1 Tuesday, 27th April, 1999

2 (Rule 77 Hearing)

3 (Open session)

4 --- Upon commencing at 10.05 a.m.

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, are you

6 ready?

7 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. Before we

8 bring in the witness, we would like the opportunity to

9 respond to the concerns you raised at the close of the

10 session yesterday. Thank you.

11 The Prosecution believes that the submissions

12 of the appellant and his current counsel in this

13 matter, as well as the testimony of Mr. Tadic himself

14 thus far, go beyond addressing the bare facts of

15 whether Mr. Vujin's alleged actions amount to

16 contempt. They've also raised the issue of possible

17 prejudice to the appellant caused by those actions.

18 These claims were raised shortly after the denial of

19 the Rule 115 motion by the Appeals Chamber.

20 As a result of that denial, the Prosecution

21 believes that the complaints of the appellant and his

22 counsel are in part designed to raise the spectre that

23 Mr. Vujin's misconduct acted towards the prejudice of

24 the appellant and, therefore, would form the case for

25 corrective actions by the Appeals Chamber or, more

1 simply, could provide a second bite of the apple.

2 The examination of Mr. Tadic which we are

3 conducting is a response to the posture of these

4 proceedings as created by the appellant and his

5 counsel, and we feel bound to test that posture. Our

6 questions are intended to deal not only with the facts

7 regarding Mr. Vujin's misconduct, but also to establish

8 that Mr. Tadic was a willing participant in that

9 misconduct and was happy to go along with the

10 submission of false evidence because it was all

11 potentially exculpatory. It is only since the Rule 115

12 motion did not go his way that he again abandoned his

13 Defence counsel and is trying to use the situation to

14 his advantage.

15 Given the discussions in the appeal hearing

16 last week relating to the Defence counsel request that

17 the Appeals Chamber leave open the possibility of

18 consideration of additional matters that might develop

19 at this hearing, the Prosecution believes it is

20 necessary to address those issues in order to establish

21 that there has been no showing of prejudice to the

22 appellant and that there is no justification for any

23 further consideration of additional matters related to

24 his appeal.

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Keegan.

1 Mr. Abell, would you like to respond very briefly?

2 MR. ABELL: Your Honours, it would be my

3 submission that we have to be -- I'm so sorry. It

4 would be my submission that we have to be very careful

5 here. The starting point is: What are the particular

6 proceedings that we are engaged in at the moment, and

7 what is the status of Mr. Tadic in those proceedings?

8 To state the obvious, the individual who is

9 accused, if I can use that word, although not in the

10 dock, in the contempt proceedings is Mr. Vujin.

11 The status of Mr. Tadic is that he is a

12 witness. He is a witness who is on the Appeals

13 Chamber's list of witnesses in relation to the contempt

14 motion. He can give relevant evidence as to certain

15 aspects which touch upon the five allegations against

16 Mr. Vujin, and he can give evidence which is supportive

17 of those charges in the sense that it tends to show the

18 context in which the allegations were said to be

19 committed and the motive underlying them.

20 I am not here -- I am separate counsel from

21 counsel representing Mr. Tadic as an appellant. He

22 does not come here today or yesterday as an appellant

23 but as a witness. If, and I cannot say because I do

24 not represent him in the appeal, if any consequences

25 whatsoever flow from these proceedings, it would be my

1 submission that they would need to be addressed by his

2 counsel in the appeal and that it would be when this

3 Court -- when Your Honours are sitting in the appeal,

4 if there is to be any more of it at all, that any

5 considerations flowing from today's proceedings should

6 follow.

7 In other words, if I can put it another way,

8 these proceedings shouldn't, and I say this with great

9 respect to my friends who prosecute, these proceedings

10 shouldn't be used as a platform in which to attempt to

11 show that Mr. Tadic is seeking a second bite of a

12 cherry or seeking to improve or better his position in

13 order to perhaps influence his chances that he may or

14 may not have on the major appeal.

15 What I am saying, I'm agreeing with Your

16 Honours, but we should endeavour to restrict ourselves

17 to questions which have relevance in the light of the

18 allegations that today's proceedings are all about. In

19 other words, what goes directly to those allegations

20 and what goes to those allegations in terms of motive

21 or supporting evidence. Of course, the Prosecution, if

22 they wish, can cross-examine Mr. Tadic as to

23 credibility, but really only in that context.

24 I hope that wasn't too long an answer, but

25 obviously I'm concerned that we don't confuse the

1 separate hearings which are taking place. That is, in

2 my submission, the starting point, and that is the key

3 to the answer to the response raised by the

4 Prosecution, unless I can assist further, Your

5 Honours.

6 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, would you

7 like to intervene on the point?

8 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honours. My

9 comment, when I received the orders charging me that I

10 had been obstructing the work of this Tribunal to the

11 detriment of Mr. Tadic, I will refrain from commenting

12 because I believe the Prosecution is right, and the

13 questioning by the representative, the counsel for

14 Mr. Tadic of yesterday, represents an attempt to gain

15 information which could possibly have an effect on a

16 more favourable outcome which I, as former counsel for

17 Mr. Tadic, would want.

18 However, following the questioning of

19 yesterday, and in view that questions were asked about

20 periods which are outside of the period during which I

21 am charged -- with the activities that I'm charged

22 with, and partially it is a result of imprecise claims

23 against me, because from all the material that I have

24 received, it is clear that these are only certain

25 actions in question, and I would like for these

1 proceedings to finish with that, for it to be

2 established whether I committed these actions or not.

3 For these reasons, I ask that the Court

4 allows this, since the questioning of Tadic, in a way,

5 has been imposed. Then in the future, to limit these

6 proceedings only to those actions that I have been

7 charged with.

8 I also believe that once the questioning of

9 Mr. Tadic is completed, he be not allowed to remain in

10 the courtroom, in view of the fact that he is a

11 witness, and he, therefore, should not be in the

12 courtroom while other witnesses are being questioned.

13 Thank you.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Well, all interested

15 parties have been heard, as is the proper course. It

16 will be remembered that yesterday the bench had

17 occasion once and perhaps twice to intervene on this

18 point and to call attention to a distinction between

19 the two sets of proceedings. It was pointed out that

20 these proceedings are limited to five concrete and

21 specific allegations and that although it may

22 occasionally be difficult to say that something is not

23 quite relevant in the sense of being dead on the point,

24 still one could sometimes, indeed, often say that

25 something is only subliminally or marginally relevant.

1 I would ask all parties to confine themselves

2 to the five concrete allegations, and if they go

3 outside of those allegations, please be careful to

4 remember the distinction between the two sets of

5 proceedings lest it be said, and said with

6 justification, that an attempt is being made to use

7 these proceedings to lay the groundwork for an

8 application in the other. That should happen, if it

9 happens, only accidentally and not with deliberation or

10 purpose.

11 So the ruling of the Chamber is that as

12 questions have been asked by Mr. Abell on matters

13 which, in the view of the bench, are not fully

14 circumscribed by the five concrete and specific

15 allegations, Mr. Keegan is entitled to ask

16 counter-questions on those points.

17 I will ask him to be diligent and careful, to

18 make sure that his efforts are brief and perfectly

19 manageable by the Tribunal both in this case and in the

20 other. Thank you very much.

21 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour. If we

22 could bring in Mr. Tadic, please.

23 (The witness entered court)

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Yes, Mr. Keegan.

25 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

1 WITNESS: Dusko Tadic (Resumed)

2 Questioned by Mr. Keegan:

3 Q. Mr. Tadic, you will still be under oath which

4 you took yesterday at the beginning of your testimony.

5 What I would like to begin with is going back

6 to the letters which you wrote to Mr. Vujin, which we

7 began discussing yesterday. If I could have those

8 letters provided to the witness, please.

9 These are copies of the letters that we have

10 been referring to, Mr. Tadic, if you feel the need to

11 refer to them as a result of my questions.

12 Yesterday we began with the letter dated

13 4 March, 1997, which would be the letter marked with

14 the number 274. That appears to be the first letter

15 which you --

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, I rather

17 think Mr. Abell wishes to say something.

18 Do you?

19 MR. ABELL: I was only trying to indicate to

20 one of the clerks that if there was a spare copy for me

21 as well it would be helpful. I wasn't trying to

22 disturb Your Honours, I was trying to do it

23 discreetly.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you for your

25 explanation, Mr. Abell.

1 Mr. Keegan, you may proceed.

2 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

3 Q. That appears to be the first letter that you

4 wrote to Mr. Vujin after you decided to retain him

5 again for your case; is that correct?

6 A. I don't know which letter you're referring

7 to, what number.

8 Q. It should have a sticker on the top, a green

9 sticker on the top with the number 274, and the date of

10 the letter is 4 March, 1997.

11 A. Yes, but I only have the English version.

12 Q. Apparently that was the only version provided

13 in the record. In that letter which was written almost

14 two months before the decision in your case, you write,

15 at the page marked 274: "I suppose that the Tribunal

16 will find me guilty for some acts from the indictment

17 and that I must have prepared evidence to assure the

18 higher Chamber who lied before this Tribunal."

19 At the time that you specifically brought

20 Mr. Vujin back into your case, you at that time

21 believed you were going to be convicted, and that you

22 would need some new evidence to try and convince the

23 Appeals Chamber that your victims had lied during the

24 trial; is that not correct?

25 A. Well, that was one of the assumptions, but I

1 mostly received assurances that I would not be

2 convicted of the gravest acts, and Mr. Wladimiroff even

3 told my family that he expected I would be declared

4 innocent for the gravest breaches. So that was one of

5 my assumptions.

6 Q. You also, in that letter, list some questions

7 that you want Mr. Vujin to provide you concrete answers

8 to because that would directly affect your further

9 steps in the case. Those questions include how many

10 witnesses that he could call before the Tribunal, the

11 names of those witnesses, and the necessary conditions

12 for him to be successfully engaged in the presentation

13 of new evidence.

14 When you brought Mr. Vujin back into your

15 case then, is it not correct that you had very specific

16 ideas of what you expected him to do and what evidence

17 you wanted to bring forward?

18 A. These questions are the result of my meetings

19 with Mr. Ambassador who had direct contacts with

20 Mr. Vujin for several months before this was written,

21 and this is the product of information based on which

22 he told me that Vujin was ready, that he had

23 witnesses. We did not talk about the manner this would

24 be done and how it would be done, but Mr. Wladimiroff

25 did tell me this was important and, in accordance with

1 that, I really wanted to know what was it that he had

2 available to him.

3 So these are my thoughts, but I wasn't sure

4 really in what way and when he would be able to use

5 them.

6 This is something that Vujin was offering to

7 me from '96. He was offering me witnesses, and he said

8 that he had them definitely, but I could not have seen

9 them during the regular proceedings and, obviously, I

10 did not have the opportunity to see them during these

11 proceedings, but I believe that now if he took part in

12 the team again that these witnesses would be

13 available.

14 Q. When the evidence that you were looking for

15 did not turn out the way you wanted, when people did

16 not line up to support you as you thought they should,

17 you yourself took part in the fabrication of the

18 evidence that you believed necessary to support your

19 claims; isn't that correct?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Then how do you explain the statements from

22 Radic and Zigic?

23 A. That was not my idea. Just by pure chance,

24 it happened that Mr. Radic was here, and I always

25 insisted that these statements be taken out in the

1 field. However, obviously this was something that

2 Mr. Vujin avoided. I was not satisfied with

3 Mr. Radic's statement because it was obvious that he

4 was lying because he was avoiding saying that he was

5 the head of the shift of the guards. So I didn't know

6 in which way this statement would be used by Mr. Vujin,

7 whether it would be submitted. I did not have any

8 influence on what things would be submitted to the

9 Court and which ones would not be, so many things I was

10 not aware of. I didn't know what was happening in the

11 relations between the Tribunal and Mr. Vujin.

12 Q. When that statement was submitted by

13 Mr. Vujin to the Appeals Chamber, did you or your other

14 counsel ever ask that that statement be removed from

15 the filings or not be considered by the Appeals

16 Chamber?

17 A. I don't remember. I don't know that. I said

18 that I wasn't sure what was directly submitted to the

19 Court and what were the things that I received from

20 Mr. Vujin. I don't know what Mr. Livingston had.

21 Q. I'd like to move now to the letter dated 12

22 June, 1997. That would be the statement with the green

23 sticker on the top marked "271."

24 Addressing this issue of what you knew and

25 didn't know about the pleadings being submitted in your

1 case, in that letter, you're giving specific directions

2 to Mr. Vujin on how the arguments on your sentence

3 should be divided. In that letter, you also indicate

4 that prior to the hearing, Mr. Vujin should go to

5 Republika Srpska to confirm the presence of witnesses

6 before the Tribunal and discuss their role before the

7 ICTY. So you were, in fact, specifically aware not

8 only of the pleadings being prepared but also of the

9 substance of negotiations between your counsel and the

10 authorities of Republika Srpska; isn't that correct?

11 A. I don't know what exactly you mean in this

12 matter.

13 Q. Well, I refer you to --

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, I'm reading

15 your question on the screen. I think it extends to

16 something like 13 lines or more. I wonder if you would

17 find any virtue in a little more brevity so that you

18 might, in the course of that, facilitate comprehension

19 by the witness.

20 MR. KEEGAN:

21 Q. Isn't it true that on the first page of that

22 letter, you are specifically giving directions to your

23 counsel about a trip to Banja Luka and the specific

24 reasons that he is supposed to go there for? In the

25 English translation, it's the last paragraph of the

1 first page and moving on to the second page.

2 A. I don't understand your question.

3 Q. That's fine. I'll move on. On the second

4 page of that document, do you specifically state: "...

5 that the solution of my case must be approached in the

6 way in which we agreed at our last meeting"? That

7 would be the sentence that's underlined on the second

8 page there.

9 A. I can't find it, but would you ask your

10 question regarding this sentence? I can't find it

11 here.

12 MR. ABELL: Excuse me for intervening --

13 A. Could you please tell me how the sentence

14 starts?

15 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Let us hear Mr. Abell,

16 perhaps, Mr. Keegan.

17 MR. KEEGAN: Yes.

18 MR. ABELL: I'm sorry for interrupting and

19 perhaps putting my friend off his stride, but one of

20 the problems is that I believe the documents that

21 Mr. Tadic is being asked about are in English. That

22 makes it extremely difficult for this witness who has a

23 little English but only a smattering. It may be

24 difficult for him.

25 A. No. No, I do have a version in Serbian. I

1 have a version in Serbian, but it's a copy so I can't

2 really see where I am. I don't have anything

3 underlined in my copy.

4 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: (Obscured by

5 interpretation) ... not on this occasion.

6 A. Could you please tell me how the sentence

7 begins?

8 MR. KEEGAN:

9 Q. Yes. The sentence begins, "Besides this, I

10 think that the solution of my case must be approached

11 in the way in which we agreed in our last meeting," and

12 the last part of that sentence would be underlined.

13 A. Yes. Yes, I see it.

14 Q. In that letter on that same page, the very

15 next section, you also direct that all communications

16 with the ICTY should go only through Mr. Vujin, and you

17 specifically state that you do not want too much of a

18 close relationship between the members of his team and

19 the Prosecution or the Tribunal in general. Do you see

20 that provision?

21 A. That is the result of the various suggestions

22 that I was given at that time, so that I expressed one

23 of my opinions to Mr. Vujin; yes, that's correct.

24 Secondly, at that time, there was a problem because

25 Mr. Kostic used to receive the Tribunal's mail, so

1 there were misunderstandings. He would receive the

2 information first and then Vujin himself would receive

3 the information later. Then for this reason, Vujin

4 asked that everything went through him.

5 Q. So that would explain then why the last

6 sentence of that letter is that if any of the

7 assistants have any questions, they could come to you

8 for an explanation as to why you were directing this to

9 happen?

10 A. Yes, that's what it says here.

11 Q. Isn't this letter, in fact, a clear

12 indication that you were exerting control over the

13 preparation of the appeal in your case?

14 A. I tried to have control all of the time; yes,

15 that's true. However, it's a different story of how

16 much my counsel took into account my requests. Mostly,

17 they took into consideration some not so important

18 things, but everything basically came down to bringing

19 eyewitnesses before the Tribunal and also important

20 documents that I knew existed in Prijedor.

21 Q. Moving to the next letter of 15 July, 1997,

22 which should have the green sticker marked "252" on the

23 top, this letter then would have been written a couple

24 of weeks after your sentence had been delivered and the

25 notice of appeal filed in your case; isn't that

1 correct?

2 A. Which number, 250?

3 Q. It should be number 252.

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. The point of this letter is that you

6 disagreed with Mr. Vujin with the appeal basis as

7 listed, and you directed him to change the appeal

8 documents and further to disclose this letter to the

9 public and to the Tribunal; is that not correct?

10 A. If that's what it says here, then it is

11 correct.

12 Q. Did you not also in this letter tell

13 Mr. Vujin to warn the authorities in Yugoslavia and in

14 Republika Srpska?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Mr. Vujin never complied with that direction,

17 did he?

18 A. Well, for the most part, the essential

19 points, I considered that he did not. But some of the

20 questions that I asked him were the subject of my

21 deliberations and what Mr. Livingston and Mr. Kostic

22 advised because at that time, I had a feeling that

23 there was a sort of competition, rivalry between them.

24 Everybody put forward different ideas, and then I tried

25 to present this in some way. Mr. Vujin was the leader

1 of the Defence team, and therefore I considered it

2 appropriate that he hear my opinion, which was, of

3 course, not binding.

4 Q. So neither Mr. Vujin nor, in fact,

5 Mr. Livingston ever took your direction and changed the

6 Defence submissions to indicate that the Defence agreed

7 with Judge McDonald's dissenting opinion in the Tadic

8 decision that, in fact, there was an international

9 armed conflict in Bosnia, did they?

10 A. No, they never. Mr. Livingston explained to

11 me that that could not have an effect on my judgement

12 and the discussions within the Trial Chamber, but

13 Mr. Vujin was against this because he knew my essential

14 problem, that it was in my interest to present before

15 this Tribunal the eyewitnesses of the events for which

16 I was found guilty or charged.

17 Q. They also did not disclose this letter as you

18 directed, did they?

19 A. They never did. I don't mean the majority,

20 but this type of communication with the public, I did

21 not ask for of Mr. Livingston because he said to begin

22 with that he would give no interviews and that that was

23 the code of conduct of British lawyers. However, Vujin

24 would frequently talk to the members of the press, and

25 he had occasion to do so, so that --

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, the bench

2 has said that matters outside of the three concrete

3 allegations having been raised, you are entitled to

4 explore that territory, but the more you do so, the

5 more the impression crystallises with us that these

6 matters are remote from the specific allegations which

7 have been made, and I would urge you once again to try

8 to bear that consideration in mind. Thank you.

9 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.

10 Q. Mr. Tadic, you yourself never disclosed this

11 letter either, did you?

12 A. No, I did not.

13 Q. Is that because it would have affected the

14 cooperation you were getting from Republika Srpska for

15 the production of evidence from individuals such as

16 Zigic and Radic?

17 A. I didn't think about those individuals, but I

18 personally considered that if the authorities of the

19 Republika Srpska, in general terms, did not wish to

20 cooperate where my personal problems are concerned,

21 then I considered that it was not in my interest to

22 think about acts which go towards accepting

23 Mrs. McDonald's position.

24 As I say, I didn't think that this could

25 cause particular harm to me personally. Even if it

1 did, I thought that I had already been punished by the

2 very fact that I was not able to prove my -- that

3 various structures prevented me from proving my

4 innocence before this Tribunal. They celebrated the

5 judgement there, and when the appeal was rejected that

6 was a matter of celebration for them over there, so

7 that those were my positions vis-à-vis the authorities

8 in the Republika Srpska.

9 Q. If that is the case, Mr. Tadic, then why in

10 your next letter of October 4, 1997 did you, in fact,

11 support Mr. Vujin as your lead counsel stating that:

12 "Because of all the matters we've discussed earlier, I

13 believe now is the last and right moment to unify your

14 previous and present work," and at the same time

15 complain about the work of Mr. Vujin --

16 A. Which letter are you referring to, please?

17 Q. This would have the number "201" on the top.

18 A. Which letter? Which number?

19 Q. It will have the green sticker on the top

20 that says "201." It's in your own handwriting and it's

21 dated 4 October, 1997.

22 A. Yes, I have it.

23 Q. Aren't your statements regarding both your

24 counsel in this letter a device which you used to play

25 your attorneys off against one another to achieve the

1 ends which you desired?

2 A. I think that it is quite the reverse. I

3 always insisted upon that cooperation, and I asked the

4 two men to cooperate. On one occasion, I made

5 Mr. Livingston travel to Belgrade. I asked him to do

6 so and he agreed to. However, in the situation in

7 which I found myself, it was difficult to find myself

8 positioned between two lawyers, because their

9 strategies were quite different and the way in which

10 they worked in the field was quite different. So I

11 didn't know what to do.

12 Very often they would not be on speaking

13 terms. When I talked to Mr. Vujin, I would gain the

14 impression that Mr. Livingston wasn't working well, but

15 when we parted, I would realise that that was not the

16 case and that something was amiss, and that

17 Mr. Livingston was indeed doing everything in his power

18 to come by the proper evidence.

19 Mr. Vujin and his secretary that you

20 mentioned a few days ago, said that he wasn't free to

21 work in the field and that Livingston was an impediment

22 to him.

23 Q. In your final letter to Mr. Vujin, dated

24 16 November, 1997, you give him very specific

25 directions as to how to complete the submissions on the

1 new evidence for your appeal, do you not?

2 A. Yes, I see the letter. The question of the

3 long-term work that I had with Mr. Livingston linked to

4 attempts to arrive at eyewitnesses and written evidence

5 in the territory of the Republika Srpska.

6 Mr. Livingston, of course, wished to have agreement

7 from Mr. Vujin, as the lead counsel. So it would be

8 impossible to get an order without him. So that is

9 what I did, in keeping with the agreement that I had

10 reached with Mr. Livingston, that is to say, it was a

11 sort of rough portion of the way in which his

12 deliberations went.

13 Q. Isn't it true that at that point you were

14 dissatisfied with all of the efforts because they were

15 not turning out the way you were hoping or dreaming

16 that they were? Isn't that true?

17 A. Well, there was always this problem of the

18 lack of co-operation between them. I wanted to have a

19 meeting between the two in Belgrade. It was

20 difficult. Mr. Vujin quite simply said that he liked

21 to work alone, independently, and to co-operate with

22 our people. That was the problem. That was always the

23 problem, the underlying problem. I did not want to

24 lose my foreign lawyer, because I knew what they were

25 doing in the field.

1 In that period too, Mr. John Livingston had a

2 lot of evidence that he came by himself and that he

3 never let Mr. Vujin see. He wished to check it out and

4 to do it himself.

5 Q. Is that why then, in the letter of

6 2 February 1998, you criticise Mr. Livingston very

7 harshly and demand that he return all the personal

8 documents and letters that you had given him, and that

9 you further direct him to give all directions on his

10 future work through Mr. Vujin?

11 A. It was a great problem. Mr. Vujin did always

12 protest with respect to that, and it was a technical

13 problem as well, because most of the documents that I

14 had in my room I had to send to Mr. Livingston. So I

15 had no more documents in my room and wasn't able to

16 follow what was going on, what was happening. That is

17 why I wanted to see what was going on, all the more so

18 as all the preparatory documents were written and

19 sometimes given to me to have a look at them in

20 English. So very often I wasn't able to understand the

21 material submitted to me, and I couldn't grasp what was

22 going on.

23 Q. After you sent this letter did Mr. Livingston

24 then begin to toe the line, as it were, or follow the

25 directions that you gave him?

1 A. For the most part, yes, but he would always

2 ask to study the documents and then return them. It

3 was a period in which it was very -- it was a very

4 difficult period for me, and further co-operation with

5 Mr. Livingston was brought into question. There was

6 pressure on me to cease that co-operation, but I

7 consulted some members of my family and we considered

8 that that would be a great pity.

9 Q. You say that this was a difficult period,

10 that time was a difficult period for you. Is that

11 because you believed that as a result of your

12 significant assistance to the Serb cause in Kozarac and

13 Prijedor that you were entitled to support from the

14 authorities but you weren't getting the support that

15 you thought you were entitled to?

16 A. People laugh at that kind of observation,

17 people living in the Prijedor municipality. They are

18 laughing because I have experienced the tragedy that I

19 have experienced, whereas they are at liberty and walk

20 freely around the Prijedor municipality.

21 I never had the support of those

22 authorities. The very fact that my family was expelled

23 in April 1992, they have never succeeded in returning

24 to Prijedor, my property remains over there, everything

25 is empty, and I never had any understanding from the

1 authorities there.

2 If somebody tried to help me, it was

3 individuals who, for the most part, tried to help me

4 through contacts with the foreign lawyers, because they

5 did not trust the lawyers from the Republika Srpska.

6 Q. You say that your family was expelled in

7 April 1992 and they've never succeeded in returning?

8 Who then is running the Cafe Neplan in Kozarac and who

9 has been running it since the fall of 1992?

10 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, how does

11 this have any bearing on the five allegations presented

12 in the Court's motion? May I remind you, as I would

13 remind all parties, these proceedings have been

14 initiated by the Appeals Chamber itself. We've invited

15 Mr. Tadic and yourself to give assistance to the

16 Chamber, but we do not have here a roving inquiry into

17 matters not reasonably connected with the allegations.

18 So while it is true that questions have been

19 asked which might be considered as going outside of the

20 circumference of the allegations which have been

21 presented, while you're entitled, therefore, to deal

22 with that area of inquiry, please, may I counsel you to

23 be as brief and as economical as possible?

24 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I will move

25 on. This, in fact, was obviously something that hadn't

1 come up, but where a witness is making a blatantly

2 false statement under oath to the Trial Chamber, we

3 believe it goes to credibility and that's why I was

4 challenging that submission, but I will move on.

5 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday you referred to

6 Mr. Vujin's conduct during your interview with the

7 ICTY. You alleged that Mr. Vujin told you not to speak

8 of certain individuals, that is, people in positions of

9 authority in Prijedor or to discuss certain topics and

10 that as a result, you were unable to be completely open

11 during the course of that interview. Do you recall

12 that?

13 A. I recall that, but you asked me a moment ago

14 with regard to my cafe, the question about my cafe. My

15 cafe never worked after May 1992. It has been greatly

16 destroyed and it is not working today. Nor do any of

17 the members of my family live in the part of the house

18 that belonged to me.

19 As far as your second question is concerned,

20 I did not say that I was not honest. I was honest and

21 frank in trying to answer the questions that were asked

22 me during my first interview, but I said that I felt

23 that I was under a certain amount of pressure because

24 at times I did not know how to behave. I had never

25 talked to the representatives of the International

1 Tribunal before that occasion and, of course, I asked

2 Vujin what I should do, how I should behave. I asked

3 Mr. Wladimiroff that too. Mr. Wladimiroff gave me some

4 advice and Mr. Vujin did so.

5 Q. You also stated that during the interview

6 itself, Mr. Vujin directed you to watch him and that he

7 would tell you or signal you when you should not answer

8 questions. Do you recall saying that?

9 A. I don't know if I put it that way. I don't

10 know if I said that I shouldn't answer. That wasn't

11 the concrete agreement. We did not actually decide

12 that he would tell me when not to speak, but I just

13 know that he told me that if I watched him, I would

14 know how to behave. I can't quote his exact words at

15 the time, but he told me to look at him and that I

16 would get guidance from him as to how to behave. If

17 you look at the tape, then you will know whether that

18 is so or not.

19 Q. You specifically mentioned yesterday the

20 issue of the crisis staff and indicated that you were

21 instructed not to discuss the crisis staff. Do you

22 recall saying that?

23 A. To be aware of what I say about the crisis

24 staff and how I use the term "camp." I didn't say

25 everything yesterday. There was a lot of that kind of

1 thing, but that is what was most objectionable to the

2 people from Yugoslavia.

3 Q. The record of your interview is part of the

4 record of the appeal in this case and is, therefore,

5 available to this Chamber. It is quite voluminous. In

6 that record of interview, you give an extensive

7 explanation of your alibi, your whereabouts, and who

8 the witnesses were that could support that to explain

9 why you were not guilty of any of the crimes alleged.

10 Given the nature of that record of interview,

11 your responses, what evidence, what indication can you

12 point to that you were under any undue pressure or

13 given any particular directions not to co-operate?

14 A. That was advice given me before the interview

15 started. Nobody knew what questions would be raised,

16 nor could anybody assume what was going to be asked,

17 and I myself did not know what I was going to be

18 asked.

19 Q. You said yesterday that as a result of the

20 pressure you felt, you, in fact, asked Mr. Wladimiroff

21 not to inform Mr. Vujin about the second session of

22 your record of interview. Do you recall that?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. In comparing the second session to the first

25 session, there's virtually no distinction between the

1 nature, scope, or extent of your responses. So what,

2 in fact, then was the change?

3 A. I said that I felt myself to be under

4 pressure. I wasn't able to talk freely. You or

5 whoever interviewed me at the time was free to ask

6 whatever they wanted to ask, but many of the questions

7 were not asked then, questions which might have been

8 important at the time, so that it remained open.

9 Q. Yesterday you testified that after your

10 interview, your family experienced difficulties because

11 both Karadzic and Mladic found out about the interview

12 and did not like what you said about the crisis staff.

13 Do you recall that?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Why is it then is that neither you nor any

16 members of your family have ever given any indication

17 of these difficulties in any of your prior statements

18 or submissions related to this matter or any other

19 matter before this Chamber?

20 A. I told my lawyers this, and they knew more

21 about that than I did myself because they contacted

22 with the members of my family more. Mr. Wladimiroff,

23 and Steven Kay, and Orie, and later on Mr. Livingston

24 as well, considered that my family ought not to

25 continue to live in the Prijedor municipality. Not

1 because of the fact that our neighbours were returning,

2 but because of the development of the investigation

3 that was under way. There were a number of dangerous

4 people living there.

5 Q. Did you and Mr. Livingston discuss whether

6 the fact that your family had had direct consequences

7 as a result of your interview, did you discuss whether

8 that should be a part of your submissions in regard to

9 Mr. Vujin's misconduct?

10 A. I didn't know that I would be in a situation

11 where I would have to testify publicly ever. At the

12 beginning, I informed the competent authorities, that

13 is to say, I asked for a change of attorney. As the

14 attorneys would change several times, it was

15 impossible. I had to tell the representative of the

16 registry why I asked for a change. When I explained

17 that reasons existed for that, that is how things

18 unfolded. I did not think about -- I never thought

19 that it would end in this way, nor was it my wish to do

20 so. I'm sorry to be in this kind of situation, because

21 I know that many members of my family will never feel

22 safe in the Republika Srpska-Yugoslavia area, and

23 probably myself too.

24 Q. Mr. Tadic, your testimony has been that the

25 reason that your family will never feel safe again is

1 because Mr. Vujin disclosed the contents of your

2 interview.

3 My question was: Did you and Mr. Livingston

4 ever discuss whether that impact should be part of your

5 submissions on these allegations of Mr. Vujin's

6 misconduct?

7 A. No. There was no mention of that. I don't

8 know whether there was any mention of that. I didn't

9 know which direction this would go, whether it was

10 showing respect for the Court or not. I don't know

11 what you mean actually.

12 My family, in 1996, following the advice of

13 Mr. Wladimiroff, tried to solve its status in Prijedor,

14 and he undertook efforts to settle their status, but it

15 didn't progress. Then they tried to solve this in

16 another way. I didn't want to and neither do I want to

17 now to involve the problems of my family in this

18 discussion.

19 You asked me about the problems of my

20 brothers. I know that my brothers do have problems in

21 Prijedor. They always had problems here. I never

22 brought that up before this Tribunal, but many members

23 of my family and my brothers distance themselves from

24 me, precisely because they consider that everything

25 happening here is not worthy of the problems that they

1 are having to face in Prijedor. My younger brother was

2 taken into custody. So was my brother Ljuba. Those

3 are the problems they have to face living there, but I

4 do not want to enter into polemics about that, and I

5 don't want the Tribunal to discuss things like that. I

6 don't think that's necessary.

7 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday you indicated that

8 Mr. Vujin has moved people from Prijedor to Serbia to

9 protect them. Are you prepared to tell us who those

10 people are and where they are?

11 A. Yes. I know for certain that Mr. Saponja was

12 in Zemun. This was discovered by Mr. Livingston,

13 through some of his connections in Omarska. Later,

14 when where we found out where he was, Mr. Vujin

15 transferred him to a different address and told me that

16 he was his priority and he wanted to get him a job.

17 Mr. Danicic is in Montenegro under a different name.

18 Most of them received new identity cards and

19 passports. I know that. I don't have any proof, but I

20 have information that Mr. Vujin took part in all of

21 that. I know what his authorities, what his powers

22 were in that in order to get them passports very

23 quickly. My brother Ljubomir told me that. Mr. Dusan

24 Jankovic also bought a house in Novi Sad. He's

25 residing in Novi Sad. In order for their safety, they

1 mostly move between Serbia and Prijedor.

2 Mr. Milomir Stakic, who was the commander of

3 the crisis staff of the municipality of Prijedor, after

4 the arrest of Kovacevic, fled the same day, and

5 allegedly he's on specialisation in Belgrade. He's

6 staying there. He's being financed by the municipality

7 of Prijedor while he's staying in Belgrade.

8 Dusan Knezevic is also in Belgrade, and I

9 know that they all meet in Mr. Vujin's office. He told

10 me that himself. Occasionally they come to Republika

11 Srpska, but mostly the majority of those people who

12 gave the statements, they have cited the wrong dates

13 and wrong places of where the statements were given.

14 Q. When did Mr. Vujin tell you that Milomir

15 Stakic, Dusan Knezevic, and others meet immediate in

16 his office in Belgrade?

17 A. I don't remember exactly, but it did happen

18 that I would call him on the telephone and then he

19 would say, "Well, these people are here. Let's talk at

20 another time." I don't know exactly what date that

21 was.

22 As far as Stakic is concerned, I heard from

23 my wife, who used to work in the medical centre in

24 Prijedor, and she's well-informed, that he's being

25 financed -- his stay in Belgrade is being financed by

1 the Prijedor Hospital and the municipality of

2 Prijedor. She also was able to see a fax in which he

3 demands that they send him 5.000 German Marks

4 urgently.

5 He also has changed his appearance. I have

6 heard that a few of them have had plastic surgery. Not

7 only those persons who were accused but also those who

8 think they may be accused.

9 Q. Other than Mr. Saponja, and we'll come back

10 to him, what information or evidence do you have that

11 Mr. Vujin is directly linked to the relocation of any

12 of these other people that you have mentioned?

13 A. Mr. Livingston found out the telephone number

14 of his residence in Zemun, and he spoke with his aunt

15 or somebody and she said, "He's at work right now."

16 Later, Mr. Vujin told me this part about getting him a

17 job. The problem was in the fact that I was not happy

18 with the statement of that gentleman. On one occasion,

19 Mr. Vujin brought Mr. Saponja's statement. He didn't

20 say anything. Then Mr. Vujin, the second time he met

21 with him in his office, allegedly, he said that he

22 would take a new statement, and I had gone over these

23 statements recently and saw that the first page was as

24 the first page of the first statement, and there was a

25 little part added at the end. So I looked at the

1 dates, and then later I really couldn't tell what was

2 actually said and at what date. I know that he had

3 taken a videotape from him later, but I don't know

4 anything more than that.

5 Q. Let's follow up on Mr. Saponja. What you

6 testified earlier was that Mr. Vujin specifically

7 relocated him and gave him a different address in

8 Serbia and got him a job. What information or evidence

9 do you have to verify that, not that Mr. Vujin

10 contacted him and took a statement but that he

11 relocated him and provided him with a job?

12 A. He told me that when we were talking about

13 work for my wife, and he told me personally that his

14 priority right now was to see to Mr. Saponja, to find

15 him a new job and an apartment. He even told me that

16 he had found an apartment for him, but I don't know if

17 he had found him a job at that time.

18 As far as his stay was concerned there, he

19 had changed his address. This is what Vujin told me

20 personally. I don't know where he is living now, but I

21 know that Mr. Livingston has the telephone number of

22 his previous residence and where he was previously

23 working. This is known to us.

24 Q. Now, other than Mr. Saponja, you mentioned

25 several other individuals. What information or

1 evidence do you have that Mr. Vujin had any part in

2 their relocation, the providing of new identities, or

3 any other assistance to help them avoid detection in

4 Prijedor?

5 A. As far as Mr. Jankovic is concerned, I think

6 that it is not hard to check who took part in the

7 purchase and the contract for the purchase of the house

8 in Novi Sad. This is something that I found out from a

9 member of my family.

10 As far as Mr. Radanovic, Ciga Radanovic,

11 former mayor and the head of the paramilitary group

12 which took part in the conflict in Kozarac, he was

13 staying in Hotel Yugoslavia. I got some of this

14 information from some members of my family, from some

15 people from Omarska. These people, you need to know

16 that they contact their friends in Prijedor. They are

17 always interested in how my proceedings are coming

18 along before the Tribunal, so I know about all of

19 these -- that they receive information, that they are

20 following what is happening. Occasionally, they even

21 go back to Prijedor. But mostly they have enough money

22 because they made money dishonestly during the war, so

23 most of them are able to stay in these places.

24 As far as my information tells me, Mr. Vujin

25 mostly participated in providing them with a place to

1 live, assistance with accommodation in Belgrade and the

2 surrounding towns, and also in the issuance of identity

3 cards.

4 Q. You also said yesterday that there were seven

5 or eight important witnesses for your case that

6 Mr. Vujin failed to take meaningful statements from.

7 Is it the case that he took any type of statement from

8 those people, and if so, where are they?

9 A. One of the key persons who we know for

10 certain could have testified regarding the killing of

11 the police officers in Kozarac is Mr. Jankovic, Dusan

12 Jankovic, who at that time was the chief of police in

13 Prijedor.

14 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Keegan, we will

15 suspend at this time until 11.30 when we will resume

16 and go on until maybe ten minutes to one. Would you

17 have much more, do you think?

18 MR. KEEGAN: Actually, Your Honour, I have

19 one other question if you would like to finish it

20 before the break.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: We would be delighted to

22 facilitate you.

23 MR. KEEGAN:

24 Q. In the submissions filed in this case,

25 Mr. Tadic, and in your testimony yesterday, you

1 referred to misconduct by two other attorneys who

2 practice before this Tribunal, Mr. Nikolic and

3 Mr. Tosic in regards to their assistance to Mr. Vujin.

4 What evidence or information do you have regarding any

5 specific misconduct by those two attorneys?

6 A. First of all, Mr. Tosic was present in

7 Prijedor during the attempt to implement the order, and

8 he was actively included in the contacts and the

9 investigation conducted by Mr. Vujin. I believe that

10 he should not have had access to documents from my case

11 because he is the Defence counsel for Mr. Zigic. So I

12 don't think that was okay. I think that this had a

13 negative impact in this sense.

14 He was also present during the visit of the

15 delegation when he heard what his client Zigic said

16 about what the strategy of Mr. Vujin is, not to allow

17 any new persons to be arrested and for none of the

18 people from here to leave. In that case, they felt

19 that nothing would be achieved. I feel that he should

20 have distanced himself from such statements if he did

21 not support them, and if he did support them, I don't

22 believe that this is all right.

23 Besides that, I think that he took part in

24 the transfer of Mr. Ratkovic from Foca to Banja Luka

25 because he heard that every time Mr. Vujin or

1 Mr. Livingston tried to interview him, Mr. Tosic was

2 always represented as the Defence counsel of those

3 people who were supposed to be interviewed. We didn't

4 know whether these people would say anything

5 significant or not.

6 This is an organised group who knows exactly

7 what it's doing and who it is protecting in the

8 municipality of Prijedor. I don't believe that they

9 protected me and I don't believe they are protecting

10 the other people who are here. I think that they are

11 exclusively trying to protect people who are free; they

12 are much more important. They are still carrying out

13 important functions in the municipality of Prijedor and

14 other places.

15 MR. KEEGAN: Nothing further, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Keegan.

17 The Appeals Chamber will now suspend until 25 minutes

18 to 12.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 11.17 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 11.41 a.m.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I'd like to begin by

22 taking on myself the responsibility of the delay.

23 There were circumstances beyond my control. I ask your

24 indulgence.

25 Now we would invite Mr. Vujin to examine the

1 witness. Mr. Vujin, I think you recognise, as

2 experienced counsel, that there was general agreement

3 with the position which you took, that the distinction

4 had to be drawn between the two sets of proceedings and

5 that what we are concerned with here is the proof or

6 disproof of five specific and concrete allegations

7 which have been presented in an order which we made.

8 Thank you very much.

9 MR. VUJIN: Thank you, Your Honour. In this

10 part of the proceedings, my legal advisor will take

11 over as Defence counsel, and he will be asking the

12 questions, with all due respect, because in our system,

13 we're used to dealing with direct questions and direct

14 answers.

15 Thank you.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet?

17 MR. DOMAZET: [No interpretation]

18 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Excuse me.

19 MR. DOMAZET: [No interpretation].

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: There's no

21 interpretation.

22 MR. DOMAZET: I should ask in Serbian, Your

23 Honours. Yes, please.

24 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You will speak in

25 Serbian.

1 MR. DOMAZET: Yes.

2 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: I think I can hear you

3 now, Mr. Domazet.

4 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour.

5 Questioned by Mr. Domazet:

6 Q. Mr. Tadic --

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Oh, I see. The

8 translation is coming along now. Yes, please go on.

9 MR. DOMAZET:

10 Q. Mr. Tadic, you have said that you called

11 Mr. Vujin by telephone regarding Radic's statement and

12 you spoke with Radic. Do you remember the time when

13 you made the call and do you remember where Mr. Vujin

14 was at that time? Where did you reach him by

15 telephone?

16 A. I do not recall. I think that he was in his

17 office, but he could have possibly responded on his

18 cell phone. I'm not sure. Sometimes I used his mobile

19 phone in order to get in touch with him and sometimes I

20 would call him at the office.

21 Q. If I understood you properly yesterday,

22 besides Mr. Radic, you also talked with Mr. Kvocka?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Did he also tell you about what he did or

25 what other persons did at the posts that they were

1 occupying?

2 A. They both talked in contacts with all of us.

3 They didn't talk only to me. They talked to all the

4 detainees and the guards. However, Kvocka was pretty

5 restrained as far as these matters were concerned.

6 Radic talked much more about these things.

7 Q. Did you ask Mr. Kvocka to write a statement

8 for you too?

9 A. Yes, I did ask, after talking with

10 Mr. Vujin. There was talk about that. I thought that

11 both of them would provide statements; however, Kvocka

12 refused. He said that he would see what the procedure

13 was and that he needed to consult with his attorneys,

14 something to that effect, and that he was prepared, in

15 any case, to do something about this. He wasn't really

16 precise about who he would consult, whether it would be

17 Vujin or somebody else.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

19 MR. DOMAZET:

20 Q. So both of them did give a statement to

21 Mr. Vujin?

22 A. Yes. It wasn't my idea to give the

23 statements, in principle, to Mr. Vujin -- Mr.

24 Livingston, but this was always one of the

25 difficulties.

1 Q. Why was it your idea to have the statements

2 given to Mr. Livingston and not to the counsel in

3 chief, Mr. Vujin?

4 A. I was dissatisfied with the answers and the

5 questions that were posed to these people, and

6 Mr. Livingston was dissatisfied too.

7 Q. Could you explain why you did not call

8 Mr. Livingston to take the statements from Radic and

9 Kvocka?

10 A. The procedure was that the counsel in chief

11 had to submit a request to the Tribunal, and the

12 consent of the counsel in chief of those people was

13 also required. I think at that time Mr. Guberina was

14 the attorney for Radic, and Mr. Simic was the attorney

15 for Kvocka. These were the people who cooperated

16 closely with Mr. Vujin from before, especially

17 regarding my case.

18 Q. Well, this probably refers to the request for

19 an official statement with the consent of the attorney

20 and the Court, but I assume that you got the statement

21 outside of this procedure?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. But why not with Mr. Livingston? That was my

24 question.

25 A. Well, I don't know what the true reason was.

1 This was a spontaneous matter. I was surprised that

2 these two were speaking so openly about the events in

3 Prijedor. It's true that the two of them later changed

4 their opinion, but this was my first impression.

5 Q. In your statement of November 24th, you

6 mentioned the dissatisfaction of Mr. Wladimiroff and

7 your own dissatisfaction with the fact that Mr. Vujin

8 visited some witnesses who had already been interviewed

9 by Mr. Wladimiroff. Could you please tell us what the

10 names of these witnesses were and what Mr. Vujin

11 questioned these witnesses about in that procedure?

12 A. Well, not only then, but later it became

13 clear -- well, I didn't know what kind of conversations

14 he had with these people, but I know for certain that

15 always before Wladimiroff went out in the field of

16 Republika Srpska, he would visit the same witnesses who

17 were supposed to be interviewed by Mr. Wladimiroff, and

18 he said that was his style of work.

19 The proceedings were almost over, and I saw

20 in a videotape where Mr. Vujin was quarrelling with the

21 interpreter for Mr. Wladimiroff, and he was trying to

22 suggest to a lady what she was supposed to say.

23 Q. In your statement, you said that he had

24 interviewed them after the interviews by

25 Mr. Wladimiroff, and this is how he influenced his

1 strategy?

2 A. Well, he would interview them before and

3 after. After, these were people who acted according to

4 the instructions of Mr. Vujin, and these were the

5 investigators Drazic and Kostic who made a series of

6 statements who had already talked with

7 Mr. Wladimiroff. Then Mr. Orie sent a fax for this

8 practice to stop. I think Mr. Livingston was the one

9 who sent this fax.

10 Q. We're talking about the period when

11 Mr. Wladimiroff was your counsel in chief, and

12 Mr. Livingston at that time was not on your Defence

13 team, so it's impossible that he sent that fax.

14 A. Mr. Livingston did send that fax, and I know

15 about that, but it's true that Mr. Livingston was --

16 Mr. Wladimiroff --

17 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter finds that

18 the pace is too fast.

19 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet and

20 Mr. Tadic, will you both slow down a little for the

21 interpreters? Thank you very much.

22 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour.

23 Q. Could you please tell us now what the names

24 of these witnesses are?

25 A. Yes. I think at that time Mr. Vujin had

1 already talked to Jadranka Gavranovic, that he had

2 contacts with people such as Jankovic, Sigara Danovic.

3 I can't remember all of them at this time, but I know

4 that such contacts existed and I know that my brother

5 had seen them together at that time over there.

6 Q. Were these witnesses also interviewed by

7 Mr. Wladimiroff?

8 A. Yes. Yes, some were and some were not.

9 Q. In your letter of November 24th, you stated

10 that you and Mr. Wladimiroff were expressly

11 dissatisfied and found fault with Mr. Vujin because the

12 list of the witnesses, which you claim in this letter

13 was strictly confidential, was well-known to Simo

14 Drljaca and that you believe that this had taken place

15 through the fault of Mr. Vujin.

16 Do you know who the list of witnesses was

17 sent to by Mr. Wladimiroff?

18 A. It was given to Mr. Vujin to look at and to

19 no one else.

20 Q. Could you look at document or letter 240,

21 238, 239, and 240?

22 This is a fax, sent by Mr. Wladimiroff to

23 Mr. Vujin, requesting that this list of witnesses be

24 presented to attorney Krstan Simic and to your

25 brothers, with proof on the last page that this was

1 done. It was sent to your brothers and to attorney

2 Krstan Simic. It does not state anywhere that this is

3 strictly confidential, which you stated.

4 A. Well, I don't know whether this is the letter

5 that I have here before me, August 29th, 1995.

6 Q. Yes. Yes. So what do you want to say?

7 Well, this is an instruction for this list, which you

8 claim is strictly confidential, be also delivered to

9 attorney Krstan Simic and your brothers.

10 A. This was not the same list of witnesses that

11 I'm talking about, that Mr. Wladimiroff had seen in the

12 hands of Mr. Drljaca. These are the names of the

13 members of my family.

14 Q. No. No.

15 MR. DOMAZET: Could we show the original to

16 the witness?

17 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, is there a

18 copy?

19 MR. DOMAZET: Unfortunately, it seems, Your

20 Honours, that we don't have copies, but we will make

21 copies if this is possible. Some pages are missing.

22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: You proceed.

23 (Trial Chamber confers).

24 MR. DOMAZET: If I may be allowed --

25 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, I am

1 advised by the legal officer that the document

2 appearing at page 240 was accepted by the Appeals

3 Chamber but that two other documents associated with

4 that first document were not accepted, not being in one

5 of the two working languages of the Chamber.

6 MR. VUJIN: Your Honours, if you permit me

7 just to give one explanation. It seems to me that what

8 we were afraid of would happen, there has been a

9 mistake in the fax transmission and there are some

10 pages that are missing, as well as the translation of

11 this text into Serbian. So we request time to prepare

12 this and then we will submit this to the Court in the

13 English language, because this is the list of the

14 witnesses and also the circumstances under which

15 witnesses should testify, with a remark that learned

16 colleague Wladimiroff tried to send by telefax this

17 list to my colleague Mr. Simic and to the brothers. So

18 he asked me to send that. So this is what I did, along

19 with my greetings to Mr. Krstan Simic, to give this fax

20 to the brothers and we will be in touch later.

21 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Vujin, we have this

22 practical problem, that the witness is in the box, is

23 being examined on documents which are not accessible to

24 the Tribunal itself. So we can't follow exactly what

25 is being done. That is a problem. I think you'll

1 appreciate that.

2 MR. VUJIN: You're quite right, Your Honours,

3 and we'll withdraw this question and in further

4 proceedings we shall act --

5 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, will you

6 proceed, please?

7 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honour.

8 A. Let me just say that this is not the document

9 which concerns the document given into the hands of

10 Drljaca.

11 Q. Mr. Tadic, could you expect that your Defence

12 counsel would be able to interview witnesses in

13 Prijedor without the knowledge of the authorities of

14 the Republika Srpska, all the more so as they were

15 foreign lawyers who had come with the intention of

16 doing so?

17 A. I don't know which period you have in mind.

18 Q. The time in Prijedor when you said that

19 Drljaca knew that the witnesses would be questioned,

20 and that this surprised Mr. Wladimiroff, and that this

21 effected co-operation with Mr. Vujin.

22 A. Mr. Wladimiroff, up to that contact with

23 Drljaca, had already interviewed a considerable number

24 of witnesses without anybody's assistance, except the

25 members of my family. Mr. Drljaca and the local

1 authorities did not always have an insight into that.

2 Mr. Wladimiroff really did have problems, but he always

3 personally, via my brothers, was able to come into

4 contact with a number of witnesses who perhaps didn't

5 play an important role at the time.

6 That was precisely the reason and the attempt

7 made by Mr. Wladimiroff. When everybody went back,

8 they were not satisfied with the work of the

9 investigating organs, Kostic and Drazic, and they said,

10 "We'll all go together." This took place prior to the

11 beginning of my Court case, that is to say, in 1996.

12 Q. Could you explain to us why the witness were

13 not invited to testify?

14 A. Which witnesses could you have in mind?

15 Q. The ones you say were not able to be

16 interviewed before the trial.

17 A. A number of key witnesses Mr. Wladimiroff was

18 never able to contact. It was precisely for that

19 reason that he tried by legal means to reach them

20 during his last day in the Republika Srpska. That is

21 why he considered and I considered this was a

22 confidential document with key witnesses that we had

23 agreed upon here.

24 Q. You state in your statement that there was a

25 campaign by the authorities in Prijedor and the

1 Republika Srpska against you. Many of the Defence

2 witnesses who are already on the Tribunal's list

3 decided not to testify, and that for that reason no

4 eyewitnesses testified for the Defence.

5 A. That is one of the reasons, and the campaign

6 that was launched against me concerned the authorities

7 over there who, in a strange way, proclaimed me in

8 public as a deserter. This was found to be sufficient

9 reason to prohibit anybody to co-operate with my

10 defence.

11 There was an ongoing war on the territory of

12 Republika Srpska at the time, and if you were labelled

13 a deserter, that was much worse than it would have been

14 in peacetime.

15 Q. Mr. Tadic, you say that you and

16 Mr. Wladimiroff took offence when you found that some

17 of your witnesses were called to the police station in

18 Prijedor for questioning before they came to testify in

19 The Hague. You found this insulting. Could you

20 explain what this has to do with Mr. Vujin and the

21 notice of appeal that you filed?

22 A. Well, it was a confidential list of witnesses

23 which Mr. Vujin personally gave to Mr. Drljaca for him

24 to take a look at the list and, for example, a

25 protected Witness U or Q, and even Witness W, were

1 called for questioning. Nobody else could have known

2 who those individuals were before looking at the

3 witness list which included their names.

4 Q. Well, we'll go back to that list of witnesses

5 later on. You state, furthermore, that the statements

6 that Mr. Vujin took from the witnesses and prepared

7 were simple and written in a non-professional way, and

8 that the main characteristic of those statements was

9 that no names of other individuals were mentioned and

10 that the statements just said that you were not

11 present.

12 Can you tell us what the witnesses (sic)

13 looked like that Mr. Livingston took from the

14 witnesses? Did they contain the names of these

15 individuals? Did they contain statements whereby these

16 individuals stated that they had done the acts that you

17 had been charged with here?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can you tell us which statements and which

20 witnesses?

21 A. The first statement given by Miroslav Tadic

22 to Mrs. Sajcic states the names of individuals. In

23 practically all the statements by Mrs. Jadranka, when

24 she questioned them exclusively in the presence of

25 Mr. Livingston, without anybody else's presence, all

1 the details are stipulated, the names of the

2 individuals and the positions they held in Omarska.

3 She just did not dare give names referring to the

4 events in Kozarac, because her life would have been

5 endangered had she stated the names of those

6 individuals, and that is why she called for protective

7 measures in disclosing those facts. But Mr. Livingston

8 knows what she told him orally.

9 I could go on to enumerate several other

10 witnesses but I think that is sufficient.

11 Q. Well, we'll have a chance of looking into

12 that. Can you tell us how it came about that

13 Mr. Livingston became one of the Defence counsels in

14 this case?

15 A. Yes, I can. After the first -- after

16 Mr. Vujin had taken over the defence and his promises

17 given to me, I became convinced that some things were

18 not proceeding as they should be proceeding, and I

19 began to doubt everything that he had promised me.

20 Then I made contact with Mr. Livingston, and that is

21 how he came to be part of my Defence team. So

22 Mr. Vujin had no influence on the engagement of

23 Mr. Livingston as my Defence counsel and they did not

24 know each other.

25 Q. Can you tell us who -- I take it did you not

1 know Mr. Livingston yourself. So who advised you to

2 contact Mr. Livingston?

3 A. These are consultations that I had with

4 members of my family, and they presented their views as

5 to their wishes with regard to Mr. Vujin, particularly

6 in a situation whereby Mr. Kostic, who at the time was

7 to have become a member of the team or had already

8 become a member of my team, refused to go into the

9 field to investigate because he was afraid of the

10 people there. When he heard the people he was to

11 co-operate with, he knew that they were very dangerous

12 and didn't dare to go.

13 Q. Mr. Tadic, in your statement with regard to

14 the questioning of the witnesses in Prijedor, you say

15 that Mr. Milan Vujin unexpectedly became engaged in

16 this process, in the questioning of the witnesses.

17 I'll repeat the question. I seem to have

18 been speaking too fast. You state in your statement

19 that Milan Vujin unexpectedly became included in the

20 preparations with regard to the questioning of

21 potential Defence witnesses. What does that mean when

22 you say that your lead counsel unexpectedly became

23 involved in preparations for the questioning of the

24 witnesses when you say that you had precisely engaged

25 him on the case because you needed him to find the

1 witnesses and question them, witnesses that you thought

2 to be of advantage to you?

3 A. His engagement at the beginning, that is to

4 say -- he always said that there were no problems, that

5 I would have the necessary number of witnesses, the

6 concrete persons that I had stipulated, and there was

7 no question of any order at the time from the

8 International Tribunal that this be effected.

9 What you're talking about now is something

10 that occurred later on when it transpired that I, in

11 fact, had no key witnesses for my defence. When I and

12 Mr. Livingston worked on requesting the Tribunal to

13 help us in this regard, and the people that I myself

14 and Mr. Livingston considered to be important and

15 witnesses that could influence the proceedings here.

16 So Mr. Livingston, at the beginning, was against this

17 type of communication. He said that he had this under

18 control.

19 Q. Mr. Tadic, in your statement, you say that

20 you express dissatisfaction with the work of Mr. Vujin

21 with regard to the taking of statements from witnesses

22 in Prijedor, and you did not then, nor did you now,

23 express your dissatisfaction with Mr. Livingston,

24 although you probably know that Mr. Livingston attended

25 the taking of statements from the witnesses. Both were

1 present, Mr. Livingston and Mr. Vujin. Usually it was

2 Mr. Livingston who took those statements. So how do

3 you explain that you are not satisfied with those

4 statements and that you just criticise Mr. Vujin for

5 that and not Mr. Livingston?

6 A. The statements taken by Mr. Livingston alone

7 in his investigation processes are high-quality

8 statements and represent the kind of statements that I

9 expected to be taken. But the ones you are talking

10 about, these were statements taken in the presence of

11 Mr. Vujin exclusively, and in the presence of an

12 important person from the Serbian organs, and the

13 statements taken at the police station in Prijedor.

14 Q. You state that Mr. Livingston was able to

15 travel to other entities within Bosnia-Herzegovina and

16 that he availed himself of those opportunities, and

17 that in doing so he took statements from other

18 witnesses that were not of Serb ethnicity and that that

19 was an advantage.

20 Can you tell us whether he took statements of

21 this kind, whether those statements were beneficial to

22 you? Could you use them and did you use them?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you tell us what witnesses these were?

25 A. Mr. Livingston effected these contacts

1 without any consultation with Mr. Vujin, regardless --

2 that is, he took statements from Hukanovic, for

3 example, in Sanski Most, and I consider that that was a

4 very good statement.

5 He took another statement in Holland from

6 Mr. Hrnic. That too was a very good high-quality

7 statement.

8 He also took a statement from Jadranka

9 Gavranovic.

10 Q. We were talking about the non-Serbs?

11 A. Yes. Some of these people said that they

12 would be willing to make their statements exclusively

13 abroad. For example, they had decided to go to London

14 or some neutral city because witnesses said they would

15 be prepared to give these statements only in these

16 neutral places. One of these was Hilmija. I forget

17 her surname.

18 Q. Were these statements taken?

19 A. A statement was taken from Hukanovic. We had

20 planned to take statements from others. From Hrgic a

21 statement was taken abroad. I can't remember other the

22 others but there are several statements of that kind.

23 Q. Were these statements used in the Tribunal?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. When you say "good statements" or

1 "high-quality statements," what do you have in mind?

2 A. I mean that questions were asked relevant to

3 my defence and vital facts were raised, facts that I

4 wanted to show this Tribunal and that could have had an

5 important influence on the Tribunal.

6 Q. Did these statements say what these

7 individuals had done and state the names of these

8 individuals?

9 A. Some of these people were victims.

10 Q. Regardless of whether they mentioned people

11 and what they did?

12 A. Yes, these statements did contain that.

13 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Vujin questioned

14 witness Danicic at all?

15 A. Yes, he did.

16 Q. Did you see that statement?

17 A. Yes, I did and I tore it up. I tore it up in

18 front of him.

19 Q. And that statement was not used?

20 A. I don't know whether he had a copy and

21 whether he gave anything else to the Tribunal, because

22 as I say, I didn't have any insight in what he did

23 convey to the Tribunal, but I was angry because it had

24 tipped the bucket. It was just too much. In addition

25 to all the evidence that was in existence, he worked as

1 he had always worked previously.

2 Q. Do you know whether Milorad Tadic, nicknamed

3 Brka was questioned?

4 A. Yes, by Mr. Livingston on several occasions.

5 That was an individual who gave very valuable data

6 related to everything that took place in the region.

7 Q. You mean in that statement?

8 A. Some of those facts were in the statement,

9 others he gave personally. That is something that

10 facilitated the investigation led by Mr. Livingston.

11 So there were some facts given orally which he did not

12 dare give in writing because he feared for his life,

13 and particularly because Mr. Vujin had insight into

14 some of the statements. So Mr. Milorad himself stated

15 that Mr. Vujin was working contrary to my interests. I

16 was not sure of that at that time.

17 Q. Mr. Tadic, did Mr. Tadic (sic) take a

18 statement from witness Saponja?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Has that statement been tendered?

21 A. I don't know.

22 Q. Do you remember its contents?

23 A. I don't know which version was submitted.

24 There were two versions.

25 Q. What do you mean when you say there were two

1 versions? There were two statements?

2 A. Well, that's the problem and that's what I

3 mentioned a moment ago. Mr. Vujin took one statement

4 which he showed here to the Tribunal in The Hague, and

5 in the same way, once again the questions were not

6 asked relating to the facts vital to my defence, and I

7 expressed my open dissatisfaction. He said there were

8 no problems. He said he would take the statement again

9 from that particular individual.

10 Later on he showed me the second statement,

11 and it contained practically the same things that the

12 first statement contained. It was a little expanded,

13 but what was the strangest thing was the date was the

14 same, and the first two pages were the same, and it was

15 only the last page that was slightly different. So I

16 was no longer certain whether actually two statements

17 had been given.

18 Q. Do you remember the contents of the

19 statement, something that would be important, in your

20 mind?

21 A. Yes. I remember that there was one stupid

22 thing more said relating to the events over there. I

23 remember well that he described that he was passing

24 through the hangar by chance. He was going to get a

25 part for a car or some machine, and then in passing he

1 saw that people were fighting.

2 Q. Did he say that he himself had done something

3 that was not permitted in Omarska?

4 A. He said something that is well-known, but he

5 did not say the real truth.

6 Q. How do you know that that was not the real

7 truth?

8 A. Because Mr. Livingston, in his investigation,

9 came out with such facts which indicate for certain

10 that that man is lying.

11 Q. Do you have that information?

12 A. Well, you can ask that of Mr. Livingston.

13 Q. Mr. Tadic, did you sign a letter sent to

14 Mrs. Bilana Plavsic, which was published in Novasti

15 dated May 14th, 1998, as one of the seven

16 detainees in The Hague, and you were the first, number

17 one on the list? This is document 507.

18 A. Yes, I did.

19 Q. All right. Did you send a letter to

20 Mr. Vujin dated March 5th, 1998? That's Exhibit number

21 507. Can you tell us something about that letter?

22 A. As far as the letter to Mrs. Plavsic is

23 concerned --

24 Q. No. No, I just asked you whether you had

25 signed that letter. Now we're moving on to this other

1 letter.

2 A. Well, if you permit me, I would like to say

3 something about this other letter.

4 Q. Well, there's no need. I just mentioned it.

5 A. Well, may I ask if this is an exhibit? If

6 I'm not allowed to refer to it, to say anything about

7 it, I would ask the Court's permission to state

8 something because the information presented by

9 Mr. Vujin's Defence is incorrect regarding this

10 letter. I received the information about this before,

11 and I believe that I can comment on this.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Tadic, I think we

13 shall make progress if you attended to the questions

14 asked of you by learned counsel and limit your answers

15 to the questions which he asks.

16 A. Very well.

17 MR. ABELL: Your Honour, can I say something

18 on that very briefly? I quite appreciate that

19 obviously in cross-examination one is asked questions

20 and one makes answers to those questions. In this

21 case, of course, I don't have a right of

22 re-examination. He has been referred to a document

23 merely to ask "Did you sign it, yes or no," and then

24 swiftly the question moved on. I don't anticipate that

25 his answer is going to be very long, but otherwise the

1 matter is left in the air and will never be cleared

2 up.

3 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Thank you, Mr. Abell.

4 What is clear to the Tribunal is his answer whether he

5 signed or didn't sign the document.

6 MR. ABELL: Yes.

7 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Please proceed,

8 Mr. Domazet.

9 MR. DOMAZET: Yes. Thank you, Your Honour.

10 Q. My next question was about Mr. Tadic's letter

11 to Mr. Vujin dated March 5th, 1998, and that's number

12 257 in the documents. Could the witness say whether he

13 sent this letter and the reasons for sending it?

14 A. Yes, I have that letter.

15 Q. Mr. Tadic, could you explain why you wrote

16 that letter at that time and why you sent it to

17 Mr. Vujin?

18 A. This letter was accompanied by a series of

19 documents, as you can see, "from sources." That source

20 was Mr. Delalic who was on trial for the Celebici case,

21 and he asked me to send this to the counsel because he

22 felt that this was important.

23 Q. Thank you. You mentioned the Celebici case.

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did you get some information connected with

1 that which you sent to Mr. Vujin in order to prove that

2 there was no international armed conflict in Bosnia and

3 Herzegovina?

4 A. Yes, this is what was of interest to

5 Mr. Vujin above everything else, and he thought that I

6 should send that. Mr. Delalic gave that to me and I

7 sent that.

8 Q. Did you know that the responsibility of the

9 accused in the proceedings depended on the nature, on

10 the definition of the conflict?

11 A. Well, I wasn't sure whether this was relevant

12 to my case. It was relevant, in my estimate, to the

13 responsible persons that were awaiting trial in front

14 of this Court or could be accused and also for the

15 proceedings against Yugoslavia initiated by Bosnia and

16 Herzegovina.

17 Q. Mr. Tadic, did you give instructions to

18 Mr. Vujin on what circumstances he was to question

19 witnesses Bozan Grahovac, Zigic, Stoja Coprka, Milos

20 Preradovic, Vlado Krckovski, and some others?

21 A. What kind of instructions do you mean?

22 Q. What circumstances the witnesses would be

23 questioned about.

24 A. Well, I expressed my opinion regarding the

25 information that I received from other attorneys or

1 members of my family who had found something out

2 regarding these people, so that I just basically

3 expressed what I had found out which could be used in

4 the questioning of these people. I could not directly

5 influence the questions that he would put to these

6 persons.

7 MR. DOMAZET: Could the witness look at

8 document 266 and tell us whether this was a document in

9 question?

10 Q. Is this your instruction?

11 A. I think this is incomplete, since it starts

12 from number 30 and ends at number 32. It is my

13 handwriting, however, but this is not any kind of

14 instruction. I just said it was just information.

15 Q. Thank you. Do you recall the instructions

16 that you gave Mr. Vujin before the Court when there was

17 a conflict between you and Mr. Wladimiroff and you

18 ended your cooperation with Mr. Wladimiroff?

19 A. Yes. Well, this was not any kind of

20 conflict, first of all.

21 Q. Could you look at document 551 and if you

22 would kindly read it?

23 A. I have the English version in front of me. I

24 don't know ...

25 Q. Could you please read it? It's very brief,

1 if I remember right.

2 A. Yes. Mr. Vujin needed a reason to explain in

3 public why he had become part of the team again, and he

4 told me to write down this text and then I wrote this:

5 "... emphasised that between me and Wladimiroff there

6 has been a conflict because he didn't want to defend me

7 on count 1," and this was told to me only after the

8 trial. So a few days after the verdict, we cut off our

9 cooperation, and I think Mr. Vujin needed a public

10 reason to explain why he joined the Defence again, but

11 this was not the true reason.

12 Q. Did you ask Mr. Vujin to interview Mr. Kos as

13 a witness, and who was supposed to conduct this

14 interview?

15 A. I don't know. I don't think that I asked

16 that, taught by my experience regarding the questioning

17 of Mr. Radic and Mr. Kvocka, where I expected Mr. Vujin

18 to take expanded statements from these people on April

19 18th regarding really important things because these

20 people were holding important posts. I don't think

21 that I asked him to take a statement from Kos. I think

22 that I asked that exclusively Mr. Livingston do this,

23 and Vujin had to respect the full procedure to get the

24 consent.

25 Q. Did Mr. Vujin do this?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Did Mr. Livingston question or interview the

3 witness?

4 A. No. He arrived at The Hague, but the witness

5 and his counsel refused.

6 MR. DOMAZET: Your Honours, my last question.

7 Q. In the statement of November 24th, Mr. Tadic,

8 you say that there had been a conflict between you and

9 Mr. Vujin because of submissions about whose contents

10 you had not been informed and that, as you state here,

11 you urged Mr. Vujin in a letter to respect the basic

12 codes of behaviour and that Mr. Vujin angrily and

13 threateningly responded that he was going to leave your

14 case.

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Does this refer to the response of Mr. Vujin

17 to the Prosecution's appeal?

18 A. The worst thing was that I was not sure what

19 kind of a submission this was about. I got information

20 from representatives of the Registry who were surprised

21 why this submission was tendered before the deadline.

22 Mr. Vujin found out about this by accident, and he

23 asked me why this was submitted. I didn't know why

24 this was submitted, and I asked Mr. Vujin to withdraw

25 this.

1 Q. Did Mr. Vujin agree to withdraw the

2 submission?

3 A. No, he refused.

4 Q. Did he respond that he did not want to

5 withdraw one single word and that if you were not

6 satisfied, you could withdraw your power of attorney?

7 A. Well, yes, there was such an answer, and it

8 was very clear.

9 Q. Why did you not at that time withdraw your

10 power of attorney from Mr. Vujin?

11 A. Well, that was ridiculous for me to change

12 attorneys in that period.

13 Q. So in that period after the appeal, why did

14 you think that was ridiculous?

15 A. Because it was a kind of blackmail. It was

16 presented as a kind of blackmail. I was supposed to be

17 left hanging in the air.

18 Q. But after that, you did withdraw the power of

19 attorney?

20 A. Yes, once I had ascertained the correctness

21 of the information that I had been receiving for years,

22 that Mr. Vujin had been tampering with witnesses,

23 especially (redacted).

24 MR. DOMAZET: Thank you, Your Honours. I

25 have no further questions.

1 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Domazet, if you had

2 not told us differently, we would not have had any

3 reason to believe that you had had no previous exposure

4 to the adversarial system. Professionally, I would

5 like to congratulate you.

6 Are there any questions?

7 Yes. The witness is excused.

8 THE WITNESS: I thank you.

9 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: The witness is an

10 interested party, Mr. Abell --

11 MR. ABELL: Yes.

12 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: -- and the officers of

13 the Court will make arrangements for the witness to be

14 accommodated within this room. Was that your point?

15 MR. ABELL: That was precisely my point.

16 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: He's an interested

17 party.

18 MR. ABELL: I am very grateful. I was going

19 to remind Your Honours of the order.

20 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Now we have another

21 witness who is a protected witness.

22 Mr. Registrar, will it take you much time to

23 make the arrangements? We will go into closed

24 session.

25 THE REGISTRAR: We would have to go into

1 closed session, yes.

2 (Closed session)

3 (The witness entered court)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 233 redacted – in closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 234 redacted – in closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 235 redacted – in closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.53 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 2.52 p.m.

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Pages 237 to 318 redacted – in closed session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

21 at 5.22 p.m., to be reconvened on

22 Wednesday, the 28th day of April, 1999,

23 at 9:30 a.m.

24

25