This post is also available in: Bosnian
At the beginning of the presentation of material evidence by the Defence of Dragan Sunjic, the indictee asked the Trial Chamber to “send him out” of the courtroom unless he is allowed to present material evidence and comment on each one of them individually.
Sunjic, Marko Radic, Damir Brekalo and Mirko Vracevic are charged with crimes committed in Vojno detention camp, near Mostar, in which, according to the indictment, Bosniaks were detained and mistreated in the course of 1993 and 1994. The Prosecution considers that the four men were members of the Bijelo polje Battalion of the Second Brigade with the Croatian Defence Council, HVO.
The material evidence, introduced by the Defence of the second indictee, contains many pieces of evidence already presented by the Prosecution.
Attorney Mithat Koco commented on each of them, explaining why they were important for the Defence and relating them to the statements of examined Prosecution and Defence witnesses.
The Trial Chamber warned the attorney several times to shorten his presentation, saying that it was “not a good time for analysis of evidence”, because there would be a chance to do it during the course of the presentation of closing arguments.
“We have invested much time and efforts to analyse these pieces of evidence. My clients wants me to present this to you, or otherwise he will cancel my power of attorney,” Koco said.
Sunjic addressed the Trial Chamber, claiming that he “will not have enough time” to explain all pieces of evidence in his closing arguments, asking the Chamber to “include” the evidence analysis “in the official records”.
After Trial Chamber Chairman Stanisa Gluhajic explained to him that the Court would read all pieces of evidence and consider them as part of the entire case file, Sunjic said they “cannot persuade him in that”.
The indictee asked the Trial Chamber to send him out of the courtroom unless he is allowed to present evidence in such way. After that the Court admitted the continuation of evidence presentation.
The material evidence, introduced by attorney Mithat Koco, mainly included daily, weekly and monthly reports on the activities of the HVO Military Police, which indicated that its members’ tasks were “checkpoints, patrol services, frontlines patrols, building watch and so on.”
The second indictee’s Defence is due to continue presenting its material evidence on December 5, 2008, when the first indictee’s Defence witnesses will also be examined.
