JULY 15
The court was not in session.

JULY 16
The trial resumed with the tribunal spending most of the day on a defense motion relating to hearsay evidence.

The defense asked the court to exclude all hearsay evidence unless the prosecution can demonstrate why it should be admitted. The current rule at the tribunal favors the admissibility of hearsay evidence, that is, all hearsay evidence comes in unless the defense can demonstrate why it should not. That, the defense argued, is unfair. The defense contended it can't cross-examine the person who allegedly made the statement or test its truthfulness.

The prosecution contended the defense was trying to significantly change the burden and terms of admissibility.

The relevant rules discussed were Rules 89 (c) and (d). Rule 89 (c) provides: "A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value." Rule 89 (d) provides: "A Chamber may exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the need to ensure a fair trial."

The defense wants to exclude hearsay evidence that goes directly to Dusko Tadic's guilt. And, the defense wants the court to make rulings on hearsay statements without hearing their content. That makes sense in terms of Rule 89 (c) -- the court needs to hear the circumstances under which a statement is made in order to determine its reliability; arguably it does not need to hear the actual content of the statement. The defense, however, also argued that the court should not hear the content of a hearsay statement before applying Rule 89 (d) -- but, it appears that the essence of Rule 89 (d) is that the content is known and its probative value is weighted against its prejudicial value.

The tribunal did not immediately rule on the issue.

Meanwhile, the prosecution indicated it will conclude its case by mid-August.

The day's testimony came from Sead Halvadzic, who was from Prejidor and in the army from March 1991 until May 1992. After learning Prejidor had fallen to the Serbs, he left to fight for Bosnia-Herzegovina. But he was captured by Serb reserves in June 1992.

He eventually was sent to Omarska. But, before arriving at the camp, he was detained for a few days in the military barracks at Prejidor. Halvadzic said he was beaten by two military police members, one of whom was called "Tadic."

Four years later, he viewed several photos presented by the prosecution and identified Tadic as one of his attackers.

Defense attorney Steven Kay accused the witness of selecting Tadic because he had seen his image on television and in the newspapers. The witness denied it.

JULY 17
Two more witnesses placed Dusko Tadic at the Omarska prison camp.

One witness, a Muslim survivor of Omarska, testified that he saw Tadic walk behind the "white house" of the camp where dead bodies were piled up and disposed of the following day.

Another witness, who has known Tadic for 20 years, said he saw the defendant beat several prisoners at the camp.

Meanwhile, the tribunal announced that it will rule next week on a defense motion relating to hearsay evidence.

The defense wants the court to exclude all hearsay evidence unless the prosecution can demonstrate why it should be admitted. The current rule at the tribunal favors the admissibility of hearsay evidence, that is, all hearsay evidence comes in unless the defense can demonstrate why it should not. That, the defense argued, is unfair. The defense argued it can't cross-examine the person who allegedly made the statement or test its truthfulness. The prosecution contended the defense was trying to significantly change the burden and terms of admissibility.

JULY 18
Three more witnesses testified against Dusko Tadic with the most damaging evidence coming from a Muslim survivor of the Omarska prison camp who had known Tadic for several years.

Edin Mrkalj, a 24-year-old Muslim originally from a village within the municipality of Prijedor, was trained as a policeman in Sarajevo from 1979-1984. He then worked for three years in the federal police headquarters in Belgrade. At the beginning of 1988, he returned to Prejidor and worked as a policeman there until April 1992.

By the time Mrkalj was sent to Omarska in June, he had known Tadic for at least a year. They met at a meeting of policemen in Prejidor. After that, the witness said he saw Tadic several times in Prejidor and once in Kozarac.

On June 16, 1992, Mrkalj and a young prisoner were asked to enter the administration building at Omarska to remove a dead body. As the two got to the top of the stairs to what is referred to as the first floor, they kept their faces down and their hands behind their backs (as traditionally told to do). Mrkalj heard laughter, then the other prisoner was hit and fell down. When he came to, he was told to go downstairs.

Then, someone put a baton under Mrkalj's chin and lifted his head. Mrkalj said he found himself face-to-face with Tadic. He said he did not expect to be hit because Tadic turned away but then he was struck unexpectedly by Tadic on the head. Tadic then asked him why he was there. Mrkalj said he answered Tadic's questions. Tadic then ordered him to hold out his hands and asked which hand Mrkalj wrote with. When Mrkalj said his right hand, Tadic started to beat the hand with a rubber baton. Another man came and joined in the beating. At one point, the baton fell to the floor and Tadic told Mrkalj to pick it up and hand it to him saying "here you are Mr. Serb." Mrkalj said he had no choice, he knelt down to pick up the baton and handed it over as instructed.

Not yet standing up, Mrkalj said Tadic then placed the barrel of an automatic rifle in his mouth. Tadic held the rifle on his left shoulder. Mrkalj said Tadic and the other man beat him senseless while the gun remained in his mouth.

At the end of the direct examination, the witness was asked to identify Tadic in court. He pointed to the defendant and said, "that is the garbage over there." The witness was immediately chastised by the judge.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Steven Kay attacked the reliability of the witnesses' identification of Tadic. Despite the fact that the men knew each other, Tadic never called Mrkalj by his name nor did Mrkalj refer to Tadic by name before, during or after the beating.

JULY 19
Suada Ramic, a 41-year-old woman from Prijedor, testified about what life was like for women held at the Omarska prison camp.

She said women routinely were called out in the night but the women never discussed what happened to them. She said she was raped during the five times she was called out. Because of injuries related to the rapes, she had to have a hysterectomy when she was released from the camp.

The defense did not cross-examine the witness because Ramic did not directly implicate Dusko Tadic during her testimony.

The next witness, Emid Beganovic, did testify about Tadic's actions at the camp.

Beganovic, a Muslim businessman from Prijedor, had known Tadic for about 10 years before Omarska. At the camp, he was called out for what the prosecutor referred to as three "special" beatings.

The witness said Tadic participated in the third beating. Tadic and several other Serbs in uniforms beat him with their boots, metal rods and cables for 20-30 minutes.

Beganovic suffered multiple skull fractures, a broken nose, spine and kidney injuries, and has lost most of the use of his left hand.

On cross-examination, defense attorney Steven Kay dealt with the obvious. Since Tadic did not participate in the first two beatings, perhaps Beganovic's perception was affected and he could not make a positive identification of anyone who beat him on the third occasion. Beganovic insisted he was mentally alert enough to recognize Tadic. "The other faces meant nothing to me because I did not recognize them," he said.