THE HAGUE, May 26 (Hina) - The defence attorney for General Tihomir Blaskic, Anto Nobilo, on Wednesday objected at a trial before the International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), that the prosecution's cross
examination has badgering his defendant. During the past several weeks, the prosecutor continued to insist that Blaskic provide written evidence to prove he had given out verbal orders. He was asked to, in writing, prove he had issued two verbal orders to investigate the massacre of Moslems in Ahmici (central Bosnia), before he had put the third order on paper; to prove he had asked the leader of Herzeg-Bosnia, Mate Boban, to request public support in the investigation; to provide documents about regular written reports he had sent to his superiors about the inefficiency of the investigation of the former Herzeg-Bosnian Intelligence and Security Service (SIS) and crimes in Ahmici. We have been
THE HAGUE, May 26 (Hina) - The defence attorney for General Tihomir
Blaskic, Anto Nobilo, on Wednesday objected at a trial before the
International Criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY),
that the prosecution's cross examination has badgering his
defendant.
During the past several weeks, the prosecutor continued to insist
that Blaskic provide written evidence to prove he had given out
verbal orders. He was asked to, in writing, prove he had issued two
verbal orders to investigate the massacre of Moslems in Ahmici
(central Bosnia), before he had put the third order on paper; to
prove he had asked the leader of Herzeg-Bosnia, Mate Boban, to
request public support in the investigation; to provide documents
about regular written reports he had sent to his superiors about the
inefficiency of the investigation of the former Herzeg-Bosnian
Intelligence and Security Service (SIS) and crimes in Ahmici.
We have been listening to this for two days in a row - 'does he have
written orders', Blaskic's attorney said Wednesday.
The testimony itself that the orders had been in verbal form
excludes the possibility the orders had been written, Nobilo said.
The prosecution has the task of proving Blaskic had not issued
orders, not the defendant, Nobilo said.
He stressed there is no army in which written orders are issued to
the command; this is only done to units.
With this cross examination the prosecution seems to determine the
witness is not answering correctly and the defence had no proof,
Nobilo said.
"These are effects for the judges, not for the jury".
Trail chamber chairman Clause Jorda said, considering the fact
Blaskic is defending himself with orders he had issued, the
prosecution's insisting is not legitimate.
It is important that the judges know that important orders were
always verbal.
The fact that Blaskic did not have them in written form is not a
reason for the judges to withdraw the most negative consequences
for the defendant, judge Jorda said.
The prosecution used argumentative reiteration of the same
formulations: give us the name of one soldier punished for the
crimes in Ahmici; give us the name of at least one soldier punished
for the abuse of prisoners; give us the name of at least one soldier
punished for using civilians as a live shield, with the aim of
dramatically consolidate the sense of Blaskic's omissions in the
punishment of perpetrators.
The cross examination of a former Central Bosnia Operative Zone
commander is nearing an end.
Following the cross examination, the defence and prosecution have
the right to additional questioning, followed by witness
testimonies.
Final statements are expected at the end of July, and a verdict by
the end of the year.
Blaskic is indicted of crimes committed during Croat-Moslem
conflicts in the Lasva Valley in 1993.
(hina) lml jn