- INFORMINC (LM) LIMITED
- MICHAEL HUME
- HELENE GULDBERG
REQUEST FOR FURTHER AND BETTER
PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENCE
UNDER PARAGRAPH 8, PARTICULARS
Of: "v) The Second and Third Plaintiffs shot other, subsequently
unused, videotape footage at the camp on 5 August 1992, in addition
to the said footage of Fikret Alic and others outside the depicted
- State clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
case that the Second and Third Plaintiffs deliberately chose not to use this additional videotape footage because they
know that it would reveal the true nature of the camp and the
circumstances in which Fikret Alic and the others came to be there.
- In any event, and in order that the Plaintiffs may understand
the case made against them, specify precisely how:
- the content of such footage, and
- the fact that it was not used,
is alleged to support the Defendants' case that the Plaintiffs
deliberately set out to create a misleading impression of the
Of: "vi) Neither of the said reports suggested or indicated that
the depicted fence was surrounding the film crew rather than Fikret
viii) Both of the said reports were written and compiled in such
a way as to give the misleading impression that Fikret Alic was
imprisoned and caged inside (and by) the depicted fence;
ix) The Court will be invited to infer that both of the said reports
were deliberately written and compiled by the Second and Third
Plaintiffs so as to give the said misleading impression;
x) The picture of Fikret Alic behind the depicted fence included
in the said broadcasts was subsequently reproduced and seen around
xi) The said picture was widely interpreted as evidence that Fikret
Alic and the others in the picture were caged inside the camp
by the depicted fence and that the Bosnian Serbs were therefore
running camps akin to Nazi concentration camps;
xii) As a result of the matters referred to at x) and xi) above,
there was an international outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and
in favour of international intervention in Bosnia"
3. State clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
case that Fikret Alic and the others in the picture:
- were not being forcibly detained in the area behind the depicted fence;
- were in truth at liberty to enter and leave the said area at will;
- were not in any way being forcibly detained at the camp by the
4. Given the Defendants' contention that the camp wrongly came
to be widely viewed (on account of the Plaintiffs' reports) as
evidence that the Bosnian Serbs were running Nazi-style concentration
camps, state clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
contention that nobody was detained at the camp against his will,
in any event stating what the Defendants allege was the true nature
and purpose of the camp.
5. Specify with full and proper particularity the precise respects in which the Plaintiffs' reports are alleged to have
been deliberately written and compiled in such a way as to give
the misleading impression that Fikret Alic was imprisoned and
caged inside (and by) the depicted fence.
6. For the avoidance of doubt, clarify whether it is the Defendants'
- that, but for the Plaintiffs' picture of Fikret Alic, there would
have been no international outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and
in favour of international intervention in Bosnia; and/or
- that there was otherwise no justification for the international
outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and in favour of international
intervention in Bosnia.
Of: "xiv) The Second and Third Plaintiffs should then have explained
publicly the true circumstances (as aforesaid) in which the said
videotape shots came to be taken;
xv) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Second and Third Plaintiffs
have never given such an explanation."
7. In order that the Plaintiffs may know the case made against
them, specify clearly and unambiguously all facts and matters relating to the presence of Fikret Alic and
- in the area behind the depicted fence; and
- in the camp generally
which the Defendants allege were "the true circumstances" that
the Second and Third Plaintiffs should have explained publicly
but did not do so.
Served this 18 day of February 1998 by Biddle, 1 Gresham Street,
London, Solicitors for the Plaintiffs.
The Reply to the Request