. Haynes:

1 Q. Your full name is Igor Pantelic?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Mr. Pantelic, let's come straight to the

4 point. You were sitting in court yesterday when a tape

5 recording was played of a telephone conversation?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Were you one of the parties to that telephone

8 conversation?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Do you recall it now?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Where were you when that telephone

13 conversation took place?

14 A. On the street in Belgrade.

15 Q. So it follows, does it, that you were

16 speaking on a mobile phone?

17 A. That's right.

18 Q. During the course of that conversation, the

19 other party to the telephone call talked to you about a

20 programme?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Did you understand what he was talking about?

23 A. No.

24 Q. What was your attitude to that telephone

25 conversation generally?

1 A. Well, it's a question of interpretation. I

2 mean, in slang language we used to use this word as an

3 event or gathering or -- I mean, in terms of, "What is

4 the programme for tonight?" that kind of thing.

5 In this particular moment and this case, I

6 was probably -- my understanding was probably that it

7 was related to some kind of trial proceedings or some

8 witness protection programme or something like that.

9 MR. HAYNES: Thank you.

10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Ryneveld.

11 Cross-examined by Mr. Ryneveld:

12 Q. Mr. Pantelic, if, as you say, you had no idea

13 what the programme referred to, why in the world would

14 you say that it was sometime in November? What kind of

15 programme is going on sometime in November?

16 A. Well, Mr. Ryneveld, let me explain it to

17 you. The term "programme" -- as I said, in our

18 language, slang -- we used to use on a daily basis,

19 means to me that if I'm speaking with friends. That's

20 another meaning, as I just explained.

21 On this particular occasion, my understanding

22 was that this programme means an event, means some kind

23 of procedures, some kind of, as I said, a witness

24 protection programme, because I remember that we have

25 discussed that on many occasions, all the colleagues in

1 this joinder case, this issue. Because, you know, to

2 have a proper defence in this particular case, it is

3 not enough to bring Serb witnesses here. Our defence

4 strategy was based on the fact that we would need to

5 have witnesses from the other nationalities and, well,

6 it's a very sensitive issue. Most of them always

7 asked, "What kind of protection will we have in The

8 Hague? What is the procedure? What is the travel

9 arrangements?" and many other things.

10 So probably my understanding was that it was

11 related to something on this issue.

12 Q. So you did discuss this file with

13 Mr. Avramovic; is that right?

14 A. We always discuss. Not only me and

15 Avramovic, but me and my learned colleagues Pisarevic,

16 Brashich, and the others. I mean, it's the process.

17 We are all discussing general issues of the law, issues

18 of proceedings and including relations with witnesses

19 and all these things. I mean, it's a joinder case.

20 Q. Mr. Pantelic, you didn't say, "I don't know

21 what programme you're talking about." When he said,

22 "When did that programme with Bane start," your answer

23 is, "Toward the end of the year."

24 A. My belief is that it was related to some kind

25 of process. I didn't know in which capacity this

1 person is making some relations with my colleague or

2 who -- even I don't know him in person. And as you may

3 take a short look on the second page of your

4 transcript, you'll see that there is a small pause, so

5 it was -- in fact, it was a little bit strange to me to

6 give the answer like that.

7 But don't forget, Mr. Ryneveld, that I was in

8 Belgrade. It was, I think, early in the evening. The

9 air strike alert was just to be announced. It was a

10 bombing operation against Yugoslavia. I was heading to

11 the other part of town to be, you know -- across the

12 bridge, et cetera.

13 When I came from the Hague after the last

14 Status Conference at the end of April 29th, then we set

15 a trial date for 22nd of June.

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. The immense extraordinary efforts for us to

18 prepare the case, to arrange all necessary things, not

19 to mention travels and all these things, under these

20 circumstances, it was so, so complicated. There was no

21 electricity. Our work in our offices was practically

22 stopped, you know, in many period of days. So probably

23 I was not -- I wasn't so focussed on this kind of

24 word.

25 As you can also see in this transcript, there

1 is a few things which is unintelligible or something.

2 Q. Yes.

3 A. It's a street, it's noise, et cetera.

4 Q. Although, sir, in fairness, not in the

5 portion with you and Daki; this is in the second part

6 of the transcript, Bane and Daki, that it is

7 unintelligible. Your --

8 A. You can just take a look on the first page.

9 It says.

10 Q. I don't see a lot of unintelligible aspects

11 to the part of the conversation attributed to you, sir,

12 but I could be wrong.

13 A. Well, maybe you should not be so ironic, my

14 dear friend.

15 Q. I'm just looking, and I don't see any. Well,

16 there's one, "Igor: (Unintelligible)," near the bottom

17 of page 1.

18 A. It's minor, I would say. It's not so

19 important a point.

20 Q. I only have a couple more questions, sir.

21 A. Of course.

22 Q. If I understand your position, you were busy,

23 you had lots to do, you were on a mobile phone, you

24 were in Belgrade, and somebody else's client is phoning

25 you. You're confused about what he is talking about.

1 Then why would you give him an assurance that it

2 doesn't matter, that it's not that urgent yet?

3 A. Well, my understanding, as I said, was that

4 it is not a case now. I don't know in which capacity

5 this person was acted or made some relations with my

6 colleague. I was not aware about that.

7 I mean, that's general information, not only

8 to this person but to all persons that might call us at

9 our office, because we collect many informations, and

10 sometimes one of our witnesses will call maybe for our

11 colleague Pisarevic. It's a normal way.

12 I mean, it's a sensitive issue to deal with

13 the witnesses or with someone who will get some

14 information or whatever, so we always try to be very

15 polite, very understandable, and not to be, you know,

16 in some kind of, I would say, short conversation or

17 something like that.

18 Q. Sir, why, if what you say is true, you didn't

19 know really what that was all about, would you purport

20 to give advice to another lawyer's client about

21 something where there was a time issue? Why would you

22 purport to give advice about -- when he says, "I

23 thought it was going to be in" --

24 A. You know, the reason was simple. My guess

25 was that maybe someone is interested what is the

1 development in this case, or maybe he will act in

2 capacity or he will appear in capacity of witness, or

3 maybe in capacity of some other sort of person, so that

4 the issue was, I mean, the general information, not

5 only for this person but for all persons in our case,

6 is that according to predicted schedule in this case,

7 by the end of the year we could have our case here, I

8 mean the Defence case. That was my general impression,

9 and always I repeat that to all of our witnesses, the

10 same thing.

11 Like your team leader, Mrs. Inderhaug, she's

12 in permanent contact with all your witnesses, arrange

13 travels, see how they are doing. I mean, in spite of

14 the unproportion between the Prosecutor and Defence, I

15 mean in favour of Prosecutor, of course, with the

16 sources and all those things, basically it's the same

17 method.

18 Q. So you didn't think that Daki would be

19 required as a witness until towards the end of the

20 year?

21 A. Actually, I wasn't aware at all about his

22 position.

23 Q. And yet you would give advice?

24 A. In general terms, because I didn't know.

25 Maybe he will give this information to a third person.

1 Who knows? I mean, you cannot act, you know, so

2 strictly on this kind of thing.

3 MR. RYNEVELD: If you say so, sir. Thank

4 you.

5 Questioned by the Court:

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Before re-examination,

7 Mr. Pantelic, the question which Daki asked was, "When

8 does that programme with Bane start?" Now, you say

9 that you believe that was a reference to a witness

10 protection programme. The witness protection programme

11 with Bane, Bane being Mr. Avramovic?

12 A. Your Honour, during the last almost two years

13 in this particular case, my colleagues and me, we are

14 dealing permanent with this issue. A lot of witnesses

15 ask, "How we can be protected? We are not Serb

16 nationals. How we can come in The Hague to give our

17 evidence, to give testimony?" In all our relations

18 with them, we tried to explain the role of the Victim

19 and Witness Unit here, I mean, in general terms. You

20 cannot be specific so much with laypersons.

21 So the same thing is with the Serb witnesses

22 which we intend to call. They require a so-called safe

23 passage issue, because they also have some, I would

24 say, not fear but -- well, they have some reserves

25 about their position because, frankly saying, they are

1 a member of a local government there in the Samac area,

2 et cetera, so it's understandable. So on many

3 occasions, we have to speak with them. We have to

4 convince them and to give some information such as.

5 So, frankly, I wasn't able to make this

6 slight difference, you know, at that moment. Maybe I

7 was thinking that this person is asking for some other

8 information about, you know, including this --

9 JUDGE MAY: A witness protection programme

10 is --

11 A. -- because you cannot explain to them it's a

12 unit. It's more familiar to them in our language to

13 say, "Well, there is a protection programme," or

14 something, you know.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Which is usually organised

16 by the Tribunal.

17 A. By the Tribunal, yes.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

19 Judge Bennouna.

20 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]

21 Mr. Pantelic, just a point of clarification.

22 You answered a question from Mr. Haynes,

23 saying that you had been called on a mobile phone.

24 Could you tell the Trial Chamber, how was it that

25 Witness Agnes had the number of your mobile phone?

1 A. Yes, Your Honour. It's a very simple

2 question. Actually, on many times we received the

3 faxes from the Registry on our telephone for colleague

4 Pisarevic and for many other colleagues in the

5 Republika Srpska and in Belgrade too, so I mean it's a

6 normal way of things.

7 In terms of this telephone number, it's also

8 usual for colleagues dealing with a joinder case, as we

9 are dealing, to give, I would say, many telephones of

10 all colleagues in case that someone wants to reach

11 someone and he cannot be in contact, and then --

12 because you never know. Maybe some kind of very

13 important information will come and a colleague is not

14 here. Maybe the other can take this information and

15 pass it to him.

16 I'm dealing with this thing, I mean, all

17 these years, and including with my colleague

18 Pisarevic. If I have something to do in the Bosanski

19 Samac area, I give to this person his number so he can

20 call his office, leave a message or something. I mean,

21 that's the way.

22 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] So it is

23 customary for you to give the mobile number to

24 potential witnesses?

25 A. I didn't gave this telephone. You should

1 ask, you know, the other persons. I didn't gave this.

2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] But you

3 didn't give the person your number?

4 A. [Previous interpretation continues]...

5 because I can't see this person, Mr. Agnes. I didn't

6 have any contact with him.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Haynes.

9 MR. HAYNES: I have no re-examination. Thank

10 you.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Pantelic, that concludes

12 your evidence, and you are released.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours. If I

14 may, shall I just walk away or can I get my robe and

15 to --

16 JUDGE MAY: I think you can resume your seat,

17 yes.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Haynes.

20 MR. HAYNES: I call Milan Simic.

21 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may address

22 the Court, please.

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

24 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I should like

25 to suggest, for the hearing of my client Milan Simic,

1 that the cross-examination be limited to general

2 matters linked to this particular case and not to be

3 expanded to questions that are not linked to this Rule

4 77 hearing. It is an irregular motion, of course.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you. That will

6 be the case. That has been the ruling. The questions

7 have to be so limited. If they are not so limited,

8 then an objection can be made and the Chamber will

9 consider it.

10 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.

11 [The witness takes the stand]

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly

13 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

14 and nothing but the truth.

15 WITNESS: MILAN SIMIC

16 [Witness answered through interpreter]

17 Examined by Mr. Haynes:

18 Q. Your full name is Milan Simic?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. What's your date of birth?

21 A. 9th of August, 1960.

22 Q. I think you were married in 1993. Is that

23 correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Could you just give us the date?

1 A. The 1st of February, 1993.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the microphones be

3 moved up closer to the witness, please?

4 A. Yes, I married on the 1st of February, 1993.

5 MR. HAYNES:

6 Q. We see that you're in a wheelchair. The

7 event that caused you to be confined to a wheelchair,

8 when did that take place?

9 A. It took place on the 13th of February, 1993;

10 that is, the 13th day into my marriage.

11 Q. I think you're a graduate in economics; is

12 that correct?

13 A. Yes. I graduated at the faculty of

14 economics.

15 Q. Have you ever been charged or convicted of

16 any criminal offence?

17 A. No, never. I was never charged or

18 convicted.

19 Q. Now, I want to ask you just one question

20 about events in Bosanski Samac in 1992. Did you, in

21 1992, ever go to the elementary school?

22 A. Yes. In 1992 I went to the elementary school

23 on one occasion, and that is what I told people from

24 the Office of the Prosecutor, and this was also

25 confirmed by Prosecutor witnesses that were interviewed

1 by the Prosecutor subsequently.

2 Q. Just so that we're clear, that's an interview

3 at which, I think, Ms. Paterson was also present?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Now, you were in court when the witness we

6 call Agnes was giving his evidence?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Had you ever seen that man before in your

9 life?

10 A. No, never. I've never seen him before.

11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Simic.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson or

13 Mr. Ryneveld.

14 MS. PATERSON: Your Honour, if I'm to assume

15 that I'm to be limited to those basically two

16 questions, then my cross-examination is limited to that

17 or do I have a certain amount of leeway beyond these

18 couple of questions?

19 [Trial Chamber confers]

20 JUDGE ROBINSON: You're not so limited.

21 You're entitled to deal with the subject matter of the

22 application, but of course, as we have ruled, you

23 cannot deal with questions which go to the guilt or

24 innocence in the wider issue which we have not yet

25 considered.

1 MS. PATERSON: Yes, Your Honour. I had no

2 intention of going into those matters.

3 Cross-examined by Ms. Paterson:

4 Q. Mr. Simic, we have met before, have we not?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And as you said, we were together on the

7 2nd of March, 1998, when you gave a statement to the

8 Tribunal; is that correct?

9 A. Yes. At the beginning of March. I don't

10 know the date exactly.

11 Q. And in that statement, as you've already

12 said -- you admitted that you had been present at the

13 primary school sometime in 1992; correct?

14 A. Yes. I said that I was in the elementary

15 school. I didn't admit it. I just told you about

16 events that occurred in 1992 linked to the elementary

17 school.

18 Q. And at that same conversation, I asked you

19 if -- I believe it came up in the discussions if there

20 was someone that was known to you as your kum, which

21 has been explained to me as your best man. Did we

22 discuss someone, who was your best man, that day?

23 A. No. You didn't ask me. I told you that he

24 was my driver. He drove me to the elementary school

25 and drove me back from the elementary school. So my

1 kum was, at the same time, my driver in 1992.

2 Q. Okay. And what is the name of that person?

3 A. His name is Stevo Markovic.

4 Q. Now, on the 23rd of June this year, a

5 statement was submitted from your lawyer, in which you

6 completely denied ever having met the person known as

7 Mr. Agnes; is that correct?

8 A. Yes, that is correct.

9 Q. And you never, ever had a telephone

10 conversation with Mr. Agnes; is that correct?

11 A. You are right. That is correct.

12 Q. So you were here and heard the testimony of

13 Mr. Agnes, and all those times that he said that he had

14 meetings with you and all those times he said he had

15 phone calls with you, none of that is correct; is that

16 your testimony?

17 A. Yes. None of that is true.

18 Q. But you had heard about this person,

19 Mr. Agnes, before you came to court for this

20 proceeding, had you not?

21 A. I heard about very many people that my

22 Defence counsel had contact with.

23 Q. Well, you, I assume, have regular

24 conversations with your attorney, Mr. Avramovic, and

25 discuss your defence and preparing for this case; isn't

1 that true?

2 MR. HAYNES: Can I ask Ms. Paterson treads a

3 little carefully here. She is going into the area of

4 attorney/client privilege.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson.

6 MS. PATERSON: Yes, Your Honour. I am simply

7 asking did they have conversations. I have no

8 intention of going into the substance of the

9 conversations beyond the fact that they may, on

10 occasion, have discussed Mr. Agnes. That's the extent

11 of my question.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Confine yourself in that

13 way.

14 MS. PATERSON:

15 Q. Did you, at any time in your conversations

16 with Mr. Avramovic, discuss the fact that Mr. Agnes had

17 volunteered to testify on your behalf?

18 MR. HAYNES: No. That's a step too far.

19 JUDGE HUNT: You're claiming the privilege on

20 behalf of your client, are you?

21 MR. HAYNES: It's only his to waive.

22 JUDGE HUNT: Yes.

23 MR. HAYNES: And yes, I am.

24 JUDGE HUNT: So he's not prepared to waive it

25 to answer that question?

1 MR. HAYNES: I don't know.

2 JUDGE HUNT: Don't you think it might be an

3 idea to have some instructions on the point, because

4 certain inferences can be drawn from --

5 MR. HAYNES: Certainly.

6 JUDGE HUNT: -- a refusal to answer that

7 question.

8 MR. HAYNES: Certainly. Perhaps he should be

9 asked if he's happy to answer that question.

10 MS. PATERSON: Should I put the question to

11 him, Your Honour, or do you want to?

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Put it to him.

13 MS. PATERSON:

14 Q. Mr. Simic, you have a right, if you want to,

15 not to answer that question. Do you want to answer

16 that question or not? It's up to you.

17 A. Yes, I do want to answer that question.

18 Q. Okay. Please do so, then.

19 A. Could you please repeat the question for me?

20 Q. Yes. At any time during your conversations

21 with Mr. Avramovic, when you were talking about

22 preparing for your trial, did he ever mention to you

23 the existence of this person known as Mr. Agnes, that

24 this man had come forward and offered to testify for

25 you?

1 A. Mr. Avramovic did not tell me things to that

2 effect, though I did discuss this with him. But when

3 Mr. Agnes appeared as one of many that my attorney had

4 contacted, my lawyer at the time was Mr. Vukovic. So I

5 received the first information about Mr. Agnes from

6 Mr. Vukovic and not Mr. Avramovic.

7 Q. Okay. But the point is, you knew Mr. Agnes

8 existed. You knew that this man had come forward and

9 offered to give testimony favourable to you. Is that

10 not true?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Well, what did you know about Mr. Agnes?

13 A. On the basis of what Mr. Vukovic told me, I

14 knew that he had contacted a man whom we call here

15 Mr. Agnes, and he conveyed to me his impressions about

16 this man very briefly, because, of course, we didn't

17 discuss him only. We were having this conversation

18 after my return from the spa in Igalo, so he was

19 telling me about things that had happened in the

20 meantime. Among other things, he told me, very

21 briefly, with reference to Mr. Agnes, that his

22 impressions as regards that individual were that he was

23 a highly unreliable individual and that he would -- had

24 still not decided whether he would be of any use for

25 the defence.

1 Q. Mr. Simic, do you know a woman by the name of

2 Jasna Marosevic?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. That's a young woman who testified here in

5 court earlier is week; is that not true?

6 A. Yes, of course.

7 Q. And Ms. Marosevic is a personal friend of

8 yours, isn't she?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And she's been trying to assist you in your

11 preparation to your defence for this case, has she

12 not?

13 A. Yes, in a sense. Up to a point. Not

14 directly to assist the Defence, because she is not

15 qualified to assist, but she did tell me that she had

16 contacted a friend of hers that she thought might be

17 useful for my defence, and I told her then the

18 telephone number of my lawyer, Mr. Vukovic, that she

19 should contact him and tell him everything that she

20 knew, and that it was then up to him to decide what to

21 do next.

22 Q. Did Jasna ever tell you that she was a friend

23 of Mr. Agnes, that she had known him before the war

24 started?

25 A. She told me that this friend of hers that she

1 thought might be useful, that she did know that person

2 from before the war and that she was a friend of his,

3 yes.

4 Q. And did you ever have any more detailed

5 discussions with her about Mr. Agnes, about the fact

6 that he had volunteered to testify on your behalf?

7 A. No, I didn't have any detailed discussion

8 with her about anything linked to my defence at all.

9 Q. Didn't you find it rather curious, Mr. Simic,

10 that a man that you claim you've never met before and

11 you've never seen before in your life was willing to

12 come forward and testify on your behalf in a trial as

13 serious as this here in The Hague? Did that surprise

14 you that Mr. Agnes volunteered to testify for you?

15 A. First of all, if we're talking about my

16 conversation with Jasna, all she told me was that he

17 was willing to talk to my attorney. Whether this was a

18 question of testimony or something else, I didn't

19 know.

20 Secondly, it does not surprise me at all if

21 people want to appear in this court to tell the truth.

22 He's not supposed to testify for or against me but to

23 testify of things that he witnessed and tell the Court

24 what he saw. I don't see how the Court would operate

25 at all if people weren't ready to come here and tell

1 the Court what they know. So I'm not surprised at

2 all. And surely other witnesses come on the basis of

3 that same principle, to tell the Court what they know.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, up until, I guess it was late

5 May or early -- I guess sometime in June of this year,

6 you were actually on what's called provisional release

7 and you were living in Bosanski Samac; isn't that

8 right?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So unlike the other defendants in this case

11 who are in the detention centre, you've been in

12 Bosanski Samac and you've been free to move around and

13 meet people and have conversations, go out to cafes,

14 have you not?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And one of the cafes that you hang out at,

17 that you go to frequently, is the cafe Lotos, where

18 Jasna is a waitress; isn't that right?

19 A. No.

20 Q. You don't go to the cafe Lotos ever?

21 A. Not frequently. You said whether I hang out

22 there and whether I go there frequently. I'm saying

23 that I don't. I don't hang out there and I don't go

24 there frequently. Sometimes, yes.

25 Q. Now, you heard both Mr. Agnes and Jasna say

1 that on several occasions Mr. Agnes went to Bosanski

2 Samac in 1998 and 1999. Do you remember that

3 testimony?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And would it be fair to say that most people

6 in Bosanski Samac know who you are because of the

7 unfortunate fact that you're in a wheelchair? You're

8 well known around town because of your being confined

9 to a wheelchair; isn't that right?

10 A. Yes. Most people know me because of two

11 unfortunate facts. One is that I'm in a wheelchair,

12 and the other is that you have accused me. That is the

13 other fact by which I'm known.

14 Q. So is it your testimony, Mr. Simic, that

15 never, in all those months of 1998 and 1999, and all

16 those trips that Mr. Agnes went to Bosanski Samac, the

17 two of you never crossed paths? You never crossed on

18 the street? You never met in a cafe? You never laid

19 eyes on each other? Is that your testimony?

20 A. I'm saying that I never saw him or never

21 identified him. I may have come across him in the

22 street. I may have met you in the street sometime

23 before the war, but I don't recollect that. I don't

24 know all the people I come across in the street. It is

25 possible that I may have come across him but I am not

1 aware of it.

2 Q. Now, Mr. Simic, you've been here throughout

3 all of the testimony. You heard all of Mr. Agnes's

4 testimony, didn't you?

5 A. Yes, and I have read all his statements.

6 Q. Well, if you've read his statements and

7 you've heard his testimony, you know that he describes

8 several meetings in which he claims to have met you,

9 don't you?

10 A. No. I know that in his first statement he

11 said he never saw or heard me. Then in the second one

12 he said he heard me on the phone. Then in the latest

13 one he said he saw me several times. So my expectation

14 was that at the end we saw each other on a daily

15 basis. So he says all kinds of things in those

16 statements, so I don't know which one of those you want

17 me to comment on.

18 Q. I'll get back to that in just a minute. You,

19 in the past, have worked at several different jobs,

20 have you not, Mr. Simic?

21 A. Yes.

22 MS. PATERSON: Excuse me, Your Honour.

23 A. Actually, I was mostly doing the same work

24 but at different places.

25 MS. PATERSON:

1 Q. Mr. Simic, did you ever work for a company or

2 work at a company called Nova Forma?

3 A. It depends what exactly you mean. My

4 company, my firm, is called Osvit, and it did work for

5 a firm called Nova Forma, as it did for other firms in

6 Samac. I printed paper for them, publicity material,

7 and so on. So my firm did work for that firm. So we

8 have a business relationship, yes.

9 Q. So is it, then, just a complete coincidence

10 that Mr. Agnes mentioned the fact that on at least one

11 occasion you had a meeting with him at the Nova Forma

12 company?

13 A. Mr. Agnes, according to what he said here,

14 doesn't even know where the premises of Nova Forma are

15 situated. Of course, that is not true, as everything

16 else that Mr. Agnes has said is not true. I was never

17 in Nova Forma with Mr. Agnes and, anyway, I went to

18 Nova Forma only once. When they were observing their

19 first anniversary, I went there. I was one of the

20 invited guests to that modest celebration. And it is

21 very complicated for me to reach Nova Forma, because

22 you have to reach it from the main road and not from

23 town. So you need to go through a different gate than

24 the gate leading to Buducnost.

25 Q. So then, Mr. Simic, in all the places in

1 Bosanski Samac that Mr. Agnes could have picked to

2 claim that he met you, it's just an amazing coincidence

3 that he picked the Nova Forma company with which you,

4 in fact, do have a business association; is that what

5 you're saying?

6 A. What I am saying is that I have business

7 relations with all firms in Samac. There isn't a firm

8 with which my printing firm does not have business

9 relations; some to a greater, others to a lesser

10 extent. That is my market. My printing office is not

11 a big one to cover a broader area beyond Samac. So if

12 you mention any firm in Samac, they would be my

13 business partners.

14 The fact that he chose Nova Forma, that

15 depended on his own sources of information, which were

16 mostly rumours and gossip. I have another link to Nova

17 Forma, and that is that I was president of the board of

18 managers of the state-owned company Buduchnost, and

19 then Buduchnost rented out a part of the premises to

20 Marijan Misic, who set up a company called Nova Forma.

21 So I was on the other side. I was working in the

22 state-owned company, which rented out the premises to

23 the owner of Nova Forma. So he may have linked those

24 up two. And the owner of Nova Forma is Marijan Misic,

25 who is my friend and who had worked with me in

1 Buduchnost before the war. He was technical director

2 and I was financial director. So we know each other

3 very well.

4 As for who is the owner of Nova Forma, that

5 is easy to check in court where the firm has been

6 registered. It can't be simply based on what Agnes

7 says or what you claim, but there are documents to

8 corroborate and to show who owns the company.

9 Q. Mr. Simic, you heard the testimony that

10 Mr. Agnes is not originally from Bosanski Samac, that

11 he's from -- was originally from the town of Bihac in

12 Bosnia. Did you hear that testimony?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And you also heard the testimony that on the

15 17th of April, Mr. Agnes was arrested and then detained

16 in the camps until December, when he joined the VRS

17 army, and stayed in the VRS army until October, when he

18 went to Serbia. You heard that testimony; correct?

19 A. Yes, I heard the testimony, but I don't

20 recall all the dates. But I did hear the testimony,

21 yes.

22 Q. So what you're trying to tell us is that

23 Mr. Agnes, who was not even from Bosanski Samac, didn't

24 spend much time in Bosanski Samac, went to all the

25 trouble to apparently investigate who owned the Nova

1 Forma company, that there might be a connection between

2 you and the Buducnost company, and that maybe that was

3 a good place he could choose to say, untruthfully, that

4 he had had a meeting with you?

5 A. As far as I know, he didn't investigate

6 things properly, as far as I remember his testimony.

7 Perhaps I'm wrong, but he didn't convey a single exact

8 fact regarding the ownership of Nova Forma. Who he got

9 his information from, I have no idea; nor am I

10 interested; nor do I wish to investigate how he gets

11 his information. But they are obviously wrong. This

12 is something that you yourself can easily see for

13 yourself.

14 Q. Mr. Simic, did you ever have an office with

15 your printing company or any of your other business

16 interests in the building called the Spomen Dom, which

17 I believe is also known as the Memorial Centre?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And you also heard Mr. Agnes say that he had

20 a meeting with you in the Spomen Dom, in your office

21 there on one occasion, did you not?

22 A. When, when? When did we meet there in Spomen

23 Dom?

24 Q. Well, I don't know if I have that exact

25 reference in front of me, but do you remember Mr. Agnes

1 testifying here that he met with you at least once in

2 the Spomen Dom?

3 A. I remember that he testified to that effect

4 here, but unfortunately at the time my office was not

5 in the Spomen Dom. So the period that he states that

6 he met me in Spomen Dom, my office wasn't in Spomen Dom

7 at all, so I couldn't have met him there. He did not

8 meet me there; anywhere or there either. If you can

9 check it out, do so and tell me when it was.

10 Q. Do you have a relative -- I don't know

11 whether it's a close or distant relative -- by the name

12 Simeun Simic?

13 A. Simeun Simic, yes, I have. He's a close

14 relative. It is my cousin, my uncle's child.

15 Q. Does he also maintain some offices in the

16 Spomen Dom?

17 A. He is the director of a state company called

18 Duga, and their premises are in Spomen Dom. So he's

19 the director of that company within the composition of

20 which is the Memorial Centre building, the Spomen Dom.

21 Q. So again, Mr. Simic, apparently we're left to

22 just assume that it's an amazing coincidence that

23 Mr. Agnes came in and said that he met with you in the

24 Spomen Dom, where you used to have an office and where

25 a close relative of yours still has an office; is that

1 correct?

2 A. I don't know what that's got to do with where

3 my relative works and where his office is. I have an

4 office there too today because I returned to the Spomen

5 Dom.

6 But unfortunately, as I've already said,

7 Mr. Agnes and you said, to begin with, that people know

8 me in Samac because of one unfortunate incident, and I

9 said because of two unfortunate incidents, so people do

10 have information about me and it's no problem to learn

11 where my printing press outfit is located, because I

12 have a lot of advertising material. And the

13 unfortunate fact for Mr. Agnes is that this office

14 moved to the Duga and then back to the Spomen Dom, so

15 that he couldn't know exactly when the printing company

16 was where, and he mixed up the dates and he mixed up

17 the premises. He doesn't know. But I know when I was

18 situated in the office which was in the Buducnost

19 building and when I was at my office situated in the

20 Spomen Dom building, and Mr. Agnes simply did not know

21 that and he mixed up the dates. So when I was in the

22 Buducnost premises, he said he saw me in the Spomen

23 Dom. When I was in the Spomen Dom --

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: I think you're creating some

25 hardship for the interpreters. Could you speak a

1 little slower.

2 A. I apologise. I shall try, Your Honour.

3 Thank you, Your Honour, for drawing my attention to

4 that.

5 Well, that's my answer. I've answered it, I

6 think.

7 MS. PATERSON:

8 Q. No, I think that you just mentioned that you

9 have now returned to the Spomen Dom, that you now again

10 have offices in the Spomen Dom. Is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And when did you return to the Spomen Dom,

13 take offices again in that building?

14 A. At the end of March or the beginning of April

15 this year.

16 Q. I'm sorry, end of April, beginning of

17 March -- or end of March, beginning of April; is that

18 what you said?

19 A. I said somewhere towards the end of March or

20 the beginning of April. That's what I think, although

21 I have it in my notes, in my documents, when I -- one

22 contract ceased to exist and when I signed another

23 contact, so I'm not sure whether it was at the end of

24 March or the beginning of April. But, of course, if

25 you want the exact date, I can get it for you, looking

1 back in my documents.

2 Q. Well, Mr. Simic, Mr. Agnes came to the

3 attention of the Tribunal in early May of 1999, this

4 year, so from what you're saying, you again had offices

5 in the Spomen Dom before Mr. Agnes left Bosanski Samac

6 and came and told the Tribunal his allegations against

7 you; is that correct?

8 A. I said when I was in the Spomen Dom again,

9 and that's got nothing to do with where Mr. Agnes was.

10 I don't know where he was, and I don't know when he was

11 where. I know when I moved from the Buducnost building

12 to the Spomen Dom, and I see no connection with where

13 he was, with anything to do with where he was at the

14 time.

15 Q. And, Mr. Simic, I know you said that you were

16 getting rehabilitation in Montenegro, I believe, during

17 the month of August 1998. Is that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And I believe in September that you were here

20 at The Hague for a few days for another court

21 proceeding. Is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But considering the months of October,

24 November and December, 1998, during those months were

25 you in Bosanski Samac?

1 A. Yes, of course.

2 Q. And in 1999, were you in Bosanski Samac in

3 January, February and March?

4 A. Of course. Where else would I be?

5 Q. So while I know that you deny that you ever

6 met with Mr. Agnes, in fact you were in Bosanski Samac

7 during that six-month period when he claims to have had

8 several meetings with you; isn't that true?

9 A. It is true that I was in Bosanski Samac,

10 because that is what this Tribunal told me to do, and I

11 complied and did not leave Bosanski Samac in conformity

12 with the ruling made by this Trial Chamber.

13 MS. PATERSON: Just one moment, Your Honour.

14 I have no further questions, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination,

16 Mr. Haynes?

17 MR. HAYNES: No, thank you.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Simic, that concludes

19 your testimony. You are released.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your

21 Honours.

22 [The witness stands down]

23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Haynes, where are you

24 now in your case?

25 MR. HAYNES: I now have to move into evidence

1 a file of documents. I have a copy for each of Your

2 Honours.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: And one for the

4 Prosecution?

5 MR. HAYNES: The Prosecution have had one for

6 some days now, I think.

7 If I may just take you through it briefly,

8 the first section is the entire documentary evidence

9 filed by the Defence during the course of these

10 proceedings. You'll see there's an index on the second

11 page which describes the document, gives the page

12 numbers of the document in both Serbian and in English,

13 and in the third column the date on which it was

14 filed.

15 The second section I need to take you to is

16 headed "Admitted Facts." Now, I've spoken to

17 Mr. Ryneveld about this, and the Prosecution have

18 considered their position so far as this is concerned.

19 Most of these facts were served on all parties, I

20 think, as long as three months ago, with a requirement

21 that they comment upon it, and, perhaps predictably,

22 the only response is from Mr. Brashich. But the

23 Prosecution position, as I understand it, is that they

24 cannot admit all of those as facts. They are happy

25 that the first four are admitted as facts, and they are

1 content that the documents in Section 1 purport to

2 establish each of those facts. So rather than it being

3 headed "Admitted Facts," it probably ought to be headed

4 "Statement of Facts," and I hope that's not

5 controversial.

6 MS. PATERSON: That's a relatively accurate

7 description of our understanding. Our point was simply

8 on this Section 2 that's entitled "Admitted Facts," we

9 absolutely have no problem with numbers 1 to 4, but

10 numbers 5 to 11, which basically describe what is in

11 the documents that are listed in Section 1, we are not

12 in a position to confirm whether those things are true

13 or not. We have no way of verifying that information,

14 so we can't admit them as facts. But we have no

15 objection to the documents being admitted, and the

16 documents can speak for themselves and Your Honours can

17 give them whatever weight you see fit.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do I understand the title is

19 changed from "Admitted Facts" to "Statement of Facts"?

20 MR. HAYNES: Yes.

21 Now, it would normally be my practice to read

22 that document so that it appears on the transcript of

23 evidence. I would be grateful for some guidance as to

24 the practice in relation to such a document.

25 [Trial Chamber confers]

1 JUDGE ROBINSON: That won't be necessary.

2 You're putting it in, you're exhibiting it.

3 MR. HAYNES: Thank you very much, which

4 brings us to Section 3.

5 JUDGE HUNT: Before you do, I'm sorry to come

6 back to it, but it does not contain the interview which

7 Mr. Simic had in which he said that he had been at the

8 elementary school. I thought you were going to deal

9 with that.

10 MR. HAYNES: I'm endeavouring to. I obtained

11 a copy of that interview last night, and I have it

12 here. But I obtained it from Defence counsel in the

13 main case, who has heavily marked the relevant

14 passages.

15 JUDGE HUNT: There must be a copy available

16 from the Prosecution, surely.

17 MR. HAYNES: Well, I hope we can sort that

18 out before I close my case.

19 MS. PATERSON: Yes, Your Honours. If you are

20 going to give us time at the break, I can go to my

21 computer and print out a fresh copy.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

23 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

25 MR. ZECEVIC: It was my understanding that

1 this copy should be redacted only to the passage which

2 contains his admission that he was at the elementary

3 school on one occasion, and not the whole statement of

4 my client.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes, that is how it

6 should be done. Yes.

7 MR. HAYNES: That's my intention.

8 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.

9 MS. PATERSON: Just so I can be clear, Your

10 Honours, basically the way the interview was conducted

11 was that Mr. Simic was given an opportunity, without

12 any interruptions, to tell us whatever he wanted to

13 tell us about what had happened, and it goes on for

14 approximately four pages in the transcript, and I

15 believe the first reference to the elementary school is

16 on the top of the third page of this part of his

17 testimony, where he states, and I'm just going to read

18 one sentence, quite simply: "So we went to the

19 elementary school between 11.00 at night and midnight."

20 Is that sufficient for Court purposes, to just have

21 that one sentence, or should I give you the whole four

22 pages of his statement?

23 JUDGE HUNT: I suggest that you speak to

24 Mr. Haynes about it. If he wants some more in, then

25 you may like to consider including it. But we

1 certainly don't want anything other than anything which

2 explains its context.

3 MS. PATERSON: Perhaps Mr. Haynes and I can

4 work that out at the break.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We don't want to go to the

6 wider issues, yes.

7 MR. HAYNES: Which brings us to Section 3 of

8 the bundle of documents and the vexed question of

9 affidavit evidence.

10 Now, I do submit that even under the old

11 Rule, the evidence of Spasoje Pisarevic is in a form

12 that is admissible before this Tribunal. Just so it is

13 clear, the witness statement is signed in the form of a

14 declaration admissible under Serbian law as a

15 declaration, and to double up, as it were, to add the

16 belt to the braces, it is postulated under The Hague

17 Convention of 1933.

18 Now, I know I don't need to address Your

19 Honours at any length about the absence of an

20 affidavit, as we in common-law countries understand it

21 to be, from the Yugoslavian legal system, but they do

22 have a system of declarations -- I see Ms. Paterson

23 rising.

24 MS. PATERSON: Perhaps we can speed things

25 up, Your Honour. I believe that we stated yesterday

1 unequivocally we have no objection to introducing this

2 document. Please submit it into evidence. We're happy

3 to have Your Honours consider it.

4 MR. HAYNES: Well, I was only concerned that,

5 notwithstanding concessions yesterday, the Court had,

6 on an earlier occasion, indicated that the document was

7 not in an appropriate form. If it now is, then I do

8 submit that into evidence, along with all the other

9 documents that the Defence rely upon.

10 JUDGE HUNT: The concession is not that it's

11 in an appropriate form. The concession is that you may

12 tender it. That's all we need to worry about.

13 MR. HAYNES: Well, I'm concerned that the

14 Court should receive it as admissible evidence, not

15 just as some document that has no status at all.

16 Very well. Then subject to the interview,

17 that is all the evidence that the Defence propose to

18 call in this case.

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson.

20 MS. PATERSON: Just before we leave this

21 matter of documents, I just want to clarify. We also

22 have another bright orange binder, which is the binders

23 Mr. Haynes has been using. It contains all of

24 Mr. Agnes' witness statements that were, I believe,

25 tendered as Defence exhibits. I would just like to

1 clarify. Have those been entered into evidence? We

2 would like that they be entered into evidence, so if

3 they have not, we would like to be sure they do go into

4 evidence.

5 JUDGE ROBINSON: We did make a ruling that

6 they should be admitted into evidence. Registrar?

7 THE REGISTRAR: All the statements, the

8 Prosecution statements of Witness Agnes, are admitted

9 into evidence, and they will be put on the list.

10 MS. PATERSON: Okay. I just wanted to

11 clarify that. Thank you, Your Honour.

12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Haynes.

13 MR. HAYNES: There is, of course, one other

14 thing of actually great importance, and that is the

15 re-revised transcript of a telephone conversation which

16 ought to now become, I submit, Exhibit 1A, and all

17 other copies should be removed from the evidence.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: It would form part of the

19 evidence and would be an exhibit, but it wouldn't

20 displace those that had been submitted before, tendered

21 before.

22 MR. HAYNES: Well, I am concerned about this

23 because I've seen the report from the translation

24 service, and it's significant because the effect of it

25 is that the most crucial line in the telephone

1 conversation between Mr. Agnes and Mr. Avramovic is now

2 said to be unintelligible.

3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but we will admit it.

4 MR. HAYNES: No, but the point is really

5 this: That therefore means that the original Exhibit

6 1A is an erroneous translation.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's a matter for us to look

8 at and to decide.

9 MR. HAYNES: Well, we did have a deal of

10 debate about this yesterday.

11 JUDGE HUNT: That's why it should be in

12 evidence. What weight we give to the first one is a

13 matter for us, but you may rest assured that if the

14 translation people say they can no longer decide

15 between one and the other, that may very well be the

16 attitude we take. I'm not going to bind anybody to

17 that, but it seems to be the common-sense one. But to

18 exclude an exhibit about which there has been a lot of

19 debate in the evidence seems to me, with respect, to be

20 absurd.

21 MR. HAYNES: Well, it really depends whether,

22 in requiring a further translation, you were looking

23 for a definitive answer.

24 JUDGE HUNT: We are not a jury, so let's get

25 on with it. I do submit, therefore, that the new

1 translation should become Exhibit 1C, I think.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: The Registrar will see to

3 that. Is that your case now?

4 MR. HAYNES: Yes, subject to the passage of

5 the interview.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll now move to the stage

7 of addresses, beginning with the Prosecution.

8 Mr. Brashich?

9 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, with the

10 termination of the giving of evidence, I was wondering,

11 rather than my disrupting the proceedings thereafter, I

12 would beg leave to be released, inasmuch as I have to

13 be in court tomorrow in New York. I believe

14 Mr. Pantelic is in the same predicament as I am. And I

15 would again beg leave of the Court, since I have no

16 further role, that I be released.

17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Brashich, yes, you may

18 be released. I should say that the other matter in

19 which you are involved, obviously we will not reach it

20 and you will be advised as to the future dates.

21 MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I just want to

22 make it clear that I had also spoken on behalf of

23 Mr. Pantelic, so that we not speak twice.

24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Pantelic also may

25 be released.

1 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: In fact, all counsel that

3 wish to leave, other than those who are intimately

4 involved.

5 MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Paterson.

7 MS. PATERSON: Yes, Your Honour. Just to

8 inform the Court, I appreciate the fact that Your

9 Honours are anxious to conclude the case today. I will

10 endeavour to keep that in mind. I just want to advise

11 you that I have read through my summation on a couple

12 of occasions, and I estimate it does run about an

13 hour. I will try to shorten it as much as possible,

14 but just so you know for scheduling purposes.

15 JUDGE ROBINSON: You may also submit a

16 written form.

17 MS. PATERSON: Well, thank you, Your Honour,

18 but my submission is written in outline form, so we're

19 not prepared to submit anything that formal. If you

20 bear with me, I'll just go ahead and give it and I'll

21 try and be concise.

22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

23 MS. PATERSON: Your Honours, the issue before

24 you is whether or not Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic

25 threatened, intimidated, caused any injury to, offered

1 a bribe to, or otherwise interfered with a potential

2 witness, specifically the man referred to as Mr. Agnes,

3 before this Trial Chamber.

4 By its very nature, this crime is committed

5 behind closed doors, with few witnesses. Therefore,

6 for the most part, this case is going to hinge on the

7 credibility of the three key witnesses in this case,

8 that being Mr. Agnes, Mr. Avramovic, and Mr. Simic. So

9 in making your determination in this case, it's crucial

10 that you pay attention to the credibility of those

11 witnesses and particularly to their motivation in

12 coming before you and giving the testimony that they

13 did.

14 Now, if someone were to come in and start to

15 listen to this case in the middle of the testimony,

16 they might think this was a fairly complicated case.

17 They would have heard about a lot of different meetings

18 on different dates, different occasions, different

19 people that were present. But Your Honours have been

20 here and have been listening to the testimony, and you

21 know that this, in fact, is not that terribly

22 complicated a case.

23 What it boils down to, quite simply, is the

24 word of Mr. Agnes against the word of Mr. Avramovic and

25 Mr. Simic. Yes, there were other witnesses called, but

1 those were the three key witnesses in this case.

2 I know there are many ways to evaluate a

3 witness's credibility, and I'm sure that each of you

4 have your own tried and true tested ways, but I would

5 stress that in this particular case, I think the

6 motivation in coming forward and giving the testimony

7 that they gave is especially important. We must ask

8 ourselves: What did Mr. Agnes have to gain or lose by

9 coming in and telling the Court the story that he did?

10 On the other hand, what motivation did Mr. Avramovic

11 have to give his version of events? Finally, what

12 motivation did Mr. Simic have to give his testimony?

13 Finally, the ultimate question that Your

14 Honours have to decide is: Did Mr. Agnes volunteer to

15 give testimony on behalf of Milan Simic, or was he

16 forced or were they attempting to force him to give

17 testimony on Mr. Simic's behalf?

18 Let's begin with Mr. Agnes. Your Honours saw

19 him come in and give testimony over several days. You

20 are aware of the fact that he has been here in The

21 Hague since May as a protected witness. He did not

22 testify until November. He was here almost eight

23 months waiting to give his testimony. You heard him

24 state that he left behind his family in Serbia. He

25 took it upon himself to leave and come to the attention

1 of the Tribunal by going to SFOR in Brcko. And you

2 heard him say that he was afraid to come forward, that

3 he was greatly concerned for his security and that of

4 his family.

5 That was corroborated by the testimony of our

6 investigator, Tore Soldal. He told that he met

7 Mr. Agnes the day he had turned himself into SFOR and

8 that, in his opinion, Mr. Agnes was afraid. Mr. Soldal

9 told you that, despite his fears, the only thing that

10 Mr. Agnes asked from the Tribunal was for security. He

11 did not ask for a job. He did not ask for money. He

12 did not ask, even at that point, to be resettled to

13 another country. Ultimately, when we brought him here

14 and put him in protection, it was agreed he would be

15 resettled to another country, but that is the only

16 thing he has ever asked for and the only thing he has

17 ever been promised. All he really wanted was to be

18 safe and for his family to be safe.

19 What was his motivation in coming forward?

20 His motivation was to take control of his life back.

21 Now, we know why he came forward. Let's look

22 at the story he told. Now, I will admit that Mr. Agnes

23 was far from the perfect witness. There were times

24 when he was somewhat difficult, when he was frustrated

25 and angry, but in many ways that makes him a very

1 credible witness. You saw him come in here. You saw

2 for yourselves his emotions. He did not keep his

3 emotions to himself. You saw when he got angry, you

4 saw when he got frustrated, and you saw when he got

5 outraged at some of the allegations being made against

6 him by the Defence.

7 Now, from the very beginning he's admitted

8 some things about himself that were not necessarily

9 terribly positive. Mr. Soldal told you that in their

10 very first interview, Mr. Agnes admitted this

11 unfortunate incident where Mr. Agnes was accused of

12 accidentally discharging a gun, and a young girl was

13 shot, while he was in the army. He admitted that, as a

14 Muslim, he had joined the army of the Republika Srpska

15 and served for several months in that army. He

16 admitted to Mr. Soldal that he used a different name

17 when he was in Serbia. He also, when confronted with

18 the infamous blue bag, admitted that that was his. He

19 didn't attempt to deny that.

20 He also admitted that he had left certain

21 things out of his statements. He acknowledged that he

22 gave several statements to the Tribunal and that with

23 each successive statement, he gave some more details,

24 but he explained why he did that. Again, it was

25 because he was afraid. He was waiting to see if the

1 Tribunal could give him the security he wanted. Once

2 he started to feel comfortable with his protection, he

3 gave more and more information, including the fact that

4 he had met Milan Simic.

5 And if Your Honours look at the statement,

6 you will see what he was concerned about: protecting

7 not only himself and his family but his friends and

8 acquaintances in Bosanski Samac. And if you read his

9 early statement, you will see that he even went so far

10 as to try and protect Jasna Marosevic and her father.

11 And as you know, Jasna came and testified for the

12 Defence, but he tried to keep her out of these events

13 as much as he could.

14 Now, you will remember in his

15 cross-examination that Mr. Haynes challenged many of

16 the things that Mr. Agnes has said and done, and tried

17 to allude to the fact that these were all bad things

18 that he had done and that he was willing to do anything

19 to save himself when he was afraid. But what is wrong

20 with some of the things that he did? If you think

21 about it, almost anyone would do what he did in his

22 situation.

23 Mr. Haynes would like you to believe that it

24 was a terrible thing that Mr. Agnes may have left

25 Serbia -- one of the reasons he may have left Serbia

1 was to avoid being mobilised into the army of the

2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and being sent to fight

3 in Kosovo, but, of course, hundreds, if not thousands,

4 of young men left Serbia to avoid being mobilised and

5 fighting in Kosovo.

6 Mr. Agnes did his time in the army, he did

7 his time in the detention camps in Bosnia, and he had

8 no desire whatsoever to be in any army ever again.

9 Yes, Mr. Agnes changed his name. Whether he

10 did it legally or not, what difference does it make?

11 He did it for very practical reasons.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, slow down,

13 please.

14 MS. PATERSON: He was a Muslim living in

15 Serbia, and, as his uncle said, it would be easier for

16 him on a daily basis if he took a Serbian name. It's a

17 very practical solution under the circumstances.

18 Mr. Haynes also alluded to the fact that from

19 the day he joined the VRS, Mr. Agnes wanted nothing

20 more than to get out of the army. Of course he did.

21 He didn't want to join the army in the first place.

22 The only reason he joined the army was to get out of

23 forced labour, to get out of the detention camps that

24 he was in, and he was looking for an opportunity to get

25 out.

1 Now, Mr. Agnes did discuss some questionable

2 things. The question arises about his testimony

3 concerning his uncle and whether or not his uncle paid

4 some money to get him out of the VRS. Now, Mr. Agnes,

5 in his statement, did tell Tore Soldal that his uncle

6 gave some money to someone that he thinks led to his

7 getting out of the army. When he came in to testify,

8 he was reluctant to admit that. But I submit, Your

9 Honours, that he was reluctant to admit that because

10 Mr. Haynes was fashioning that as a crime of bribery.

11 He was asking Mr. Agnes to say that his uncle, who was

12 acting out of concern for Mr. Agnes, had committed a

13 crime in order to him to get out of the army. He did

14 not want to characterise that as bribery, but he did

15 admit that his uncle did what he could to assist him

16 and perhaps even to get him out of the army.

17 Mr. Haynes has also alluded to the fact that

18 perhaps Mr. Agnes is a wanted criminal; that he's here

19 as a fugitive from justice; that he's been indicted for

20 murder and has fled from the prosecution. But I

21 contend, Your Honours, if that were the fact, the

22 Defence or the, in fact, government of Republika Srpska

23 would have brought to your attention the fact that

24 there was an outstanding warrant for Mr. Agnes's

25 arrest, and to my knowledge that has not been done.

1 Then there's the issue of the military ID

2 card that we spent so much time on. There's no need to

3 go over that again. Your Honours heard that testimony

4 in great detail. Mr. Agnes vehemently denied that that

5 was his document. It clearly is a tampered-with

6 document, if not an outright forged document, and we

7 contend that Mr. Agnes's testimony should be believed,

8 that that was not his document and that he never saw it

9 before.

10 Now, many of the things that the Defence is

11 trying to argue in some way incriminate Mr. Agnes just

12 don't make any sense when you stop and think about it.

13 The Defence has made a big issue about this infamous

14 blue bag, this bag that, according to the Defence, was

15 left at Jasna's house, and, according to Mr. Agnes, was

16 left with his friend in Brcko. But as we've said, stop

17 and think about the circumstances. Mr. Agnes said that

18 he was planning to leave. According to him, he was

19 being put under pressure to testify. He wanted nothing

20 more to do with it. He wanted to somehow get to the

21 Tribunal and bring this to our attention. Needless to

22 say, he didn't want Jasna to know his plans. He didn't

23 want Mr. Simic or Mr. Avramovic to know. What he

24 wanted to do was try and slip away and stay away as

25 long as possible before anyone noticed. Now, if you

1 were going to do that, would you leave your bag at the

2 home of Jasna or would you leave it with a friend? I

3 contend you would leave it with your friend, not with

4 Jasna.

5 And if, in fact, you were trying to leave and

6 not be traced and not have people find out that you had

7 left, would you leave your identification card in the

8 bag? Why not throw it in the river? Why not burn it?

9 Why not bury it under a rock? There are many different

10 ways he could have gotten rid of that ID card. It

11 makes no sense whatsoever that he would have left the

12 card and the bag with Jasna.

13 And he gave you a logical explanation. He

14 left the bag with a friend in Brcko and he went to

15 SFOR. He thought, if he took the bag with all his

16 belongings, that it might be suspicious. What he might

17 have been thinking is, "Well, I don't know, when I go

18 to SFOR, if they're going to take me. I don't know if

19 the Tribunal is going to talk to me. If they kick me

20 out and tell me to go home, at least I can go back to

21 my friend's house in Brcko, pick up my belongings, and

22 go my own way." If he left the bag at Jasna's, was he

23 really going to go to SFOR, risk that they would not

24 let him in and then have to go back to Jasna's and

25 explain where he had been and perhaps have her become

1 suspicious? I contend that none of that makes any

2 sense, Your Honours, and the only version of the blue

3 bag that makes sense is that of Mr. Agnes.

4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson, we'll have to

5 take the break at four, so when you come to a

6 convenient point.

7 MS. PATERSON: Okay. I'll try and get

8 through the section on Mr. Agnes. It shouldn't take

9 much longer.

10 JUDGE HUNT: Not too fast, though. They are

11 complaining about the speed of your address.

12 MS. PATERSON: I apologise to the

13 interpreters. I know this is a problem that I have,

14 but I'm from New York, and we speak fast in New York.

15 When you think about the story that Mr. Agnes

16 told, and of course we contend that it wasn't a story

17 but the truth, we have a saying in my country that the

18 Devil is in the details. And I think everyone knows,

19 if you're going to tell a lie, it's always easier to

20 keep it short and simple. And I contend that it's the

21 details that, in fact, are what corroborate Mr. Agnes's

22 testimony.

23 If he was going to make up this entire story,

24 if none of this is true, why would he tell so many

25 details? Why not just say there was one meeting at

1 which the pressure was put on him? Just say there was

2 one meeting when the money and the job and the

3 apartment were offered? Why say that there were

4 several meetings at several different locations, that

5 many different people were present? Why go to the

6 trouble to say that it was at the Nova Forma company,

7 one of the meetings, and that another meeting was at

8 Spomen Dom, if that didn't really happen? By giving

9 that much detail, he was only forcing himself to have

10 to repeat that over and over and over again. And I

11 contend that if you compare the statements that he gave

12 to the Tribunal with his testimony here before you, you

13 will find that in the majority of cases the testimony

14 is consistent.

15 Remember some of the details that he gave.

16 For almost every meeting he described, he had something

17 in particular he could remember. Either it was where

18 the meeting took place, it was when the meeting took

19 place, it was who was present, or in some cases it was

20 things like the documents that were shown to him.

21 Remember when he talked about the last

22 meeting in Bosanski Samac when this man Spasoje

23 Pisarevic appeared. Remember how he talked about how

24 Mr. Pisarevic brought out these lists of names. He

25 asked Mr. Agnes to tell him everything he knew about

1 these names. Mr. Agnes said, "I couldn't tell him. I

2 only knew their nicknames. So Mr. Pisarevic

3 volunteered the information. And then we went become

4 to the house where Mr. Pisarevic had an office."

5 Why would he make up these details? How

6 could he make up these details unless these

7 conversations had actually happened, unless and he had

8 actually been to these locations?

9 And what about his allegation about the

10 witness preparation session? This was confirmed, Your

11 Honours, by the audio tape. Mr. Agnes told you the

12 very interesting detail, that Mr. Avramovic had told

13 him that sometime in May he would have to go to

14 Bosanski Samac where he would be put through what was

15 called a witness preparation session. They would go

16 over his testimony. And as Your Honours know, we

17 played the audio tape. It was their quite clearly on

18 the tape, the conversation with Mr. Pantelic, about the

19 programme. You heard Mr. Pantelic's explanation of the

20 programme, and I leave if to Your Honours to decide

21 whether you believe his explanation or not.

22 I contend that his explanation is incredibly

23 far-fetched, that Mr. Agnes's is the one that you

24 should believe, and that's just one more detail that

25 corroborates the testimony ever Mr. Agnes.

1 Remember too that Mr. Agnes did not

2 over-exaggerate his testimony. On one of the really

3 key questions put to him -- I believe by you,

4 Judge Bennouna -- you asked Mr. Agnes: "Did

5 Mr. Avramovic ever threaten you to your face? Did he

6 ever threaten to harm you? Did he ever threaten to

7 harm your family?" And what did he say? "No."

8 How much more compelling would his testimony

9 have been, how much more dramatic would it have been to

10 say, "Yes. He threatened me to my face"? But he

11 didn't. He didn't want to lie he wanted to tell you

12 the truth. He said, "No. The threats were more subtle

13 than. It was anonymous phone calls. It was people

14 coming by the house. It was gunshots. It was not a

15 threat to my face. No, Mr. Avramovic didn't do that,

16 and, no, Mr. Simic didn't do that either." He did not

17 exaggerate. He told you the truth.

18 It's our contention, Your Honour, at that Mr.

19 Agnes kept his promise to you. He came here, he

20 promised to tell you the truth. He stayed here eight

21 months by himself under very lonely conditions waiting

22 to testify. It was not an easy time for Mr. Agnes.

23 You saw him come in, you saw him come back day after

24 day. He submitted to a grilling cross-examination.

25 You saw his emotions out there on his sleeve, and I

1 contend, Your Honours, that that all goes to his

2 credibility.

3 As I said, he's done his part, he's kept his

4 promise, and now he just wants his life back.

5 I think, Your Honours, that perhaps is a good

6 point to take a break.

7 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take the break now for

8 20 minutes.

9 --- Recess taken at 4.03 p.m.

10 --- On resuming at 4.25 p.m.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson, I've been

12 requested to ask you to speak a little slower,

13 notwithstanding your place of origin.

14 MS. PATERSON: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll

15 do my best.

16 Now I would like to turn to the testimony of

17 Mr. Neskovic. As you know, Mr. Neskovic's testimony

18 was brief, but it was significant in its own way.

19 Mr. Neskovic did confirm some things and did

20 corroborate some things Mr. Agnes said. He confirmed

21 that, in fact, there was the meeting at Mr. Agnes's

22 house in late September in Sremska Mitrovica.

23 Mr. Neskovic admitted he was not present when

24 Mr. Avramovic spoke with Mr. Agnes, so he was not in a

25 position to know what the substance of that

1 conversation was about, and Mr. Neskovic did say that

2 when he went into the dining room to find out how long

3 they were going to be, he did notice files spread

4 around and he could hear them briefly speaking about

5 events in Bosanski Samac in 1992. All of that is

6 consistent with what Mr. Agnes said went on.

7 I think the one thing that's most troubling

8 about Mr. Neskovic's testimony is that, like

9 Mr. Vukovic, he wants us to believe that he had no

10 interest in Mr. Agnes either. Mr. Neskovic said that

11 the day before they went to this meeting, he had been

12 retained to defend Mr. Todorovic. Mr. Neskovic was the

13 deputy minister of justice for the Republika Srpska,

14 was familiar with the indictment against Mr. Todorovic,

15 and knew that among the charges against Mr. Todorovic

16 were some that allegedly occurred in the camps in

17 Bosanski Samac. Here he was sitting in a house with a

18 man who was detained in one of those camps, who,

19 according to the Defence, was willing to cooperate with

20 the Defence, and Mr. Neskovic would like us to believe

21 that he had absolutely no interest whatsoever in

22 talking to Mr. Agnes and asking him a few questions

23 about his client. I contend, Your Honours, that that

24 is a highly improbable sequence of events.

25 Now let's discuss the testimony of

1 Mr. Vukovic. Mr. Vukovic's testimony was also short,

2 but again he confirmed and corroborated some of the

3 things that Mr. Agnes said. As you will recall, he

4 confirmed that there were at least two meetings that he

5 had with Mr. Agnes, although they disagree on when and

6 where those meetings took place. Mr. Vukovic did

7 confirm that there was at least one meeting at the

8 Jetset Cafe in Bosanski Samac.

9 And again, most damning about the testimony

10 of Mr. Vukovic was his description of how he handled

11 the case for defending Mr. Simic. Again, Mr. Vukovic

12 insists that Mr. Agnes was of no value to him

13 whatsoever as a witness. Here is a witness who has

14 come forward, if you believe the Defence version of the

15 facts, and volunteered to testify for the Defence.

16 Mr. Agnes was willing to say, first of all, that he

17 never even saw Milan Simic in the primary school, and

18 at the very least, even if Mr. Simic was in the primary

19 school, Mr. Agnes never saw him lay a hand on anyone

20 and never saw him harm anyone. But Mr. Vukovic wants

21 us to believe that this is a witness who was absolutely

22 of no significance to him and that he immediately found

23 him to be not credible. As a result of that,

24 Mr. Vukovic threw away all of his notes that he had

25 made about his conversations with Mr. Agnes and

1 conveniently apparently for the Tribunal, he decided

2 not to bill for that meeting either. I contend, Your

3 Honours, that this is a highly improbable sequence of

4 events and puts all of the testimony of Mr. Vukovic in

5 question.

6 Now let's go to the other witness for the

7 Prosecution, Mr. Mirsad Sahanic. As you will recall,

8 Mr. Sahanic was a friend of Mr. Agnes. He was a

9 policeman who happened to be assigned to Bosanski Samac

10 in April of 1992. Unfortunately for Mr. Sahanic, he

11 was in Bosanski Samac the day it was attacked and the

12 war started, and, along with Mr. Agnes, he was arrested

13 and detained for several months in the camps there.

14 You learned that Mr. Sahanic is a married

15 man, has a family, has a job, is living his own life,

16 minding his own business, when, out of the blue,

17 sometime back in 1998, he starts to get some phone

18 calls from Jasna Marosevic and Mr. Agnes. None of

19 those three witnesses dispute the fact that there were

20 phone calls between Jasna and Mirsad and between

21 Mr. Agnes and Mirsad. The Defence would like you to

22 believe that none of the meetings took place or that

23 other things happened at the meetings, but they cannot

24 dispute the fact that there were phone calls between

25 Jasna and Mirsad and between Mr. Agnes and Mirsad.

1 If you will recall, Mirsad's testimony was

2 basically consistent with that of Mr. Agnes, and,

3 except in a couple of ways, it was basically consistent

4 with the testimony of Jasna. The one part, of course,

5 that was somewhat different from Jasna's initial

6 testimony was that Mr. Sahanic explained that he

7 learned from his mother that Jasna had gone to the

8 great trouble to go to Tuzla to try and find

9 Mr. Sahanic. Not only had she gone to see his mother,

10 but she had gone to the police, and she had made these

11 extraordinary efforts to track him down and find his

12 phone number and call him.

13 Now, the one major inconsistency in their

14 story between Mirsad and Jasna is what happened on the

15 night of the arrest. Jasna would like the Court to

16 believe that Mirsad came rushing over to her home and

17 led she and her family to safety in a nearby shelter.

18 But Mirsad and Mr. Agnes both say that that did not

19 happen, that they were in the hotel, that they were

20 awakened in the middle of the night when the war

21 started. What does Mirsad tell you his primary

22 concerns were? He says, "My first concern was to get

23 to safety. The building was being shelled. There was

24 gunfire outside. The hotel was in an exposed location,

25 and I suggested to everyone that we go to the other

1 side of the building where it would be safe."

2 Then he went on to explain that during the

3 course of the day, he and Mr. Agnes discussed that

4 maybe their best plan was to simply try and get to the

5 river, swim across the river to Croatia, and get out of

6 Bosnia altogether. At no point in time did it occur to

7 Mirsad that his first priority should be to rush over

8 to his girlfriend Jasna's, make sure she was safe and

9 that her family was safe.

10 Now, I might point out as well that while

11 both Mirsad and Jasna say that they did have a

12 boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, as they described

13 it, let's be realistic. They both admit they only knew

14 each other for six weeks before the war broke out.

15 Now, of course it's possible to have a serious

16 relationship during that time, but they were together

17 only six weeks when the war broke out, and then they

18 did not see each other again and, as far as I know,

19 have not even seen each other to this day.

20 Consider the testimony of Mr. Sahanic. He's

21 living his life, minding his own business, in Germany.

22 He didn't ask to get pulled into this case. He didn't

23 ask to have anything to do with it. He simply sat

24 there and accepted a few phone calls. His testimony

25 was entirely credible. Why do we know it was

1 credible? For one thing, Mr. Haynes didn't ask him a

2 single question on cross-examination. What could he

3 ask him? There was nothing to challenge. At the end

4 of the day, there was simply no motivation whatsoever

5 for Mirsad Sahanic to come in and tell anything but the

6 truth.

7 Now let's turn to the testimony of Jasna

8 Marosevic. One of the first things that Jasna admitted

9 was that there is a very significant connection between

10 she and Milan Simic and her employer, Mr. Jankovic. As

11 she explained, the wife of Milan Simic and the wife of

12 Mr. Jankovic are sisters. So we have Jasna, who admits

13 to being a good friend of Milan Simic. Mr. Simic

14 admits that they are good friends. Jasna works at the

15 Cafe Lotos that is owned by a close friend and a

16 relative by marriage of Mr. Simic, and is it just a

17 coincidence that Jasna then is more than willing to get

18 involved in assisting Mr. Simic in his defence? She

19 agrees to take the phone number of his lawyer, and if

20 she can find people and witnesses that might be of

21 assistance, she promises to call the lawyer. And in

22 fact she does find a witness, Mr. Agnes, and his good

23 friend, Mirsad Sahanic.

24 Ms. Marosevic admitted she has close ties to

25 Simic and to other people in Bosanski Samac that are in

1 power, that are in the government in Bosanski Samac.

2 It's certainly understandable that she would be

3 motivated to help her good friend and her employer, and

4 when you listen to her testimony, you can see that she

5 corroborated most of what Mirsad Sahanic said.

6 Of course, she conveniently left out of her

7 written statement that was submitted to the Court any

8 details whatsoever about her calls to Mirsad in a trip

9 to Tuzla. I contend that that was not an accidental

10 omission.

11 But she also offers no logical explanation

12 for her reason to contact Mirsad after so many years.

13 Yes, they had this brief relationship, and for all we

14 know, it was an intense and serious relationship. But

15 by her own admission, she never saw him again after the

16 middle of the summer. He was still detained. She

17 cared so much about this man, she didn't even know what

18 date he was released. He was released in November, and

19 she thought he was released in July or August.

20 From 1992 to 1998, she made no attempts

21 whatsoever to get in touch with him. She didn't even

22 know if he was alive or dead. And then,

23 coincidentally, just at the time Mr. Simic has to start

24 putting together his case, she remembers Mirsad and

25 decides to make the effort to get in touch with him.

1 Was it really just for her own personal reasons, the

2 old boyfriend she wanted to look up, or did it have to

3 do more with the Defence and Mr. Simic and trying to

4 get Mirsad, a potential witness, to come to Bosnia to

5 talk to Mr. Simic, to talk to Mr. Avramovic, and, in

6 all probability, to be pressured, just like Mr. Agnes

7 was, to testify for them.

8 While I don't mean in any way to minimise the

9 situation of Ms. Marosevic, she and her family lived in

10 Bosanski Samac during the war in 1992 and I know it was

11 a difficult time for everyone; Croats, Muslims, Serbs.

12 Everyone suffered during that time. But the fact of

13 the matter is, as Ms. Marosevic admitted, she did

14 receive special treatment that other people in her

15 situation did not. Other Croats were forced leave

16 their homes or transferred to the village of Zasavica.

17 Other Croats and non-Serbs were forced to do forced

18 labour projects, difficult forced labour projects

19 around town. But she was given a pleasant job serving

20 coffee at the municipality building, conveniently at

21 the same building where Milan Simic and Blagoje Simic

22 had their offices. All of this goes to prove that

23 there was a special relationship between them, that

24 there was a reason, a motive, for her to help Milan

25 Simic, and for her to come in and testify about what

1 happened, and to contradict some of the testimony of

2 Mr. Agnes.

3 Of course, Jasna also told us the story about

4 the famous blue bag and how she had found it in her

5 cabinet. But apparently it just didn't even occur to

6 her for weeks that Mr. Agnes had left and wasn't going

7 to come back, and it didn't occur to her that there

8 could be any significance to this blue bag, and not

9 until September did she bring the bag to the attention

10 of Mr. Avramovic. Even if that were true, Your

11 Honours, the fact that the bag was in her apartment,

12 not under her control, makes the entire thing entirely

13 suspicious, and I contend, Your Honours, that again you

14 should believe Mr. Agnes's version of those events.

15 I believe I'll save my comments on

16 Mr. Avramovic to the end, so let me turn now briefly to

17 the testimony of Mr. Simic. You saw him here today.

18 His testimony was relatively brief. He says he never

19 met Mr. Agnes, he never had a phone conversation with

20 him, he's never laid eyes on the man until he came into

21 court to testify here. But as I pointed out, Your

22 Honours, it's quite amazing that Mr. Agnes, if you

23 believe the Defence version, came forward and

24 volunteered to testify on behalf of Milan Simic, and

25 yet Mr. Simic never once expressed an interest in

1 meeting Mr. Agnes, in having a conversation with him,

2 even in just shaking his hand and saying, "Thank you

3 for coming to my defence." I contend that that's

4 highly improbable.

5 Mr. Simic was in Bosanski Samac during these

6 months. So was Mr. Agnes, on occasion. Despite what

7 Mr. Simic said, I contend that he does spend a lot of

8 time at the Lotos Cafe and that in all probability they

9 had to cross paths at one time or another, even if just

10 informally, sitting in the same cafe where both Jasna

11 and Mr. Agnes said they frequented. Jasna worked at

12 that cafe, Mr. Agnes went to visit Jasna, and are we

13 really to believe that in all those times, they never

14 crossed paths once?

15 Again, isn't it just an amazing coincidence

16 that Mr. Agnes was able to come up with the details of

17 the fact that Mr. Simic had connections to both the

18 Nova Forma company and that he had an office at the

19 Spomen Dom? Mr. Simic would like you to believe that

20 Mr. Agnes went to incredible trouble to research his

21 background and his business connections and could have

22 figured out that there was some business connection

23 between him and the Nova Forma company. I contend,

24 Your Honours, that that's just ridiculous. Mr. Agnes

25 probably wasn't even capable of doing that if he wanted

1 to. I contend that the record-keeping probably in

2 Bosanski Samac leaves a bit to be desired, and even if

3 he wanted to, Mr. Agnes was not in a position to be

4 going around town asking for this kind of information,

5 collecting this information, and putting together this

6 elaborate story that the Defence would like you to

7 believe is an entire concoction.

8 Again I would remind you of the connection

9 that Jasna confirmed between Mr. Simic and

10 Mr. Jankovic, and there is an interesting connection

11 there between his wife, Mr. Jankovic's wife, and

12 Jasna. They are all good friends, they are all working

13 together, and there is ever reason to believe that the

14 events occurred as Mr. Agnes said.

15 So finally let's turn to the testimony of

16 Mr. Avramovic. If Your Honours will recall,

17 Mr. Avramovic made a very telling statement during his

18 testimony yesterday. When he was asked at one point if

19 he was not relying on rumour and innuendo in deciding

20 that Mr. Agnes was not a credible witness,

21 Mr. Avramovic said, "But when I paint a picture of

22 something, then you can believe me that I can also

23 paint a picture on the basis of rumour and innuendo."

24 That quote, Your Honours, gives us great insight into

25 how Mr. Avramovic operates, how he conducts his

1 business, and how he puts together his defence.

2 I would also contend, Your Honours, that

3 perhaps a more judicious look needs to be taken at the

4 behaviour of Mr. Avramovic, because he's a professional

5 lawyer. Higher standards should be applied to his

6 behaviour. Yes, the same standard of proof should be

7 applied to both he and Mr. Agnes, but I contend that

8 you should take an even harder look at the testimony of

9 Mr. Avramovic.

10 Let's consider his description of his

11 professional behaviour and how he represented his

12 client, Mr. Simic. He says that he took some notes,

13 including the names of potentially significant

14 additional witnesses who might be able to testify for

15 his client. But he tore those notes up and threw them

16 away, and with them threw away the names of as many as

17 three, four, maybe five additional witnesses that he

18 might have been able to seek out to testify on behalf

19 of his client. Why did he decide to throw them away?

20 Because he decided Mr. Agnes was not credible. He

21 minimises the potential evidence and witnesses when his

22 client is charged with some of the most serious crimes

23 that exist, war crimes.

24 Your Honours will have to examine the billing

25 records. We have not been privy to them, but I contend

1 if you look at them closely, you will find some

2 discrepancies in the billing records between the times

3 that Mr. Agnes claims they had meetings and the times

4 that Mr. Avramovic claims they had meetings.

5 Let's look at what he did with this infamous

6 blue bag. Mr. Avramovic is not a brand new lawyer.

7 He's an experienced lawyer. He even told you at one

8 time he worked for the Ministry of Interior in the

9 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Ministry of

10 Interior is the police. He worked for the police. And

11 yet he shows a total disregard for the importance of a

12 chain of custody of an important piece of evidence.

13 If this blue bag were as important as he

14 would like us to believe it is, there are many things

15 he could have done to secure that bag. Admittedly, if

16 we were to believe it was found in Bosanski Samac, he

17 could have -- it was difficult, being in the middle of

18 Republika Srpska, but, for example, he could have gone

19 to the local police and informed them of the

20 significance of the bag and asked them to take custody

21 of the bag. He could have gone to the IPTF. The IPTF

22 is responsible for monitoring Mr. Simic when he's in

23 Bosanski Samac. He could have asked whether they

24 perhaps could have taken custody of the bag. But what

25 did he do? He took it back with him to his office in

1 Belgrade. And did he bring it to the Court's attention

2 in September as soon as he found out about it? No. We

3 didn't find out about it until the hearing started here

4 in late November. Where was the bag during all that

5 time? It was in Mr. Avramovic's custody, apparently at

6 his home or office in Belgrade. And even when the bag

7 comes into court, does he give it to the custody of the

8 registrar? Does it put it in a locked place? He takes

9 it home with him to his hotel.

10 We contend that because of that extremely

11 lacking chain of custody, that the entire testimony

12 about the blue bag and the contents of the blue bag are

13 highly, highly suspicious.

14 I've already commented on the fact that

15 Mr. Vukovic decided that Mr. Agnes was of no value,

16 even though, according to the Defence, Mr. Agnes was

17 detained at the primary school but never saw Milan

18 Simic lay a hand on anyone, and apparently

19 Mr. Avramovic came to the same conclusion.

20 Let's consider the really incredible

21 testimony about -- that Mr. Avramovic gave that when

22 Mr. Agnes told Mr. Avramovic that he could get in

23 contact with three or four other witnesses, what did

24 Mr. Avramovic say? According to Mr. Avramovic, he

25 said, "That's fine. If you feel like it, if it's not

1 too much trouble, go ahead and do that, and let me know

2 if you have any luck." Is that realistic? He's

3 defending a man for war crimes. He's being given a

4 gift of three or four potential witnesses. What he

5 should have done is said immediately, "Please, give me

6 their names. Tell me what I can do to locate them.

7 Tell me how I can assist you to locate them." But no.

8 He says, "If you get around to it, if it works out, you

9 let me know."

10 And Mr. Avramovic also claims that he knows

11 several people in Bosanski Samac who could discredit

12 Mr. Agnes, people who either were detained with him in

13 the primary school or knew of him when he lived in

14 Bosanski Samac, and yet none of these people were

15 called here to testify and no affidavits were submitted

16 from any of those people.

17 And consider also the incredible and

18 considerable gratuitous testimony that Mr. Avramovic

19 gave denigrating Mr. Agnes. Every opportunity he was

20 given, he went on to explain just how incredible

21 Mr. Agnes was, why he didn't believe him, why he was

22 such a bad witness. But the problem with that is if he

23 found him such an incredible witness, why did he keep

24 going back and continue to have dealings with him? If

25 he found him so incredible, why didn't he just drop him

1 and say, "This man is worthless to us"?

2 He didn't. He continued to go back and have

3 several meetings. He claims he met him first in early

4 September, again on the 28th of September. He talks

5 about a meeting at this Mimoza Hotel, and there's

6 probably one additional meeting, Mr. Avramovic says, in

7 Bosanski Samac. Why is he having all these meetings

8 with a man that he claims is completely incredible?

9 I contend, Your Honours, that this should

10 give you great question about the credibility of

11 Mr. Avramovic.

12 And again I return, as I said earlier, to the

13 issue of details, and here again is where Mr. Avramovic

14 gets tripped up. Because there's one small detail

15 Mr. Avramovic simply could not explain: the detail

16 about the witness preparation programme. Again, Your

17 Honours, you remember this was on the audio tape, and I

18 suggest that you take the time, when you can, to listen

19 to it again, to listen to the tone of the

20 conversation. You heard Mr. Pantelic's elaborate

21 explanation about that word and his explanation that he

22 was stressed because the bombing was going on in

23 Belgrade and he didn't really understand what this man

24 was talking about. But I contend, Your Honours, if you

25 listen to that tape, you will see that that was not

1 reflected at all in the tone of voice of the two people

2 talking.

3 But let's look simply at the comment of

4 Mr. Avramovic when Mr. Ryneveld asked him about this

5 witness protection programme. What did he say? The

6 question put to him was: "What programme does that

7 refer to, sir, if it isn't the rehearsal programme that

8 Mr. Agnes talked about?" And Mr. Avramovic's answer

9 was: "It is very difficult to answer that question

10 with complete certainty on the basis of what I have

11 just heard." That answer says volumes, Your Honour.

12 He couldn't offer an explanation because there was

13 none. The version that Mr. Agnes gave of the witness

14 protection programme or the witness preparation

15 programme is the one that is the truth.

16 So finally let's turn to the motivation of

17 Mr. Avramovic to come forward and testify as he did.

18 Let's not forget the situation that Mr. Avramovic found

19 himself in. We discussed the situation Mr. Agnes was

20 in. Let's think about the situation in which

21 Mr. Avramovic was.

22 He's defending a man accused of one of the

23 most serious crimes there is. His defendant has

24 already admitted to the Prosecution that he was at the

25 crime scene. There are a limited number of witnesses

1 that he can find to testify for his client. Both sides

2 agree that there were only approximately 50 men

3 detained at the primary school. Mr. Avramovic knows

4 that the Prosecution -- we've already turned over our

5 witness statements. He knows that we are in contact

6 and are planning to call several of the men that were

7 contained at the primary school, and he can probably

8 guess that we have been in touch with additional ones

9 that we may or may not be calling. That lowers and

10 lowers and lowers the number of potential witnesses

11 that he can contact.

12 By his own admission, he said a lot of the

13 witnesses no longer live in Bosanski Samac.

14 Mr. Avramovic made a rather impassioned plea to

15 understand how difficult it was for him to conduct the

16 investigation that was necessary. He had to operate in

17 Republika Srpska; he had to operate in Bosanski Samac;

18 the war was going on. This was all true and this is

19 all part of the reason why he was in that much more

20 difficult of a situation.

21 He had to assume that many of these witnesses

22 that were detained in the primary school were not going

23 to want to testify on behalf of Milan Simic. Even if

24 Milan Simic didn't harm them personally, these

25 witnesses knew who Milan Simic was, they knew he was a

1 powerful person, and they probably were of the opinion

2 that he had something to do with their detention.

3 Mr. Sahanic explained he did not want to

4 return to Bosanski Samac and give testimony for Milan

5 Simic. Why would he want to do that, the man that had

6 been involved in some ways of keeping him detained in

7 the camps.

8 So I contend, Your Honours, that

9 Mr. Avramovic was in the situation that he was

10 hard-pressed to find even one witness that would

11 testify for his client.

12 And then, thanks to his connections with

13 Jasna, he finds Mr. Agnes, and through Mr. Agnes he

14 finds Mirsad Sahanic. So he found himself in this

15 great good fortune to have these two witnesses who

16 might testify. But again, these two witnesses are

17 going to be reluctant to testify. Why should they

18 testify for Mr. Simic? They were detained in the

19 camp.

20 Well, the one thing that he had going for him

21 was that Mr. Agnes was in a vulnerable situation. He

22 knew that Mr. Agnes had joined the army of Republika

23 Srpska. He knew there was the incident where Mr. Agnes

24 had shot the young woman. He knew that Mr. Agnes was

25 living in Serbia under an assumed name. There were all

1 sorts of ways that he could exploit and take advantage

2 of Mr. Agnes. And it's our contention, Your Honours,

3 that because he was desperate to get witnesses for his

4 client, that he went to the extreme to put the pressure

5 on Mr. Agnes that he did; that he threatened him; that

6 he intimidated him; that he brought him to Bosanski

7 Samac, and he and Milan Simic offered him money, a job,

8 and a flat, just as Mr. Agnes said.

9 In conclusion, Your Honours, I think it's

10 important to keep in mind something that Mr. Agnes told

11 me over and over again during the conversations I had

12 with him during the preparation of this case. When we

13 tried to sort out how many meetings there were and when

14 they happened and where they happened, Mr. Agnes kept

15 insisting to me there were really only three meetings

16 that are important.

17 JUDGE HUNT: Is this in evidence?

18 MS. PATERSON: No, Your Honours. I'm just

19 making a comment.

20 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you can only comment upon

21 the evidence, can't you?

22 MS. PATERSON: Fine, Your Honour. There are

23 three meetings that I would encourage you to consider

24 are important. Whether you take it from me or from

25 someone else, there are three meetings that are

1 important. The meeting in Bosanski Samac, when

2 Mr. Agnes says he first met Milan Simic and he was

3 offered the money, the job, and the apartment; the

4 meeting at his uncle's house, when he contends that

5 Mr. Avramovic came and took a detailed statement from

6 him and even audio taped the statement; and the meeting

7 when he was given Mirsad's phone number and encouraged

8 to contact Mirsad. All of the other meetings, all of

9 the other phone calls, all flow from those three

10 meetings, and those are the three crucial meetings that

11 you should focus on.

12 As I've said, Mr. Agnes is far from the

13 perfect witness. He was difficult at times, but he

14 kept coming back. He told you his story. You could

15 see for yourselves, you can compare the demeanour of

16 the two witnesses. Think about how Mr. Agnes looked

17 when he was testifying, the emotions he showed.

18 Sometimes he was calm, sometimes he was upset. At

19 times he was angry. At times he was greatly

20 indignant. Contrast that with the testimony of

21 Mr. Avramovic.

22 Your Honours are lawyers, you're professional

23 lawyers. You can imagine what it would be like to be

24 accused of the crime that Mr. Avramovic is accused of:

25 bribery, contempt of court. How would you be acting

1 during your testimony? Wouldn't you at least express

2 some indignation, some anger, some outrage at the

3 charges against you?

4 Mr. Agnes was able to explain his story

5 consistently, with all the prior statements he had

6 given. Most of the inconsistencies he was able to

7 explain legitimately and logically, and in the end his

8 testimony was corroborated by some irrefutable

9 evidence, the audio tape, that confirmed that both

10 Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Pantelic knew Mr. Agnes, had had

11 contact with him and had had detailed discussions with

12 him.

13 If you contrast his testimony with that of

14 Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic, I contend that you will

15 have to come to the conclusion that Mr. Agnes is the

16 credible witness.

17 It's our contention, Your Honour, that we

18 have proven the case against both Mr. Avramovic and

19 Mr. Simic.

20 Mr. Agnes has testified that threats were

21 made to him and to his family, that he was harassed and

22 intimidated. Mr. Agnes even brought to your attention

23 that those threats and intimidation continued right

24 through his testimony. He was reluctant to testify one

25 day because of the continuing threats and harassment to

1 he and his family.

2 Mr. Agnes was encouraged by both

3 Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic to give false testimony

4 before this Court. Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic offered

5 Mr. Agnes money, a job, and a flat, or at the very

6 least were present when that offer was made to him.

7 Mr. Agnes was encouraged to contact another witness for

8 the same purpose, to give false testimony before this

9 Court. And both Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic were

10 involved in, knew about, and condoned this behaviour.

11 Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic threatened,

12 intimidated, offered a bribe to, or otherwise

13 interfered with Mr. Agnes, potential witness before

14 this Tribunal.

15 Your Honours, I would ask you to find both

16 Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Simic guilty of the charges

17 against them. Thank you.

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Haynes.

19 MR. HAYNES: I shall endeavour to do a number

20 of things during the course of this closing statement.

21 I shall endeavour to be concise and not repetitive, to

22 speak slowly for the benefit of the French translator,

23 to remember that there are only six months between May

24 and September and that we began the hearing of this

25 case in September, but I should also endeavour to be

1 faithful to the evidence that we've heard and not give

2 evidence myself.

3 One of my clients, Milan Simic, faces a trial

4 on indictment. That indictment was drafted, confirmed,

5 he was interviewed under caution, the indictment was

6 amended, the evidence in support of it was served, and

7 in due course this Trial Chamber will have to determine

8 whether the evidence on oath substantiates the charges

9 that are laid against him.

10 This is not a case on indictment, but this

11 Trial Chamber has endeavoured to adopt a procedure that

12 is pretty much the same as the procedure for a trial on

13 indictment. It considered written evidence. It

14 formulated charges, for that is what we've called them

15 throughout these proceedings. Those charges are

16 particular in their detail, both as to time and as to

17 the substance of the allegations that my clients have

18 come here to meet. They have come here to meet no

19 other allegations. They have not, for example, come

20 here to face allegations concerning Mirsad Sahanic.

21 And during the course of the extraordinary address that

22 we've just heard, I was surprised that no reference was

23 made to the charges that my clients have come to face

24 and the charges that were read to them before the

25 proceedings started and upon which this Trial Chamber

1 must adjudicate.

2 I would like to turn to them now, because, I

3 submit, that on any version of the evidence, there is

4 little or no evidence left upon which either of my

5 clients could be convicted on those allegations.

6 In relation to Milan Simic, he stands

7 accused, firstly, between July and September of 1998,

8 that he knowingly and wilfully interfered with the

9 International Tribunal's administration of justice by

10 making threats by telephone to a potential witness

11 described in the request as Mr. Agnes; and secondly,

12 being in a black motor vehicle, driven to the house of

13 Mr. Agnes between 2.00 and 3.00 in the morning.

14 He is, secondly, under paragraph (B) -- it

15 being phrased in that way because, of course, the Rule

16 was reworded in December 1998 -- alleged to, between

17 January and May of 1999, have offered a bribe and

18 interfered with a potential witness described in the

19 request as Mr. Agnes, with the intention that Mr. Agnes

20 should give false evidence.

21 I'm going to say straight away that you have

22 not heard one word of evidence that would permit you to

23 convict Milan Simic of that charge. The evidence is

24 perfectly clear that after late October or early

25 November of 1998, there was only one further meeting in

1 February.

2 The details of that meeting are set out at

3 pages 91 to 96 of the transcript, and you will not find

4 one word of evidence to substantiate the charge that

5 relates to Milan Simic after the Rules changed in

6 December 1998, and my primary submission is that you

7 must acquit him because there is simply no evidence.

8 Can I turn to Mr. Avramovic. I will leave

9 aside, for the time being, the allegations that

10 pre-date the change of the Rule in December 1998 but

11 turn again to paragraph (B), the allegations he has

12 come to meet.

13 Again, I remind the Trial Chamber that

14 Mr. Agnes's evidence on oath was one meeting after

15 November 1998, and yet we turn to the charges:

16 Between January and May 1999, he offered a

17 bribe to and interfered with a potential witness

18 described in the request as Mr. Agnes, with the

19 intention that Mr. Agnes should give false evidence by,

20 (A), telling Mr. Agnes in January that he would be

21 rehearsed further in the false version throughout the

22 month of May, five days a week; two, he would be given

23 money for his needs by Milan Simic, an apartment, after

24 he had given evidence in the trial.

25 There is not a word of evidence to support

1 that allegation.

2 (B) Telling Mr. Agnes in February that he was

3 to say, falsely, that Milan Simic was not at the school

4 alleged by the Prosecution to have been a detention

5 camp and in which prisoners were beaten.

6 Again, not a word of evidence to support that

7 allegation.

8 (C) Showing Mr. Agnes, in March, a list with

9 about 160 names on it and telling him that the

10 rehearsal in May would include looking through the list

11 and falsely marking off the names of those who had been

12 at the school.

13 The evidence does not reveal any meeting in

14 February and those particular details were not given in

15 evidence by Mr. Agnes after November 1998. There is

16 thus not a word of evidence to support that

17 allegation.

18 (D) Telling Mr. Agnes in April that he would

19 be given employment after he had given evidence in the

20 trial. Not a word of evidence of a meeting in April or

21 any conversation of that type after December 1998.

22 (E) Telling Mr. Agnes in May, this is in

23 relation to the telephone transcript, that he would see

24 the next day about the money to be paid to Agnes. I

25 submit that the state of the evidence is now such that

1 there is insufficient evidence to convict him of that

2 allegation.

3 And so I say this isn't a broad-brush case.

4 You're not going to just look at the overall picture.

5 A procedure was set up by this Trial Chamber for people

6 to meet specific charges, and in relation to the events

7 after December 1998, the second charges laid against

8 both my clients, I submit whatever findings of fact you

9 may make, there simply isn't any evidence to support

10 any of those charges.

11 Now, what is left are the allegations prior

12 to December 1998, and in simple terms, they amount to

13 this: As against Mr. Simic, he is alleged to have

14 taken part in telephone harassment and late-night

15 visits to Mr. Agnes's house in Sremska Mitrovica. In

16 relation to Mr. Avramovic, a little wider. He is

17 alleged to have done both that and, in effect,

18 persuaded him to give evidence substantially at the

19 meeting of the 28th of September.

20 Ms. Paterson is right: The conviction or

21 acquittal of my client in relation to those -- clients

22 in relation to those charges depends entirely on the

23 witness Mr. Agnes, and about him I make five

24 submissions.

25 I say, firstly, he has lied to you on oath

1 repeatedly, on occasions for no good reason, save that

2 for him to lie is a reflex reaction. Other times there

3 is a clearly demonstrable purpose to his dishonesty.

4 I say, secondly, that he has told many, many

5 lies to other people, in particular Mr. Soldal.

6 I say, thirdly, that he is incapable of

7 belief on any matter of importance, given especially

8 his clear motivation for lying.

9 I say, fourthly, that against this background

10 of base and wholesale dishonesty, his evidence on the

11 principal issues you have to decide is so full of

12 inconsistency and anomaly as to make it impossible to

13 rely upon.

14 And fifthly, that he is contradicted on

15 almost every material point, not only by the evidence

16 of credible witnesses of good character, but also,

17 where available, by documentary evidence from

18 independent sources.

19 Now, I know on occasion in the past I have

20 perhaps over-egged the pudding, so I have chosen not to

21 enumerate for you what I say were 17 lies on oath that

22 Mr. Agnes told you, but simply to highlight four or

23 five which I say indicate his base dishonesty and

24 something of his motivation, and you will forgive me,

25 please, if I start with the army pass.

1 I hope that when you retire to deliberate in

2 this case you will take it with you and you will look

3 at it. It is something that it was open to the Office

4 of the Prosecutor to do at any time during the course

5 of the last three months, and they have chosen not to,

6 save to have it translated.

7 Look at its age, its obvious age. Look at

8 its condition. Look at the way in which the pages on

9 the outside of the booklet have aged together. Look at

10 the way in which the transparent plastic has filmed

11 over and become dirty. Look at the bindings and decide

12 for yourself whether that is not truly a document that

13 has been carried around for the last seven years,

14 rather than one, which it is suggested rather lamely,

15 has been created this year.

16 Consider where the weight of the evidence

17 suggests it was found: in a bag that Mr. Agnes

18 acknowledges was his, together with belongings he

19 acknowledges, some of them, were his.

20 Look at the details it contains and think who

21 could have supplied those details: the blood type, the

22 details of military service in the army of the former

23 Yugoslavia, the names of his fictitious parents, even

24 his date of birth. And look at the alterations to

25 those details, the change of the name, the change of

1 the names of the parents, the change of the date -- the

2 change of the place of birth, all designed to support

3 his false Serb identity, and really, to nobody else's

4 benefit. Only he would want to change the date upon

5 which he joined that army, and change his name and his

6 parents' name. It's his document. It's his photograph

7 in it.

8 But if you doubted anything at all about it

9 being his document, I would invite you, please, just to

10 look at two small passages of evidence which say

11 volumes about this man, and it relates to the name

12 written in biro in the back of the army pass, Dragana

13 Stefanovic, and her address and telephone number in

14 Leskovac, a town we know he was associated with.

15 At page 280 of the transcript, I asked him to

16 turn to the back of the book, and he smiled. And the

17 next question was: "You smile. Do you recognise that

18 name?" His response: "Perhaps. Depends on your

19 question." Well, I submit to you that was a smile of

20 recognition. But it wasn't recognition of the name,

21 because earlier at page 262 you will see that I asked

22 him specifically, did he know Dragana Stefanovic. His

23 answer: "No. Stefanovic, no. Draganas, I know many

24 Draganas."

25 So he didn't recognise the name. What I

1 submit to you is that he recognised the writing. I'm

2 not even suggesting it was his writing, but we all know

3 that there are things written in the back of our

4 diaries or chequebooks, perhaps written by Dragana

5 Stefanovic herself or perhaps written by a friend of

6 his who had met her and wanted to record this name.

7 But when he saw that name, he smiled, because

8 he knew the game was up. He knew that we had

9 established beyond any doubt that this was his

10 document. And it's such an insignificant document. In

11 the context of the evidence in this case, it's an

12 utterly pointless document. If he had said to me, when

13 I first put it to him, "Yes, of course it's my military

14 pass. So what?" and, "Yes, of course the name in it

15 has been changed from my former name to (redacted)

16 (redacted)" that would have been the end of that

17 document as a feature in this case. But he didn't do

18 that. He chose, I submit to you, to lie about it and

19 make that document highly relevant. I submit that that

20 is the clearest indication that this is a witness whose

21 first reaction is to lie and whose second reaction is

22 to think about it afterwards.

23 Now, it goes rather further than that,

24 because you'll recall, and Ms. Paterson appears to have

25 adopted this without any further investigation on her

1 part, he chose to make a series of outrageous

2 accusations, and I use the word "outrageous"

3 principally from a personal point of view, because

4 those accusations included accusations that I had been

5 party to the forging of this document. And so he's not

6 just a witness who will lie as a first reaction. He's

7 a witness who is perfectly prepared to make outrageous

8 accusations against anybody and everybody.

9 But the basest lie of all in relation to that

10 document was the denial of his own image in a

11 photograph. Can you imagine a more childish and reflex

12 lie than to be shown your own picture, and Jasna

13 Marosevic had no difficulty identifying him, to be

14 shown your own picture and to say, "No, that's not me."

15 A base liar. But, of course, if that is an indication

16 of his reflex, then some of his lies have a hidden

17 purpose. Not very well hidden, but hidden

18 nonetheless.

19 I want you, please, to consider his evidence

20 about the outbreak of war in 1992. I don't think it's

21 beyond any dispute that he lied about that. It was the

22 first line of material evidence that he gave, so he

23 began with a lie. It was the first thing he ever told

24 Tore Soldal, so he began with a lie there. Mr. Soldal

25 knew it was a lie. Jasna Marosevic knew it was a lie.

1 Mirsad Sahanic told you it was a lie. He was living in

2 Samac before the war started, not passing through in a

3 bus, staying either in a car that night or in a hotel.

4 He was living in Samac. He himself eventually

5 acknowledged it was untrue in his cross-examination,

6 though he called it a misunderstanding.

7 The curious thing is that having acknowledged

8 it was untrue, he went on later in cross-examination to

9 reassert the lie. But what this shows is a desire to

10 invoke sympathy for himself, I submit. He wants to

11 appear more the victim. And let's be perfectly

12 honest. I, for my part, and I'm sure we all have every

13 sympathy for him for what happened to him in April of

14 1992, but that's not enough for Mr. Agnes. He has to

15 be caught up in all this as an innocent bystander. He

16 can't even tell the truth about events that are beyond

17 dispute.

18 Similarly, you may think the events in

19 Pelagicevo in 1993, when the 15-year-old girl was shot

20 dead and his uncle secured his release from prison, are

21 again an attempt to paint himself white rather than

22 black. And please, I trust Ms. Paterson will forgive

23 me if I submit that in conjunction, Judge Bennouna and

24 myself left him in no doubt about what questions we

25 were asking him. He wasn't under any misapprehension

1 about the word "bribery." He chose to say one thing to

2 Tore Soldal and quite a different thing when he came

3 here.

4 The third serious lie that I choose to

5 highlight at this stage is Mirsad Sahanic. Mirsad's

6 evidence was unchallenged. Again, in relation to the

7 charges that this Court has to deal with, largely

8 irrelevant, but of course a tremendous key to Agnes'

9 credibility.

10 I submit, in round terms, that it is

11 inconceivable that you can come to any conclusion other

12 than that Agnes got Mirsad Sahanic's telephone number

13 from Jasna Marosevic. That must be the case. Why on

14 earth would she bother going to Tuzla to find his

15 mother and his family if she could simply have asked

16 somebody else for it? I submit you will come

17 inevitably to the conclusion that she gave him that

18 telephone number in late October, early November of

19 1998.

20 Sahanic gives evidence of two phone calls

21 from Mr. Agnes, one in the middle of the night when he

22 was drunk and another late in the evening when Jasna

23 also spoke. He gives evidence of four additional phone

24 calls from Jasna, all in the calendar year 1999. And

25 what does Agnes say about that, because this is not

1 something about which there can be any mistake. What

2 he says about that is in his fifth witness statement,

3 that he was given that number by Mr. Avramovic in

4 September, and when he came to give evidence before

5 this Tribunal, he was given the number by Milan Simic

6 in August. Now, that's a very illustrative lie,

7 because it indicates two things; firstly, that he knows

8 exactly where to fire his bullets when he wants to

9 lie. There's no point in telling the Tribunal about

10 Jasna Marosevic. You don't get relocated to a country

11 of your choice for that sort of story. He knows he has

12 to emphasise whenever anything questionable was done,

13 it was done by the people who stand accused.

14 But also if you consider further his evidence

15 that he made on one occasion, he said, hundreds and

16 hundreds of phone calls to Mirsad Sahanic, starting in

17 September of 1998, and on another occasion umpteen

18 phone calls to Mirsad Sahanic, you see that this is a

19 man whose exaggeration of things that did happen makes

20 his evidence really about any point incapable of

21 belief.

22 There is a very important ancillary point to

23 this, which is that if Mirsad Sahanic's evidence is

24 accepted and he was only phoned twice by Mr. Agnes,

25 once in the middle of the night and once late at night

1 when Jasna was present, it admits of no possibility of

2 any call being made to Mirsad from Milan Simic's

3 office. It simply would be against the weight of all

4 the evidence to find that any such phone call was

5 made.

6 I'm going to come now to the last of the lies

7 I choose to highlight, and that's the bag. I say that

8 is a lie of concealment and a lie into which you can

9 read quite a lot about his motivation. It was found at

10 Jasna Marosevic's flat. What on earth would be the

11 point of standing here, as a Defence advocate, of

12 making that assertion if it were not true?

13 He has tried, since he first crossed the

14 border, to distance himself from Jasna Marosevic. It

15 took him five witness statements before he mentioned

16 her, and it is significant, I submit, that the first

17 mention he made of her was after Avramovic had set his

18 case out in detail to this Tribunal. I submit that

19 shows he was notified of the Defence case, whatever he

20 may say, and I question what the purpose was of taking

21 that further unscheduled statement if he had not been.

22 But the point about him distancing himself

23 from Jasna is because he was perfectly aware that as

24 she had previously done with Mr. Avramovic, she could

25 unstitch the whole of his account from the first word

1 to last. You may think it's significant that in the

2 course of his evidence he denied having had any contact

3 with her after February 1999, an assertion he later had

4 to retract, and that it's significant that he denies

5 meeting her prior to meeting any of the lawyers.

6 But let's just briefly consider Jasna

7 Marosevic. She's a simple, working-class Catholic

8 girl, living a simple existence on 350 Deutschmarks per

9 month. She's not a major power broker in Bosanski

10 Samac, and she's not somebody who came to this Tribunal

11 terrified that if she didn't say the right thing, she

12 would be in trouble. And she surely can't be both of

13 those things, which the Prosecution asks you to

14 believe.

15 I submit to you that in her garish and rather

16 cheap-looking clothing, she was an honest and

17 thoughtful witness, one whose evidence you can rely

18 upon, because when you test it against the independent

19 factors, it is proved to be true. She told you where

20 Agnes was when war broke out, a fact confirmed by

21 Mirsad Sahanic and at some stage by Agnes. She told

22 you about seeing Mirsad and Agnes in custody. True.

23 She told you about seeing Agnes in 1993 in the army of

24 Republika Srpska uniform. True. But, and here's the

25 crux of Jasna Marosevic's evidence, and since I've been

1 criticised for not cross-examining Mirsad Sahanic, I

2 offer up the same criticism, no challenge was put to

3 her evidence on this point. Jasna Marosevic introduced

4 Agnes to Drago Vukovic, and that must be right, that

5 must be right.

6 I just want you to stand back a minute and

7 think about this. You get a bit lost when we call a

8 witness "Agnes" because you forget that in July of

9 1998, this was a man who had a name. It wasn't the

10 name he was born with, it wasn't the name by which

11 anybody who had known him in 1992 would recognise him.

12 The name by which he was known in 1992 was dead, in

13 effect. That man had died. His identity had been

14 destroyed. (redacted), a Serb living in Sremska

15 Mitrovica with relatives that nobody knew about,

16 unregistered as a refugee, not known to the local

17 Ministry of the Interior at the address at which he was

18 currently living with relatives that nobody knew about,

19 was untraceable. He could not have been found by the

20 lawyers. He had to find them. And that is the crux of

21 Jasna Marosevic's evidence, that she introduced Agnes

22 to Drago Vukovic. If you begin to accept that that is

23 an inevitable conclusion from the evidence, then the

24 whole of his account about what then happened begins to

25 unravel, because if that's right, then you must lend

1 real weight and due credence to the account that Drago

2 Vukovic gives about being introduced to Agnes by Jasna

3 Marosevic, about talking to him.

4 Agnes' account that these lawyers simply

5 stumbled upon his house in July or August of 1998 is

6 incapable of belief. The truth is, and Jasna Marosevic

7 says so unchallenged, that she introduced him to them

8 and that he was introduced to them perfectly willing

9 and enthusiastic to talk to them and see if he could

10 help them.

11 Now, before I pass on briefly, I want to deal

12 with his motivation for lying. I say it's clear and

13 it's naked before this Tribunal, and it's again not

14 altruistic. It's squalid and greedy and selfish.

15 This was a man who, prior to meeting Mr.

16 Soldal, was, I submit to you, without family in the

17 real sense. He was a Muslim from Bihac, so he says. I

18 mean it may well be that we can't even accept that. He

19 says he was a Muslim from Bihac who was not welcome

20 back in Bihac. He says he was living -- he couldn't

21 live in the Republika Srpska, I submit, because he was

22 wanted for murder, and he couldn't carry on living in

23 Serbia because he was living on false identification,

24 life was miserable, and that there was a fair chance he

25 was going to be drafted into the army.

1 We know that prior to Agnes ever meeting a

2 lawyer, plans were afoot, instigated by him, for him to

3 find somewhere else to live. He told you about going

4 to Belgrade in the, I think, middle of 1998 to see the

5 International Commission for the Red Cross. He told

6 you that the purpose of obtaining that document that we

7 discovered was to see whether it would help him be

8 allowed to live in another country, and we know that

9 for his pains in this Tribunal, he is going to achieve

10 that end, whatever the outcome of this case.

11 Now, I don't know where he's going to live,

12 but we have a pretty good idea where he wants to live

13 because he told us. You will remember an odd passage

14 in the evidence where he talked about applications

15 being made to the consulates or whatever, the embassies

16 of Australia, Canada and the United States. He doesn't

17 want much, does he? I mean none of those places would

18 let me go and live there, but Mr. Agnes has come and

19 that's what he wants. That's what he wanted then and

20 that's what he wants now. And if you ever doubted

21 that, and please forgive my language, you will only

22 have to recall the obscene piece of theatre that was

23 that man sitting outside this Trial Chamber refusing to

24 come in until he got his way. I submit to you that for

25 somebody who has no family, no country, no job, no

1 prospects, citizenship of a country of that sort is the

2 equivalent to you and I of a win on the lottery. But

3 here is a man who, having been guaranteed a win on the

4 lottery, wanted the cash in his hands before he would

5 even pay for the ticket.

6 Now, the danger always is, with a witness

7 like Mr. Agnes, that his account necessarily contains

8 an element of truth. It must do. You will appreciate

9 how ludicrous it would have sounded if he had come and

10 made these accusations against Mr. Avramovic having

11 never met him. There has to be an element of truth,

12 and the difficulty for this Tribunal is to sift what

13 actually happened from what is a lie, an exaggeration,

14 or just plain unreliable.

15 I want you, please, to consider the Defence

16 case. I put it to him for his consideration, but I

17 want to set it out now, and will help you, I submit,

18 decide how much of the detail that he has given you

19 leads you to lend further weight to his evidence.

20 It is our case that having met Jasna

21 Marosevic in July, he was introduced to Drago Vukovic

22 in August; that Mr. Vukovic saw him for a period of

23 time, but being in the process of handing over the

24 case, he had to be introduced to Mr. Avramovic on the

25 22nd of September, and there was a further meeting on

1 the 28th when some details were written down and some

2 lists were shown to him. It is our case that following

3 that, the next meeting was in November at the Mimoza

4 Cafe, and that thereafter there was only one meeting

5 this year in Bosanski Samac where also present was

6 Spasoje Pisarevic.

7 Now, in all that come the bones of his story,

8 because of course those events did happen. They

9 indisputably did happen. You're going to have to ask

10 yourselves whether his account in evidence is nothing

11 more than him taking the details of events from

12 meetings that happened and either multiplying them,

13 spreading them over a number of visits, or mixing them

14 up and throwing them in where he thought it was

15 merited. I'll give you an example.

16 It is not in dispute that Mr. Avramovic, on

17 the 28th of September, showed him some lists.

18 Mr. Agnes places that event quite literally all over

19 the place. He says, in his evidence, that that took

20 place at the Mimoza Cafe in November; in his first

21 statement, that it took place in February; later on, at

22 his uncle's house; in his fourth statement, in April

23 with Milan Simic; and his fifth statement, it took

24 place in mid-November after he and Jasna had made a

25 phone call to Mirsad Sahanic. It happened, and our

1 case is that it only happened on the 28th of

2 September. Do you think that might be right or do you

3 believe a witness who, in the course of a number of

4 witness statements and the course of his evidence, has

5 that event taking place at four different locations in

6 the company of different groups of people and at

7 different times?

8 He was given the lawyers' telephone numbers.

9 That happened. And yet when he gives evidence about

10 that and makes witness statements, it's all over the

11 place. He says given to him by Mr. Avramovic in

12 September. Compare that with his witness statement

13 number 1, where it was given to him by the lawyers at

14 his uncle's house, and his fifth witness statement,

15 where it was given to him by Drago Vukovic.

16 The offer of money, which of course we say

17 didn't happen. He says in his evidence that he was

18 offered 10.000 Deutschmarks by Mr. Simic the first time

19 they met in about August. Compare that with his

20 witness statements, where he says it was offered to him

21 by Avramovic and Simic in January, and in his fifth

22 witness statement, where the money was offered by

23 Mr. Simic curiously, it appears from my note, at his

24 uncle's house.

25 That's the pattern. The pattern is of events

1 being moved around, events being slotted into the

2 account where he saw fit, at times, I suggest, in his

3 evidence, in desperation. This was the evidence of

4 somebody who was prepared to lie first and think

5 afterwards.

6 Now, I do submit, as I began, that the issues

7 you have to decide now are really very narrow. You

8 have to decide whether the incident of shooting and the

9 incidents of phone calls and harassment ever happened,

10 because I submit to you that they didn't. They are

11 very simple allegations. They are easy to make. They

12 are utterly uncorroborated by any evidence that you

13 have heard. And let us be perfectly clear about this.

14 I do criticise the Prosecution. His uncle and aunt

15 were there, were available to be called, and nobody has

16 chosen to do so. They occurred, on any version of the

17 evidence, at a time when Milan Simic was either in

18 Igalo, receiving medical treatment, or at The Hague.

19 He has, in effect, an alibi for those allegations. And

20 you will also bear in mind his physical condition,

21 given that the allegation he faces is that he went to a

22 house in a car, stalked it, and fired shots in the

23 air. He plainly did not.

24 The allegation is countermanded by the report

25 of the local police, who say that during that relevant

1 period, the only time they were called out to that

2 village was to deal with a fight, and you'll bear in

3 mind that he said that the police were called on

4 several occasions.

5 But perhaps the killer point in relation to

6 that is his own evidence, because we are supposed to

7 excuse him, that he is not very good with times and

8 dates, even though I do submit to you he only had to

9 look back over the last eight or nine months and put

10 events into context or history, but we're supposed to

11 forgive him that. But this is one of the odd occasions

12 when we can tie down the dates. We know that the visit

13 of Mr. Avramovic and Mr. Neskovic was on the 28th of

14 September because Stevan Todorovic was arrested the day

15 before, and we know that on the 14th of September, from

16 the International Commission of the Red Cross document,

17 that he was issued, I think he said, somewhere in

18 Bosnia -- I can't recall now -- with that piece of

19 paper.

20 Now, you're going to have to consider his

21 evidence carefully, but I submit to you that when you

22 read it, you will come inevitably to this conclusion:

23 that he said that the visit of the lawyers prior to the

24 28th of September took place a couple of weeks before;

25 that that visit was preceded some three days earlier by

1 the cessation of the shooting and the late-night phone

2 calls. So that puts it around about the 10th of

3 September that this business was still going on. But

4 you'll bear in mind also that his evidence was in order

5 to obtain that Red Cross document, he had to go to

6 Bosnia, stay with an aunt for a few days, hang around,

7 I think, for ten days waiting to get the document. So

8 you're driven inevitably to the conclusion, on his

9 evidence, that what he told you about as happening in

10 Sremska Mitrovica, it was impossible for him to witness

11 because he wasn't there.

12 Now, let me move on, please, to the meeting

13 of the 28th of September with just this comment:

14 We have called witnesses. They are credible

15 witnesses. They are witnesses of good character, each

16 of them. They are middle-aged professional men, in the

17 main, and they tell you, where they can, that these

18 events did not happen. And when you consider the

19 evidence about the 28th of September, please, please

20 bear in mind that that -- that the original allegation

21 in this case involved Mr. Neskovic, the lawyer from

22 Doboj. He is named in the charge, and nobody did him

23 the courtesy -- nobody did him the courtesy of

24 suggesting to him, "You were involved in this." He was

25 allowed to give his evidence and say he sat outside; he

1 was unconcerned; there was no tape-recorder. And I

2 want you to please -- and I hope this isn't

3 impertinent -- just think of that man in comparison to

4 Mr. Agnes and decide whether you prefer Mr. Agnes's

5 evidence to a middle-aged man who has been a president

6 of the high court. He's like you. Don't you attach

7 credibility to what somebody like that says? Don't you

8 attach credibility to Drago Vukovic, who similarly was

9 not challenged about a meeting which, if Agnes is

10 believed, simply didn't take place?

11 So I do submit to you that when you look at

12 things in the round, when you look at the way in which,

13 in his first witness statement, Mr. Agnes pretty much

14 describes the history of meetings that the Defence

15 would agree with, that he does not describe any meeting

16 with Milan Simic, but that with each witness statement

17 and each version of his evidence his allegations become

18 greater, more numerous and more ridiculous, you don't

19 need me to remind you that the meeting of the 28th of

20 September was in his first witness statement the 2nd;

21 his fourth, the 3rd; his fifth, the 5th; in

22 cross-examination -- I'm sorry, in

23 examination-in-chief, the 6th, and by the end of his

24 evidence, the 10th. This is just exaggeration for

25 exaggeration's sake. It's just not credible.

1 Now, I must briefly deal with two or three

2 things. Firstly, you are going to be concerned with

3 whether there is any evidence that he met Milan Simic.

4 Again, I emphasise, far from being consistent in his

5 first statement, "No." In his second and third

6 statement, "No." By his fourth statement, once in

7 April, and by his fifth statement, three times, and by

8 the time he came to give evidence, many times. Indeed,

9 you will recall the very graphic protestations he made

10 that in October and November, months which in his first

11 statement he did not describe any meetings, he was

12 talking about 5, 10, 20 meetings a month, 50 phone

13 calls a month. And for what? Because I do submit to

14 you that he was not a potential witness, either in law

15 or in fact, and I'll deal briefly with the law.

16 I do stress that I trust you will not take

17 this as being in any way a concession that this man's

18 evidence has any credibility at all, but you're going

19 to have to consider the ambit of Rule 77 in any event,

20 and I submit to you that he was at no time a potential

21 witness, and if you cannot be sure of that, you cannot

22 convict anybody under this provision.

23 If he was a potential witness, then the

24 logical conclusion is that anybody who might have seen

25 anything that might be tried by this Tribunal on

1 indictment is a potential witness, and I submit to you

2 that that is nonsense. The Rule prior to December

3 1998, and that is only -- that, I submit, is the only

4 charges that remain, did not include that phrase, and

5 it is plain that it envisaged people who were in the

6 course of their evidence or people who were about to

7 give evidence. What it didn't cover, and what I submit

8 all the Rule does now cover, are people who are

9 expected to give evidence in a trial that hasn't

10 started.

11 If "potential witness" means anybody who

12 might be able to give any evidence about any matter

13 that might come before this Tribunal, then you have

14 this nonsense, don't you: You have the situation where

15 if two men are sitting in a bar somewhere, anywhere in

16 the world, and someone knows something about what has

17 happened in Kosovo and he said, "Do you know, I think

18 I'm going to make myself available to give evidence

19 about this matter," and his friend says to him, "You

20 cannot do that. It is an act of disloyalty," punches

21 him and then said, "There. Be warned," then the

22 logical conclusion would be that man, wherever, could

23 be dragged before this Trial Chamber in contempt of

24 this Tribunal. That's nonsense.

25 Similarly, what is going to happen when

1 Defence lawyers look for witnesses who are unwilling

2 because their family, their friends, the people they

3 live with are persuading them, putting pressure on them

4 not to come forward, out of loyalty? Are we to come

5 here as Defence lawyers with ex parte motions, inviting

6 this Trial Chamber to issue arrest warrants for half

7 the people in a village in Bosnia? Obviously not.

8 My submission is that the only sensible

9 construction to Rule 77 is that "potential witness"

10 means somebody who, in contemplation of the parties, is

11 likely to give evidence before the Tribunal. It means,

12 in effect, witnesses named in the Prosecution papers in

13 relation to a trial that is either some way off or in

14 some way adjourned.

15 Now, in fact, I submit to you he never was a

16 witness. He was never going to be called as a witness

17 and was thus not a potential witness. You'll have to

18 consider the evidence of Mr. Vukovic and Mr. Avramovic,

19 and you might like to think this: Given what you have

20 heard, given what you now know about him, given what

21 these men then knew about him, what lawyer in their

22 right mind would have called this man as a witness? He

23 was marginal, his evidence was in conflict with

24 Mr. Avramovic's client's instructions, it was

25 dangerous, and very likely to inculpate his client.

1 You may also be helped in that regard by his

2 own evidence, that no contact was made between him and

3 Mr. Avramovic between October and February and,

4 thereafter, no contact at all. Does that give you a

5 clue as to the level of his importance in the scheme of

6 things?

7 You'll also consider, please, and I do submit

8 that they are corroborative of the Defence case, the

9 billing records that show this man was visited on the

10 22nd and the 28th of September and not thereafter.

11 They're corroborative of his lack of status as a

12 witness and they're corroborative, I submit, of the

13 Defence case, that those were the only times he was

14 visited.

15 Now, that is all I really propose to say. I

16 really return to my initial --

17 JUDGE HUNT: Before you start your

18 peroration, if I may put it that way, there were

19 documents filed, first of all by Mr. Morrison and then

20 by yourself, which raised a series of legal issues

21 about the procedure which was followed, the ultra vires

22 nature of Rule 77, and a number of other matters. Are

23 you going to rely upon any of those?

24 MR. HAYNES: I began, really, with those. I

25 began by acknowledging that the Trial Chamber has

1 adopted a procedure, and my submission is that the

2 procedure drives the Trial Chamber to try these men on

3 the specific charges they face.

4 JUDGE HUNT: Then your answer to my question

5 is that you don't rely upon the suggestions made in

6 those documents?

7 MR. HAYNES: No.

8 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.

9 MR. HAYNES: Thank you. My peroration is

10 really this, and it's in two sentences: that to find

11 these matters proved beyond reasonable doubt would be

12 an act of utter infidelity to the evidence and an

13 offence to any burden or standard of proof anywhere,

14 and that, in law, Agnes was never a potential witness

15 and thus never came within the scope of Rule 77.

16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson.

17 MS. PATERSON: Just briefly, Your Honour.

18 First, we would take strenuous objection to one comment

19 by Mr. Haynes in his statement. He basically accused a

20 member of the Prosecution staff themselves of

21 committing contempt.

22 On the 17th of September, 1999, this Court

23 issued an order which, among other things, stated

24 that: "The Prosecution is further ordered not to

25 disclose the witness statements or the content thereof

1 to any person or organisation, other than the

2 Prosecution investigators, until further order, except

3 to the limited extent necessary to investigate the

4 allegations of contempt."

5 Mr. Haynes has alleged that at least one

6 member of the Prosecution team allegedly informed

7 Mr. Agnes about the contents of at least one witness

8 statement or information that had been made available

9 to us in this case, and I would like to state for the

10 record unequivocally that nothing of that sort took

11 place and that those allegations were entirely

12 inappropriate under the circumstances.

13 Finally, Mr. Haynes asked us to put together

14 an extraction from the statement of Milan Simic that

15 was taken by the Office of the Prosecutor in March

16 1998. We have done so at the request of Mr. Haynes. I

17 suggest he perhaps review this to make sure it meets

18 with his satisfaction before it be presented to the

19 Court.

20 MR. HAYNES: How many do you need?

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please,

22 Mr. Haynes.

23 MR. HAYNES: I suppose the sensible thing to

24 do with that would be to put it at the back of the

25 folders I gave you earlier. I think it will

1 become D8. Am I right or wrong?

2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Registrar, what number would

3 this have? Acknowledge.

4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. It will become D13.

5 MR. HAYNES: Oh, dear. I wasn't even close.

6 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have anything in

7 rejoinder, Mr. Haynes?

8 MR. HAYNES: No, nothing.

9 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm not inviting you.

10 The Chamber will consider this matter and

11 give its decision later. The proceedings stand

12 adjourned.

13 --- Whereupon the Rule 77 hearing

14 adjourned at 5.58 p.m., sine die

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25