Monday Sept. 23
Court was in recess.

Tuesday Sept. 24
Defense attorneys won one of their most important battles: prosecutors will not be entitled to written statements of defense witnesses.

After listening to the lawyers argue for a full day, tribunal judges took ten minutes to deliver their precedent-setting decision in declaring that "such statements are privileged."

The defense has vehemently defended the privacy of its witnesses's statements. Those witnesses, the defense said, fear arrest and prosecution by the tribunal. They spoke only after defense attorneys promised they would not disclose the statements. The ruling also clears the way for defense attorneys in future cases to assure prospective witnesses their interviews will be private.

Presiding Judge Gabrielle McDonald made it clear from the bench that she dissented from the ruling. The only American on the panel, she instead voted in favor of reciprocal discovery -- a system unique to the United States. She was outvoted 2-1.

Both sides spent the day citing laws and rules from courts all over the world. Quickly, it became clear that almost all justice systems throughout the world do not recognize a reciprocal discovery rule. The United States was the only exception attorneys and judges could find.

Defense attorneys argued that in civil systems and common law systems other than the U.S., reciprocal discovery is unheard of. The defense said communications between a defense lawyer and prospective witnesses are privileged in the same way attorney-client communications are privileged. Defense attorney Michail Wladimiroff contended an attorney is simply an extension of his client, making all communications with third parties privileged.

But the prosecution said once that third party takes the stand, the privilege is waived and any prior statement is fair game. In the U.S., those types of statements commonly are used for impeachment purposes. For example, if a witness' prior statement is inconsistent with what he says on stand, attorneys can use that prior statement to question his credibility. But Wladimiroff said that no civil system on the European continent recognizes impeachment evidence as relevant in a trial.

Wednesday Sept 25
For the first time in open session, the defense called alibi witnesses.

As of yet, we have no idea what other witnesses have said behind closed doors. But judging from the first two alibi witnesses in open session, the alibi defense is taking shape slowly.

Witness X And Dragolje Balta both said Tadic was living in Banja Luka the day his hometown Kozarac fell to Bosnian Serbs. Prosecutors had alleged Tadic took part in the May 24, 1992 attack on Kozarac and helped expel the Muslims living there. But according to X and Balta, Tadic was 25 miles away at Banja Luka.

They said Tadic left Kozarac because of the attack. Witness X, who has been a friend of Tadic's family for 20 years, said Tadic told her he did not want to participate in the conflict. X said Tadic was depressed and complained he did not want to put on a uniform and attack his neighbors. She also said Tadic stayed in Banja Luka until the end of June or early July.

X's claim contradicts prosecution testimony, which places Tadic spent at three prison camps -- Keraterm, Omarska and Trnopolje -- all about 25 miles from Banja Luka. She also said she never saw Tadic act strange, never saw him in military garb, never saw him with a weapon.

Dragolje Balta, a Bosnian Serb locksmith, repeated that Tadic stayed in Banja Luka at least through the beginning of July 1992. Balta said Tadic and his family moved into the basement of the house next door to his. He said he asked Tadic why he moved to Banja Luka, and that Tadic responded that there was trouble in Kozarac and he had to leave.

Prosecutors say Tadic was in Kozarac during the attack, and that he helped expel a "column of Muslims," who were kicked out of their houses. But the defense still has not established that Tadic was not at the prison camps during the time prosecutors say he was. Several prosecution witnesses detailed very specific instances when they saw Tadic at the camps. The defense has yet to show Tadic was somewhere else during those specific incidents.

Defense attorneys have complained their task is harder in this case than in most, for this reason: the alibi is not for one day, as in most murder cases. This is an alibi that must stretch across months.

On cross-examination, prosecutors suggested the witnesses are biased. Witness X was a friend to both Tadic and his wife. And Dragolje Balta is a Serb. Prosecutors and defense attorneys have said they will argue the other side's witnesses are biased because of their ethnic backgrounds. Most of the prosecution's witnesses were Muslims; most of the defense witnesses are expected to be Serb. Both sides most likely will stress in argument that the ethnic divide in Bosnia is as wide as ever, and that the credibility of the witnesses in this trial is tainted by the tension.

Thursday Sept. 26
No session.

Friday Sept. 27
No session.