[balkanhr] IWPR's TRIBUNAL UPDATE, NO. 162 for nyteeu@ursula; Fri, 11 Feb 2000 22:41:46 -0500 Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit source - Greek Helsinki Monitor Tribunal Update 162 These weekly reports, produced since 1995, detail events and issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, providing an independent and comprehensive account of the war crimes process. The trials continue . . . Tribunal Update is written by IWPR senior editor Mirko Klarin, the leading correspondent covering The Hague court, and Vjera Bogati. TRIBUNAL UPDATE 162 Last Week in The Hague (January 31-February 5, 2000) * Tadic defence lawyer, Milan Vujin, convicted of contempt of court. * Kordic & Cerkez Trial: Evidence Points To Kordic's Military Role. * Mothers of Srebrenica name and shame senior UN officials over massacre. * Montenegro to co-operate with the Tribunal. TADIC DEFENCE LAWYER, MILAN VUJIN, CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT Milan Vujin, defence counsel for Dusan Tadic between September 1997 and April 1998, was convicted of contempt of court on Monday (January 31). Vujin, a lawyer from Belgrade, had been assigned by Tadic to act as his counsel during his appeal against the judgement issued against him on May 7, 1997 and the subsequent sentence handed down on July 14, 1997. The ICTY paid Vujin's fees. Concluding that Vujin's conduct "strikes at very heart of the criminal justice", the Appeals Chamber ordered him to pay a fine of 15,000 Dutch guilders (around 6,800 US dollars) to the Registry of the Tribunal. The Chamber's decision was unanimous. Allegations that Vujin was acting against the best interest of his client were first brought to the attention of the Appeals Chamber in late 1998 by Tadic's new defence counsels, William Clegg and John Livingston (see Tribunal Update No. 110). On February 10, 1999 the appeals chamber issued a scheduling order calling on Vujin to answer charges that he had knowingly and willfully intended to interfere with the administration of justice in the Tadic case. The ensuing contempt hearing lasted from March to November 1999 and a total of 12 witnesses were summoned by the Appeals Chamber to testify, including Tadic (see Tribunal Update No. 123) and his assigned counsel during the trial, Dutch lawyer Michail Wladimiroff (see Tribunal Update No. 142). Milan Vujin called a total of eight defence witnesses and testified himself at the close of his case. Much of the evidence was heard in closed session to protect certain witnesses who feared retaliation against themselves or their families. The Appeals Chamber concluded that in two instances Vujin had tried to plant evidence he knew to be false and in addition had manipulated the content of witness testimony. The false evidence Vujin was convicted of planting concerned statements presented as additional evidence to the Tadic appeal hearing. Among those materials were two statements from Mladjo Radic, who is named on a separate ("Omarska") indictment. The first statement, Vujin claimed, had been made to him in person shortly before Radic was arrested by SFOR. The second statement confirmed the first. It was established to the satisfaction of the Appeals Chamber, however, that Radic made the first statement while in the UN detention unit and that Vujin was not present at the time. The Appeals Chamber was also satisfied that Vujin knew the true circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement and he had put forward a case in relation to that statement that he knew to be false in material respects. Furthermore in his submission of additional evidence, Vujin had emphasised that one defence witnesses at trial had testified that one Goran Borovnica (now thought to be dead) had killed two police officers and not Tadic. The Appeals Chamber was satisfied that Vujin was aware that this witness had repudiated his story as to the person responsible for these killings and that, in connection with the Tadic appeal proceedings, that witness now asserted that the killer was a different person. Vujin was found again to have "put forward a case in relation to the statement of that witness that he knew to be false in material respects." Although it was established that Vujin had paid one witness 100 German marks (equivalent to a month's wages) the Appeals Chamber ruled unproven allegations that Vujin was bribing a witness to lie or withhold evidence. The chamber also ruled as proven charges that Vujin had manipulated witnesses by seeking to prevent the naming of certain individuals in statements and testimony. But allegations that he had instructed witnesses on how to answer questions via head signals were dismissed. Milovan Brkic, a somewhat controversial journalist from Belgrade, had levelled the most serious accusations against Vujin during the hearing. Brkic claimed Vujin and other lawyers from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), assigned to defend Serbs before the Tribunal, were selected by the Yugoslav secret service. These lawyers, he claimed, were placed at The Hague to influence ICTY proceedings, intimidate indictees and even to incite them to commit suicide (see Tribunal Update No. 141). In an article published some four years ago, Brkic had named Vujin as one of the lawyers working on behalf of "the regime". Brkic claimed these lawyers worked to ensure that persons accused before the Tribunal - regardless of the needs of their own defence - did not expose persons connected to the Yugoslav leadership to any risk of prosecution. During his testimony at the Vujin hearing, however, Brkic made clear he had no independent knowledge of such conduct on the part of Vujin. He said that he had obtained his information from persons within the Yugoslav state security service. He claimed these sources had shown him documents in proof of the allegations. His main source, he said, occupied a "senior position". Brkic said he trusted this person and that information he had previously obtained from this source had turned out to be true. Although Brkic claimed in his statement to have "concrete proof" that Vujin had undermined Tadic's defence, he told the court that since writing the statement circumstances had changed and that, if he were now to reveal the sources of his information, he would be "signing their death warrants." Vujin's defence counsel seriously challenged Brkic's credibility and presented a long examination of the complex litigation involving Brkic and his newspaper, including a case brought by Vujin. The Appeals Chamber, however, dismissed the need to consider the issues raised by Vujin's defence counsel, ruling that Brkic's testimony amounted to "hearsay upon hearsay". The very existence of Brkic's source was in question and his refusal to disclose the identity of the source, for whatever reason, meant the court had to rely entirely on Brkic's word in accepting his allegations. The court did, however, rule that "other evidence in the present case...would prevent those allegations by Brkic being completely disregarded as having no weight at all." But the judges concluded that "such is the seriousness of the allegations now being investigated that the Appeals Chamber is not prepared to take evidence of such little weight into account in this case." The maximum penalty prescribed at the time when Vujin committed the offence was a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months and/or a fine of 20,000 Dutch guilders. The maximum sentences for contempt have since been increased to seven years imprisonment and/or a fine of 200,000 Dutch guilders. The chamber ruled in this case - to the obvious disappointment of Dusan Tadic - that a custodial sentence "would not be appropriate." Instead the chamber opted to impose a "substantial" fine of 15,000 Dutch guilders. In addition the Tribunal Registrar was instructed to consider striking Vujin's name from the list of assigned counsel at the Tribunal and to report his serious professional misconduct to the professional body to which he belongs (The Lawyers' Bar of Serbia). Incidentally Vujin was president of the Serbian bar until recently. Vujin can appeal the sentence, even though it is not clear at this point at which level any such appeal would be heard. Now that Vujin stands convicted of having worked against the best interests of his client, Dusan Tadic's defence team could request a review of the sentence meted out to him. Tadic's request for a review could refer to the judgement with which the Appeals Chamber reduced his sentence from 25 to 20 years, last month. KORDIC AND CERKEZ TRIAL: EVIDENCE POINTS TO KORDIC'S MILITARY ROLE Last week the prosecutor in the case against Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez -- accused of crimes committed by the (Bosnian) Croatian Defence Council (HVO) forces against the Muslim population of Central Bosnia between 1992 and 1994 -- introduced new evidence pointing to the military role of the first co-accused, Kordic. Following on from testimonies relating to Kordic's influential political position, the prosecutor presented evidence that Kordic also secured a formal military position in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) at the end of 1993. Sir Martin Garrod, head of the ECMM (European Community Monitoring Mission) regional office in Zenica from October 1993 to April 1994, said to the court, "an HVO liaison officer told me that Kordic had a new function. He became assistant Chief of staff, which made him the third person in the HVO military hierarchy." Garrod testified that in late 1993 changes in the hierarchy of HRHB ("Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosna") were underway, but "Kordic's position remained very strong and he still had great power and influence." Kordic's defence counsel did not deny his client obtained a formal military role, but suggested that his new role as an assistant chief of staff could have been of civil and not military nature. The defence has insisted throughout that Kordic was purely a civil official and has directed responsibility for the crimes committed by the army to the military hierarchy, particularly to the HVO commander in Central Bosnia, Tihomir Blaskic. The prosecution has contested, however, that the existence of military structures diminishes Kordic's responsibility for the HVO activities. Garrod said that even at the meetings where Blaskic was present, "Kordic was leading." He added, "The HVO Operative zones existed but with a close political control throughout...The military is a support to and answers to politicians." Garrod quoted the head of the Mostar's HDZ, who on hearing the indictment for the crimes in the Lasva river valley in 1995, said: "You've got to remember that Kordic was our Churchill!" The court also heard a tape recording of an intercepted telephone conversation between Kordic and Blaskic, presented by witness Edin Husic. Husic testified that the "intentions [of Bosnian Croat leaders] can be seen, but it can also be seen who ordered whom" from that conversation, intercepted by a telecommunications worker in Zenica on 24 January 1993. As a former intelligence officer with the 3rd corps of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Husic said he handed the tape over to his superiors who in turn passed it on to the prosecutor. Although of poor technical quality, the court heard one of the two men say, "Let's have a multiple rocket launcher ready for [the village of] Kacuni!" and "Let's burn everything!" The prosecutor said the conversation was "utterly revealing" as to the nature of Kordic's relationship to Blaskic. Kordic's defence team argued that given the interception and recording was made without prior receipt of a court order, the action was illegal and therefore the recordings were inadmissible as evidence before the Tribunal. Furthermore, the defence suggested the tape could have been tampered with while in the hands of Husic's superiors in Sarajevo prior to its handover to the prosecutor's office in The Hague. The judges concluded that the method of interception did not cast doubt on the tape's reliability and admissibility. The judges did, however, exclude a section of the recording, which did not appear on a second copy of made available to the Tribunal by Husic. Given there was no substantial challenge to the fact that the recorded voice belongs to Kordic, the evidence was admitted. The judges now have to "determine what weight to place upon this evidence", said presiding judge Richard May. Mirsad Ahmic, a former member of the Army of B-H and the Territorial Defence, testified in the case against Mario Cerkez, former commander of the Vitez Brigade of the HVO. Ahmic, from Vitez, testified that the HVO attack on the town began on April 16 with the shelling of the Bosnian part of Vitez. Over subsequent days, the HVO military police detained Bosniak men in the SDK (financial control) building in Vitez. From there, the detainees were taken to dig trenches along the HVO defence lines. Ahmic said, that up to June of that year, almost all Bosniaks in Vitez, including his own family, were gradually leaving the town under duress. Ahmic said he did not personally know Mario Cerkez, but that he believed he was a senior figure in Vitez. Under cross-examination by Cerkez's defence counsel, Ahmic confirmed that the Muslim civilians were not physically abused while under detention in the SDK building and that they were escorted to their detention and to dig trenches by the military police officers, and not by regular HVO forces. MOTHERS OF SREBRENICA NAME AND SHAME SENIOR UN OFFICIALS OVER MASSACRE. On Friday (February 4) "The Mothers of Srebrenica and the Podrinja Association" filed a criminal complaint with the ICTY Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, against senior United Nations officials and others "for the role they played in the fall and genocidal massacre at Srebrenica" in July 1995. Among those named were former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, under-secretary for peacekeeping in Bosnia and current UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, UN Special Representative in Bosnia at the time, Yasushi Akashi, UNProFor commander, General Bernard Janvier, fellow senior UNProFor officers, General Rupert Smith and Herv Gobilliard, Dutch Minister of Defence, Joris Voorhoeve, senior Dutch officer in Bosnia, Brigadier General Kees Nicolai, Dutch Battalion commander in Srebrenica, Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas Karremans, and peace negotiators, Thorvald Stoltenberg, Carl Bildt and David Owen. Also named as their subordinates" were Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic. "We're here to say that these men, these UN officials, maybe they did not actually kill the people of Srebrenica themselves but without their behaviour, Srebrenica would never have happened," Professor Francis Boyle, lawyer for the Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinja, told reporters. The complaint accuses those named of offences under articles 2 to 5 of the ICTY statute - grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, violations of the laws and customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity. The complaint, Boyle said, "establishes a sufficient basis to proceed toward the investigation and indictment of the above-named United Nations officials and their subordinates by the Prosecutor." Boyle said Del Ponte had promised to study the complaint and visit Bosnia at the invitation of the group. MONTENEGRO TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE TRIBUNAL "Montenegro will co-operate with the Tribunal regardless of Belgrade's official stand," Montenegrin Prime Minister Filip Vujanovic announced on Friday following a meeting with Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte. The meeting was held at the request of the Vujanovic, who arrived at The Hague direct from an official visit to Washington D.C. Del Ponte has requested help from the Montenegrin authorities to get in touch with Serbian victims investigators wish to interview. "I am certain that the Montenegrin authorities will do everything they can to enable us to contact or even to interview those witnesses in their country," Del Ponte said. Del Ponte said that so far the OTP has had no way of contacting and interviewing victims and witnesses of crimes committed against the Serbs in Kosovo because they are mainly on the territory of Serbia where the Hague investigators have no access. However, the OTP are conducting other investigations into crimes against Serbs, Del Ponte said, in which enhanced co-operation from Podgorica would, hopefully, be of help. The OTP is hoping to open a liaison office in Montenegro within the framework of that co-operation. Vujanovic said, "Montenegro is determined to help the Tribunal to discover and punish all war criminals, for the benefit of the people, to remove the burden of collective responsibility by punishing the criminals within its ranks." Vujanovic said Montenegro is ready to "extradite all those suspected of war crimes, whose arrest would not lead to an internal conflict in Montenegro and numerous victims." He added that, "I think it is clear why we have such a stand and that it is not in the interest of the international community to cause conflicts or loss of human lives over certain arrests." Copyright (c) 2000 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting. The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) is a London-based independent non-profit organisation supporting regional media and democratic change. Lancaster House, 33 Islington High Street, London N1 9LH, United Kingdom Tel: (44 171) 713 7130 Fax: (44 171) 713 7140 E-mail info@iwpr.net Website: www.iwpr.net ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= nyteeu-02.11.00-22:41:38-1985