1 Thursday, 22 May 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 10.02 a.m.

5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Case number IT-02-60-T, the

7 Prosecutor versus Vidoje Blagojevic and Dragan Jokic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

9 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honour. Just two brief matters.

11 One, yesterday we made a request regarding a continuance in light of the

12 reaction that I perceived from the Trial Chamber, as I made the request

13 for one month continuance. I went back and I looked at the upcoming

14 witnesses and regrouped my thinking, and I have another proposal, an

15 amended proposal that might be amenable to the Trial Chamber. We could go

16 forward with the witnesses as they are scheduled and perhaps give the

17 Prosecution until, say, as late as June the 13th to get their statements

18 and then after that give us an opportunity, say, at a minimum two weeks

19 break at that point. By that time, we should have the statements, we will

20 have -- hopefully they will be translated and then we can begin to do our

21 work. I think it makes more sense from our standpoint that we go forward

22 and have the time available once we have the transcripts at hand. I don't

23 know if that's feasible on the Prosecution side. They certainly do seem

24 to have quite a few folks working on the case. Plus we're only going half

25 days, and so they can certainly put in -- I understand that the UN

1 Detention Centre is willing to allow them to work on the weekends if need

2 be to use the facilities.

3 The second matter, and I want to apologise to the court yesterday

4 for being less than adequately prepared for my last point that I was

5 raising with respect to Mr. Ruez. I was referring to an exhibit. It was

6 tape number 21, where I was talking about the conversation between General

7 Mladic and Colonel Karremans. I want to make sure that the record is

8 clear that it's tape 21. And then again I wanted to make sure that I was

9 accurate and hadn't misled neither the witness nor the Trial Chamber nor

10 the Prosecution, so I looked at Prosecution Exhibit 21A, and in that

11 exhibit, on pages L0092415 to 6 and L0092422 are references with respect

12 to Mr. Karremans having contacted one, the UN, and secondly, having

13 contacted the BH or BiH government. So I just wanted to make sure that

14 the record is clear and assist you in locating those areas on the

15 transcript. Thank you, Your Honours.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.

17 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I know that -- and I thank

18 Mr. Karnavas for his suggestions, but this is the first that we've heard

19 of it. And I believe Mr. Karnavas is concerned more about the statements

20 of Momir Nikolic and Dragan Obrenovic. The Defence for Mr. Jokic is

21 concerned about the fundamental unfairness of proceeding without a final

22 indictment in the case, and so we're opposed to proceeding after this

23 witness, period, until we have all the allegations against our client and

24 can proceed appropriately. So we think that we should go ahead and have a

25 30-day continuance after this witness so that we can prepare, get the

1 final -- all of the problems. There are several problems hanging around

2 in this case that need to be addressed and maybe within 30 days this will

3 be a trial that is prepared to continue under the Rules of procedure.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. I believe it's a reasonable

5 request.

6 Any response from -- yes. Yes, Mr. Stojanovic.

7 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps this is an

8 opportunity to say something with regard to what we talked about

9 yesterday, that is, the anticipated announcements and changes of the

10 indictment amendments to be made there with regard to some of the counts.

11 Perhaps, with the Prosecution, we could try to clarify the terminological

12 differences with regard to the indictment. Yesterday when we talked to

13 our client, Dragan Jokic, and I again am making my reservations, in view

14 of the problems with the transcript, that is, the interpretation, we are

15 not quite clear about the difference between seniority command and

16 leadership.

17 According to the military terminology, which both the Prosecution

18 team and we have in front of us, and which has been attached to the

19 report, clearly defines the terms "leadership" and "command." But now we

20 hear a third term, which is priority or authority. Now, does this mean

21 command, commanding authority, in the case of Nikolic, and in Jokic it

22 means something else? We have to clear this up before the deadline for

23 our objections to the amended counts of the indictment. We need to do

24 this with the Prosecution, and with your assistance, Your Honours, but we

25 need to clear this up before the deadline expires. Thank you.

1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for letting us know your views on

2 this issue, but this is not a hearing on the amended indictment at this

3 moment. I think the Defence counsel will have plenty of opportunity to

4 make any response to the proposals or applications for the amended

5 indictment at a later stage.

6 Could I hear the initial response from the Prosecution side on all

7 those issues.

8 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, as we stated yesterday, the length

9 of the break we would leave to the court's discretion. However, as

10 Mr. Karnavas indicated yesterday, we would like some time, it would be

11 helpful to the Prosecution to have a break in which we would be able to

12 meet with Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Obrenovic in order to obtain the statements

13 that Mr. Karnavas says that --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel slow down, please.

15 MS. DE LA TORRE: -- yesterday that three weeks was not long

16 enough. Sorry. That three weeks was not long enough. He's indicated

17 today that he would be willing to accept two weeks. That's acceptable to

18 the Prosecution. We would simply ask for the two weeks' break that we had

19 previously discussed, and that we had indicated to our witnesses that we

20 would not be --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel slow down, please.

22 MS. DE LA TORRE: -- before we resume June 9th. Beyond the

23 two-week break, Your Honour, we would leave that to the court's

24 discretion.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Just very briefly.

2 JUDGE LIU: You have to be very concise, Mr. Karnavas. We are not

3 going to have a long debate on this issue.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree, Your Honour. Obviously there's a

5 mischaracterisation from the Prosecution. I'm willing to accept the

6 two-week break after I receive -- after I receive, not before, after I

7 receive the transcripts of statements from their witnesses which I'm

8 entitled under the Rules. That's what my position is, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Well, so could we have the witness,

10 please.

11 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I just wanted to mention that I

12 apologise to the court. I have not had time to write the request for

13 certification or my written motion to suppress the statements, and if the

14 court will give me a few more days to do that, I would appreciate it.

15 JUDGE LIU: Of course. And I think during the procedure of the

16 meeting the evidence you have the full right to orally present your views

17 concerning those documents.

18 MS. SINATRA: And thank you. I just wanted also the court to be

19 aware that we don't consider going forward with this witness waiving any

20 right that we have to object to proceeding with the trial. We will go

21 forward, but we don't want to waive the right to contest it in writing at

22 a later date.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

24 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

25 [The witness entered court]

1 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.

2 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

3 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes, thank you.

5 JUDGE LIU: I hope we can send you home today, but who knows.

6 THE WITNESS: One never knows.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.

8 WITNESS: JEAN-RENE RUEZ [Resumed]

9 Cross-examined by Ms. Sinatra:

10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ruez.

11 A. Good morning.

12 Q. I just wanted to bring something to mind today. I noticed

13 yesterday that when you were answering your questions, sometimes you

14 didn't listen to the questions so well and you told your story. I'd like

15 for you to please just listen to my questions today, and if they only need

16 a yes or no answer, would you do that for me?

17 A. I will summarise as much as I can.

18 THE INTERPRETER: Can the counsel and the witness please make a

19 break between question and answer.

20 MS. SINATRA: Yes, we will. Thank you.

21 Q. In my country, when someone says -- you ask a question and they go

22 into a long narrative, we object as non-responsive, but I'm going to

23 assume that you're going to just listen to my questions and answer the

24 question that I ask.

25 A. I will do so.

1 Q. Okay. Thank you.

2 On Wednesday you stated that -- I'm going into your position right

3 now, that you've been on vacation since 2001; is that right?

4 A. Yes, this is correct.

5 Q. And that your new position will be fund-raiser for the Ministry of

6 the Interior of France; is that correct?

7 A. Yes, at the international cooperation service of Ministry of

8 Interior.

9 Q. But before that, before you took your vacation and before you came

10 with the OTP, you were an investigator or inspector with the French police

11 department; is that right?

12 A. I was -- the translation is superintendent in the French police.

13 Q. And when you are superintendent of the French police, that's

14 really an extension of the arm of the Prosecution in France, isn't it?

15 A. Yes. The Article 1 of our Code of Proceedings is that we act

16 under the control of the Prosecutor.

17 Q. And when you became the investigator for Srebrenica, you were an

18 employee of the OTP at that time; right?

19 A. I was an employee of the OTP, yes.

20 Q. And as an employee of the OTP, you're just another extension or

21 arm of the Prosecutor; right?

22 A. Definitely, yes.

23 Q. Now, you also stated that -- well, we don't know -- where did you

24 go to college before you went with the French police department?

25 A. I was at the university named Paris 2 in Paris, a law university.

1 Q. And you did state that you have no expertise in forensics

2 whatsoever; isn't that right?

3 A. My expertise is to decide at what moment experts have to be

4 requested to conduct these forensics, but I don't conduct forensics

5 myself, is it correct.

6 Q. But you don't have any expertise in it either, only enough to know

7 that you don't know enough to hire someone else?

8 A. The expertise I have is supposed to be enough to be able to decide

9 at what moment this is needed or not, but I am not an expert, for sure.

10 Q. Before you came to this courtroom to testify in this case, you

11 didn't provide us with a curriculum vitae, did you?

12 A. I was not requested to do so, as far as I remember.

13 Q. And you didn't write a report or a statement for this case, did

14 you?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 Q. In fact, the only evidence we were given was your prior testimony

17 in the Krstic case.

18 A. I don't know. I testified -- this is the fifth time, so I assume

19 you have all the records from -- for these testimonies.

20 Q. That's really interesting, because we only have the record from

21 the Krstic case. Can you tell us what other records we were missing?

22 A. Yes. In that case, you would be missing the testimony I gave for

23 Rule 61 hearing Karadzic, Mladic, June/July '96. In that case you would

24 miss the testimony I gave for the first sentencing of Drazen Erdemovic,

25 end of 1996, and the same thing for the second sentencing of Drazen

1 Erdemovic.

2 MS. SINATRA: Your Honours, when we take a break in a moment, may

3 we ask the Prosecution to provide us with that evidence also so that we

4 can review it during the break?

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

6 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, I've informed by my case manager

7 that they do have copies of all those prior testimonies.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Can you provide those documents to the Defence

9 team at this moment.

10 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, they have already been provided.

11 Are you requesting that we give them another copy?

12 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, the only one that I was provided, that

13 I'm aware of, might I add, was the testimony in the Krstic case.

14 JUDGE LIU: Do you have any records for the furnishment of those

15 documents to the Defence team?

16 MS. DE LA TORRE: I'm sorry, Your Honour?

17 JUDGE LIU: Do you have any records for providing those documents

18 to the Defence team?

19 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour. We have receipts of all of

20 the documentation we provided to the Defence. They have the entire

21 Erdemovic sentencing hearing, as well as the entire transcript from the

22 Rule 61 hearing and the Krstic trial.

23 JUDGE LIU: Ms. Sinatra, my suggestion is that would you please

24 continue your cross-examination, and during the breaks, and you could look

25 into your files to see whether the documents -- and you could revisit it,

1 this question.

2 MS. SINATRA: Yes. I will try to locate those at the break, but

3 Mr. Stojanovic assures me that we don't have Mladic or Karadzic Rule 61

4 hearings. So maybe we can try to get a copy of them at our break.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Maybe during the break you could refurnish those

6 documents to Ms. Sinatra.

7 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour.

8 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

9 Q. Mr. Ruez, on the first day you testified at the end of the

10 testimony, of course, we were provided with the script for your testifying

11 here, and the truth is that you're really not an independent witness at

12 all, are you?

13 A. I leave you the responsibility of what you are saying.

14 Q. That the whole testimony that you have provided here was a play

15 written by the Prosecution and you're just a mouth piece for them; is that

16 correct?

17 A. I repeat the same answer. I leave it to you to think this or say

18 it or claim it.

19 Q. But Ms. de la Torre wrote the script and then you acted it out in

20 the courtroom; is that right?

21 A. I didn't act; I testified. I'm not an actor.

22 Q. Thank you. I want to go to 1995, July 14th. In 1995, there was a

23 serious armed conflict going on between a gigantic Muslim column and the

24 VRS forces at that time, wasn't there?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. In fact, there was just heavy fighting that it was a concern of

2 the Zvornik Brigade that they would be overrun by this Muslim column;

3 isn't that true?

4 A. No. This is not exactly the situation. It is the Zvornik Brigade

5 that was worried to be overrun by the Muslim column, not the Bratunac

6 Brigade.

7 Q. I thought I said the Zvornik Brigade. That's the one I'm really

8 concerned about. The fighting was only like 3 kilometres from the centre

9 of the city in Zvornik, wasn't it?

10 A. Yes, correct.

11 Q. And all of the troops, everybody that could hold a gun, was called

12 to defend the city; isn't that right?

13 A. Yes, this is right.

14 Q. In fact, there was a public announcement, everybody, no matter

15 what your age, if you can carry a gun, come out and protect our city?

16 A. Yes, this is what happened in that area, yes.

17 Q. And on that same day, that's the same day that the people from the

18 Bratunac Brigade decided to ship a large group of refugees into the zone

19 of responsibility of the Zvornik Brigade?

20 A. This is not a decision that was made by Bratunac Brigade. This

21 was a decision made by Drina Corps Main Staff and VRS Main Staff, not

22 Bratunac Brigade.

23 Q. Thank you. And when you say "Main Staff," you're talking about

24 the secret service operations that are underneath Mladic; is that correct?

25 A. I'm mainly referring to Mladic himself and his aides from the

1 security branch of the Main Staff.

2 Q. Now, on July 14th, 1995, you know that Dragan Jokic had chosen the

3 black bean and he was the duty officer assigned on that day, don't you?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. And as a duty officer -- let me tell you -- well, tell me if I'm

6 right. If the commander or deputy commander or in headquarters the duty

7 officer doesn't do anything, does he?

8 A. Aside being aware of what is going on around him, indeed, if

9 everyone is present, he has no information to relay, and he is at that

10 moment out of the loop and waiting to enter the loop.

11 Q. So when the commander or the deputy commander are not present in

12 the brigade is when he has to coordinate communications and send messages;

13 is that right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. I suppose in your investigation you're familiar with standard or

16 that Zvornik Brigade headquarters there right outside of Zvornik?

17 A. No, I am not familiar with this building, aside from the outside,

18 since I penetrated that building once, but it was to seize weapons, not to

19 seize documentation, so I only entered the storage room of weapons. I'm

20 not familiar with the brigade itself.

21 Q. So you never went into the different offices within the building?

22 A. No. During that search I was at the Bratunac Brigade.

23 Q. Are you familiar with it through your review of photographs and

24 documents?

25 A. No, I'm not.

1 Q. So you don't know where the duty officer's office was in that

2 building?

3 A. No, no idea. All this part of analysis was conducted by Richard

4 Butler, but I'm not familiar at all with these elements. I know some of

5 important elements that were found at that headquarters, but I didn't

6 participate in the analysis of them.

7 Q. Thank you. Now, on the day that they were moving the refugees

8 from the Srebrenica area, Potocari, north toward the Zvornik area,

9 remember we were under -- they were under heavy attack by the Muslim

10 column; right?

11 A. The area was under attack of the Zvornik -- sorry -

12 Q. Sorry. I wasn't clear. The Zvornik Brigade was under attack by

13 the Muslim column on July 14th?

14 A. The Zvornik Brigade was not really under heavy attack. They were

15 trying to ambush this column, so they were looking for the combat. So

16 they engaged themselves indeed in heavy combat with that column, yes.

17 Q. You mean the column was coming and the city was here and they went

18 out to protect the city and keep them from overrunning the city; is that

19 right?

20 A. This is not exactly the way Colonel Obrenovic explained as the

21 situation during his interview. He explained that there was a main

22 column, the main part of the column was trying to hit Nezuk and they were

23 trying to ambush this column and logically inflict maximum casualties,

24 since it's a military activity, and armed forces going towards them. But

25 that column detached a large group in order to make a fake attack on

1 Zvornik and attract the Zvornik brigade in the defence of Zvornik, so that

2 the rest of the column could make a break through at Nezuk. This is the

3 situation as it was described to us by Dragan Obrenovic.

4 Q. But when you say that the column made a fake attack on Zvornik,

5 that was to get their forces to come defend the town to enable them to

6 open up the area so they could go through; is that right?

7 A. Yes, this is right.

8 Q. Okay. So there were -- everybody in Zvornik was concerned that

9 they were going to be attacked by the Muslims; though?

10 A. This is correct. Everyone said even after that due to the way

11 Zvornik was poorly defended, that column could have taken Zvornik during

12 these days.

13 Q. During this operation, which was a legitimate military operation

14 of defending the city -- I'm sorry. Sorry. It was a legitimate military

15 operation at the time. What was coming from the Bratunac area, or from

16 Srebrenica and Potocari, were bus loads of men perceived to be civilians

17 but some were probably in the armed forces at one time; is that correct?

18 A. We do not any longer since long enter the debate about who was a

19 military and who was a civilian since we only, as I already explained,

20 count victims who have gone through a detention process. So whatever

21 happens we are talking about war prisoners.

22 Q. So you're talking about prisoners of war under the Geneva

23 Convention?

24 A. Yes, definitely.

25 Q. Okay. Thank you very much. And when you had this bus caravan

1 coming through Zvornik, in the front of the bus you have a white UN APC;

2 isn't that correct?

3 A. This white APC is spotted both by survivor who was in that column

4 that went to Zvornik and was also spotted by Major Jokic, 14 July, when he

5 saw this large column of buses coming to Zvornik, and the column was

6 headed by an APC, APC indeed.

7 Q. An APC with United Nations markings on it; isn't that correct?

8 A. A vehicle stolen from the UN battalion in Potocari, yes.

9 Q. And the people driving the APC had Blue Helmets on, didn't they?

10 A. I know no one who gave that detail.

11 Q. And even on the buses, didn't you hear from your interviews that

12 there were blue helmets all dispersed through the buses?

13 A. No. No Blue Helmets on the buses. The use of the blue helmets

14 was on the stretch of road between Kravica and Nova Kasaba in order to

15 lure the people out of the woods. But once they were prisoners, there was

16 no need any more to make them believe the United Nations was under

17 control, and the descriptions that we got from the men who were guarding

18 the prisoners on board of the buses were either people in camouflage

19 uniforms or some people in camouflage uniforms with white belts that could

20 indicate they were military police people.

21 Q. So the white belt indicates MUP; is that correct?

22 A. No, it doesn't indicate MUP. It indicates generally that it's

23 military police.

24 Q. Can you just explain the difference between MUP and military

25 police. Military police are part of the VRS and MUP is not?

1 A. MUP is Ministry of Interior troops, and military police is the

2 police of a military unit, like Zvornik Brigade, Bratunac Brigade, or also

3 military police attached specially to the corps.

4 Q. Now, let's go back to the caravan of buses coming through Zvornik.

5 A caravan of buses carrying prisoners of war, going through Zvornik with a

6 UN APC in the front of it could be perceived as a legitimate military

7 operation, isn't that correct? The question is: Could have been

8 perceived.

9 A. For the civilians in Zvornik, maybe, yes, but not for the military

10 people.

11 Q. Well, how do you know the military people -- it could have been

12 perceived by the military people, because the caravan didn't stop there,

13 that it was a legitimate military operation, couldn't it?

14 A. I don't think so. I think that all the officers of the Drina

15 Corps at that time were enjoying some victory or --

16 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm going to object. I think that he's

17 calling for speculation right now. I don't think that he has any facts to

18 base his statement on.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, please answer the question put by the

20 Defence counsel directly.

21 THE WITNESS: Okay, fine.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. de la Torre.

23 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, Defence counsel's question was

24 about what military people could have perceived, which in itself asks him

25 to speculate what the military people might have been thinking or

1 perceiving. As a result, he responded with his own speculation about what

2 he believed that they might have perceived.

3 JUDGE LIU: I understand that. I understand that.

4 MS. SINATRA: I will be a lot more specific in my question, and

5 I'm sorry if it was unartful.

6 Q. My specific question is: The Zvornik Brigade, on the road going

7 north into Bijeljina, when, if a caravan of buses came by with a UN APC at

8 the lead, anybody in the Zvornik Brigade who just watched this go by could

9 believe that that was a legitimate military operation, couldn't they?

10 A. I would say no. Sorry.

11 Q. Okay.

12 MS. SINATRA: If you'll just give me a second, Your Honour.

13 Q. You know, there was overcrowding in Potocari, wasn't there, of the

14 places where they were detaining the prisoners of war?

15 A. Are you talking about the white house?

16 Q. I'm talking about the whole area in Potocari, the DutchBat

17 compound, there was way overcrowding and it was becoming a humanitarian

18 crisis, wasn't it?

19 A. Yes, but your question was about facilities detaining prisoners of

20 war. Are you talking about the refugees in Potocari, the 25.000?

21 Q. Well, you just told me that we consider those prisoners of war.

22 Are you considering them civilians, refugees, or prisoners of war?

23 A. The people in Potocari we consider them as refugees. As soon as

24 people had been separated, as soon as people have been arrested or as soon

25 as people have surrendered, they enter a detention process, then we

1 consider these prisoners of war and we do not focus any longer if they

2 were civilians or civilians, potential combatants or combatants in

3 uniform. At that point they are all prisoners versus the people in

4 Potocari, we don't consider them prisoners at that stage. They are

5 refugees waiting, depending who is talking about the situation, waiting

6 for evacuation or for deportation.

7 Q. Thank you. And as a matter of fact, the conditions in Potocari,

8 with, I don't know, 50.000 people, limited into a small area, became a

9 humanitarian crisis, didn't it?

10 A. The entire operation was to create a humanitarian crisis in this

11 area in order to force the people to go. It's the aim of the Krivaja 95

12 operation.

13 Q. So your answer is yes, it was becoming a humanitarian crisis, not

14 enough food, not enough water, not enough medical supplies, not enough

15 space for the people to even lie down; is that correct?

16 A. All the conditions were there to have these people flee the area

17 as soon as possible, indeed.

18 Q. So whenever they were moving these people north, it could have

19 been to relieve the humanitarian crisis, couldn't it?

20 A. And bring the prisoners to a better life, yes.

21 Q. Thank you. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with earth-moving

22 equipment or military operations during an attack. Are you?

23 A. No, I've never been engaged in combat in the army, no.

24 Q. There are other reasons for earth-moving equipment to be sent out

25 during combat situation, aren't there? There are reasons such as building

1 latrines if you have a large number of people coming to the area.

2 Wouldn't that be a legitimate reason?

3 A. For sure that would be, yes.

4 Q. Building trenches to protect the troops; that's another reason,

5 isn't it?

6 A. Yes, it is.

7 Q. In fact, they usually have earth-moving equipment poised at the

8 fronts at combat operations for legitimate purposes, don't they?

9 A. Yes, definitely. That's what engineers are for in the army, in

10 normal circumstances.

11 Q. They not only trench; they push up dirt to protect, don't they?

12 A. Yes. One thing they know how to do very well, for example, is to

13 dig a big hole of the size of a tank. That's their specialty. So that

14 only the barrel of the tank points out. And these holes are exactly the

15 size of a secondary mass grave, by the way.

16 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, this is non-responsive. I'm not asking

17 him about the size of secondary mass graves. Can he just answer the

18 question.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the witness answered the question.

20 Maybe you don't like the answer yourself.

21 MS. SINATRA: Well, I think he's editorialising and he's not

22 asking the questions.

23 THE WITNESS: You were asking me about what I knew equipment can

24 do, so that's one thing that an engineer unit knows how to do very well.

25 MS. SINATRA:

1 Q. I asked you about the legitimate purposes in a combat zone for

2 earth-moving equipment.

3 A. Okay, fine.

4 Q. Now, do you know anything about the chain of command in the VRS at

5 the time?

6 A. I'm not a specialist, but I know a bit about it, yes.

7 Q. Okay. If there's a commander, the commander has -- is the one who

8 issues orders and controls the brigade; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And when the commander isn't there, it's the deputy commander,

11 isn't it?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And if the deputy commander isn't there and we go down to a

14 company, it would be the commander of the company, wouldn't it?

15 A. I'm not the team expert on the regulations of a VRS army. I would

16 prefer having my colleague Richard Butler answer these questions. I'm not

17 a specialist of this.

18 Q. As a chief of engineering, do you know that that position is

19 merely advisory?

20 A. I know this is a debate we have talked a lot about this issue

21 during the interviews with the suspects. I will not enter this debate in

22 which I am not a specialist.

23 Q. I'll save it for Mr. Butler, then. Let me ask you about this term

24 "terrain restoration." Terrain restoration is a legitimate military term

25 that's used in every military manual around the world, isn't it?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And it doesn't mean just mass burial operations, does it?

3 A. The word "mass" would depended on how many bodies have to be taken

4 away from the terrain, so it depends of the battle that occurred before.

5 So yes.

6 Q. Terrain restoration is a term used mainly to clean up the battle

7 field after there's been a battle; isn't that true?

8 A. Yes, this is true.

9 Q. But it's a legitimate military term used throughout the world?

10 A. It's a legitimate word, yes. It is the technical word used by

11 military people to talk about that, yes.

12 Q. Did you know that on July 14th there was a plea to the public to

13 provide every bit of earth-moving equipment and equipment that they can to

14 the area of Zvornik? Did you know that?

15 A. No, I didn't.

16 Q. But you know that most of the equipment that was used in the

17 Zvornik area was not from the Zvornik Brigade; it was from the other

18 factories and refineries in the area; isn't that right?

19 A. Yes. This I knew, that there was a requisition made by the

20 Zvornik Brigade to civilian companies in order to get earth-digging

21 equipment.

22 MS. SINATRA: I'm going to object.

23 Q. Do you know that that requisition was made by the Zvornik Brigade

24 or do you know that it was made by someone from Main Staff?

25 A. That's a good point. That's the one that Mr. Jokic made. He

1 claimed it was done by Main Staff people, indeed. You're right.

2 Q. Yes. No. The requisitions that you're talking about was made by

3 Main Staff. It was not made by the Zvornik Brigade?

4 A. Yes. This is what Major Jokic says. Yes, indeed.

5 Q. Thank you. Now, I want to talk about another area that we have

6 not talked about in this -- in your interview here. You worked for how

7 many years with Stephanie Frease?

8 A. I have not worked with Stephanie Frease. Stephanie Frease has

9 been attached to -- I mean initially the start of the investigation so

10 during summer 1995, then she came back on the subject around April 1996,

11 and then more or less we never stopped working together until my

12 departure.

13 Q. So if you added it all up, you probably worked with her about six

14 or seven years, would you say?

15 A. Five years.

16 Q. Okay. That's good. Now, Stephanie Frease is also an investigator

17 for the OTP, isn't she?

18 A. No. Her position is research officer.

19 Q. And as a research officer, was she working on one specific area,

20 or conducting the whole investigation with you?

21 A. She participated in a lot of aspects, mainly related to the crime

22 base, the witnesses who are crime base. And the main task that she

23 carried on was the analysis of the intercepted communications that we got

24 from BiH army.

25 Q. And you know that Stephanie Frease had no expertise in radio

1 communications or intercepts; right?

2 A. This is why we brought in an expert for that topic, yes.

3 Q. And she was the one doing the investigation, but she had no

4 expertise in that area; isn't that correct?

5 A. You don't need to be a radio expert to analyse communications and

6 put them in context with the rest of the knowledge that you have of a

7 case.

8 Q. Well, since you're dealing with equipment that we're not familiar

9 with, normally ham radio equipment that people brought in of their own and

10 adapted it for these purposes, and you've got three of these listening

11 devices going at one time, and you have somebody trying to transcribe

12 three different conversations going, wouldn't you think you would need

13 some expertise to analyse the communications procedures there?

14 A. The communication procedures was one part, to validate the

15 products that we have, transcripts, and the topic of the effort of

16 Stephanie Frease was to analyse these transcripts, whatever piece of

17 equipment took it, that was not her concern. The technical aspect was the

18 concern of a ham radio expert.

19 Q. She doesn't have any expertise in ham radio experts, but she does

20 speak B/C/S; is that why she was chosen for this role?

21 A. Not only for that reason. Mainly for the reason that having been

22 on board of this investigation from the beginning, she was very

23 knowledgeable and indeed to understand things sometimes you need

24 knowledge. Most of the time you need knowledge, so she was the perfect

25 person for that part of the activity.

1 Q. But she had no expertise in communications procedures?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Okay. Now, you talked earlier, and I believe in one of your

4 interviews about the cooperation of the US State Department by providing

5 those aerial images that you have used over and over again your programme;

6 is that right?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And can you tell me a little bit about the satellite that goes

9 over, and the images that were taken from the satellite? How often does

10 it go by? What kind of satellite is it? Who controls the information?

11 A. The only --

12 MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honour, at this point I have to object. This

13 is a topic that is in the discretion of the United States security and, as

14 I know Mr. Ruez knows, is off limits and is something that is prevented by

15 Rule 70 for us to get into in any great detail.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Sinatra, I think you are asking the witness

17 to speculate. How could he know about those details?

18 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, he used all of those details --

19 JUDGE LIU: He used. He he's just a user of those products, but I

20 don't think he knows about the details, how those satellites are

21 functioning.

22 MS. SINATRA: Well, then perhaps we could go into private session

23 so that I could explore that area a little further, because in our case,

24 there is a possibility that we need more information from this provider

25 also, and I need to know how valuable these were and what other areas of

1 communications they got from the NSA and the US State Department.

2 JUDGE LIU: I think the provider is very clear. You could

3 directly come to the question which is directly related to your client.

4 For instance, you could show a picture saying that, you know, are you sure

5 this is something on the picture? How do you, you know, recognise -- how

6 do you come to the conclusion it's a truck? Or something like this.

7 Rather than asking the sources of those kind of pictures.

8 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, the reason I'm interested in the source

9 is not about the pictures. I need to know, and I don't know whether this

10 witness is qualified, but I will probably ask every witness that I think

11 has information about it. I need to know if that satellite or any request

12 has been made for audio intercepts from a satellite or from a military

13 plane that flew over that site on July 14th. The audio intercepts are

14 what we're interested in. It's exculpatory evidence and that's what we're

15 looking for.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, you could ask the question like this, but it's

17 very difficult for him to tell you how the function of those satellites,

18 how this picture was taken. Let me turn to Mr. McCloskey.

19 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Sinatra is welcome

20 to take on the United States and try to find this material out. I do not

21 represent the United States. This Tribunal does not represent the United

22 States. And with perhaps a timely motion she can bring the United States

23 into this court and challenge them. We have Rule 70 obligations to the

24 United States and other countries, and this is something that is very

25 important for the -- this Tribunal and that it needs to be done in a way

1 not in a surprise manner, as is being used now.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Sinatra, I advise you to skip this question.

3 MS. SINATRA: May I revisit it in written form with the court,

4 then?

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

6 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

7 Q. Okay. Mr. Ruez, going back to Ms. Stephanie Frease and tactical

8 radio operators, do you know the difference between a tactical radio

9 operator and a regular communications operator?

10 A. No, I don't need to do that -- I don't need to know that. I don't

11 know it.

12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Did Ms. Stephanie Frease know that?

13 A. I would bet she does, yes.

14 Q. Okay. Well, I hope that we will have Ms. Frease here to testify

15 for the Prosecution sooner or later.

16 Okay. Let me ask you: On December 14th, 1999, you interviewed

17 and interrogated Mr. Dragan Jokic, didn't you?

18 A. Yes.

19 MS. SINATRA: And Your Honours, just by questioning from this

20 document, I still believe that this document is an illegal document under

21 Rule 95 and we'll continue to contest that. But while we have this

22 witness present, I will take advantage of that.

23 I think I provided copies to the interpretation booths too.

24 Q. Mr. Ruez, are you familiar with Rule 42, Rule 43, and Rule 63 of

25 the Tribunal?

1 A. Not by their numbers, but if you recall me what they are, I might

2 remember, indeed.

3 Q. Well, they have to do with guarantees of rights of suspects during

4 investigation. Are you familiar with that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Okay?

7 MS. SINATRA: And at this point, Your Honour, yesterday I had

8 asked the Prosecution to provide Mr. -- Mr. Ruez testified yesterday that

9 there was a letter from the RS government that complained about the

10 interrogation procedures of the ICTY investigators. I've asked them to

11 provide that to me, and they said that they would. I don't know, before I

12 go into this line of questioning, I should wait and try to get a copy of

13 it from them, if they have it.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. de la Torre.

15 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, we were faxed a copy of that

16 particular document this morning and it was brought to court shortly prior

17 to beginning. We have it in both B/C/S and English for Ms. Sinatra.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. How many copies do you have?

19 MS. DE LA TORRE: We just have the one, Your Honour. It was

20 brought in shortly before Your Honours arrived. We can make a copy right

21 now or we can simply provide this one to Ms. Sinatra and on a break we can

22 take a copy for ourselves and for Defence -- other Defence counsel.

23 JUDGE LIU: Don't forget us.

24 MS. DE LA TORRE: And Your Honour, yes.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. The usher maybe could help to have this document

1 furnished to the Defence counsel.

2 MS. SINATRA: Thank you. Your Honour, if I might ask the court's

3 indulgence if we could just have our break early and then continue because

4 I promise, I don't think I'm going to go past 1.00 today. We'll have the

5 whole afternoon off if I can just review this document so I can continue

6 questioning Mr. Ruez.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course. You are conducting

8 cross-examination. We are in your hands.

9 So we'll resume at 11.20, a 30-minute break.

10 MS. SINATRA: That will be -- thank you very much.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.51 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 11.21 a.m.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra. You got that document?

14 MS. SINATRA: I'm sorry?

15 JUDGE LIU: Have you received that document?

16 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I did receive it, and I had time

17 to review it.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So you're ready to proceed?

19 MS. SINATRA: I'm ready to proceed. Thank you.

20 Q. I think, Mr. Ruez, we were talking about the interview that you

21 did with Mr. Jokic in December of 1999. Do you have a copy of that

22 interview in front of you?

23 A. No, I don't.

24 Q. Okay.

25 MS. SINATRA: May I ask that a copy be provided so that Mr. Ruez

1 can follow along with what I'm talking about. Thank you.

2 I want to offer my apologies to the interpretation department. I

3 was informed that I am speaking way too fast, so I will try to remedy

4 that.

5 Q. Mr. Ruez --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. You know the difference between a witness and a suspect; right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. What is that?

10 A. A witness will be someone who has information. He could report to

11 the Office of the Prosecutor, in which he is not engaged in criminal

12 activities, versus a suspect would be someone we have reason to believe,

13 because we have information about it, that he might be involved -- having

14 been involved in some crimes.

15 Q. A witness doesn't require any warnings when you interview him;

16 right?

17 A. You mean about warnings regarding his rights?

18 Q. That's correct.

19 A. No.

20 Q. But a suspect does?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. In fact, a suspect -- do you know those warnings right off the top

23 of your head?

24 A. Let's try and do it since two years, but so that the person is,

25 first of all, allowed to be -- to have legal representation, that he is

1 allowed to stay silent, that anything he would say would be on the

2 records, that these records would be used in the course of proceedings

3 here in The Hague, that he has also the right to be assisted of an

4 interpreter of his choice. We generally propose one at that stage.

5 Q. That's pretty much accurate. When people come in as a witness,

6 many times they leave as a suspect. When do you decide during your

7 interview that you give them the warnings, or do you?

8 A. That might have occurred. I have no precise recollection, yes,

9 but it might have occurred. What happens is that most of the time, we

10 know the position of that person in the chain of command, if it is an

11 officer. We might have no information about the fact that the person

12 committed a crime, but we expect that person to be truthful and explain

13 what he was doing, where he was, who he saw, and things like this. And if

14 after having exhausted a series of questions in order to get an indication

15 of how truthful this witness is or not, if we begin to realise that in

16 fact this person is trying to cover information to protect himself or

17 others, then it begins to become an indication that he might be a suspect,

18 and for the sake of his protection, we would tell him that for the next

19 interview he might be -- his status might change and that if we call him

20 again he might in advance think about consulting and that day come with a

21 proper representative.

22 Q. But most of the time, you're interviewing a witness and you don't

23 give him any rights when he changes and morphs into a suspect until the

24 interview is over and you assess whether he is trying to hide something or

25 not; isn't that right?

1 A. No, I would not think so. What we would do at one point, it would

2 be to interrupt the interview, inform that person that we are not

3 satisfied with the information we are provided with, that this leaves us

4 unfortunately for him to reconsider his status and that the next time we

5 will summon him it might probably be with the status of a suspect and no

6 longer with the status of a witness.

7 Q. A lot of times witnesses come in and leave as suspects and

8 suspects come in and leave as accused, don't they?

9 A. They would not be able to leave an interview room switching a

10 status from suspect to accused, because the indictment would not be

11 drafted in that time frame.

12 Q. Let's talk about the interview of Mr. Jokic on December 14th,

13 1999. You know that whoever comes to visit you as a suspect has a right

14 to have counsel of their choice; right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. And you are aware that on December 14th, 1999, Mr. Jokic came in

17 with an attorney named Krstan Simic; right?

18 A. Right.

19 Q. And within a 48-hour period, Mr. Obrenovic came in with Mr. Krstan

20 Simic; right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Mr. Dragan Jevtic came in with Krstan Simic; right?

23 A. Right.

24 Q. And also Momir Nikolic came in with Krstan Simic; is that correct?

25 That was 15 December?

1 A. You're right for all of them, but to the best of my recollection,

2 Captain Momir Nikolic arrived alone and waived his rights to Defence

3 counsel, as far as I recall. And I'm not sure at that point, but you have

4 his first interview.

5 Q. I believe you're right. I do. They were all interviewed within

6 the 48-hour period. But Jevtic, who was the commander of the Engineering

7 Department, Dragan Obrenovic, who was deputy commander of the Zvornik

8 Brigade, and Dragan Jokic, who was chief of engineering of Zvornik

9 Brigade, were all interviewed within 48 hours, weren't they?

10 A. If you say so. That you are sure of your information, I would not

11 say no to that. Yes.

12 Q. And they all had the same attorney, Mr. Simic?

13 A. We were astonished that they would make this choice, but we

14 believed they had good reasons to do so, unfortunately.

15 Q. Now, are you aware that there was VRS meeting of the Zvornik

16 Brigade which recommended that everybody who was a soldier with the

17 Zvornik Brigade be represented by Mr. Simic?

18 A. We had no idea about that.

19 Q. Would that have been a lawyer of his choice under those

20 circumstances?

21 A. In these circumstances, these officers do not have to act under

22 orders. They have to take into consideration their own interest, and we

23 make the assumption that when they come with a lawyer, it is indeed the

24 lawyer of their choice.

25 Q. Well, I know you make the assumption, and you said you're not

1 familiar with military procedures, so the fact is: If they were

2 recommended to use this one lawyer and they're all in the Zvornik Brigade,

3 that it would not be wise for them not to use the same lawyer, would it?

4 A. This is a question to be addressed to your client, not to me. I

5 would speculate.

6 Q. Okay. Also the day that you interviewed Mr. Jokic, you had the

7 interpreter Adisa Karamuratovic; is that correct?

8 A. That is correct.

9 Q. And she is an interpreter hired by the OTP, isn't she?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And Mr. Jokic didn't have any other option but to use her, did he?

12 A. No. He had an option, as I said, we always offer to either the

13 witness or the suspect to use our interpreter. This is in order to win

14 time, since if the person then would say: I want my own interpreter, we

15 would have to delay the interview, and this is always some problem during

16 missions that have a specific time frame. But he volunteered to have this

17 interview conducted with this interpreter. Had he raised any objection,

18 we would have stopped everything and hired an interpreter of his choice.

19 Q. Well, let me ask you another question. All these men that you

20 interviewed are citizens of the former Yugoslavia; right?

21 A. Right.

22 Q. And the legal system in the former Yugoslavia is the continental

23 civil law system; isn't that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. And in the continental civil law system, it's my understanding

1 that you have a judge and you have an investigative judge. Is that

2 correct?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And that during those procedures, that these men were familiar

5 with, they don't have the right to an attorney of their choosing and they

6 don't have a right to an interpreter of their choosing, do they?

7 A. I'm not familiar with the former Yugoslav system, but if you say

8 so, I believe you have studied the question.

9 Q. Thank you for giving me that benefit of the doubt, but in the

10 Yugoslav system, they also -- they don't have the same understanding of

11 the rules of the ICTY, because we have an adversarial system here,

12 basically; isn't that right?

13 A. You said that. Personally, I don't know. I'm not in their

14 position, so I can't say.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel and the witness please make

16 breaks.

17 MS. SINATRA: Sorry.

18 Q. In the civil law system, the continental law system, all of the

19 evidence is gathered by an investigative judge; is that right?

20 A. Again, I have to rely on what you say. I believe you.

21 Q. When you were giving Mr. Jokic his rights under Rule 42, knowing

22 that he's from a system that's continental law and not familiar with the

23 rules and procedures of the ICTY, you really weren't convinced that he

24 understood those rights, were you?

25 A. The reason why witness or a suspect is assisted by a lawyer is

1 exactly that, to inform him about all his rights in this new system.

2 Q. Well, let's get to Krstan Simic. When you were interviewing

3 Mr. Jokic, isn't it true that Mr. Simic questioned him almost as much as

4 you did?

5 A. I would not say so, but the fact is that Mr. Simic interfered

6 several times during the course of the interview, but he did that probably

7 because he thought it was in the interest of his client, I would suppose.

8 Q. But he wasn't just interrupting; he was asking questions of

9 Mr. Jokic too, along with the Prosecutor, wasn't he?

10 A. As far as I recall, he was rephrasing questions in order to make

11 sure that Major Jokic understood properly what the meaning of the question

12 was.

13 Q. And you know that Mr. Simic, the next day, was preparing for

14 Mr. Obrenovic's interview, and there is a conflict of interest between

15 those people, wouldn't you say, between those witnesses that you were

16 having?

17 A. I would not have an opinion on this. I would leave it to more

18 specialised legal personnel.

19 Q. Now, the people present at this interview were Mr. McCloskey,

20 Mr. Harmon, Mark Harmon and Stephanie Frease and you, is that correct,

21 plus the interpreter?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And is it common for you to go out and interview these witnesses

24 in the many years that you've been there and have them all be represented

25 by the same counsel?

1 A. If they believe this is the best way to serve their interest,

2 there is nothing we could do at that stage to oppose it, as far as I know.

3 For us, it was an obvious way for them to make sure that no one would go

4 off line, and this is the reason why we believed they had made the choice

5 to have the same lawyer, in order to harmonise their versions.

6 Q. Yes, in order to harmonise their versions, which means that if a

7 conflict of interest was between the two of them, then one person might be

8 harmed at the other one's expense; is that right?

9 A. This is the choice they make. Then they have to suffer the

10 consequences of it if it is a wrong choice.

11 Q. Didn't you see a red flag come up when they were all represented

12 by the same lawyer? You didn't recognise a potential conflict of

13 interest?

14 A. With the mentality that one can imagine which merged these people

15 together, I think we have hard time to transpose our standards in their

16 way of doing. So we were more seeing this as a kind of a melting of

17 interests than a conflict of interests, as far as I recall this, and as

18 far as I am concerned.

19 Q. Well, if you have a hard time putting yourself in their position,

20 just think of what a hard time they had putting themselves in your

21 position as an investigator for the OTP when they didn't know the legal

22 parameters.

23 A. The legal representative was there to explain to them all these

24 legal parameters. This is why he was supposed to be there also.

25 Q. Well, I just mention the part about Mr. Simic interrogating

1 Mr. Jokic, and would you look at page 25 of the interview. KS, KS, KS is

2 Simic; isn't it?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And finally, Mr. McCloskey says: "I think it's not working. We

5 need to get the rules down, who is asking the questions and who is

6 answering." Doesn't he say that, line 27?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Just going back to Mr. Nikolic's interview: Are you sure you gave

9 him his warnings and he waived his right to an attorney?

10 A. Only by reviewing the document would I be able to give you an

11 answer. I don't remember specifically. My instinct answer indeed would

12 be yes, but if you ask, maybe probably something was wrongly done there.

13 Q. Okay. We'll check that in a minute. As a police officer in

14 France, did you attend any special training programmes that taught you the

15 language of interrogation and how to get the answers that you wanted out

16 of the people you were interviewing?

17 A. No. Such a course does not exist, as far as I know, in France.

18 Q. Through your interrogation through the years, haven't you learned

19 how to manipulate the witnesses to have them say what you want them to

20 say?

21 A. Certainly not at the extent of an American defence attorney.

22 Sorry.

23 Q. I'm sorry? Oh, I think he's criticising counsel, Your Honours.

24 A. No, I'm not criticising. I'm making compliments. Sorry.

25 Q. Okay. Just one moment. Also in this interview, if you'll look on

1 page 53 and page 55 and page 58. 53, line 10, Dragan Jokic: "But Judge,

2 can I tell you about something that I haven't seen?" And then 55, again

3 Dragan Jokic refers to Mr. Harmon or Mr. McCloskey as judge, doesn't he,

4 on line 21: "I don't know, Judge. I want to tell you what I heard

5 exactly." And then on page 58, finally, Mark Harmon says: "All right.

6 Take the roadblocks out." Line 24 -- "Were you Pete." And then Peter

7 McCloskey says: "Before I start too much, I just want to clear one --"

8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down when reading.

9 MS. SINATRA: Sorry

10 Q. "You refer to Mr. Harmon and I, I think several -- three times as

11 Judge or Mr. Judge." And this was through page 58 of the interview, that

12 the legal representatives for the OTP and the investigators allowed

13 Mr. Jokic to think that they were the investigative judge, like in a

14 continental law system, didn't they?

15 A. I would first point that it's indeed ICTY Prosecutors who

16 pinpointed that vocabulary mistake made by Major Jokic, and that indeed it

17 took three times to hear this word before that there was a reaction,

18 because initially, as far as I recall this, we were considering that it

19 was just a kind of mistake on the word, not a misunderstanding about who

20 was who. But on the other hand, but then I would have to speculate on the

21 psychology of Mr. Jokic, I don't think that for him it made a big

22 difference being in front of a judge or a prosecutor from the ICTY.

23 Q. You don't think there's a big difference between the investigative

24 system and the continental system and being in front of an adversarial

25 prosecutor who is going to take everything you say, put it on record, and

1 use it against you?

2 A. I honestly don't think that that had any influence on the

3 declarations that Major Jokic was making that day. He had, I think, much

4 other concerns that day than getting a legal course on the difference

5 between American and Yugoslav -- I mean, sorry, civil law and common law

6 aspects. And anyhow, we had to expect that his Defence counsel would be

7 the one teaching him all these differences prior entering the interview

8 room.

9 Q. It's true that you knew that Mr. Simic didn't ever meet with

10 Mr. Jokic? Is that true? He never prepared him for this interview?

11 A. We had no insight on what was happening at the moment we were

12 sending the summons. We had no insight at all about what was happening

13 behind the scene before these people were making contact directly with us

14 in Banja Luka, at the place we had the appointment with them.

15 Q. So you didn't know that it was a Main Staff VRS meeting where they

16 were told to have Mr. Simic represent them before the ICTY in Banja Luka;

17 is that right?

18 A. Yes. I confirm we had no information about that.

19 Q. Do you know when somebody is ready to end an interview and they

20 say: I'm really tired. I want to end the interview. Do you normally end

21 the interview when they ask you to?

22 A. We would, except if there is something important that would need

23 to be finalised, we would just make sure we do it quickly.

24 Q. So the answer is no, you don't necessarily end it when he says to

25 end it?

1 A. I balance the end sight. It's not a no answer. I mean, I don't

2 have a precise recollection that this happened, but it certainly might

3 have happened and could very well be depending on the circumstances that

4 either we would say "No problem. We stop everything and we make a contact

5 tomorrow," for example, or because of time constraints in the mission,

6 would say to the person, "Listen, we still have ten minutes to go through

7 one or two questions. We'll make short and you'll be free in ten

8 minutes."

9 Q. There was a second interview with Mr. Jokic on April 1st, 2000; is

10 that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And Mr. McCloskey was present, and someone named Ms. Jan

13 Kruszweski?

14 A. Jan Kruszweski.

15 Q. Sorry.

16 A. Investigator from the team.

17 Q. But Mark Harmon was not present at that time?

18 A. No.

19 Q. And would you turn to page 69 of the second interview.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. On line 9. Mr. Jokic: "In order not to bring myself into trouble

22 in the confusing situation, I am overtired. May I not answer to this

23 question? I am sure that Colonel Obrenovic will answer it tomorrow." And

24 then you keep asking -- you keep asking questions, don't you?

25 A. I'm sorry. You said page 69, line --?

1 Q. Line 9.

2 A. I don't have the proper page, I think. I have transcript 903, at

3 the end, at the number of the page, on top right. I have another text.

4 Q. I'm sorry. There must be a mix-up here.

5 A. But never mind. I don't need to have the text.

6 Q. Okay. Well, then, does that sound about like what happened? And

7 then you asked: "I agree totally with that. Sure. Your choice." And

8 then Mr. Jokic says: "If you believe me, I am overtired being questioned.

9 In that sense, I would rather not answer." And you continue the question?

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, to be fair to this witness, could

11 Madam Registrar furnish that document to him?

12 MS. SINATRA: Thank you, Your Honour.

13 THE REGISTRAR: For the record, this is P26/2.

14 MS. SINATRA: Thank you very much.

15 THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. What is your point here?

16 MS. SINATRA:

17 Q. Well, let's start back on page --

18 A. Because I say to him: "Okay. In that sense, since you're

19 overtired, we are going to terminate this interview. I will show you two

20 photographs in this interview."

21 Q. So you keep going, don't you? In fact, you go on to --

22 A. Okay. Yes. Indeed you are right. We continue, indeed, yes, yes.

23 Q. Until finally his counsel says, on page 71: "We are not going to

24 consult. We are tired," line 9. Then you continue for several more

25 pages.

1 A. Be aware that one page like this is what, is one to two minutes of

2 talking.

3 Q. One to two minutes of talking. Should we time ourselves and see

4 how much information we can get into one to two minutes of talking,

5 Mr. Ruez?

6 A. I don't know. Maybe we should make this test if it is useful for

7 the course of the truth in these proceedings.

8 Q. Anyway, I believe that you went on for about ten more pages even

9 after Mr. Jokic said he was tired, Mr. Jokic said he was tired, and his

10 lawyer said they were tired and wouldn't answer any more questions.

11 Okay. I want to go to one incident that happened - and I just

12 want to refresh your memory about it. On the first interview with

13 Mr. Jokic, on page 77, JR, I suppose that's --

14 A. That's me.

15 Q. Yes. Line 12. "It's five hours and 30 minutes. We'll make a

16 break." Now, do you remember during this break that an IPTF officer with

17 a machine-gun came into the room at that time?

18 A. One, I don't know; two, this is not possible. IPTF officers never

19 carry machine-guns. I'm sorry.

20 Q. It was SFOR, excuse me, an SFOR officer with a machine-gun, came

21 into the interview room.

22 A. As far as I know -- where was it?

23 Q. Mr. McCloskey must have been present then too.

24 A. I have no recollection of any SFOR officer or SFOR personnel

25 inside the building where we were. We had some security in the vicinity,

1 but no one close to the building where we were in Banja Luka. So I'm

2 really wondering about this. I have no recollection of it and I don't see

3 what an SFOR person would do in that place that day.

4 Q. So you don't remember Mr. Jokic going outside of the interview

5 room with your interpreter at that moment?

6 A. I mean, I don't specifically recall him -- you mean outside of the

7 room or outside of the building?

8 Q. Outside of the room, standing outside in the hall. And you don't

9 remember Mr. Krstic telling Mr. Jokic that he was going to be taken away

10 to The Hague?

11 A. I mean, sorry, but for me this sounds absolutely ridiculous. When

12 we were doing these breaks, generally Mr. Jokic had a separate talk with

13 Mr. Simic. We were going at a distance of them and not to be heard by

14 them regarding whatever comments we wanted to make among ourselves about

15 what already happened, what we would wish to see happening, and things

16 like this. But we were probably not even at site contact. We would go to

17 the bar area, for example, and they would stay at some part of the

18 corridor or the reverse; they would go to a place where they can talk

19 quietly and we would be elsewhere.

20 Q. So during this break, which only lasted, I assume, a few minutes,

21 it doesn't say. Nine minutes was the break; right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And during that nine minutes, Mr. Jokic was standing outside with

24 the interpreter. You wouldn't have heard her say to Mr. Jokic: "Poor

25 you. Do you have someone to take care of your son?"

1 A. Sorry. Are you saying that I first understood that Mr. Simic was

2 making this comment to Mr. Jokic, and now you are telling me that who said

3 that?

4 Q. Mr. Simic first said: "Mr. Jokic, you're going to be taken to The

5 Hague." And then the interpreter said: "Poor you. Do you have someone

6 to take care of your son?"

7 A. The interpreter never stayed in the vicinity of both the

8 defendant -- I mean, the suspect and his client during these breaks. The

9 interpreter is an ICTY personnel, would never stay next to the suspect and

10 his lawyer. I can state that this is a bold lie. This interpreter never

11 would have acted like this.

12 Q. Well, then we'll see if we can get Mr. Simic to come in and

13 testify about the events. Okay.

14 A. I would be glad to see him talk about this, indeed.

15 Q. So there weren't 20 to 25 SFOR officers or soldiers waiting out in

16 that common area that you referred to as the bar?

17 A. No, not at all. That day, I had requested the British base nearby

18 to have some forces in the vicinity of the building, but out of sight of

19 the building. We wanted area security around that building, specifically

20 that day, and specifically because of the fact that Mr. Jokic that day was

21 the witness. I wanted to take some security measures in case indeed

22 something significant would happen during this interview and that we would

23 have to take security measures, not only for us, but also for him.

24 Q. I thought you just said that you didn't have any armed soldiers in

25 the vicinity at the time I'm talking about, 5.00 and 29 minutes.

1 A. You are mixing two things. Let's reboot everything. That day,

2 for the sake of this interview, I did request that the British base nearby

3 to provide us area security, that means armed people in the vicinity ready

4 to intervene if something happens, but out of sight, not visible. Inside

5 this building was no SFOR personnel requested by us. I would not say

6 that -- it's not a prohibited area for SFOR. It's a UN headquarters in

7 Banja Luka. But there was no one inside the building aside our own UN

8 security officers to deal with our subject. So if ever there was some

9 SFOR soldier there might be for any kind of meeting with some IPTF or

10 whatever UN person, but it was disconnected from our interview process.

11 MS. SINATRA: Your Honours, at this moment, I don't know if

12 Mr. Ruez has had an opportunity to review the letter that he referred to

13 in his testimony yesterday. It's a letter from the Republika Srpska

14 Ministry of Defence, dated 26th June, 2000. I believe we have it marked

15 as Defence 3 Exhibit something or other.

16 THE REGISTRAR: Okay. This letter is marked D2/3.

17 MS. SINATRA: Thank you very much.

18 Q. And now you've had an opportunity to look at this letter, haven't

19 you?

20 A. No, I didn't. What I remembered of it was by heart when I talked

21 about it yesterday.

22 Q. Well, would you like to take a moment to review it?

23 A. I think I still recall roughly the content of this.

24 Q. Okay. If you'll notice the date of the letter, 26/6/2000. That

25 is just two months after Mr. Jokic's last interview, isn't it, since he

1 was interviewed in April?

2 A. I disconnect this letter from the interview of Mr. Jokic. This

3 letter is covering our entire process, so already six months of interviews

4 conducted in Banja Luka.

5 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, could he just answer the question. I

6 asked him whether this was after the date of the last interview with

7 Mr. Jokic.

8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, this question could be answered by yes

9 or no.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes.

11 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

12 Q. And it is referring to the series of interviews by the ICTY since,

13 I think, December of 1999; is that correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. And on the second page of this letter -- by the way, the letter is

16 signed by Manjolo Milovanovic; is that right, and is he the Minister of

17 Defence?

18 A. Yes, absolutely. It's a letter that was addressed from Ministry

19 of Defence to Ministry of Justice, in order to request Ministry of Justice

20 to complain to the ICTY Prosecutor about our behaviours, and in fact force

21 us into behaviour. The letter was never sent. It was leaked in between

22 these two ministries and to the public.

23 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, non-responsive. I didn't ask him

24 anything else about the letter. I'm doing the questioning at the moment.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

1 MS. SINATRA: Would you direct the witness.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Witness, try to keep your answer as short as

3 possible.

4 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

5 Q. In fact, on the second page, Mr. Ruez, and I'm going to go through

6 this in detail, "According to their allegations, during interviews, human

7 dignity and spiritual integrity are being insulted." Is that what it

8 says?

9 A. Recognise the propaganda phrasing of these officials.

10 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I asked him if that's what it said.

11 Would you instruct him not to respond unless I ask a question.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Witness, just answer the question.

13 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

14 Q. "Interviews are exhausting, up to 12 hours' duration. Threats of

15 arrest are incessantly resorted to. It is impossible to consume food and

16 in general there is a humiliating treatment on the part of the

17 investigators."

18 Is that what it says, Mr. Ruez?

19 A. I read the same.

20 Q. Okay. "And further, in regard to this, and in accordance with

21 Articles 12, 13, and 14 of the RS constitution, Articles 5, 6, and 10 of

22 general declarations on human rights, as well as with the resolution

23 217(A)(3) of the General Assembly dated 1/12/1948, we demand that you

24 inform the prosecutor's office of The Hague Tribunal about this so that a

25 fair and correct treatment during interviews would be provided."

1 Was that their demand?

2 A. This is the content of the letter, indeed.

3 Q. And the next paragraph: "We also deem it necessary that the

4 interviewed persons should be able to read and sign the minutes of the

5 interviews or be provided with phono-taped records of interviews," and the

6 next paragraph just asks that you pay the expenses of the witnesses that

7 you call to come interview; is that right?

8 A. This is right. I read the same.

9 MS. SINATRA: Okay. I'm going to move on to something else now,

10 Your Honour. If you'll just give me a second.

11 Q. I want to go back to the seizing of documents. Were you involved

12 in the search and seizure of the Zvornik Brigade, of the documents in the

13 Zvornik Brigade?

14 A. No, not of the Zvornik Brigade. We conducted simultaneously two

15 searches, one at the Zvornik Brigade. That search was headed by John

16 Ralston, chief of investigations, and I was in charge of Bratunac Brigade.

17 So that day I was at the Bratunac Brigade.

18 Q. When you say they were done simultaneously, you mean they were

19 both executed on December 14th, 1999, while Dragan Jokic was being

20 interviewed; isn't that true?

21 A. No, this is not possible, because, as you said, I was present at

22 the interview of Dragan Jokic. I could not be the same day doing a search

23 of the Bratunac Brigade. I don't remember the date of the search of the

24 Bratunac Brigade, but --

25 Q. It was the Zvornik Brigade that was searched on December 14th,

1 1999, while Mr. Jokic, Mr. Obrenovic, and Mr. Jevtic were in Banja Luka at

2 your summon.

3 A. I have a memory in my souvenir, we were conducting these searches

4 simultaneously, the same day. One team was doing the Zvornik Brigade and

5 we were doing Bratunac Brigade. I couldn't be -- I mean, I don't -- I

6 don't see how it is possible, but ...

7 Q. Wasn't it sometime in late 1999, though, that the documents were

8 seized?

9 A. No. The searches were conducted in 1998. Wait a minute. Yes,

10 1998, yes, sure, the searches of the two brigades were conducted in 1998.

11 Q. Of Standard headquarters?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. While the occurrences of the indictment occurred in 1995; is that

14 right?

15 A. What indictment are you talking about?

16 Q. The indictment alleging all the crimes that occurred at

17 Srebrenica.

18 A. 1995, November 1995, is the date of the indictment of --

19 Q. It's July 1995, but ...

20 A. Sorry. No. The indictment for Srebrenica is September 1995, for

21 General Mladic and President Karadzic.

22 Q. Well --

23 A. You have two indictments in 1995.

24 Q. If you have from 1995 to 1998, before you seized any of the

25 documentation of the Zvornik Brigade, isn't there room for people to plant

1 their own documents during that time?

2 A. All speculations are possible in such a time frame.

3 Q. Isn't it true that the SFOR representatives you sent a request to

4 the Minister of Defence and then it's three days before you actually

5 search those premises, but they have three days' warning that you're

6 coming?

7 A. No. If indeed such a thing happened, it was without our

8 knowledge, because our way to deal with such operations together with SFOR

9 is to give the warning at the moment, more or less at the moment we

10 penetrate the brigade, and this is what was supposed to happen that day.

11 We were in position to start the search, then we were receiving the

12 information that all the demands had been passed through the relevant

13 ministries, and timing the moment when the brigade commander or the duty

14 officer receives the instruction from its ministry to let the search

15 happen, we try to minimise that delay at about half an hour, and then we

16 come in and start the search.

17 Q. But it sounds like you're dealing with a giant bureaucracy there.

18 There is advance warning to the people in the brigade before you're able

19 to go in there and seize the documents; right?

20 A. Not as far as I know, no. But this question should be asked, in

21 that case, to those who planned the operations together with us at SFOR.

22 But we don't -- we try to minimise these delays, for reasons that are

23 obvious.

24 Q. You know, we were provided with an interview that you gave to the

25 French Legislative Commission. Is that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. In 2001.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Have you given other interviews before or after that time?

5 A. You mean to commissions or to other organs?

6 Q. To the press.

7 A. Yes, since 1995 -- 1995, yes.

8 Q. Can you tell me what articles you've had -- interviews you've had

9 published since then?

10 A. It's a long evolution, but in 1995 it was mainly press coverage of

11 missions we were conducting in the area.

12 Q. Can you name the newspapers or the source?

13 A. Many news agencies were following our missions in 1995 and 1996 --

14 I mean 1996, because 1995 we were not in RS, CNN, Reuters, others.

15 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, we weren't provided with any of those

16 interviews either.

17 A. No, it's not interviews. These were images.

18 MS. SINATRA:

19 Q. My question is: Did you personally give any interviews to the

20 press from 1995 until today?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And what were those press services?

23 A. The one you are referring to is the one that I gave -- I don't

24 remember exactly the date. You will remember -- to Belgrade newspaper,

25 named The Interview, a weekly magazine.

1 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I am not familiar with that and have

2 not received a copy of it. At the next break, would it be possible for

3 the Prosecutor to provide us with a copy of that interview?

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, first of all, we have to know how important

5 those interviews are. Secondly, if you ask some questions, only under

6 context of how those interviews are conducted, I don't think it's

7 necessary for you to have those interviews. But if you're going to the

8 contents of these interviews, I believe it will be fair to furnish the

9 witness with that copy of the interviews.

10 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. And I don't know whether I would

11 want to go into the content of the interview until I see it, because I

12 haven't been provided the interview by the Prosecution. And we were -- we

13 are supposed to be provided with all statements, interviews, information,

14 c.v.s, reports, anything that is a product of this witness in relationship

15 to Srebrenica and 1995, and I have not had an opportunity to look at that.

16 And maybe I wouldn't want to question from it, but before we let this

17 witness go, I would like to have the opportunity to look at it anyway.

18 JUDGE LIU: Let me hear from the Prosecution.

19 Yes, Ms. de la Torre.

20 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, the Prosecution has an obligation

21 to provide the Defence with any prior statements of the witness which are

22 in its possession, which we have done. This is considered open-source

23 material, to which Ms. Sinatra and the Defence has as much access to as

24 the Prosecution in this particular case. If we had a copy of that

25 interview, we would have provided it.

1 JUDGE LIU: Do you have it now, at this moment?

2 MS. DE LA TORRE: No, Your Honour. I'm not aware of any such

3 interview, and we certainly don't have a copy in our possession or we

4 would have previously provided it to the Defence.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

6 So, Ms. Sinatra, in this situation, it seems to us that we won't

7 get those interviews.

8 MS. SINATRA: Well, Your Honour, I think I'll be going through one

9 more break. If I do, then I will try to find it on the Internet myself

10 and review it, now that I know it exists. I didn't know it exists until

11 my questions. So ...

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, we could, but, you know, we have to make a break

13 at 1.00. We only have 45 minutes left. So are you suggesting that we'll

14 start in the afternoon?

15 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I will try to wrap it up before 1.00.

16 I would like to have an opportunity to review that. Maybe I could let my

17 interpreter go look for it while I'm finishing my questioning, if that

18 would be okay.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

20 MS. SINATRA: Thank you very much. If you'll excuse him from the

21 courtroom.

22 JUDGE LIU: You mean you'll go --

23 MS. SINATRA: No. Mr. Djukic will go look for it, if he'll be

24 excused.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

1 MS. SINATRA:

2 Q. Mr. Ruez, you gave an interview with the French parliamentary

3 commission on February 22nd, 2001; is that right?

4 A. Yes, that is right.

5 Q. And you were already retired from the ICTY at that time or were

6 you still the chief investigator for Srebrenica?

7 A. I've never retired, but I was still at the Office of the

8 Prosecutor at that time, yes, indeed.

9 Q. Is it allowed for you to give interviews like that while you're

10 still employed by the ICTY as chief investigator?

11 A. I'll wait for the translation. I was cleared to do so by the

12 deputy Prosecutor of the OTP, Graham Blewitt. And it is not really an

13 interview. I mean, it's a parliamentary commission. It's not a press

14 organ or ...

15 Q. Well, you come to certain conclusions and opinions in this

16 interview that are outside the scope of your investigation with the ICTY,

17 aren't they?

18 A. It's not a courtroom either. It's a parliamentary commission. So

19 in these circumstances, you can express opinions.

20 Q. Do you have the interview in front of you, or have you seen it,

21 reviewed it recently?

22 A. No. I received a copy of it, and to be honest, I didn't read it

23 back.

24 Q. Would it be accurate to say that you talk about evidence that has

25 not been submitted to the ICTY because it can't be relied upon fully?

1 A. My recollection of it was is that I gave what I call the standard

2 briefing, which is in fact what I gave here, as a summary.

3 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, excuse me. Non-responsive. I asked

4 him if he stated that he was putting evidence before this commission that

5 was not considered reliable before the ICTY.

6 JUDGE LIU: Witness, did you say that?

7 THE WITNESS: I would have to re-enter the details of what I said.

8 It could be that I said things that were not still -- possible. I

9 emphasise possible. I cannot say yes or no, but I say possible.

10 MS. SINATRA:

11 Q. During your interview, did you also insinuate to the French

12 parliamentary commission that some of these deaths and murders in

13 Srebrenica could have been prevented if the SFOR and American forces would

14 have supported the Dutch troops?

15 A. I never mentioned such a thing.

16 Q. Did you also state that the request for the air raids and other

17 raids are not being investigated by the ICTY?

18 A. What I said is that the investigation, the criminal investigation

19 I was in charge of starts 11 of July, after the airstrikes. I say that

20 since my first testimony in this Tribunal in June 1995. That was meaning

21 for those who were listening attentively, that the goal of this

22 investigation was, it is an investigation on the crimes committed after

23 the fall of Srebrenica. It is not an investigation on why and how this UN

24 enclave fell. This is why I always insist on the fact that this

25 investigation starts 11 of July, after the airstrikes.

1 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, if I might ask for an instruction here.

2 He is testifying -- he is -- I have his testimony in front of. Maybe it's

3 not the purpose of the ICTY investigation to determine only the crime that

4 was committed at Srebrenica, but he's not talking to the ICTY now. He's

5 giving an interview in front of the French parliamentary commission, and

6 he did state that requests for air raids and other raids are not being

7 investigated by the ICTY.

8 Q. Did you say that or not?

9 A. I would have to take exactly the statement and check the

10 translation from French into English, but what I always used to say in

11 such circumstances is exactly what I just said before. The investigation

12 I was in charge of, for me, in fact yes, I put my own limit on this, is we

13 start 11 July, after the airstrikes. And this is probably what I repeated

14 again here. Here also I have to add that --

15 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, if I might interrupt right here. I

16 didn't ask him to add anything. I think he's editorialising. If he would

17 like a copy of this to have in front of him, I would be happy, and this is

18 my only copy that I have in the courtroom at the moment, but I'd like to

19 introduce this into evidence to describe Mr. Ruez's credibility, and I'd

20 like for the court to see it eventually. But I don't have another copy.

21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Sinatra, I believe that answer of this

22 witness is responsible. We get what he said in his testimony. And as I

23 said to Mr. Karnavas, that if there's any documents you are going to use

24 which is not on the list of the documents provided by the Prosecutor, you

25 had better furnish us with that document before you conduct your

1 cross-examination, so that the Trial Chamber, the witness could know

2 exactly what you are talking about.

3 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I do remember you saying that, and I

4 humbly apologise to the court. I didn't expect Mr. Ruez not to remember

5 what he said in his interview. But I will most certainly file a copy with

6 the Registrar and provide copies for the court, unless you would like to

7 take a break and let me make copies now.

8 JUDGE LIU: How much time do you need?

9 MS. SINATRA: To make copies?

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

11 MS. SINATRA: Ten minutes.

12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll make a break for ten minutes.

13 We'll resume at 12.30.

14 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.

15 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra. Have you got copies for us?

17 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour, I do. I apologise. The only copy

18 I had to make from has some personal pen scratching, but nobody can read

19 my handwriting anyway.

20 JUDGE LIU: I agree with you.

21 MS. SINATRA: It's true. Okay. If I may continue?

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

23 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

24 Q. Mr. Ruez, now that you have a copy, do you see down one, two,

25 three, four, five, six, you said that there were requests for air raids

1 and other raids that were not being investigated?

2 A. Yes, I confirm that the airstrikes are not part of the

3 investigation I'm in charge of.

4 Q. Okay. Thank you. And on page 2, you do confirm that the NATO

5 equipment was used by the Main Staff operation?

6 A. What paragraph, please?

7 Q. The equipment was stolen from the Blue Helmets and was used.

8 A. Page 2?

9 Q. Yes, page 2.

10 A. Paragraph?

11 Q. The last paragraph.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Okay. And then --

14 A. Could I orient you on something that you asked me previously and

15 you are not asking me now, regarding information that was not submitted to

16 the ICTY? And I'm talking about page 1.

17 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I can re-ask the question. I prefer to

18 leave it in question and answer form, if you don't mind. I know what he's

19 talking about.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.

21 MS. SINATRA: Okay.

22 Q. From page 1, I believe you said you were talking today but you are

23 talking about part of the investigation that has not been submitted to the

24 ICTY and cannot be fully relied upon. Is that correct?

25 A. This is what is written, paragraph 3, but I need to give some

1 explanation about it, because this relates to only paragraph 4 and

2 paragraph 5. As soon as I start paragraph 6 I am in information that had

3 been provided to the ICTY. This is why I say that now I can talk about it

4 more openly, because we did disclose I say 80 per cent - it's an

5 estimate - of the information in our possession to the public. So when I

6 say I'm going to talk about information that cannot be relied upon --

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please he slow down?

8 A. -- summary of the ethnic cleansing part of the events in that

9 area, starting in 1992. And this was not part of the investigation --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to slow down.

11 JUDGE LIU: Witness, the interpreters have difficulties to follow

12 you. If you read something, please slow down and make a pause after each

13 sentence.

14 A. Yes, sorry. I'm cautioning the people who are listening on the

15 fact when I talk about 1992 to 1995, I'm talking -- let me pardon the

16 expression as a tourist, not about something I have investigated but

17 something that is supposed to be more or less, let's say, common

18 knowledge. And there is a mistake, paragraph 5, the Vuk Karadzic

19 massacre --

20 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I'm going to have to object. This is

21 not question and answer. I didn't ask him to correct the whole interview

22 all I asked him to do was to comment on the part that there was

23 information that was not relied upon by the ICTY.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, if you think you have answered the

25 question to you by Defence counsel, you could stop.

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think I did, yes.

2 MS. SINATRA:

3 Q. Now, on page 6, last paragraph, when you say, "As you said,

4 Minister, nothing is written about the orders," you're referring to the

5 fact that the whole operation in Srebrenica was a Main Staff secret

6 operation, wasn't it?

7 A. No, that's not what I'm saying here.

8 Q. Well, didn't you say, "Nothing is written about the orders given."

9 The orders were certainly oral. Is that what you meant in the Srebrenica

10 operation, the murder operation is what I'm talking about?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Isn't that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Okay.

15 A. But I didn't state it was secret. I just said it was oral

16 instructions.

17 Q. Let's move to page 8, and on page 8 you talk about that there was

18 an oral requisition for all private vehicles to be gathered by means of a

19 public appeal on the radio. Isn't that true?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And that most of the transport companies were the Drinatrans and

22 Centrotrans which are private companies, aren't they?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And mostly private vehicles provided for this, not military

25 equipment; isn't that correct?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And look on page -- the top of page 9, if you would. I know that

3 you're referring to the secondary mass graves, but it's clear that here,

4 although you deny saying "secret," secret is the same as confidential

5 operation carried out by Main Staff, isn't it?

6 A. I make a difference between the two words.

7 Q. But you would agree that it was a confidential operation that was

8 not publicly known at the time?

9 A. It was supposed to be one, but it didn't work exactly like that

10 for the first phase.

11 Q. Okay. And let's go down to the last paragraph on page 9. It's

12 true, and you admit, that there was no evidence of any prior planning for

13 the murder operation; isn't that true?

14 A. That was the state of our knowledge when I made that declaration.

15 Q. And isn't it true that all of this was done on the spur of the

16 moment?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Well, you did say that there was no evidence of any prior

19 planning; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, but that doesn't translate in the way you put it, spur of the

21 moment. No way.

22 Q. Okay. No prior planning. I'll accept that. That's correct.

23 Thank you.

24 Now, in this article, you talk about the air defence component

25 being very significant and that you know that one of your missions will be

1 to look into that. That's at the top of page 10. But we're not

2 investigating any of the airstrike defence mechanism of SFOR or NATO, are

3 we?

4 A. Correct, but this is related to a completely different context.

5 So if I answer only by yes and no, I will never be able to provide you an

6 explanation on this.

7 Q. Well, this document is going to be provided to the Trial Chamber,

8 and they can come to their own conclusions.

9 A. Yes.

10 MS. SINATRA: And of course, Your Honours, I can't go into any

11 questioning on the American State Department or NSA photographing or

12 possibility of other information.

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, it depends, you know. If the witness mentions

14 in this interviews, you could ask questions along this line.

15 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

16 Q. Mr. Ruez, you do say that you asked the American State Department

17 for the access to aerial imaging and that they gave you the aerial imaging

18 from their satellites, photography, which enabled you to find these

19 disturbed -- areas in the ground; is that right?

20 A. No. I said everything what you are saying with the exception of

21 satellite. This is a word I would never use. Our Rule 70 obligation is

22 to refer to any aerial imagery with the word "aerial imagery."

23 Q. May I refer you to page 10, paragraph 4, last sentence: "I

24 suppose that you used satellite photography." So that was a word that was

25 mentioned by Francois Lamy. I'm sorry.

1 A. That was not me.

2 Q. That was not your term, you're right. But do you have any

3 information, personal information from your experience and your

4 investigations dealing with the satellite imagery, I mean the aerial

5 imagery, excuse me?

6 A. I'm not sure I understand properly your question about personal

7 information about this imagery. I don't see the point. Sorry.

8 Q. Did you review the information that was given to you by the United

9 States intelligence service?

10 A. Yes, absolutely.

11 Q. And during your review of that information, were you told how that

12 information was gathered?

13 A. We do not need to know how the things are gathered. We just need

14 to have elements that assist us. Going on the ground in the most safe

15 possible way in order to reach the --

16 MS. SINATRA: Excuse me. I didn't ask whether he needed to know.

17 I asked whether he knew, whether he discovered during his investigation

18 how the information was gathered.

19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. Sinatra, I think when the witness answers a

20 question, he's entitled to give some short, concise explanation of that

21 answer. We are satisfied with his answer.

22 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

23 Q. On page 11, you talk about the platforms that took those aerial

24 images not flying every day. Was that referring to satellite or aircraft?

25 A. Here it's clear that if I say "platforms" that we are not flying;

1 we are talking about aircraft.

2 Q. It's not clear to me. That's why I was asking the question.

3 A. You have my answer.

4 Q. So it's aircraft?

5 A. Platforms that don't fly every day can only be aircraft.

6 Q. Well, there are satellites that only rotate once every two days

7 too, so it could be either one.

8 On page 12 -- I'm sorry. On page 12, on the second paragraph, you

9 agree that the executions were carried out very quickly after there was a

10 feeling of panic within the Main Staff of the VRS; is that true?

11 A. We know that there was at that point a lack of volunteers to

12 conduct the killing operation, indeed.

13 Q. I wasn't asking you about volunteers. I was asking you about --

14 you describe a feeling of panic. Are you talking about there was a

15 feeling of panic and decisions had to be made very quickly? Isn't that

16 true?

17 A. No. I'm referring about the stress experienced by Colonel Beara

18 during these days, since his task was to find people to kill all the

19 prisoners and he had difficulties finding those.

20 Q. Thank you. You also, on page 13, you go into a semi-conspiracy

21 that you're insinuating that maybe the casualties at Srebrenica would not

22 have been so high if the BiH government hadn't withdrawn Naser Oric on the

23 relevant days of this indictment. Is that what you're insinuating?

24 A. No. I was here reacting to a widespread conspiracy theory.

25 Q. And the widespread conspiracy theory doesn't have to do with Naser

1 Oric being withdrawn?

2 A. It is related to that, but I just referred to this --

3 Q. That that was --

4 A. Rumour of conspiracy.

5 Q. Well, you don't say rumour here. You say: "They did not need to

6 bother doing this, since it was actually the Bosnian government which

7 withdrew Naser Oric, their best officer from the enclave." Isn't that

8 what you say? That's not a rumour that you're stating here before the

9 French parliamentary commission, is it?

10 A. Let me read back this, please. No. I just mentioned the fact

11 that despite of -- I mean, I'm referring to attempts made by the Serb side

12 to eliminate Naser Oric from the enclave, and I just add here that though

13 they did not succeed, they reached indirectly their result, since Naser

14 Oric was withdrawn with his best officers from the enclave. That's the

15 only thing I'm saying here.

16 Q. An especially strange measure to the extent that without this

17 person and his assistants, it was clear that the wish to defend the

18 enclave was severely limited; isn't that what you say?

19 A. Yes. I express my opinion on this issue here, yes. But it's my

20 opinion here.

21 Q. Yes. You even go into conspiracy theory in the next paragraph,

22 don't you? In fact, you state that: "It's possible to say today that the

23 Bosnian authorities indirectly took part in the legal security of a large

24 number of the perpetrators of the crime by not presenting evidence that

25 they had in the clearest and most honest form possible." Is that true?

1 A. Yes. It's unfortunately true.

2 Q. And in the last paragraph on page 13, you agree that the operation

3 itself was a creation of General Mladic; right?

4 A. Right.

5 Q. And that it was essentially an intelligence and security

6 procedure; right?

7 A. Yes. I give my opinion on this topic, yes.

8 MS. SINATRA: I have no more questions from this document, Your

9 Honours. And I'll try to wrap it up real quickly.

10 Q. Mr. Ruez, have you ever heard of a psychological term called

11 conspiracy of silence?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And is conspiracy of silence something that they came up with

14 after World War II, when the Germans, although the local people may have

15 suspected that something was going on, everybody was too afraid and too

16 helpless feeling to do anything about it?

17 A. I'm not so sure that there was conspiracy of silence in Germany

18 after World War II. I think it was exactly the opposite; everything was

19 coming on the table, the opposite of the situation we are experiencing

20 here.

21 Q. Well, let me say: While the crimes were unfolding during World

22 War II, this term, psychological term, conspiracy of silence, was what

23 they used during the unfolding of the crimes in World War II; is that

24 correct? If you know. If you don't know --

25 A. I'm not busy with World War II here.

1 Q. Okay. All right. Mr. Ruez, have you sought any -- since you

2 retired in 2001, have you been under any psychological care yourself?

3 A. I'm not retired since 2001. I'm on a leave of absence of my

4 administration. And I've not been under psychological care until now in

5 any circumstance yet, yet.

6 Q. Okay. Thank you. Well, yesterday you said that you were so

7 wrapped up in the case and so obsessed that you really couldn't view the

8 questioning objectively. That's true, isn't it?

9 A. I never said such a thing.

10 Q. I believe that on the questioning by Mr. Karnavas, you said you

11 couldn't answer that question objectively. And I can't remember the exact

12 question.

13 A. You would have to recall me that point. It might be on one

14 detail, it could be, but I would not expand the conclusion like you do it.

15 Q. I want to go back and just clean up some various questions I have

16 left. Are you familiar with the requisition procedure that is used in the

17 military to get authority to use equipment or vehicles?

18 A. Major Jokic educated us on this aspect.

19 Q. But you're not familiar in general in the military; right?

20 A. No.

21 Q. And these written mission plans, I know that Mr. Karnavas has

22 asked for them, but I believe they're most important for the days of July

23 14th, 15th, and 16th, or shortly thereafter, for the seizure and search of

24 the Zvornik Brigade. We would like to request that you provide us with

25 those written mission plans for the search and seizure of the Zvornik

1 Brigade.

2 A. Don't request me. Request the Prosecutor.

3 Q. Well, okay. I'll request through you to the Prosecutor, because

4 you're the one who wrote the mission plan, I believe.

5 A. I will fulfil the instructions of the Chamber and of the

6 Prosecutor.

7 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, may -- would you please -- I'm asking

8 that we be provided with those written mission plans for the search and

9 seizure of the documents relevant to this case.

10 JUDGE LIU: I think we have already discussed this issue

11 yesterday, and the Trial Chamber will make a decision after

12 cross-examination, after we finish the testimony of this witness.

13 MS. SINATRA: Well, Your Honour, I think that I have honoured my

14 obligations to the Trial Chamber. It's a few minutes until 1.00. I want

15 to thank Mr. Ruez for being here and answering our questions, and I'd also

16 like to re-urge our request that after final indictment in this case and

17 our new investigations, if further developments occur, that we may need to

18 recall Mr. Ruez, depending on the changes that come up in our final

19 indictment.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

21 Thank you very much. We'll take your remarks into consideration.

22 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have five minutes left, so our suggestion is

24 that we break now and resume at 2.30.

25 Yes, Madam Registrar.

1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, for the record, the interview of the

2 witness with the French legislative commission is marked D3/3.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. We'll resume at 2.30 in the same

4 courtroom.

5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.53 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, any re-examination? Ms. De la Torre.

8 MS. DE LA TORRE: No, Your Honour. The Prosecution does not have

9 any re-direct questions for Mr. Ruez.

10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

11 MS. DE LA TORRE: We were advised, Your Honour, that you would

12 prefer -- the court would prefer that we offer our exhibits at the end of

13 re-direct. We can either do that now or after the Judges' questions,

14 whichever you prefer.

15 JUDGE LIU: I think we should give some time for the Judges to ask

16 questions, which might trigger off some other questions.

17 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Any questions from the Judges? Yes.

19 Questioned by the Court:

20 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Mr. Ruez, can you tell us: What was your

21 mandate? What was the sphere of your responsibility when you have been

22 performing your function of investigator in the Srebrenica case?

23 A. The mandate initially was to go to the Tuzla area and assess the

24 rumours that were reaching the Office of the Prosecutor in the days that

25 followed the fall of the enclave, the 11th of July, so it was a kind of

1 preliminary mission. The fact is that a bit later on there was no real

2 mandate. It was an assessment mission that turned into an investigative

3 mission. But to be honest, without any clear mandate. I invented a bit

4 the mandate. This is why I said previously that it was a self-limitation

5 when I said that the investigation started 11 of July, after the

6 airstrikes. But to be more precise on the answer: Sometime later, when

7 the structure was created to deal with this topic, the mandate was very

8 clear and large, that is, to continue with investigation as far as we

9 could go on with it, let's say.

10 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And later on, you were acting on the basis of

11 your free will, as freelance, or you had a mandate?

12 A. In the frame of that mandate, that is, to follow up with the

13 investigation, I was not freelance. I was putting on paper all our

14 proposals for missions on the ground in Republika Srpska or in Bosnia, if

15 it was interview missions. These mission requests were assessed by the

16 hierarchy and cleared to happen.

17 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: But what do you mean, to clear up what

18 happened?

19 A. When I say cleared to happen, I mean that I was getting

20 authorisation from the Office of the Prosecutor to fulfil this mission

21 plan. So deal with the administrative aspects, travel, plus all what was

22 linked with the mission request.

23 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And what was the mission request? What was the

24 aim of the mission?

25 A. Depending on the time of the investigation, it was initially

1 mainly missions aimed to interview victims; then it turned into continuity

2 of interviews, until, let's say, the reservoir of witnesses, of key

3 witnesses, was emptied. I'm talking here about mainly the survivors,

4 because for the rest of them, we could continue doing interviews during

5 years, because of the amount of people we are talking about. And then

6 missions in order to go on the ground, identify places, and all the

7 aspects dealing with admin., security, and everything. I mean I could

8 give you the layers of what happened in this investigation during years,

9 because there are clear levels that can be identified, but I don't know if

10 this would satisfy your question.

11 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Okay. And so one of your tasks were to -- was

12 to identify the potential witnesses; yes?

13 A. Primary task indeed was to identify key witnesses. Then as soon

14 as we could access the area where these crimes occurred, so not earlier

15 than January 1996, then the main goal was to try to identify the places

16 where the events described by the witnesses occurred, and begin to find

17 out during these missions what could confirm their declarations, and also

18 looking into what would make it impossible for them being witnesses of

19 such situations.

20 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Did you manage to identify the survivors of the

21 Srebrenica massacre?

22 A. Yes, I think so. The persons within the team we call survivors

23 are only those who survived mass executions. I mention that because in

24 the press in 1995, and also in 1996, people were presented as being

25 survivors, though they were not direct victims of executions. As far as

1 we are concerned, we consider that approximately 10, if I am -- maybe it's

2 9 or 11, but I think it's 10, 10 people we consider having survived the

3 mass executions.

4 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: How many mass graves, in total, were discovered

5 by your team?

6 A. It's a difficult question in reality, because when we are talking

7 about primary crime scenes and primary mass graves, we in reality talk

8 sometimes about only one mass grave, if it is a very large one, but

9 sometimes we are talking about multiple mass graves. An example, Branjevo

10 Farm mass grave, primary mass grave is one huge mass grave, but Glogova is

11 two sites, and each site includes approximately five to six graves, mass

12 graves. So we have as many mass graves as execution sites, since the

13 large execution sites were all associated with burial process in the

14 immediate vicinity of the execution site. And when we are talking about

15 the re-burial process, so the spreading of all the bodies robbed from the

16 primary mass graves to be then relocated in secondary mass graves, I don't

17 think I'm wrong when I state that we have identified 30 secondary mass

18 graves in the course of this investigation.

19 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: And how many remains of the dead bodies and

20 their parts were discovered in these mass graves?

21 A. I would prefer to leave that answer to investigator Dean Manning,

22 who compiled all the information in connection with the findings in the

23 graves, but at this point I could only give a figure in connection with

24 the figure that was given after and during the proceedings of the trial of

25 General Krstic, and that was at that time just about 2.000 bodies, minimum

1 number of individuals who were exhumed, and the assessment of Professor

2 Wright, who exhumed some of secondary mass graves was that that number

3 would finally be above 5.000, the day they would have finalised the entire

4 exhumation process. Unfortunately, that process is still not over today,

5 in 2003, and I'm sorry to expand on your question, my honour, but it's a

6 bit the same situation as when we are discussing with Lawyer Karnavas the

7 possibility to access these brigades. Yes, we had some indications that

8 we should do this in 1995, but we could only do this in 1998. But if you

9 look at the exhumation aspect of this case, we started in 1996. We are

10 now in 2003. Eight years after the events, we have located probably 95

11 per cent of all these graves. There are still a number of them that have

12 to be exhumed yet.

13 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: My next question: Did your team ever find the

14 identical shell casings at different execution sites?

15 A. Again, in the sake to be precise, I will have to relay that

16 question to Dean Manning, who has compiled all the data. All the material

17 that was found around the execution sites, inside the primary mass graves,

18 and also inside secondary mass graves, I'm talking mainly about shell

19 casings, cloth, and ligatures, plus additional elements, depending on

20 specific locations, all this material has been forwarded to scientific

21 labs and the results of their findings have been filed -- their reports

22 have been filed during the trial of General Krstic. And yes, indeed, a

23 lot of connections were made linking primary execution sites with primary

24 mass graves, and later on, primary mass graves with the secondary mass

25 graves.

1 JUDGE VASSYLENKO: Thank you very much. I have no more questions,

2 Mr. Ruez.

3 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Good afternoon, Mr. Ruez. I only have one

4 question, and for the parties to follow, this is page 489 in the

5 transcript from Monday, the 19th. And it's a question put to you by

6 Ms. de la Torre, at line 22. And you answered something that I want a

7 clarification on it. I would read the question and answer, just to -- not

8 to quote out of context. The Prosecutor said -- asked you: "Were you

9 able to ascertain when prisoners first began to arrive from Bratunac on

10 the Grbovci school?" Sorry for the pronunciation. I don't know the

11 language. And you answered: "According to the survivors, et cetera, et

12 cetera, arrived early in the morning." In the morning of which day,

13 please?

14 A. In fact, this information is based on the testimony of one

15 survivor, who was separated at Potocari, taken to the White House. From

16 there, he was transported by bus or truck - I don't remember - to this

17 so-called Hangar in Bratunac, where he stayed for the end of the day. He

18 spent the night there. I got from the details that he will forward about

19 the night that he did spend there, and around midnight, so at the end of

20 the day of 13 July, so early 14 July, he was then transported to the

21 Grbovci school, where he arrived probably - I don't know exactly, but I

22 would make an assessment around maybe 10.00 in the morning, or earlier

23 maybe. I don't know.

24 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Okay. So this arrived early in the morning of

25 July 14; is that correct?

1 A. Yes, correct. July 14th is the date.

2 JUDGE ARGIBAY: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

3 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judges' questions?

4 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: No, no questions.

6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: We want to thank Mr. Ruez on behalf of

8 Mr. Blagojevic and the rest of Mr. Blagojevic's Defence team for his

9 testimony here.

10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

11 Ms. Sinatra?

12 MS. SINATRA: No further questions, Your Honour. We'd like to

13 also show Mr. Ruez our appreciation for being here. Thank you.

14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

15 Ms. de la Torre?

16 MS. DE LA TORRE: Nothing further from the Prosecution, Your

17 Honour.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. At this stage, are there any documents to

19 tender from the Prosecution side?

20 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour. We have provided a list to

21 the court, as well as to Defence counsel, of all of the exhibits that we

22 are offering to the testimony of Mr. Ruez, and they are Prosecution

23 Exhibits 1 through 26 inclusive of all the subpoints. In that regard,

24 Your Honour, we would point out in request, for example, with regard to

25 Mr. Jokic's interview, Ms. Sinatra read portions of that interview to the

1 court, and we would simply request that prior to ruling on its

2 admissibility, that the court read the transcript in its entirety.

3 Because, for example, Ms. Sinatra pointed out where Mr. Jokic called the

4 Prosecutor judges; however, she failed to follow up with the paragraph

5 where Mr. McCloskey explains the distinction between prosecutors and

6 judges to Mr. Jokic. Rather than have the witness simply read that

7 portion of the transcript, we would just request that the court read it

8 for itself in its entirety.

9 Your Honour, at this time we would offer all of those exhibits

10 into evidence.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any objection. Yes.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour. We have no objection.

13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. Sinatra.

14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. We do have several objections.

15 Of course, before I questioned Mr. Ruez, I asked that the court not think

16 that we're waiving our right to object to the admissibility of the

17 statement, and we would prefer that the Trial Chamber wait until we've

18 determined the legality of the procedures used during the taking of the

19 statement of Mr. Jokic. And there are two here that they're trying to

20 introduce. We object to the admissibility of, I guess, P26.1/A, 26.1/B,

21 26.2/A and 26.2/B. And further, I did read the answer into the record of

22 how -- no -- I take it back. I did not. But we will clarify that. When

23 I take further witnesses, I will make sure that we will try to elucidate

24 on these issues about the legality of the statement.

25 Further, I do object, and they're not marked in the Prosecution

1 Exhibit list, the freelance videographer that was Serbian. His name was

2 Goran Petrovic. Mr. Ruez had testified earlier, in an earlier trial, that

3 he didn't give them these videotapes. They were seized and they were not

4 in total and they're not verified, and the Prosecution doesn't mark which

5 ones were taken by Zoran Petrovic, but I think there's a big difference

6 between the OTP investigators' video footage and that of Mr. Petrovic, who

7 was not voluntarily given and his credibility was questioned by Mr. Ruez

8 himself. And it's not clear from their markings on the videotapes or

9 summaries which ones include clippings from Mr. Petrovic.

10 Additionally, we would like to object to the comments and the

11 editorialisation by the Prosecution. If they want to introduce some

12 photographs that are like P-8.8 through P-8.12, the photographs, I think,

13 are aerial photos, but they're of some kind of truck there. We listened

14 to the testimony. It does not say that it was the arrival of bulldozers.

15 That was not clear from Mr. Ruez's testimony, and I think the Prosecution

16 is testifying by leaving these editorials in their exhibit list.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, this is an important question. Why didn't you

18 reach it during your cross-examination?

19 MS. SINATRA: Your Honour, I didn't expect them to be putting his

20 supposition that it could have been the arrival of bulldozers in this

21 exhibit list. I didn't expect them to be annotating it with their

22 comments on -- if it says trucks near Kravica warehouse, that's one thing,

23 but seeing a truck doesn't mean that it was the arrival of bulldozers.

24 And I guess I missed it. Well, I'm going to be honest with you. I didn't

25 cross-examine him on that because I didn't think that the Prosecution

1 would be putting the annotations down here. It's clearly an aerial

2 picture of some trucks on July 5th, but it was not clear that it was the

3 arrival of bulldozers. And those are my only objections at this point,

4 Your Honour.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

6 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, Ms. de la Torre, would you please tell me which

8 part of the videotapes were taken from that freelancer, Petrovic. I'm

9 sorry.

10 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour. The videotape -- the

11 compilation videotape actually prior to each particular clip does cite the

12 source, as well as the transcript, which we have provided both to the

13 court and to the Defence, clearly indicates prior to each segment where

14 the footage came from, for example, whether or not it came from Reuters

15 versus Antelope Films versus Petrovic video, which you might recall having

16 seen on the tape itself. So we believe we have clearly indicated where

17 this footage comes from and which is attributable to Mr. Petrovic.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

19 Yes, yes, Ms. Sinatra.

20 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I believe that we did object to

21 the introduction of Mr. Petrovic's video clips earlier, and because it

22 marks it in their summaries or their video clips doesn't mean that it's

23 still admissible. We recognised it when they played. I reserved a

24 running objection on Mr. Petrovic's clippings. And I'm not saying that

25 the whole videotape that they're trying to introduce should not be

1 admissible, but the portions of Zoran Petrovic's clippings should not be

2 admissible, and we object to it.

3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Well, this Trial Chamber also has some

4 concerns about that three interviews introduced by the Prosecutor into the

5 evidence. Procedurally speaking, at the Pre-Trial Conference, I

6 specifically asked the exhibit list be filed one or two days before the

7 witness begins testimony. In this case, I believe that three interviews

8 and its attached documents do not appear on the first proposed exhibit

9 list for this witness. It was added later. Substantially speaking, one

10 witness could not have the right to cross-examine the other witness on the

11 substance of the interviews without interfering with his right to remain

12 silent. Of course, during the procedures, we ask many questions about

13 this witness, the present witness, about the context in which the

14 interview was conducted, and we are satisfied with the direct examination

15 and the cross-examination. But the problem is about the contents, the

16 contents of those interviews. We found they're very incriminalised

17 materials in it. If without the opportunity for the Defence counsel to

18 directly cross-examine the particular person who gave the interviews, I

19 think it is prejudiced against the interests of their client.

20 So under the Rule 89(D), "the evidence may be excluded if the

21 probative value is substantively outweighed by the need to ensure a fair

22 trial." So we decided to have those three interviews, as well as attached

23 maps and documents, frozen at this moment, in a refrigerator, not in a

24 coffin, of course. If in the future the Defence team has the opportunity

25 to cross-examine the accused or the accused himself give up his right to

1 remain silent, the Prosecutor could reintroduce those documents through

2 that witness, taking into consideration of the testimony given by this

3 witness today about the context in which those interviews were conducted.

4 So we decided that the documents from P25 to the end are not

5 admitted at this stage.

6 As for the videotapes, we saw it from the proceedings, and we

7 found those videotapes are relevant to this case and has the probative

8 value. So they are admitted into the evidence.

9 Could I make my position clear, that is, the document tendered by

10 the Prosecution, from 1.1 until P24 admitted. It is so decided.

11 Are there any documents from the Defence team that they would like

12 to tender at this stage?

13 Yes, Ms. Sinatra.

14 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. We did introduce three -- two

15 documents today through this witness. One is the RS letter from the

16 Defence Ministry that was addressed to -- I don't have it in front of me,

17 Your Honour. I'm sorry. But the RS letter talking about the illegality

18 of the interrogation process by the ICTY.

19 JUDGE LIU: Do you remember the number?

20 MS. SINATRA: D2/3. I'm sorry. We would like to move that it be

21 admitted into evidence to show the situation and the problems under Rule

22 95 with the interrogation and interviews of Mr. Jokic, and it was verified

23 by the witness that he -- he's the one that first mentioned it and brought

24 it up or we wouldn't have known about it. So he was fully aware and can

25 verify the authenticity of the letter. And then D3/3 is the French

1 parliamentary commission interview with Mr. Ruez, and we would like to

2 introduce that document into evidence also. The reason is because it

3 shows conclusions, bias, and suppositions on the part of the witness. It

4 attacks his credibility, we believe.

5 JUDGE LIU: Any objections from the Prosecution?

6 MS. DE LA TORRE: No, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

8 MS. SINATRA: Thank you.

9 JUDGE LIU: Well, concerning the document D2/3, that is the

10 letter, we believe that this document is related to that three interviews.

11 So since those three interviews are not admitted at this stage, we'll

12 consider this document, D2/3, together with that three interviews at a

13 later stage. So this document is not admitted at this stage. But Defence

14 team has the full right to reintroduce it at a later stage.

15 Concerning the document D3/3, since there's no objections from the

16 Prosecution, it is admitted into the evidence.

17 Mr. Karnavas, do you have any documents to introduce?

18 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

20 Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to give your

21 evidence. All of us wish you a very good luck in your future work. You

22 may go now.

23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, My Honours.

24 [The witness withdrew]

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Ms. De la Torre.

1 MS. DE LA TORRE: Your Honour, we just -- I'd just like one

2 clarification with regard to the statements that we had offered, and then

3 we do have a few other points we would like to make prior to recessing for

4 the break.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

6 MS. DE LA TORRE: And I believe I understand the court's ruling

7 with regard to those statements. However, I just wanted to clarify that

8 the Prosecution's intention in offering the statement of Mr. Obrenovic is

9 to allow the Defence access to that information prior to his testimony.

10 He will be a witness in this case, and we do expect that that information

11 be made available to the Defence for the purposes of cross-examination.

12 With regard to Mr. Jokic, the Prosecution is solely offering that

13 particular statement or those - I'm sorry - two statements against

14 Mr. Jokic, and does not intend to offer that for the purposes of any

15 evidence against Mr. Blagojevic in this case. So I just wanted to make

16 the Prosecution's position clear on the intent behind our offering of that

17 particular evidence.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

19 Ms. Sinatra.

20 MS. SINATRA: Yes, Your Honour. I just wanted to comment on the

21 fact that the statements of Mr. Obrenovic have already been provided to

22 the Defence, so we don't need to admit those into evidence, and the best

23 evidence will be that Mr. Obrenovic will be coming to testify himself. So

24 I agree with the Court's position. Thank you.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Are there any else?

1 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour.

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

3 MS. DE LA TORRE: Just a few matters, the first of which, just to

4 clear up the record with regard to the Jokic Defence's claim that they had

5 not been provided the Rule 61 hearing. We did research our records and

6 found that that was provided to them on July 18th, 2002. We did, however,

7 pursuant to the Court's instruction, provide them with a duplicate

8 courtesy copy.

9 We also, Your Honour, have requested in this case reciprocal

10 discovery. To date we have received none. We would request that prior to

11 a witness's testimony, if the Defence intends to use documents or other

12 pieces of evidence in the course of its cross-examination, that they

13 provide that to the Prosecution in advance. If it's something that the

14 Prosecution has provided to them, we would simply ask that they identify

15 it for the Prosecution prior to the witness's testimony.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, in advance, what do you mean by in advance?

17 Because we have made a ruling that they should furnish us with the

18 documents they have the intention to use during the cross-examination

19 before they cross-examine that witness, and the use that they want. Are

20 we in the same line of thinking?

21 MS. DE LA TORRE: Yes, Your Honour, that we would request that

22 when they provide the material to the court, that they also provide a copy

23 to the Prosecution.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, of course.

25 MS. DE LA TORRE: And, Your Honour, prior to the break, we would

1 also like to raise the unresolved issue of Mr. Blagojevic's

2 representation. The undisputed evidence before this Trial Chamber is that

3 Mr. Blagojevic and his counsel are not communicating with one another, nor

4 is Mr. Blagojevic receiving any documents or other pieces of evidence from

5 his counsel. We believe that this puts the Prosecution in an awkward

6 position. We have a continuing discovery obligation, we have documents

7 that we continue to need to tender to the defendant, and at this point, if

8 Mr. Blagojevic and his counsel are not communicating and he's not

9 receiving material, we don't know who to provide that material to. Do we

10 provide it to Mr. Blagojevic directly, to Mr. Karnavas, knowing that

11 Mr. Blagojevic is then not receiving it, or provide copies to both? We

12 believe, Your Honour, that while in one sense this is a matter between

13 Mr. Blagojevic and his counsel, it does affect the integrity of the trial,

14 and we believe, as a result, that we would encourage the court on this

15 break to attempt to resolve that issue, that it's a continuing ethical and

16 legal problem that persists, and we believe affects the continuation of

17 this trial.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, as you know that before the start of this

19 proceedings, I specifically advised Mr. Blagojevic for him to accept

20 independent counsel on this particular matter. And I have been informed

21 that the Registrar is kind enough to appoint independent counsel, and in

22 the coming week, that counsel will get in touch with Blagojevic. And I

23 also promised to Mr. Blagojevic, once he had some contacts with that

24 independent counsel, we might hold an ex parte hearing on this issue to

25 hear from Mr. Blagojevic what is his specific reasons for this request.

1 We will try our best to solve this issue during the break.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may just be heard, because I

3 think the Prosecutor, which is the same Prosecutor that tried to get me to

4 fire Ms. Tomanovic from the Defence case has intentionally misled the

5 court today. She knows very well, very well, that documents are being

6 provided to Mr. Blagojevic. Every single document that we receive in

7 B/C/S, we copy and we provide it to him. If Mr. Blagojevic has chosen not

8 to look at these documents, that's a different matter, but I personally

9 have given him a computer so he can research. I personally bought him a

10 tape-recorder so he can listen to tapes. We've given him every single

11 document, and I had a conversation with the Prosecutor, the Chief

12 Prosecutor, and he knows that the material is being turned over, and I

13 cannot understand why Madam Prosecutor would stand up and falsely go on

14 the record to say that we are not providing the disclosure material to

15 Mr. Blagojevic. And I just want the record very, very clear on this

16 matter. And I do agree with the Trial Chamber, in their aspect of

17 appointing an independent counsel. And as I've indicated, we're prepared

18 to withdraw from the case at the court's pleasure. Until then, we're

19 obligated to do our duty, and I believe that we're doing it as best we

20 can. I also -- I should also add that prior to the situation with

21 Mr. Blagojevic, the record will -- the records will show that, I would

22 say, in the average of two to 300 hours spent with Mr. Blagojevic in

23 consultation in going over all of the documents, and that's between myself

24 and Ms. Tomanovic, with Mr. Blagojevic. Thank you.

25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you for your statement. I think it's registered

1 in the transcript.

2 Another matter is the oral motion for the access to OTP mission

3 requests.

4 Yes. Yes, Ms. de la Torre. Do you have anything to add? I hope

5 that debate will not last long.

6 MS. DE LA TORRE: No, Your Honour. I just simply I believe the

7 court is in possession of a copy, as is the Prosecution, of a memorandum

8 from the commander of the Detention Unit informing all of the parties that

9 Mr. Blagojevic is refusing to accept legal documentation and other items

10 from his lead counsel, Mr. Karnavas. This is the information that we are

11 relying on, as well as Mr. Karnavas's representation to the Prosecution

12 that he and his client are not communicating with one another, and

13 obviously that's our concern.

14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Well, we'll continue.

15 As for the oral motion for access to the OTP's mission request,

16 during the proceedings, both Mr. Karnavas and Ms. Sinatra made a request

17 to get that mission requests from the Prosecution. We studied this matter

18 during the break, and we found that the mission requests clearly appear to

19 fall within the scope of the Rule 70(A), which are not subject to

20 disclosure obligation under Rule 66 and 67. So their requests are denied.

21 As for the break, I mean the court recess, we believe that a lot

22 of the latest development may affect the proceedings of this Tribunal. We

23 have the -- we'll have a newly amended indictment in this case, and the

24 Prosecution indicated Mr. Obrenovic and Mr. Nikolic will testify in this

25 proceedings. And Mr. Blagojevic need to solve the issue of the counsel.

1 Taking all those factors into consideration, we decided to have court

2 recess for a month. We'll resume on the 23rd of June, Monday. I hope

3 during this break we could deal a lot of things. This Trial Chamber will

4 request the Prosecution to submit the statements of Mr. Obrenovic and

5 Nikolic 25 days before their testimony.

6 As for the amended indictment, the Prosecution indicated that they

7 would file that application by tomorrow. We'll give ten days from

8 tomorrow to the Defence team for their response, and after that, the Trial

9 Chamber will make a decision concerning the indictment, so as to remove

10 the so-called fundamental flaw of law.

11 Are there anything else the parties would like to bring to the

12 attention of the Trial Chamber at this stage?

13 Yes, Mr. McCloskey.

14 MR. McCLOSKEY: We won't be seeing Ms. de la Torre after today,

15 Your Honour. I just wanted you to know that. She will be going on

16 maternity leave.

17 JUDGE LIU: Are you coming back?

18 MS. DE LA TORRE: No, Your Honour. There's nothing further from

19 the Prosecution. And no, I will not be returning after today.

20 JUDGE LIU: Well, all I can say is we wish you good luck.

21 Yes, Ms. Sinatra.

22 MS. SINATRA: That's all I was going to say. I can't wait to see

23 the pretty little baby girl.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, having said that, we are adjourned until 23rd of

25 June.

1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.14 p.m.,

2 to be reconvened on Monday, the 23rd day of

3 June 2003, at 9.30 a.m.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25