¹

Friday, 4 May 2001

[Sentence hearing]

(Open session)

[The accused entered court]

--- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Will the Registrar call the case, please.

THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-9/1-S, the Prosecutor versus Stevan Todorovic.

JUDGE ROBINSON: May we have the appearances.

MS. PATERSON: Yes, Your Honour. Nancy Paterson, representing the Office of the Prosecutor. With me today is Gramsci Di Fazio. Mr. Di Fazio will be taking over responsibility for this case when I leave the Tribunal next week. Aisling Reidy is also an attorney working on this case, and Diane Boles is the case manager.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Paterson.

MR. BRASHICH: Good morning, Your Honour. Deyan Brashich for the Todorovic Defence. I am joined by Mr. Nikola Kostich of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, bar, and also I am joined by Mr. Zivan Blagojevic of the Bosanski Samac bar. Good morning, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Brashich. This is a hearing for the sentence of the accused Stevan Todorovic. It arises out of the accused's plea of guilty on the 13th of December, 2000, which itself derives from an agreement between the Prosecution and the accused whereby he pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment, charging persecution on the basis that that count encompasses ² all the crimes charged in the remaining counts.

I should say that the Chamber has received and has read the briefs from both the Prosecution and the Defence. Included in the Defence brief is a synopsis of 15 witness statements. The Defence is also relying on ten statements by family members and friends as to the character of the accused.

The Prosecution has filed a motion seeking to cross-examine the Defence witnesses with a view to rebutting the evidence to be presented by some of what it calls the factual witnesses of the Defence. The Defence has responded with a motion that the Prosecution be precluded from calling this witness or, alternatively, that it be granted seven days to rebut the evidence to be presented by the Prosecution witness.

The Chamber has considered carefully these motions and their accompanying submissions. This is a sentencing hearing. As such, the evidence must be relevant to sentencing issues, including in particular to the character of the accused. However, the guilty plea was based on an agreement between the Prosecution and the Defence and an important element of this agreement was an agreement as to the facts.

The Chamber's acceptance of the guilty plea was obviously informed by this agreement. It would be wrong, therefore, for the Chamber to allow evidence in the sentence proceedings which in any way puts in issue the agreed facts, even if the evidence is relevant in that it goes to the character of the accused.

In the light of those criteria, that the evidence must be relevant to the sentence proceedings, in particular, to the character of the ³ accused, and that the evidence must not in any way put in issue the agreement between the parties as to the facts; in the light of those criteria, the Chamber makes the following determination as to the evidence which it will hear in these proceedings, and those who wish to follow me may turn to the witness statements set out at the back of the Defence brief. It's page 1 of the witness statements.

The first statement is from the president of the circuit court of Doboj in Republika Srpska, and that will be admitted with no cross-examination.

The second is from the commander of the centre for public safety of the Minister for Internal Affairs. That will be admitted with no cross-examination.

The third is from the president of the criminal court of the Bosanski Samac county. Although, Mr. Brashich, I think you have some words omitted here.

MR. BRASHICH: I believe so. I keep forgetting, Your Honour. I believe so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Because we are not interested in whether he has been charged or convicted, but I think we understand what is intended. The fourth is from the director of the Zenit corporation, and that will be admitted too without cross-examination.

And the fifth from the Nova Forma corporation, that too will be admitted without cross-examination.

Those five statements deal with the criminal record of the accused and his employment possibilities after release, so those will be admitted ⁴ without cross-examination.

We turn next to the statement number 6, Mr. Cedomir Borojevic. He is a Serb national, and he is a person whom the Defence is seeking to call as a witness, and he will say that Mr. Todorovic effected the release of a Muslim in 1992. The Chamber will admit that with no cross-examination. Number 7, Ms. Lepa Djuric, she is a Serb. The Defence is not seeking to call her as a witness but, as I understand it, will in any event rely on her statement. She's an employee at or was an employee at the police station where the accused worked in Bosanski Samac, and she speaks as to his kindness to his employees in the first period of the conflict. This will be admitted without cross-examination. Statement number 8, Mr. Marko Prgomet, whom the Defence is seeking to call as a witness, he is a Croatian who on one occasion was beaten by soldiers at the Samac police station, and when he was later confronted by the same soldiers, Mr. Todorovic came to his rescue saying, "Nobody is allowed to beat you," and chased the soldiers away. We will not admit this statement because the beatings of the accused is one of the charges in the indictment and also part of the agreed facts.

Statement number 9, Ms. Svetlana Bosic, whom the Defence is not seeking to call as a witness, she's a Serb -- or he, rather -- she, she is a Serb and will say how the accused helped a Bosniak couple and provided safe passage for them after their house had been shelled and their son killed. We will admit this without cross-examination. Statement number 10, Ms. Velinka Alatovic, whom the Defence is not seeking to call but on whose statement they will rely, she's a Serb. ⁵ Again, she worked at the Bosanski Samac police station where the accused was employed, and she speaks of his good character and of his virtues as an employer. We will admit this without cross-examination. Statement number 11, Ms. Gordana Ninkovic, she's a Serb. Again, she worked at Mr. Todorovic's police station in Bosanski Samac. She found him decent, understanding, and humane. However, her view that he treated everyone with respect and equally puts in issue what is the essential basis for the agreed facts; that is, the charge of persecution whose main feature is discriminatory practices, so this statement will not be admitted.

Statement number 12, Mr. Bijeljic, whom the Defence is seeking to call, he's a Serb, knew the accused Todorovic from childhood. They were neighbours, and during the war, the accused helped his sick father, and he knew that the accused had a good reputation in his village. We'll admit this statement without cross-examination.

Number 13, Mr. Milan Petrovic, whom the Prosecution -- whom the Defence is seeking to call as a witness, he's a Serb. He worked as Todorovic's driver and Todorovic helped his family in particular in securing medication for his sick father. However, he also speaks about the accused's lack of control over the army units in Samac. We will not admit this statement because the question of the accused's responsibility and control is one of the issues covered in the agreement facts. Statement number 14, Ms. Jasna Marosevic, whom the Prosecution [sic] is seeking to call, she's Croatian, and she would say how the accused helped her father. But we will not admit this statement because ⁶ of her reference in it to a notice that she saw when she visited her father at the detention centre. That notice was signed by the accused and stated that unauthorised personnel could not enter the detention centre and beat inmates. Again, as beatings by the accused is covered by the agreed facts, this statement will not be admitted.

Number 15, Mr. Ostoja Minic, whom the Defence is not seeking to call but on whose statement they will rely, he was a Serb. He was a police inspector in Tuzla and also in Republika Srpska. He will say how the accused, at his request, helped a Croat police officer who had been detained and how the accused cooperated in the arrest of two leaders of a Serbian group responsible for a number of crimes in the Samac area. These events do not go to the issues covered by the agreed facts, and we will admit this statement without cross-examination.

I turn next to the statements under the heading "Personal and Family Statements."

Jovanka Todorovic, a sister of the accused, and Mara Todorovic -- I pause here just to get a clarification from Mr. Brashich. As I understand it, the intention is to call his mother, Mara.

MR. BRASHICH: That is correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But there is a reference, I think, to Dijana.

MR. BRASHICH: That is the younger sister, Mr. Todorovic's younger sister.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We will allow the sister Jovanka and the mother, Mara, to testify.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour. ⁷

JUDGE ROBINSON: And the statements of other family members and friends will be admitted without cross-examination.

I turn next to the psychiatric evidence. We will allow the psychiatrist, Dr. Lecic-Tosevski, to testify.

Now, as to the motions to call witnesses as to certain facts, the evidence from the proposed Prosecution witness would clearly collide with the agreed facts. Its purpose is to rebut some of the statements as to facts that the Defence was seeking to adduce. However, the Chamber has disallowed all those statements from Defence witnesses that would in any way put in issue the agreed facts. Accordingly, that motion is dismissed and so too is the responsive motion of the Defence.

Mr. Brashich, I was going to say that we will -- the procedure we will follow is that we will now hear the witnesses. If this was not clear, the Prosecution would be allowed, will be allowed, to cross-examine these three witnesses.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I think the Defence has to regroup. I had anticipated --

JUDGE ROBINSON: It is the language of battle, Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: I did not mean that way. Perhaps it is combat, Your Honour.

We do need to regroup. Mr. Kostich and I had anticipated one portion of Your Honours' ruling. I must admit that we did not anticipate the majority of your ruling and we were prepared to go forward with a number of live witnesses.

For clarification's sake, if we just would take the witness ⁸ number 8, Mr. Marko Prgomet. Your Honours' ruling was that since it brought in issue certain of the facts that we agreed on with the Prosecution, you would not allow the statement to be entered into evidence.

For clarification's sake, we had and have ready to testify Mr. Prgomet. Am I to understand that the ruling by the Chamber would also include his oral testimony which had been synopsised in this particular --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. BRASHICH: I think, Your Honour, we need -- Mr. Kostich and I need about five minutes, because we had seven witnesses prepared to go, with the last witness being the psychiatric expert. We're going to have to scrap these plans and go forward with the two witnesses that the Court has allowed us. So I would beg leave at this present point, if we could --

JUDGE ROBINSON: We can give you ten minutes.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson, yes.

MS. PATERSON: Yes, just briefly, Your Honour, I would also take this opportunity to remind Mr. Brashich that we had a discussion yesterday concerning witness number 15, and I believe there was an agreement on the part between us that some of the information provided in that statement would be clarified by the Defence. I think that should --

MR. BRASHICH: That is correct.

MS. PATERSON: -- be brought to the Court's attention.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you for reminding me. As I said -- ⁹

JUDGE ROBINSON: That is a witness they are not seeking to call but on whose statement they will rely.

MS. PATERSON: But what you have agreed to admit.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes. And there is to be a clarification?

MS. PATERSON: That is correct.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, fine.

MR. BRASHICH: As I said, I'm taking that back, so I'm regrouping, so you are correct.

Your Honour, there is reference in the witness's statement, and that is Ostoja Minic, that on one particular occasion he appeared at the Bosanski Samac police station and met a person by the name of Lukac. Any reference to that meeting with Mr. Lukac at the police station in 1992, it is agreed by Ms. Paterson and myself, it is to be deleted from his statement, and with respect, we would request that you do not consider that in any way.

Am I correct, Ms. Paterson?

JUDGE ROBINSON: What is to be deleted? Let me get it clear. Is --

MR. BRASHICH: Any reference that Mr. Ostoja Minic met Mr. Lukac, Dragan, at the police station in April of 1992.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, very well. Well, we'll take -- do you have another point?

MS. PATERSON: Just one other point, Your Honour. We do have a joint stipulation that we'd like to submit. I don't know if you want me to do that now or at another time; it's up to Your Honour. ¹⁰ And I just wanted to clarify, the three witnesses that you are going to allow to testify, we will be permitted to cross-examine all three of them?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. I said so, yes, yes, yes. Yes, we'll hear the joint submission.

MS. PATERSON: I'll just read it into the record and hand it up to the clerk. It's entitled "Joint Stipulation."

It is stipulated between the Office of the Prosecutor and Defence counsel for Stevan Todorovic that pursuant to the Plea and Cooperation Agreement entered into between the parties on 28 November 2000, Stevan Todorovic could --

THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down. The interpreters do not have a copy.

MS. PATERSON: Stevan Todorovic has been interviewed five times by representatives from the Office of the Prosecutor.

It is further stipulated that the Office of the Prosecutor has expressed a desire to conduct further interviews with Mr. Todorovic, and he has agreed to that request.

Number 3: It is agreed by the parties that to date, Stevan Todorovic has complied with the terms and spirit of the Plea and Cooperation Agreement and has provided the Office of the Prosecutor with the level of cooperation envisioned by the plea agreement. And it's signed by myself and Mr. Kostich.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Paterson. We now take the adjournment and return at 9.40, 20 minutes to 10: ^{11BLANK PAGE 12}

--- Break taken at 9.26 a.m.

--- On resuming at 9.40 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Kostich.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, I just wanted to inquire of the Chamber and make a request. It is based on your ruling, of course, and what we did is because we anticipated some of the witnesses testifying, we had our expert witness, Dr. Lecic, coming in at 10.00.

What I have done during the break is to call her. She's on her way here, should be here very shortly, and I'm seeking this permission from the Chamber: I've asked her to come upstairs because we haven't quite arranged how she would come in, to just come in to the gallery, and as soon as the short witnesses are finished, that she would then testify. And I guess the Prosecutor has no objection. I'm not sure what your practice is, and I'm asking for some direction on that.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We see no difficulty with that.

MR. KOSTICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, before we proceed, I just wanted to finish some housekeeping matters.

What we propose to do, with the Chamber's leave, is that once we finish with the expert witness, with regard to the Defence closing argument, with your leave, we have broken the argument in two. Mr. Kostich has taken a certain portion of the closing argument and I have taken a certain portion of the closing argument. I wish to assure the Court that it is not redundant, but we would ask leave that once we go into the closing argument, the Defence be able to divide the ¹³ closing argument and to have Mr. Kostich address certain issues and myself address certain issues.

JUDGE ROBINSON: That's entirely a matter for you to decide.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Provided, of course, that you do not repeat, as you say.

MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: And that it is not overly long.

MR. BRASHICH: We're going to try and be very short, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. BRASHICH: May the Defence proceed, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, at this present time, the Defence would call Jovanka Todorovic. Your Honour, we don't have, apparently, the ability to bring the witness from the witness room. May I do so, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: The usher will do that, Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Brashich, is your witness at hand? Is she in Samac?

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, she is in the witness room, which is about 100 feet away, 50 feet away, which is right next to the Defence counsel's room. May I step outside, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Perhaps you should, because you would be in a better position to locate her. ¹⁴

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be seated.

WITNESS: JOVANKA TODOROVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't hear anything.

MR. BRASHICH: May I proceed, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Brashich. Examined by Mr. Brashich:

Q. Mademoiselle, what is your name?

A. Jovanka Todorovic.

Q. Do you know Stevan Todorovic?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you related to him?

A. Yes.

Q. You didn't expect to testify this morning, did you?

A. No.

Q. And how long have you known Mr. Todorovic?

A. Ever since my birth.

Q. He's your brother, right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And until the war, the conflict in Bosnia, you lived together, did you not? ¹⁵

A. Yes.

Q. Does Mr. Todorovic have any other brother or sister?

A. Yes, he does. He has one younger sister.

Q. And are you the oldest child of the family?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us something about Mr. Todorovic's childhood, briefly.

A. My brother was always a very happy child. We were all very pleased when he was born because he was the first male, and he was an active child. He was a very good pupil and intelligent. He would always win prizes at school. And when he lost prizes, he would lose them because he was lively and would hit a window and would break a window with a ball, for example, or he played with other children where he wasn't allowed to play.

Q. [Previous translation continues] ... the college years, university years, where did he go to school?

A. He went to primary school in our village, Donja Slatina, and Obudovac Secondary School. He graduated from secondary school in Samac and the mechanical engineering and technical school in Samac. He was a good student there, except that his handwriting was very poor. He would do graphic design and I would write them out.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. When he graduated from the university in Sarajevo, he began working in the wickerwork factory in Samac, first of all as a trainee and later on as a technical director and finally as manager, bankruptcy manager. ¹⁶

Q. [Previous translation continues]... bankruptcy manager?

A. Prior to the war, just before the war, companies in our town were doing badly, doing business badly, and the workers in his particular company voted a vote of no confidence to the previous director, and they voted for him to try to get the firm back on its feet. And that was what was referred to as a bankruptcy manager at the time.

Q. From your personal observation, was Mr. Todorovic well liked before the conflict by all strata of Bosanski Samac society?

A. Yes, very much so. He had some exceptionally good friends amongst all the ethnic groups, all the nationalities. They all liked him very much, precisely because he was gay and lively. He liked music a great deal, and he was very intelligent and diligent, very hard working.

Q. One last point, Ms. Todorovic: During the conflict, 1992 through 1995, were you living in Bosanski Samac?

A. Before the war and during the war I lived in Donja Slatina, a village, a village of the Bosanski Samac municipality.

Q. How far is that from downtown, the centre of Bosanski Samac?

A. It's 11 kilometres from downtown Bosanski Samac.

Q. Could you tell us in this little village of Donja Slatina, approximately how many houses are there in this village that you live in?

A. About 200 houses.

Q. Were you -- could you tell us in this little village --

MR. BRASHICH: Withdrawn, Your Honour. Could I make a representation, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Brashich. ¹⁷

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I was going to ask three questions, and I want to make it very clear that I am not in any way asserting that there are other victims in Bosanski Samac. All I'm trying to get from this witness is the war-like shelling, et cetera, that occurred during that short period of time.

With that representation, Your Honour, I would only ask two or three questions and be done with it.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Was the little village that you lived in shelled, granatiran?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have electricity?

A. No.

Q. Were the conditions very hard?

A. Very hard --

Q. But are okay now?

A. -- extremely so. Yes.

MR. BRASHICH: I'm finished with this witness, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Brashich. Any cross-examination?

MS. PATERSON: No questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Todorovic, that concludes your testimony and you may leave.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. ¹⁸

MR. BRASHICH: Mr. Usher, with the Court's leave, the Defence calls Mara Todorovic.

[The witness withdrew]

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, just for the record, our expert witness has arrived and is present in the audience, and as soon as we finish with Mrs. Mara Todorovic, Mr. Kostich will take the witness.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I forgot my glasses.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you in a position to read the statement? You can proceed, yes.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can somehow. I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: MARA TODOROVIC

[Witness answered through interpreter]

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be seated.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

MR. BRASHICH: May I proceed, Your Honour?

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Brashich. Examined by Mr. Brashich:

Q. What is your name?

A. My name is Mara Todorovic. I'm from Donja Slatina, near Samac.

Q. Are you Stevan Todorovic's mother? ¹⁹

A. Yes, I am the mother of Stevan Todorovic.

Q. I will ask you only a number of very short questions, and just calm yourself. Is that okay?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Why don't you just tell the Court about Stevan Todorovic's childhood, but very briefly.

A. Stevan Todorovic was very nice. He was a good pupil. He was a good son, a bit mischievous, but he had good company, good friends. He was very kind to us as his parents.

Q. And after he finished the university, did he come back to Bosanski Samac?

A. Yes, he returned to Bosanski Samac, and every weekend he would come home to help us. As we live in the village and work the farm, he would help us. He took care of us. And when his father died in 1994, he took over care of me and my daughters. I have an old mother that no one has -- can take care of except him, and he still does. He takes care of all of us.

Q. When he came back to Bosanski Samac and started working, did he live with and your husband?

A. Yes, he did, he lived with us in the house and he commuted, and whenever he was home, after work, he would help us in every way and take care of us.

Q. Was he well liked in Bosanski Samac before the conflict?

A. Yes. He had many friends. He was very popular among friends and family. He behaved correctly, and he had no problems at all that I am ²⁰ aware of.

Q. [Previous translation continues]...

A. Of course, I do. He's my only son. He takes care of all of us, especially his parents. He had a big heart for everyone, for family members and his friends, and he took care of everything.

MR. BRASHICH: [Previous translation continues]...

JUDGE ROBINSON: Any cross-examination?

MS. PATERSON: No questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mrs. Todorovic, that concludes your testimony, and you may now leave.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Kostich.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, Dr. Lecic is seated in the front row here, and if I would be allowed, I could attempt to get her through the door, if that would be something we could do, or I can wait until the marshal gets back.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson?

MS. PATERSON: I just have another point, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Why don't you just go for her? Yes, yes.

MS. PATERSON: Your Honour, I've just been asked by the transcribers to please ask Mr. Brashich to pause between the questions and the answers. They're not able to record the questions so that we're not getting a full transcript.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, I did observe that on the screen. Mr. Brashich, please take that into account, yes. ^{21BLANK PAGE 22}

MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour.

[The witness entered court]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness make the declaration.

THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

WITNESS: DUSICA LECIC-TOSEVSKI

JUDGE ROBINSON: You may be seated. Yes, Mr. Kostich.

MR. KOSTICH: If I may, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, I am going to ask questions, obviously in English, and our witness will be answering in English so that the people upstairs understand how we would like to proceed. Examined by Mr. Kostich:

Q. Would you please state your name for the record.

A. My name is Dusica Lecic-Tosevski.

Q. You are a medical doctor?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you also a psychiatrist?

A. I am a psychiatrist, too.

Q. How are you employed at the present time?

A. At the present time, I'm employed as the head of the stress clinic at the institute of mental health in Belgrade, and I'm also an associate professor of psychiatry at the school of medicine, University of Belgrade.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, if I may, the -- obviously the report ²³ is in the record and the doctor's resume or CV is in the record. I spoke to Ms. Paterson and Mr. Di Fazio yesterday about the qualifications of Dr. Lecic, and it is my understanding that they would have no objection to the doctor testifying as an expert witness so that we would short-circuit having the Defence go through the qualifications of this expert because it is in front of you, so that is a stipulation. Obviously, Your Honour, if the Chamber feels otherwise, I would take that directive.

[Trial Chamber confers]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Kostich. Her curriculum vitae qualifications are in the record, so we take note of that.

MR. KOSTICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

Q. Doctor, just one question in regard to the qualifications. You have indicated that presently you have two places of work. One is the stress clinic. Can you tell us again very briefly what your duties are there?

A. In the stress clinic I lead or I'm head of -- is establish the institute of mental health in 1994, and we deal with traumatised people, with refugees, war veterans, ex-detainees, and also civilians who have been traumatised in some other possible ways. I also work as a coordinator at the Centre of Rehabilitation for Torture Victims in Belgrade.

Q. Just to caution you, because you will be using a lot of technical words and giving us an opinion, please make sure that you speak slowly so that the interpreters can catch up with you, okay?

A. Okay. ²⁴

Q. I cut you off, I'm sorry. You were also going to tell us about the other function that you have, the other position. So you may continue.

A. The other position is, as I said, the Centre for Rehabilitation of Torture Victims, and is it maybe of any interest to say what I'm doing at the World Psychiatric Association at the moment?

Q. That's fine. That's fine. Now, pursuant to the appointment by the Registry here, you were asked to examine Stevan Todorovic, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. You also filed a written report, did you not?

A. I did.

Q. And you're mindful, as you testify today, that the report is now in the possession of both the Prosecution and more importantly of the Trial Chamber?

A. Yes.

Q. The -- in order to explain a little bit about what you did in this case, again briefly tell us what you did in order to prepare this particular report. In other words, what type of an examination did you perform?

A. My examination is based on a few things. First, I read the documents of the Tribunal which are the indictment, the plea of agreement. Then I read some reports of the witnesses. I have also talked to co-counsel. Then I've done clinical interview and also few -- a battery of tests for assessing personality and stress disorders. ²⁵

Q. In regard to the clinical interview and the tests, what amount of time did you actually spend with Stevan Todorovic?

A. I spent 12 hours with Stevan Todorovic.

Q. You indicated that you did a clinical interview. How important is a clinical interview in order to render an opinion?

A. A clinical interview is very important, and it is called in contemporary psychiatry a golden standard regarding the diagnostics of the patient.

Q. Incidentally, when you communicated with Mr. Todorovic, what language did you use?

A. I used Serbian language.

Q. Now, you also mentioned that you administered a number of tests; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you administer those tests?

A. I used those tests in order to make the diagnostics more reliable and more exact, more precise.

Q. You know, of course, that your report has a summary of the tests that you used; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I have a couple of short questions about the tests. Some of the tests - and you correct me if I'm wrong - that you used are tests that are used internationally and they're widely accepted; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Which ones are those? ²⁶

A. These tests are -- belong to two groups. First group are the test for assessing stress syndromes like Impact of Events Scale, then Symptom Checklist - Revised having 90 questions. Then I have also used test for assessing personality such as MCMI or Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory, and NEO-P-R, test for -- Big Five test for assessing personality dimensions. And lastly, regarding personality, I've used Defense Style Questionnaire for assessing defence mechanisms.

Q. Is there an interplay between the clinical interview and the tests that you administer?

A. Yes, very much so. They interconnected or, rather, clinical interview is in accordance with the tests. Perhaps I should say the other way round. The tests were in accordance with the results of the clinical interview.

Q. In your practice -- and you've been a, I think, psychiatrist for perhaps 20 years; is that right?

A. Yes. Twenty-one years.

Q. There is, I'm assuming occasionally, a test subject or patient who you think may wish to give you information in order to get a particular diagnosis. In other words, the person is not as candid or honest as they can be. Does that happen from time to time?

A. Yes, it does happen.

Q. Is there any type of a process or a method in the tests that you administer which would in some way give you a strong idea or an indication that a patient is trying to in some way be dishonest with you?

A. Yes. There is so-called lie scale which is being used at the ²⁷ beginning of assessing the test.

Q. And this is something that you've used hundreds or thousands of times?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. One thing that I wanted to ask you is that in addition to the tests that you've administered, did you consult with any other professional, in other words, any other doctor or psychiatrist in regard to Stevan Todorovic?

A. Yes. I have consulted the prison psychiatrist, Dr. Petrovic.

Q. And just so that the Chamber knows, can you tell them who Dr. Petrovic is and what her role is?

A. Dr. Petrovic is a psychiatrist who is employed at the Detention Unit, and she's treating and helping in many other ways the prisoners there.

Q. And it is my understanding that she had seen Mr. Todorovic in the past?

A. Yes. She has been seeing him quite often during his detention years or months.

Q. Now, Doctor, on the basis of the clinical interview, the review of the documents, the tests that you've administered, did you reach a diagnosis to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you've couched the diagnosis in terms of what is commonly referred to as a DSM-IV, which is a diagnostic manual; is that not correct? ²⁸

A. Yes, it is a diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.

Q. And that's published by the American Psychiatric Association?

A. It is published by APA, American Psychiatric Association.

Q. And are you familiar with DSM-IV and also its counterpart that's used in -- on this side of the ocean, so to speak?

A. Its counterpart is called ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, and it is published by World Health Organisation in 1992.

Q. And are you familiar or have you done any work on these tests?

A. Actually, I've translated ICD-10 into Serbian, part of it dealing with personality disorders, and I was one of the editors of the translated book.

Q. Going back to the diagnosis, I've asked you, of course, whether you've set a diagnosis and you said that you did. Can you tell me now what your diagnosis is?

A. My diagnosis are following, and I will go axis by axis, which is how the disorders are diagnosed in DSM-IV.

Mr. Todorovic manifests post-traumatic stress disorder which is in Axis I of DSM-IV, and he also fulfilled all criteria for previous alcoholic intoxication.

Regarding Axis II of personality disorders, he doesn't have personality disorder, but he does have specific primary personality traits which I might explain if you ask me to.

Then he also has so-called psychosomatic disorders or psychophysiological disorders which have been the result of his intense ²⁹ stress that he has experienced and these are diabetes mellitus and essential hypertension. He also has some other somatic condition like such enlarged liver and hiatus hernia. And he has experienced a lot of intense stressors which are diagnosed on the Axis IV and which have been diagnosed by the questionnaires that I have been using.

Q. Obviously the diagnosis is in your report.

A. Yes, it is.

Q. But I wouldn't want to be blamed for not letting you explain some of the things that you mentioned that you wanted to explain, and that has to do with the personality traits; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Why don't you tell the Court what it is that you want to explain to them about that issue?

A. Mr. Todorovic has dependent personality traits together with extrovert or histrionic personality traits and conforming life-style, which means that he is depending on others' decision. He does things, many things, to please others in order to be liked. He's rather passive. He is even -- he's complying to the decision of others, especially to the decision of authorities towards him. He feels ambivalence. He fears them but he also respects them, and he manifests passive and obedient behaviour also in order to be accepted and to please the others.

Q. I'm also thinking that what you may want to explain to the Court is the interplay or the connection of your diagnosis with his activities back in 1992. Can you do that?

A. Yes. Back in 1992 he had full-blown or developed post-traumatic ³⁰ stress disorder, and he also had, as I said, frequent alcohol intoxication because he used to consume alcohol. And these two conditions, after he had been exposed to many severe traumas and stressors, it reduced his capability to control his conduct and to understand the consequences of his conduct.

Q. Is it my understanding of your report that the condition that you've just described occurred or began occurring a month or more after the war?

A. Yes, but before that, he also had acute stress reaction, which is an introduction into the post-traumatic stress disorder and which manifests with similar symptoms like post-traumatic stress disorders, which are avoidance of painful stimuli, hyperarousal, or nervousness, intense effective tension, inability to sleep, feeling jumpy, and many other things. And I have to point out that he had experienced very many intense stressors like witnessing death of other people, witnessing killing, seeing dead bodies, being under the daily destruction of bombing, witnessing destruction of houses, poverty, being himself detained for two days, and many other stressors which were objectively listed in the questionnaire for assessing the stressors.

Q. Doctor, I want to go into another area, and beginning to get towards the end of our discussion, at least from my side. I would be interested, and I think the Chamber would, in knowing what are generally the prospects for the rehabilitation of Mr. Todorovic?

A. Mr. Todorovic was a healthy personality, normally functioning personality before the war, and he had no criminal disposition whatsoever. ^{31BLANK PAGE 32} He has returned to his normal level of personality functioning now while in prison, and I think that prospects of his rehabilitation are quite good. I believe that he is going to -- he will be able to lead a creative and productive life and to reintegrate into the social community.

Q. You sort of anticipated one of my questions, which is okay, but I just wanted to make sure that, that I understand you, and that is the issue of reintegration back into the society and into the community where he came from. And I guess what I'm trying to do is -- maybe it's not fair to you, but I'm sort of asking for a prognosis, whether that is possible, and I wanted for you to give me an answer to that, if you could.

A. It depends on the prospects of his future and on the time that he has to be imprisoned. If the prospects of his future are favourable for him, I believe that he will be using his mature defence mechanisms that he has, which I described in the report, and that he will be able to reintegrate all traumas that he has experienced into his personality. But if those prospects are unfavourable, he might go on developing more severe types of psychosomatic disorders which he already has, and these are, as I said, diabetes mellitus, which from latent turn into manifest disorder now and he's being treated at the Detention Unit for this disorder; and also for also some hypertension which might get worse. He's also getting drugs, medication for this disorder. And also I observed some problems with his heart, so he might develop cardiac decompensations in the future if the prospects are not favourable for him.

Q. One other question: During your clinical interview, and perhaps in your -- during your testing, did you discuss with him, and did he in ³³ any way express to you his feelings about what had happened in 1992, and whether or not he had any remorse for the activities and actions that he was involved in?

A. Yes, he did. And while doing it, he was very excited, which has been shown by his autonomous reaction, or should I say it plainly, with redness in his face, with disturbance at the moment of that interview, and with sighing. He told me that he feels remorse, guilt, and humiliated for what he has been happening in 1992.

Q. Thank you very much.

MR. KOSTICH: I have no further questions, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Cross-examination.

MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --

THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

MR. DI FAZIO: I'm not sure of the status of the report of Dr. Lecic-Tosevski. I understand it has been filed by the Court. I want to ask some questions based on the contents of that document.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, you're perfectly free to do that. Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

MR. DI FAZIO:

Q. Dr. Lecic, do you have a copy of your psychiatric report?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is it fair to say that you comment upon two psychiatric disturbances or illnesses that Mr. Todorovic has suffered from: Firstly, a reactive depression when he first arrived in prison, and secondly, this diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder? ³⁴

A. Yes.

Q. That is the sum total of his psychiatric disorders that you are able to discover?

A. Yes. I haven't discovered reactive depression. I was told by the prison psychiatrist that he had it here.

Q. Reactive depression, perhaps in layman's terms, is simply a reaction to his situation?

A. Yes.

Q. The other matter that I want to ask you about is the -- your diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. That diagnosis is, in large part, entirely dependent upon the history that he provides to you?

A. In a large part, but I've also used tests for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder.

Q. The history of the order interests me. You said that back in 1992, he had a fall-blown post-traumatic stress disorder. How can you conclude that?

A. By careful history taking and by using the operational criteria which are given in DSM-4.

Q. Essentially, you ask him questions about his condition, how he felt, what he experienced back in 1992?

A. Yes.

Q. He responds, and then from those responses, you make -- you draw your conclusions?

A. Yes.

Q. In your report, you, towards the end of the report, you refer to ³⁵ three factors that are important in an assessment of post-traumatic stress disorders, and they are biological factors, personality factors, and social factors. That's correct, isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you discuss personality factors, you say, and I quote from your report, "Retrospective diagnostics is difficult, but it seems that he had a fully-developed post-traumatic stress disorder during the war." Why do you say that retrospective diagnostics is difficult?

A. It is an idiom of psychiatry.

Q. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you explain that, please.

A. When we think or talk about the things that we are not witnessing right now as psychiatrist, we can't be hundred per cent sure. That's why we say retrospective diagnostics is not -- can't be hundred per cent certain. But there are some other tests that are used, and I've used two or three tests for assessing stress syndromes which help me make reliable diagnosis.

Q. It's the retrospectivity of the diagnosis that I'm interested in. How can you be sure by the administration of these tests just how far back --

A. No, a test assess the current condition.

Q. That's what I mean. How can you, from using these tests and administering these tests, can you conclude as to how far back the condition goes, how far back in time?

A. Because the tests can't make scores reliable for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder now when he's not exposed to severe ³⁶ stresses. The tests are also assessing chronicity of disorder.

Q. That brings me to another issue. You say in your report that the post-traumatic stress disorder is chronic in nature. That is a reference to the degree of longstanding, not intensity, of the disorder?

A. Yes, regarding current condition of Mr. Todorovic.

Q. Can you tell us if post-traumatic stress disorders vary in intensity, in other words, how severe the condition is from individual to individual.

A. It is -- when it is accurate [sic], it is always severe. When it is chronic, of course, the symptoms become somewhat reduced.

Q. Somewhat, sorry?

A. Reduced --

Q. Reduced.

A. -- in intensity.

Q. The onset of post-traumatic stress disorders, can that be a matter that occurs over a period of time; in other words, can one acquire it gradually?

A. Yes, one can. I give it within the first month or within three months when it is acute post-traumatic stress disorder, or there is also so-called delayed type of post-traumatic stress disorder which might manifest later.

Q. Can you comment upon the onset of Mr. Todorovic's post-traumatic stress disorder; in other words, can you say whether it came on suddenly or over a period of time or whether it was delayed, as you say?

A. No, it was acute post-traumatic stress disorder. ³⁷

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because of the symptoms which appeared within the first month after the exposition [sic] to traumatic experiences.

Q. The part of your report beginning from the paragraph headed "Case History --"

JUDGE ROBINSON: Page?

MR. DI FAZIO: Your Honours, my copy is unpaginated. I'm looking at the, essentially the second page of the report. It begins "Content," and deals with psychiatric assessment, case history.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes. We have it.

MR. DI FAZIO: And I'm going to ask a question about the body of the document. In fact, I can tell the Court that my next series of questions would be on the part that -- what ensues in the report up to and including psychiatric assessment and diagnostic consideration, so the next ten pages or so.

Q. Dr. Lecic-Tosevski, I want to ask you about your report and the case history and the material that follows right up until the point where you discuss your assessment and your diagnostic consideration. Is it fair to say that that's really the history that you took from this particular defendant, Mr. Todorovic?

A. Yes.

Q. It's the result of information provided to you in the main from him, Mr. Todorovic?

A. Yes.

Q. It also has, I believe, some information given to you by ³⁸ Dr. Petrovic?

A. Yes, and by co-counsels.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. By the counsels.

Q. Yes. Incidentally, that information provided to you by counsel were some Court documents, an indictment?

A. Yes.

Q. And also included a number of witness statements?

A. Yes.

Q. Were those, were those witness statements, statements of victims?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. How many victim statements were you able to look at?

A. Several.

Q. Can you recall how many, give us an order of numbers; one or two, 10 or 12?

A. I think three statements about sexual offences, and one statement or two about the beatings.

Q. Thank you. Did you ever have an opportunity to speak to any of the victims?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. In the report, you -- in this section of the report, you refer to his childhood, schooling, his sexuality, interpersonal relationships, and work. Is it fair to say that they reveal a fairly unexceptional, ordinary upbringing?

A. Yes. ³⁹

Q. There's nothing there that would lead you to conclude that you could see the beginnings of any psychiatric disorder?

A. No, nothing.

Q. How did you actually obtain this history relating to matters such as schooling, sexuality, interpersonal relationships, work?

A. By structured clinical interview.

Q. Would it be fair to say by questioning him?

A. By questioning him, and also by using structured questions, questions regarding his previous history which I use for war veterans and traumatised persons at my clinic.

Q. Am I correct that you led him to the various topics that you were seeking information on?

A. His psychiatric history has to fulfil a certain number of questions.

Q. It may well do, but am I correct in saying that it was you who led him to the, by questioning, to the various topics such as schooling, work, and so on?

A. Yes.

Q. In the section that deals with interpersonal relationships --

MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours, please, that's at page 3. It's unpaginated, as I said, but the third page of the body of the report.

Q. In the section where you deal with interpersonal relationships, there's a statement to the effect that 90 per cent of his friends were of different ethnic origin and yet he had never discriminated people because of their nationality. Do you recall that? ⁴⁰

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Was that information volunteered to you by Mr. Todorovic, or was it the result of your direct inquiry on that topic?

A. It was volunteered information, given when he was describing his student years.

Q. Again, in the next section there's a paragraph dealing with his work history, and there is a reference to a desire amongst Croats and Muslims at a factory in which he worked to have him as a director.

A. Yes.

Q. Was that volunteered to you?

A. Yes.

Q. The history that you obtained from him dealt with, dealt with his involvement in politics and his position as police chief in Bosanski Samac. He told you, did he not, that he accepted a position as president of the local committee of the Serbian Democratic Party unwillingly?

A. Yes.

Q. Again, did he tell you that; in other words, did he volunteer that, or did you ask him about how willing or otherwise he was to be -- to accept such a position?

A. I asked him how he felt in that position.

Q. He told you on a number of occasions, didn't he, that he felt an aversion to politics?

A. Yes, he has.

Q. He told you that he was always against politics, and I'm quoting from your report. ^{41BLANK PAGE 42}

A. Yes.

Q. How do his utterances that he was against politics and had an aversion against politics sit with his assertion to you, his telling you that he became involved in politics?

A. He wasn't involved in politics because all of his family wasn't dealing with politics and actually was anti-communist oriented.

Q. Another matter that you -- he raised or that was raised during the history taking is his desire or otherwise to be involved in the police. He made it clear to you that he never wanted to be a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. Again, did he volunteer that, or did you ask him about that?

A. I asked him the circumstances of him becoming the head of police.

Q. In other words, how it came to be --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that he was a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the context -- in answering that, he told you that he didn't want to be a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. That assertion that he didn't want to be a policeman really paints the picture of a man thrust into the position against his wishes, doesn't it?

A. Yes, yes, it does.

Q. It was clear to you, when you were taking the history, that from having got his background, his work history, that sort thing, that he was ⁴³ a man who had no prior experience as a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was clear to you that he was a man who did not wish to be --

A. Yes.

Q. -- a policeman?

A. Yes.

Q. Did that give rise to any skepticism about his assertion that he did not want to be a policeman?

A. No, because he has explained -- he explained to me why he didn't want it.

Q. What was the explanation?

A. The explanation was that he didn't feel competent for the position and that he was always -- always against a leading position. He said even that he always liked to be at the second row.

Q. Yes, I understand that. I understand that that's his explanation, but what I'm asking is that given his explanation that he didn't want to be in a leading position and that he liked to be in the second row, does that give rise to -- and the fact that he ultimately accepted the position as chief of police, does that give rise to any skepticism about his assertion that "I did not want to be a policeman"?

A. It gives rise to a wish of a psychiatrist to assess the personality underlying such decision or acceptance of such positions without opposition.

Q. Have you any reason to doubt his assertion that he did not want to ⁴⁴ be a policeman?

A. I don't.

Q. Can I ask you some questions about the -- some of the more traumatic events that he referred to?

MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, I'm referring to the sixth page of the report. Again, it's unpaginated.

Q. He described to you experiences of being unable to recall in full some of the important parts of the traumas he experienced.

A. Yes.

Q. He told you that he couldn't recall a lot of events.

A. Yes.

Q. He told you that he couldn't recall hitting a person on the head, a person who later died.

A. Yes.

Q. That's all, of course, consistent with heavy drinking and amnesia caused by heavy drinking?

A. It is.

Q. Is it also consistent with someone who does not wish to accept responsibility for his actions?

A. Yes, but under the circumstances of his heavy drinking and having previously even before the war amnesic episodes or blackouts, it's consistent with his heavy drinking and intense stresses that he has experienced.

Q. There's nothing to suggest that Mr. Todorovic is an alcoholic, is there? ⁴⁵

A. One can't say that he's alcoholic because he did not manifest any problems for alcohol dependence now in prison, but he did drink heavily during his student years.

JUDGE MAY: Well, Mr. Di Fazio, it's going to be no mitigation that he was drinking at this time. It can't be mitigation that these offences were committed in drink. It could never be such mitigation, and it must have been very common at this period.

MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour pleases, my point and my object is not to attack that as a possible mitigatory factor, it's a question of responsibility and acceptance of responsibility that I'm primarily interested in, not the -- not any fear on my part that heavy drinking might be in any way a mitigating factor in itself. It's a question of responsibility and acceptance that I'm interested in and that's the reason why I ask these questions.

Q. He also has no recollection of ordering any sexual offences.

A. Yes.

Q. I'll get straight to the point. The reason I'm asking you these questions is that he paints the picture of a man who just can't remember much of the more severe aspects of his behaviour, does he not?

A. More severe aspects of his behaviour, of his criminal action.

Q. Yes. I'm referring to the beatings and the sexual attacks and so on.

A. He had some problems with recollecting these events, as I've noted in the report, but it's also in accordance with post-traumatic stress disorder. ⁴⁶

Q. What I'm interested in is, is his claim to be unable to remember significant aspects of these events only possibly due to alcoholic amnesia or is it possibly due --

A. No.

Q. -- to a reluctance on his part to accept responsibility for what's done?

A. On the human memory, and memorising is a complex phenomenon, but one can say that he didn't -- can't recollect some of the events due to so-called dissociative amnesia, which is a part of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Q. And as far as the inability to recollect the specific things, the beatings, ordering of sexual attacks is concerned, you are entirely dependent on what he tells you in concluding whether or not that's true?

A. Yes, and upon the observation and conclusion of certain techniques that psychiatry uses when communicating with a patient.

Q. And in addition, when giving the history, he -- you asked him about his physical -- past physical ailments and he described to you an episode where he broke his arm in an automobile accident. Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And you pointed out that -- he pointed, rather, to that injury as evidence that he could not beat people intensely with a broken and immobilised arm. Again, did he volunteer that?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. That piece of information follows shortly after the -- your report ⁴⁷ of the -- his inability to recall significant aspects of the beatings and sexual attacks. Is it fair to conclude that he told you about his inability to beat intensely soon after you asked him about his recollection of the beatings and sexual attacks?

A. He told me about his broken arm when I asked him about his body condition, somatic condition, but when we are talking about actual criminal behaviour, then he repeated this thing.

MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for one moment.

[Prosecution counsel confer]

MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further questions. Questioned by the Court:

JUDGE ROBINSON: Doctor, it's of some importance to the Chamber to know when this condition first -- first started. When was the onset of the condition, the stress?

You have read the indictment and you are familiar with the facts. The indictment covers a period from roughly the 17th of April, 1992 to December 1993. From the familiarity that you have developed with the case, when would you say was the onset of this disorder in relation to this period?

A. The onset of this disorder, I would say, was within the first month after they entered Samac, but I think that he also manifested acute stress reaction which was -- which happened before April 1992 due to many stressors that were happening at the area.

JUDGE ROBINSON: What precise events would you identify as the ⁴⁸ cause of that stress at that period?

A. Confusion, uncertainty, news that were arriving from the army places, lack of sleep, lack of concentration, and many other things that he manifested at the time. We are speaking about --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Those are the symptoms. I'm asking you what actual events would have brought this stress on. Presumably this stress arises from certain events.

A. Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So I'm asking you what events within the first month would have brought on this stress?

A. That area he was living in was heavily bombed, almost every day, and houses were destroyed, according to the information I was given. There were about 400 dead people due to the bombing and about 1.500 wounded people, many of them massacred due to the bombs. And he was seeing this, bodies, and witnessed some of the killings. He also attended some of the mass funerals. Many of his known people were killed, even some of his relatives and some of his good friends. He also was a few times at the front line -- front line, delivering food and cigarettes to the soldiers, when his life was in danger. Then he also was detain for two days by the Serbian forces and was severely beaten there.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you make a distinction between the effect which his drinking would have had on his conduct, on the one hand, and the -- what you call the post-traumatic stress, or are the two things intertwined?

A. I think the primary disorder was post-traumatic stress disorder, ⁴⁹ and it usually complicates or its usual common complication is alcoholic intoxication.

JUDGE ROBINSON: You're saying the condition is aggravated by alcohol?

A. No. I said his primary problem or primary disturbance was post-traumatic stress disorder.

JUDGE ROBINSON: I ask that because in your report, and counsel asked you about this, on the page dealing with the questioning relating to whether he remembered hitting the head of the person who died afterwards, you say: "During that time he was often, severely drunk, as he was always tempore criminis," meaning, I take it, that he was always drunk at the time of the commission of the crimes. Could you explain that?

A. Yes, but his drinking was reactive drinking, and he had an autotherapeutic effect because he wanted to, as most people do, people who drink, to neutralise his high anxiety due to the stresses that he has experienced.

JUDGE ROBINSON: But was he drunk at the time of the commission of these crimes?

A. Yes. He told me so.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.

JUDGE MAY: Doctor, we've got a report. This is a report which the court ordered from Dr. Soyka from Munich. Let me just put part of it to you. This is pages 10 and 11 of the report.

"Mr. Todorovic repeated that during the relevant period," this is 1992, "he experienced only small mood changes. He was affected by the war ⁵⁰ in which several of his cousins were killed and by the many funerals he attended. Otherwise, his family and private life was not affected ... Mr. Todorovic did not report any other psychiatric/psychological complaints or abnormalities during the war period, including hallucinations, severe sleep disorders, or phases of extensive tension, fear, or mood disorders. Mr. Todorovic reported that from summer 1992 he occasionally felt tired but otherwise healthy. He had a car accident," in June 1992, "in which his right arm was injured."

And then as to the alcohol history: "Mr. Todorovic reported not to drink alcohol on a daily basis, but occasionally. As a director of the factory, he had visitors from time to time with whom he drank alcohol ... He once lost his driving licence because of alcohol. He denies any serious drug or alcohol problems." It may not be that you can comment on that passage, but it appears that the reports that you receive are rather different to those reports.

A. Have you got any question?

JUDGE MAY: Yes, that.

A. I read carefully the report of my colleague, and it differs only in conclusion. And if I may say, my colleague used few words like "Mr. Todorovic reports," or always says "he reported," "he reports." I'm afraid that my colleague didn't ask questions regarding his personality and his experience of stress, because if you don't ask those questions, the patient won't report. We don't have to wait for report; we have to ask questions. Because excluded in his conclusion, which I read carefully, major psychiatric disorders such as major depression and ^{51BLANK PAGE 52} psychosis, and that will be all. But he didn't deal with his stress experience, neither did he deal with his personality.

JUDGE MAY: We have his report, and we will obviously have to consider the evidence and your evidence. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Any re-examination, Mr. Kostich?

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, I may have only one question. Re-examined by Mr. Kostich:

Q. Dr. Lecic, you have reviewed Dr. Soyka's report. Is there any indication in the report that you reviewed that Dr. Soyka administered any of the tests that you administered or any other tests or questionnaires?

A. No, there is no indication.

MR. KOSTICH: I have nothing further. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kostich. Doctor, that concludes your testimony, and you may now leave.

[The witness withdrew]

JUDGE ROBINSON: Now, Mr. Brashich, how long will your submissions be?

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, with regard to the -- before -- it will be a submission of approximately five minutes and then closing argument, and I would perhaps suggest respectfully, Your Honour, that this would be a good time to break.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we are going to break. But I want to get an idea of the length of the submissions.

MR. BRASHICH: Altogether and all told, Your Honour, I would say 35 minutes at the most, 40 minutes. ⁵³

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Ms. Paterson.

MS. PATERSON: Your Honour, my statement should take about 10 minutes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Brashich, do I take it that this concludes the evidence that you are going to present?

MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour. There will be a statement by the accused and closing argument on behalf of the accused, a very brief statement to the Court.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that would come before your submissions.

MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: All right. We'll take a break and resume at 11.35.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

--- Recess taken at 11.05 a.m.

--- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, during the break, I've consulted with Ms. Featherstone -- or Mr. Kostich has consulted with Ms. Featherstone, and what I would propose, with Your Honours' leave, would be to perhaps suggest that Ms. Paterson makes her closing argument, that Mr. Todorovic makes a very brief statement, that Mr. Kostich takes one-half of the closing argument, and that I finish.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So you're suggesting that he be interposed.

MR. BRASHICH: Yes, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes. ⁵⁴

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: So we start with Ms. Paterson.

[Prosecution Closing Statement]

MS. PATERSON: Your Honours are fully aware of the charges against Stevan Todorovic and the circumstances leading up to his plea of guilty. As you know, he has pleaded guilty to the crime of persecutions which is a crime against humanity. The crime against humanity is one of the most serious crimes that a human being can commit, and the sentence imposed for such a crime must reflect the gravity of that offence. As we noted in our sentencing brief, the Appeals Chamber has stated that the Tribunal has an obligation to show that the international community --

THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel slow down, please.

MS. PATERSON: -- will not tolerate such crimes. Having said that, the Prosecution also does not in any way mean to minimise the fact that as a result of the Plea and Cooperation Agreement negotiated between the Office of the Prosecutor and Stevan Todorovic, Mr. Todorovic agreed to cooperate with the OTP and to provide significant information. I can confirm that Mr. Todorovic has spoken with representatives of our office on multiple occasions, and on each occasion he has participated in a fully cooperative and forthright manner. Some of the information he has provided might not have been accessible to the Prosecution but for his cooperation. Mr. Todorovic has agreed to continue his cooperation, and there are plans to interview him on future occasions. In addition, he has agreed to testify at the trial in this case and in other cases in which his assistance might be useful. Quite ⁵⁵ simply, to date, he has upheld his part of the bargain. But the point is, whether we like the word and its implications or not, his plea was part of a bargain, and he has already received the most significant benefit from that bargain: an agreement on the part of the officer of the Prosecutor to ask for a sentence of no more than 12 years. Had he gone to trial and been convicted, he would in all probability have faced a sentence in the range of 15 to 25 years or more. We have no intention of not abiding by our promise, and I do not ask you to sentence him to more than 12 years, but a sentence of less than 12 years would be inappropriate in light of the many factors the Trial Chamber should take into consideration.

In our written submission, we have made reference to several important considerations that should be weighed when determining the appropriate sentence. It is significant that Stevan Todorovic was a direct participant in the crimes with which he was charged and that he committed the heinous crime of murder and the humiliating crimes of sexual assaults. He was notorious in the police station and the other camps in Bosanski Samac for the viciousness of his beatings. His participation in the acts of deportation, forced labour, and other serious violations of the human rights of the Muslim and Croat residents of Bosanski Samac was a crucial element in the successful campaign of ethnic cleansing waged in that municipality.

Particularly disturbing is the fact that he was the police chief of Bosanski Samac at the time he committed the crimes charged. He should have been the man all the citizens, regardless of their ethnic background, ⁵⁶ went to for help and assistance. Instead, he became one of the most feared people in town, and he did nothing to stop his subordinates and others who were waging a reign of terror on the innocent non-Serb residents of Bosanski Samac.

The Defence argues in its submission that it should somehow be a factor in his favour that he was the head of a lawfully existing police department rather than the commander of an illegal defence centre when, in fact, the opposite is true. Rather than enforcing the rule of law and bringing some stability in a time of great turmoil, he breached the public trust that is imbued in the police and allowed brutal crimes to occur; except in a few rare circumstances, he did nothing to intervene. Your Honours have heard the testimony of the psychiatrist and read the two reports. As Judge May himself pointed out, there are some differences in the content of the reports, but there is one factor on which both psychiatrists agree: There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Todorovic has any diminished capacity or lack of mental capacity. And that brings us to perhaps the most important factor to be considered in sentencing, that being the effect of the crime on the victims. We must not lose sight of why we are here today; to bring justice to those who were the victims of these terrible crimes. The hundreds of families forced to leave Bosanski Samac against their will, whose lives were changed forever, need to know that Stevan Todorovic is appropriately punished for his role in those expulsions. The men and women who toiled on forced labour projects under brutal conditions need to know that their unfair treatment has not gone unnoticed. ⁵⁷ The hundreds of men and some women detained under inhumane conditions at the different detention camps in Bosanski Samac, people who were beaten, tortured, starved, and denied the most basic human amenities need to know that their suffering is being acknowledged. The men beaten personally by Stevan Todorovic, Enver Ibralic, Hasan Jasarevic, Omer Nalic, (redacted), Silvester Antunovic, Hasan Bicic, Kemal Bobic, (redacted), Abdulah Drljacic, Zlatko Dubric, (redacted), and Hasan Subasic, need to know that the physical and mental suffering they endured has been appropriately sanctioned.

Those men, whose names will remain private, who were forced to perform embarrassing sexual acts need to know that their humiliation is recognised by this Court. And finally, the family and friends of Anto Brandic, known to them as Antesa, need to know that his senseless death at the hands of Stevan Todorovic and others has been adequately punished. Stevan Todorovic has made a bargain and has lived up to his part of the bargain. He claims that he feels remorse for his actions and we certainly hope that that is true, but Stevan Todorovic committed many terrible crimes and should receive a sentence commensurate with those acts.

Nine years ago, in April 1992, the lives of all the residents of Bosanski Samac changed forever. For the majority of the victims and witnesses in this case, nine years later they still are not able to return home and they continue to pay the price for the actions of Stevan Todorovic and his associates.

No sentence, however long, will undo the harm he has done nor give ⁵⁸ back those years to the victims, but under the circumstances, a sentence of 12 years is clearly appropriate. I therefore respectfully request that this Trial Chamber sentence Stevan Todorovic to a term of 12 years in prison. Thank you.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Ms. Paterson, may I ask you, you have acknowledged that, had the matter gone to trial, the range of punishment would have been somewhere between 15 and 25 years. Are you saying that it would be appropriate in the circumstances to recognise the substantial cooperation that the accused has rendered by reducing his sentence to what would be in effect almost a half of that maximum range?

MS. PATERSON: What I am saying is that he should get the benefit of the bargain that the Prosecution agreed to, that is, that we're asking for a reduced sentence of no more than 12 years. I don't believe he should get a sentence of less than 12 years, but at the same time, as we promised, we are not asking for more than 12 years. Whether or not that is half of what he might have received, one-third, is not the issue. The issue is he has already received a substantial benefit by pleading guilty and getting, if Your Honours abide by our recommendation, a substantially reduced sentence.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Ms. Paterson.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I would ask leave for Mr. Todorovic to make his statement from the accused's box or block.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, he may do that.

MR. BRASHICH: Mr. Todorovic, do you wish to address the Court?

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. ⁵⁹

MR. BRASHICH: Please do so.

[Statement by the Accused]

THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, never in my life did I want to be the chief of police, but perhaps destiny or a set of unfortunate circumstances put me in that position, and at the worst possible time, the time of war, and here I am today standing before you, before world public opinion, and before God.

War is hell. The town of Bosanski Samac, as well as the police station, throughout the war were actually on the very front line. Artillery shells were falling almost daily on the town, as well as throughout the territory of the municipality. Frequent deaths, the wounding of soldiers, civilians, and children occurred. Attending the funerals of my relatives, friends, and acquaintances was frequent. The testimony of Serbs who came from Odzak and Orasje through a process of exchange, events followed one another at great speed, and at times, it was very difficult to act wisely. A great deal of fear, panic, fatigue, stress, and at times alcohol, too, influenced my actions. Under those circumstances, I made erroneous decisions and I committed erroneous acts. At the time, I didn't have sufficient courage or determination to prevent volunteers and local criminals from committing evil and plundering the non-Serb population, and for this I feel great remorse. Before the war, I had not planned ethnic cleansing or persecution, nor was I aware of any such plan. Two weeks into the war, I realised that a large number of non-Serbs had left and were continuing to leave the territory of Samac municipality. I realised but I lacked courage to ⁶⁰ prevent the illegal and inhuman activities that were going on and that -- such treatment of non-Serbs, due to which those people left the territory of Samac municipality.

Some of them left out of fear even before the conflict, some via Yugoslavia to western European countries, while a certain number left through the exchanges and against their own will. Those exchanges in those days seemed to me as a temporary solution. I realise today that those exchanges were unfair and unjust.

In the autumn of 1992, I realised that the volunteers from Serbia had done more harm and evil than good. As I was still afraid of them, secretly we undertook to get rid of them and to expel them into Serbia. After that, they were arrested and transferred to the military prison in Banja Luka. And during that year, the year of 1992, I became aware that Croats and Muslims had suffered a great deal, to my great regret. That is why I feel very profound repentance and remorse. I pray to God every day for forgiveness for my sins.

I have cooperated fully with this Tribunal, and I'm ready to continue to do so. I am ready to testify, to cooperate, and to say everything I know in the interests of truth and justice. My wish and hope is, and that depends on you, Your Honours, to go back to the wonderful prewar times that we had when all the people of Bosnia lived in unity and happily together. Unfortunately, I cannot change history. I would wish and am ready, if you give me such a chance, to try and improve the future.

If fate gives me such a chance, I will dedicate myself to my ^{61BLANK PAGE 62} family and my children. I'm also ready to invest every effort in the new multi-ethnic Bosnia, to have a positive effect on the surroundings so that the inter-ethnic wounds should heal as soon as possible and that peoples and nations should live in mutual respect and harmony and thereby to atone for my sins up to a point, my sins towards men and to God. Though I stand before you, Your Honours, as the accused, I do thank you very much for your attention, for your reasoning, and for your protection of my rights. Thank you, Your Honours.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Todorovic. You may sit. Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, I would call upon my colleague and friend Mr. Kostich to give the first half of the closing argument.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Mr. Kostich.

[Defence Closing Statement]

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honours, Ms. Paterson, Mr. Di Fazio, colleagues.

Until the plea agreement in this case was signed by the parties and filed, all issues in this case were open and my colleague Mr. Brashich was contesting a number of motions and so on. The plea bargain was struck sometime in late October, early November, and I think it's important to reflect on the fact that there was a timing that was appropriate and important.

At that time, the request by Mr. Brashich for the rendition [sic] of Mr. Todorovic back to the country of the arrest had some, I think, interest by the Tribunal. There were certain motions that were granted, ⁶³ and I think at that time there was preparation to go into an appellate phase. The conditions in Yugoslavia were different than they are now. The government in power at that time was different than it is now. By reaching the plea bargain, I think that there were substantial factors and gains by both parties. For that matter, there were, I think, benefits to other segments of the judicial process. Most importantly, I think, in these plea bargain situations, pleas, I think, is the benefit that victims do not have to come in and testify and relive the tragedies and the awful and terrible things that may have occurred to them. There is a saving of resources both by the courts and the court system, as well as the Prosecutor's office.

And since I'm a lawyer from a common law country and I do recognise, and I say this most respectfully, that at least two-thirds of the Trial Chamber I think has some similar backgrounds, the plea bargains and plea negotiations are recognised and used in those jurisdictions, and so the Judges are familiar with them, and I shan't go any further than that.

In regard to Mr. Todorovic, he made a number of decisions. Both parties were represented by able lawyers and a plea bargain was struck. And the timing was important, as I indicated, because the appellate litigation did not continue, the cooperation between the Office of the Prosecutor and SFOR and all the somewhat meticulous questions and some of the issues that arose from the -- from those issues and arguments did not have to be litigated, and I think that's a benefit to the Prosecutor in addition. ⁶⁴ So I think it's important to look at that and look at the timing. Mr. Todorovic gave up significant rights at that time - you know what those rights are - and went on into a cooperation agreement. Ms. Paterson, I think, was very good in outlining for the Court, both in her stipulation and her closing argument, the level. In other words, not only the quantity but the quality of the cooperation. For obvious reasons, we do not want to go into, at least we shouldn't, perhaps, go into too much detail on the cooperation, because I think the Trial Chamber has a transcript of one of the debriefings and so you know the quantity and quality of the cooperation and you know the number of debriefings. One thing that I found interesting, because there is some comparison to another case, which I think is precedental and I think has been cited here at times in the Tribunal, is the case of Erdemovic, which was the only, I would say, other plea bargain of the nature that we have here, in other words, a signed agreement that was filed with the Court suggesting a sentence.

One of the reasons that the Court, the Trial Chamber, was impressed in that particular case was the fact, as Ms. Paterson stated in this particular case - I want to be just careful - I think she indicated that there was information that was gained by the interviews of Mr. Todorovic that was otherwise not accessible.

In the Erdemovic case, we had a similar situation of the information that was gained by his cooperation, and therefore there is a similarity here as to the quality of the cooperation.

JUDGE MAY: The sentence in that case was one of five years. ⁶⁵

MR. KOSTICH: It was five years, Your Honour, yes.

JUDGE MAY: So your argument, if I follow it, is that the sentence should be discounted, first of all because there is a guilty plea which has resulted in a saving of public resources and court time, and most substantially because of the cooperation which your client has given. Is that right?

MR. KOSTICH: Yes, sir. Other factors, also, Judge, but yes.

JUDGE MAY: Apart -- yes, well, of course, which we will hear about, but I just want to make sure I have the argument so far. Apart from the case of Erdemovic, do you know of any other cases in the Tribunal's history, apart from this one and Erdemovic, in which there has been substantial cooperation by an accused after a plea of guilty? I think at the moment, I'll be advised if I'm wrong, but this is only the second case in which this has occurred.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, I agree with you.

JUDGE MAY: The sentence in that case was one of five years.

MR. KOSTICH: Yes, sir.

JUDGE MAY: Though he was involved in a number of crimes, shootings, his argument was that he acted under duress, which wasn't regarded as a defence but was regarded as mitigation. He was, of course, not a commander, and again, through the various factors which might be in mind. But your argument is: However serious the offences were, and they undoubtedly are in this case, that the sentence should reflect substantially these matters, particularly that of cooperation and the plea of guilty? ⁶⁶

MR. KOSTICH: Yes, Your Honour. If I may follow on the comments, the Court may not know, I was one of the two co-counsel representing Mr. Erdemovic, and the only thing I would add is that the number of offences in terms of the -- this is somewhat sensitive for us, for me to throw numbers around about human beings, and so I do it with just the fact that I want to answer your question, is that there was testimony and admissions by Mr. Erdemovic that he was involved in the neighbourhood of 70, seven zero, killings. That was from his own testimony. So, yes, sir, that is part of the argument. One of the things that is sometimes difficult, one of the things that is somewhat difficult --

JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kostich --

MR. KOSTICH: Yes, sir.

JUDGE ROBINSON: -- was Erdemovic actively charged with killings?

MR. KOSTICH: Yes.

JUDGE ROBINSON: He was, okay. Thank you.

MR. KOSTICH: Your Honour, what happened in that case, that he was, he was charged with the killings and he entered a plea to the killings.

Your Honour, I'm pretty much close to the closing of my remarks. I do think that that is of precedental value. The only other case, Your Honours, that -- I'm not suggesting it is directly on all fours with Mr. Todorovic's case. I did note that in the Celebici case that an accused by the name of Music received a seven-year sentence, and he was the alleged -- or I shouldn't say alleged. He was the one who was ⁶⁷ convicted of being the camp commander, but the facts of his involvement and Todorovic would have to be looked at. But that is another -- again, if I'm bold enough to put numbers, that is another number that is out there.

In closing, in closing, my remarks would end with this particular idea, and it's based on the fact that I've been coming to The Hague for approximately six years now, since 1995. I know why this particular Tribunal was created, and I'm not about to tell a distinguished court as to the reasons why it was founded. But what struck me is that the Tribunal is a vehicle to in some way, amongst other things -- in other words, punishing and assigning guilt, that that will all in some way assist the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to come together, to heal the wounds of the civil war.

What I find interesting is that with the exception of Mr. Erdemovic, who is a very -- who was a very young individual when he committed the crime and pled guilty, the only other individual who has come in to a public forum, whether it's a courtroom or someplace else, and said I was involved; I'm guilty; I did awful things; I feel sorry; I feel remorse; I want to move ahead; I want to move ahead and help resurrect the old times, as he says. And what's interesting is that nobody else out there has the courage to do that. And I don't care whether the person has been accused of a crime, has not been accused of a crime, but no political leader in Bosnia-Herzegovina has come forward and said that. They have been working on a truth and reconciliation commission now for umpteen -- seven years which has not been established. And I think there is some ⁶⁸ courage that Stevan Todorovic has to come into this court, in front of you, enter the plea of guilty, and literally -- and I think literally ask you to make a sentencing judgement on the basis of everything that's been provided to you.

And I think there is some -- I'm not asking you to award him for doing that, but I think it would be proper to at least recognise that he's one of the few human beings coming out of that awful war to have the courage to stand up and admit what he did.

Thank you very much.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Kostich. Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour. I am privileged today to stand for Stevan Todorovic before you. I'm privileged to be his attorney, and I'm privileged to have practiced before this Court. However, I am standing here before you not only as an attorney; I'm standing before you from a very different perspective. I am standing before you as a child of war.

I have been bombed by both the Americans, my people now, and by the Germans. I have been a refugee. I have lived in refugee camps. I have lost a country, gained another; lost houses, gained others. So I am a child of war and I speak to you from such a vantage point and perspective.

In my country's civil war - and when I say "my country," I say proudly the United States - which was far more bloody than Bosnia, and a man who had to live through that war, a famous general, General Tecumseh Sherman, said it first, "War is hell." ⁶⁹ Mr. Todorovic spoke those words first here, but I'm sure that he's not or does not know that those words were attributable to General Sherman, the general who marched through Georgia, who left a 40-mile swath which is still seen today some 150 years later. So as a child of war, I speak to you on behalf of Stevan Todorovic. I was reluctant to take this case, yet two and a half years later, I believe that of anybody in this court, including Dr. Lecic, including Stevan Todorovic's mother and sister, I know him best. I have learned of his youth. I have travelled to Bosanski Samac. I have spoken to people who knew him in the good times. I have also spoken to people who knew him in the bad times. I have also spoken to him on a daily basis. I don't think a day has gone by - perhaps a Saturday or a Sunday - that I have not spoken with Stevan Todorovic. I know him. I believe in him.

My colleague Mr. Kostich speaks about courage. I agree with him. Now, Mr. Kostich and I have a very long-term, distant but close relationship, and we work in very strange ways. He ain't telling me what he's going to say and I ain't telling him what I'm going to say. So it's a nice play of dividing the very difficult representation of an individual I believe in.

I had assured the Court that we would not be redundant. I hope that we are not. And the only reason that I raise an issue that he has raised is because I believe in Stevan Todorovic's courage. I also believe in his remorse. It's very hard, when you're sitting in that small, airless room in Scheveningen - it's no more than ⁷⁰ three feet by four feet - that somebody can fabricate remorse. I've been there. I've spent the time.

Ms. Paterson said that one of the issues before this court is victims. She's right. But I speak to you as a victim of another war. Another factor that this Court, in its majesty, has to consider is rehabilitation and "Is this man worth saving?"

He's worth saving. He's worth a second chance. I believe in him. I believe that if you mellow justice with some compassion, my Stevan Todorovic, the new Stevan Todorovic, the courageous Stevan Todorovic, can go back to Bosanski Samac and be a factor in helping to change for the better Bosanski Samac in the future.

I have been privileged to represent him. I have been privileged to appear before this Chamber. Mr. Todorovic alluded to this Chamber's protection of his rights. I concur. I thank you. It has been a privilege to appear before you, and I ask, on behalf of my client, a second chance.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Brashich.

MR. BRASHICH: Thank you, Your Honour.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll take time to deliberate on this matter and give our decision shortly.

Before we adjourn, Ms. Paterson, you did say that you were leaving the Tribunal.

MS. PATERSON: Yes, Judge. Next Friday will be my last day at the Tribunal.

JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Well, I'd like to thank you for the work ^{71BLANK PAGE 72} that you have done in this case and for your cooperation.

MR. BRASHICH: Your Honour, at this present time, I had forgotten at the beginning of my address to thank Ms. Paterson for the courtesies extended. It is greatly appreciated.

JUDGE ROBINSON: We stand adjourned.

--- Whereupon the Sentencing Hearing adjourned at 12.25 p.m.