1 Tuesday, 27 May 2003
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Registrar, could you call the case,
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. Good morning, Your Honours.
8 This is the Case Number IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus Radislav
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Brdjanin.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Can you following the proceedings in a language you
13 can understand?
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning. I can follow, and I
15 can understand.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Appearances for the Prosecution.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: Good morning, Your Honours. Anna Richterova for
18 the Prosecution assisted by Denise Gustin, case manager.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you and good morning to you. Appearances for
20 Radislav Brdjanin.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Good afternoon, Your Honours. David Cunningham
22 with Barbara Baruch. We are assisted today by Vesna Anic.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, too.
24 Are there any preliminaries before we bring in the witness? Yes,
25 Madam Baruch.
1 MS. BARUCH: Your Honours, I believe Mr. Ackerman has filed a
2 motion with regard to the next witness. We received --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: The one we're hearing this morning? No, next week.
4 MS. BARUCH: We received 55 pages in B/C/S that were labelled by
5 the Prosecutor, not by us, as Rule 68 information, which is essential to
6 have for the preparation of cross-examination. I've spoken with
7 Ms. Richterova. We are trying to work out a way that I would have it at
8 least the night before I did cross-examination, and at this point, as you
9 know, we are working without a case manager who speaks B/C/S, and so it's
10 very difficult. And I'm not quite as advanced as this Tribunal in
11 understanding B/C/S at this moment, although I try to learn a little every
12 day. And so we have made a motion to postpone the witness, but as I've
13 told you, we are working with Ms. Richterova. It's actually Ms. Korner's
14 witness. She will be taking him on direct, so perhaps by the end of the
15 day I will have more to say. But at this point, I do not have a
16 translation of this Rule 68 information, and Ms. Richterova informs me
17 that the Prosecutor probably doesn't have an English translation because
18 it would be my understanding that if the Prosecutor was in possession of
19 an English translation, it would be appropriate to turn that over as part
20 of it being Rule 68.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Which witness are we talking about?
22 MS. BARUCH: Osmanovic.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: 7.113.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, Your Honour, 7.113. And you know --
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Does he enjoy protective measures?
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: We are checking. I think he is not, but I'm
2 sorry I do not have my list with me. I will have a look at this
3 material --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Have a look now if you can because the name has been
5 mentioned, and if necessary, we will have to redact it --
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: No protective measures.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: No protective measures. All right. So always be
8 careful, all right.
9 MS. BARUCH: I would have been more careful, except I know a
10 little bit about this witness, and I strongly suspect that he wouldn't
11 be --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: So we will have more as we go along, and have an
13 update on the information. Ms. Korner is already aware of the situation?
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: I will have a look at the materials first, and I
15 only want to say that we disclosed them on the 14th of May, and we never
16 translate Rule 68 materials. Anyway, but I will do my best, and I will
17 inform also Ms. Korner about the situation.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA: The reason why I'm standing is --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to look taller.
21 MS. BARUCH: She doesn't have to with me, Your Honour.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: It's about the way how to present the material of
23 Mr. Kaiser. As you are aware, we disclosed, and we also handed over CDs.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: With the annexes, with pictures. And we would
1 like to tender into exhibit the CD, not the hard copies. I have one hard
2 copy with me. I spoke with the Defence, and I told him that this one hard
3 copy which is on my desk is identical to the CD. And during the
4 presentation, I would refer to pictures which I have here, but at the end
5 of the day, I would like to tender the CD. And now, it's up to you or up
6 to the registry to tell the Prosecution whether we can tender the CD.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The Prosecution or -- first of all, I need a
8 feedback from the Defence.
9 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Judge, I have no reason to doubt what's on the CD
10 is the same thing that's in the hard copy. I would have no objection to
11 this procedure based on the representations of the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. The next thing -- thank you,
13 Mr. Cunningham. The next thing I want to say about this is that in the
14 list of exhibits which will be potentially used by Dr. Colin Kaiser, there
15 is, first line precisely, this CD. And then in the second line, there is
16 another CD, CD with documents 0179-8778/9340, which I don't have. I have
17 a CD here, which has been given to me, but this refers to the first of
18 these two CDs, in other words starting with Document 5207 and finishing
19 with Document or page 5590.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: So please tell me what --
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: That I believe the other CD was given to you, but
23 we have an extract of it.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: When was it given to us?
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Unfortunately, we do not have the date. But it
1 was given to you with Rule 92 bis witness statements because this other CD
2 refers to the Witness 7.243. On these CDs are books of --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. I'm not saying that we haven't, but I
4 need to check this. Madam Registrar, could you please contact my
5 secretary and ask her to locate amongst the Rule 92 bis documents a CD
6 with the following reference number: 0179- -- you have the -- okay -- and
7 to come back to you or to me ASAP.
8 All right. So it's agreed and it's our decision that the
9 documents that you intend to tender in exhibit will be so tendered in the
10 CD-ROM format.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to give this a number and explain that it
13 contains pages or reference -- what number are we going to give to this
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: It's P1881.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: P1881. And I need someone to check here and now
17 that it is not a defective CD. And that it contains nothing more than
18 what is indicated, that is 0323-5207 to 0323-5590, with the understanding,
19 Mrs. Baruch, and Mr. Cunningham, that you can verify the contents of this
20 CD at your leisure and pleasure.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: That's correct, Your Honour. That's fine with
23 THE REGISTRAR: It's 1881.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, it's P1881.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
1 Yes, in the meantime, I'm checking the CD myself. We can proceed.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: The witness is waiting.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, usher, could you bring the witness in, please.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you, Mr. Kaiser, Dr. Kaiser.
6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome to this Tribunal. Could you please check
8 the audiosystem.
9 THE WITNESS: I have French.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Put it on number 4, please. Put it on number 4.
11 Can you hear me now?
12 THE WITNESS: I hear you in English, and I had you in French
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. Well, I'm bilingual.
15 THE WITNESS: Myself as well.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Welcome to this Tribunal. You're about to give
17 evidence related to your expert report. It's the practice of this
18 Tribunal that before you give testimony, you make a solemn declaration
19 equivalent to an oath, the text of which is contained in a document -- in
20 a piece of paper that the usher is going to hand to you. Please stand up
21 and read that aloud, and that will be your solemn undertaking with this
23 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
24 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
1 WITNESS: COLIN KAISER
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Before you start giving evidence, I should like to
3 draw your attention to something which is very important and which would
4 make the life of each and every one of us here a little bit lighter,
5 easier. And that is you are English speaking, I'm English speaking,
6 Madam Richterova is English speaking, the Defence team is English
7 speaking. It's only the accused who is not English speaking, and by our
8 statute, we need to interpret every word that you say also in French,
9 apart from the Serbo-Croat. Being all English speaking, we usually fall
10 into a common trap, and that is not giving a -- allowing a short interval
11 of time between question and answer, and that spells trouble and
12 difficulties for the interpreters.
13 So I ask of you and Madam Richterova and later on Mr. Cunningham
14 or Madam Baruch to adhere to this rule, allow a short interval of time
15 between question and answer, and please speak slowly, at a slow pace,
16 because otherwise we will have problems. All right? Thanks.
17 Madam Richterova will be conducting the examination-in-chief. And
18 she will be followed next by the Defence on cross-examination. Thank you.
19 Madam Richterova.
20 Examined by Ms. Richterova:
21 Q. Good morning. Would you be to kind and state your full name for
22 the record.
23 A. My name is Colin Reid Erlin Kaiser.
24 Q. I think one of the microphones doesn't work. Now it's okay.
25 Dr. Kaiser, is it correct that you have testified in this
1 Tribunal in front of this Tribunal already on two occasions?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Do you remember in which cases and approximately the date?
4 A. First, in 1996 for count 61 or 66 against General Mladic and
5 Radovan Karadzic. And second time in 1998 in the case against
6 General Blaskic.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Just for your information, Madam Baruch and
8 Mr. Cunningham, assuming that you're perhaps not that familiar with this
9 particular procedure, because proceedings, the trial against Mr. Karadzic
10 and Mr. Mladic, as such, hasn't really started, but there is Rule 61 on
11 the basis of which testimonies -- evidence of certain witnesses can be
12 heard and should be heard. And the testimony of Dr. Kaiser was heard
13 precisely in terms of Rule 61. Okay, all right.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA:
15 Q. Is it correct that in these two trials, or in these two
16 testimonies, you gave a general overview on damage destruction of sacral
17 buildings in Bosnia-Herzegovina, about your involvement in the study of
18 sacral and culture monuments in the former Yugoslavia? Is it correct?
19 A. In 1996, it was specifically targeted on cultural heritage in
20 general, and of course included sacral buildings which could be considered
21 cultural heritage. In 1998, it was more specifically about sacral
22 buildings, I think.
23 Q. Just to speed up your testimony today, I would like to tender into
24 evidence these two transcripts.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there any objection on the part of the Defence,
1 Madam Baruch?
2 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Judge, it is my understanding that these
3 transcripts are being offered by the Prosecution because in the prior
4 testimony, the witness went over his definitions of religious buildings
5 and some other terminology that would assist the Court. To the extent
6 that testimony is contained in those transcripts, we don't have any
7 objection to it because I think that would save a lot of redundancy before
8 the Tribunal today. So the extent that they go beyond that and it
9 contains matters that are not relevant to this proceeding, of course we
10 would object. But knowing as Your Honour has told me many times being a
11 professional judge, you'll be able to separate that out. I just wanted
12 that objection on the record.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Richterova.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you. I would like to tender the
15 transcript --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: But what do you have to say?
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: I agree. Of course, what goes beyond the matter
18 subject of today's testimony --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay. So it's our decision that,
20 decision of the Trial Chamber, that this transcript -- these transcripts
21 are so admitted into evidence with the caveat that has been explained by
22 Mr. Cunningham and agreed to by the Prosecution.
23 We need to give them a number, please.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: The transcript from the year 1996 will be
1 JUDGE AGIUS: This is the Karadzic and the Mladic, no?
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes. And the transcript from the year 1998 will
3 be P1882.2.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, let's proceed.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA:
6 Q. Dr. Kaiser, I would like to ask you now if you can give us just
7 very brief information about your professional and educational --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't think we need that. He has given that
9 already in the Karadzic transcript starting from page 2. I think we can
10 be practical, and you just ask him question when he was asked the same
11 question in the other proceedings, his answer was correct or not, and if
12 he does confirm that it was correct, we can move ahead and take it as it
13 is on the face of it.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. I only asked you because you testified last time in 1998, did
16 anything change in respect to your profession?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you more qualified, more experienced? Do you
18 think there's anything else we ought to know regarding your academic
19 background and credentials?
20 THE WITNESS: I think for the professional background, there's
21 perhaps two things that are worth knowing.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Go ahead.
23 THE WITNESS: I'm a UNESCO functionary, that's something to be
24 kept in mind, my cooperation with the Tribunal, it's a cooperation of
25 UNESCO, with ICTY. In 1999 in July, I was sent to Kosovo in order to look
1 at the situation, get a general idea of the situation of cultural sacral
2 buildings there, and it was a brief mission. And I would just like to
3 point out that I rang the bell very strongly inasmuch as the imminent
4 dangers facing the Serbian Orthodox heritage was concerned. I think
5 that's worth keeping in mind. In the first half of 2002, I, again as
6 UNESCO functionary, set up a cultural heritage monitoring system with the
7 OSCE, in FYROM, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, specially
8 functioning in the zones which government officials could not have access
9 to, as I say ethnic Albanian zones. We were concerned particularly about
10 what was happening to Macedonian Orthodox churches. So this is additional
11 information that I think may be of some relevance.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Thank you.
13 Yes, Madam.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA:
15 Q. You were asked, Dr. Kaiser, to produce a report on the damaging
16 and destruction of Islamic and Roman Catholic sacral buildings. You focus
17 on six municipalities, Bosanski Novi, Donji Vakuf, Kljuc, Kotor Varos,
18 Prijedor and Sanski Most. My first question, was it your selection, or
19 were you tasked to focus on these six municipalities?
20 A. As I best remember, I was tasked to do so.
21 Q. After you arrived to The Hague, you were given some additional
22 materials, and you produced supplement to the report on the damaging and
23 destruction of Islamic and Roman Catholic sacral buildings. Is it
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. I will go into details how you prepare this supplement, but at
2 this stage, I would like to tender into evidence the report and the
3 supplement to the report.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Cunningham.
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I want to make sure that we're talking about the
6 same documents, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: We're supposedly talking of a document which has
8 pages 10033 -- sorry, if I start with the ERN number, it's 01150372. And
9 finishes at 01150565. This is called -- it was a title "Military
10 Developments in the Bosanska Krajina" -- sorry, sorry, sorry. Sorry. I'm
11 mixing one document with the other.
12 It starts with 01147393 and finishes - correct me if I am wrong
13 Madam Richterova - 01147408. That's...
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Correct?
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: You are right.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: The other one forget, because it's something I have
18 in the file here which I brought with me but which has got nothing to do
19 with this witness.
21 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Judge, with respect to that document which is his
22 report on the damage and destruction, we have a copy of that. We have no
23 objection to that. I don't know if the Prosecution wishes to offer the
24 supplement that he provided that he has since done, that was provided to
25 us yesterday that contained -- begins with the number 02932200 through 203
1 inclusive. We would also have no objection to that.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, we wish to offer this supplement into
3 evidence as well.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: And this will be under P1883.1. This is the
6 report. And --
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The supplement will be?
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: Will be P1883.2.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it that that is agreeable.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It is, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, so we can move ahead.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: And I think this will be the time to tender into
13 evidence one more document which has something to do with Dr. Kaiser's
14 report, and it is his table which goes together with the photographs. And
15 this table is also on the CD.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: But I have a hard copy because it will be easier
18 for all parties to go through --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I think so.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: -- The hard copy.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: For the purposes of this sitting, we better work on
22 the basis of the hard copies because for me, for example, to refer to the
23 CD, I have to forget the transcript and have the CD content superimposed
24 on the transcript, and I won't be able to follow the two things at the
25 same time. So if you have hard copies --
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: Now I had only small problem, and after we finish
2 these problems, hopefully we will already go smoothly. It's because this
3 table is on the CD, do you want to assign separate exhibit number for this
4 document or shall we use the exhibit which was already assigned to the CD.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, we will use the same number that has been
6 assigned to it on the CD.
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: Okay.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Because that's the only way it makes sense. On the
9 other hand for the purpose of the sitting as such, we will refer to the
10 hard copies, because it will make everybody's life easier. All right?
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But we won't have two documents identical and
13 bearing two different exhibit numbers because it wouldn't make sense. All
14 right. So let's proceed.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA:
16 Q. Dr. Kaiser, when you were tasked to evaluate the damage on sacral
17 buildings in these six municipalities, were you given any materials based
18 on which information did you proceed in your evaluation and in your work?
19 A. I was given a certain number of materials by ICTY. I was given a
20 series of summary statements of witnesses who had information pertaining
21 to the damaging or destruction of mosques or churches. I was given some
22 information which emanated from the Islamic communities as well, the
23 medzlis. I was given some photographs which are reproduced, in fact, are
24 on the CD, which were taken by the teams of ICTY. I think those are the
25 main sorts of documents that, in fact, I were given. And a certain number
1 of reference books in fact I didn't have in my possession as well, notably
2 the book of Muharem Omerdic.
3 Q. Thank you. I would like to show you some documents, and I would
4 like you to confirm whether you used them or not.
5 These documents are marked like attachments to the statement of
6 the witness 7.243. The reason why I want to show these documents to this
7 witness is that the Defence objected to using these attachments with the
8 Rule 92 bis statement of Witness 7.243. I would first start with showing
9 these documents to the witness. This is a document from Prijedor, and it
10 is attachment 1. And just, please, have a look.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, on the top of this document, I
12 believe that you have these attachments in front of you.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Mm-hmm.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: On the top of this document is a document in
15 B/C/S. I was a translation of these documents, and I will provide you
16 with this translation right away, and I will ask the usher to place it on
17 the ELMO.
18 A. Okay, the document on Prijedor, yes, I've used this one.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Can the witness explain what's the Medzlis Islamska
20 zajednice essentially is.
21 THE WITNESS: Islamic community board for the municipality,
22 basically. The organisation of the community is according to the
23 municipality, does not seem to be according to a hierarchy as it would be
24 in the Catholic church or the Orthodox church.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA:
1 Q. Did you use this document during your work?
2 A. I used this document, yes. I used it because it's a good
3 document. It's also a document which although there's some attachment, it
4 says it was handed in year 2000, it contains information I think that was
5 compiled before then.
6 Q. How did you utilise this document?
7 A. This document has -- the first part of it is sort of a list of
8 Islamic community properties, sacral buildings. Mektebs, I think
9 Gasulhanas and things like that in it. It's a useful document because it
10 indicated some buildings that I couldn't find, for example, in
11 Muharem Omerdic's book on the chapter that was on Prijedor. Document is
12 useful because it has photographs that were taken just after the war.
13 It's very important, that is to say, they were taken before a lot of the
14 buildings were pulled down and repaired. It contains some information on
15 damaging. The perspective of the document is really clearly in terms of
16 reconstruction, therefore, the notations that occur at the bottom of these
17 types of pages, karton objekta, when I checked these with the buildings,
18 these are pretty accurate, and there's information on damaging as well,
19 dates of damaging.
20 So it's a good document. Not a complete exhaustive document, but
21 a good one.
22 Q. And on the top, as I just provided you with the translation is a
23 certificate from Prijedor Islamic community and this certifies that the
24 supply -- that we have supplied reliable data for the building, record
25 cards of mosques in the area covered by our medzlis. So this is one
1 document which you used.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, now I'm again facing a small problem
3 because I would like to tender this document into evidence. And as I
4 said, these documents were previously submitted by Witness 7.243, which we
5 would like to tender into evidence in accordance with Rule 92 bis. And
6 the Defence objected. I can tender this document into evidence under this
7 witness, or we can discuss tendering of this evidence when we are
8 discussing Rule 92 bis witnesses.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I need to know, because when we start talking and
10 referring to numbers, witnesses in particular, you always catch me on the
11 wrong foot because I can't possibly, humanly speaking, remember each and
12 every one of them by number and whether we have handed down a decision
13 pertaining to the Rule 92 bis applicability or otherwise.
14 Can anyone check for us whether -- as regards Witness 7.243 we
15 have handed down a decision on -- we haven't. So is it still pending?
16 It's still pending.
17 I don't think it's fair to pre-empt that matter by admitting this
18 document now, not through the door but through the window. But it
19 depends. Were you aware of this document, as I would presume that you
20 were, and when was it made available to you?
21 THE WITNESS: I was aware of the document because I used the
22 document as the basis for the trips that I carried out. When was it made
23 available? It was made available through ICTY in Sarajevo in maybe 2001.
24 2001, yes.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: You state you affirm that you made use of it in the
1 course of your investigations?
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, I made use of it.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: So that solves the matter. Is there objection,
4 Mr. Cunningham, on having this document admitted now in this witness's
6 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Judge, we don't -- consistent with the objection
7 that Mr. Ackerman filed with the 92 bis, we would renew that objection.
8 Can I have just a moment to confer with Ms. Baruch.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 JUDGE AGIUS: What was the basis of the objection? Can we check?
12 If we can check on that, we should be able to --
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, I have the motion of the Defence,
14 and it states only that the document is irrelevant.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: If that is the objection, I can overrule it straight
16 away. I mean, there's no question about it. It has been used by this
17 witness in the course of his investigation, and it's the basis for his
18 investigation, then obviously it is relevant.
19 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I would agree with the Court that obviously makes
20 it relevant. But I do have a couple of additional questions, and I don't
21 know if the Court would deem it appropriate for the Court to ask at this
22 time, but he tells us that the ICTY provided it to him. Is it the actual
23 Tribunal or the Office of the Prosecutor? And then he has said "it is a
24 good document, there's some good stuff in here," which leads me to believe
25 that there's some other material in there that he considered unreliable,
1 that was not good. And I hope I'm not speaking for the witness, because I
2 don't know who provided it to him specifically and because of the fact
3 that there may be material that he considers to be unreliable or not good
4 in there, we would have those objections. Perhaps they could be cleared
5 up with questioning.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly. As you just stated, that would possibly
7 form part of the cross-examination. And you can clear that up on
8 cross-examination, unless, of course, Madam Richterova puts the questions
9 herself now that she knows what they are. But I think we can safely
10 proceed with admitting this document for the purpose and in the course of
11 this witness's testimony. And then we will revisit the matter just for
12 formality's sake when we come to Witness 7.243.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: This would be P1884. And I would also reserve --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for your practical
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: I would like to make it P1884.1 just in case,
17 because I have six documents, and of course I do not know whether all
18 these six documents will be accepted. So at this moment, I would call it
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA:
22 Q. Then I will show you two other documents which I believe you saw,
23 but please confirm, whether yes or not, they are from Sanski Most. On the
24 top of one of them is, again, certification. I have copies for Your
25 Honours. And one copy to place on the ELMO.
1 I only want to say that these translations which I am submitting
2 have been disclosed to the Defence. And they were disclosed many months
3 ago, and I can be even more specific if I manage to find the list. But I
4 just want to state that they have been disclosed. They have these
6 JUDGE AGIUS: And they were disclosed in relation to this witness
7 or in relation to some other witness?
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: These translations were disclosed in relation to
9 the witness 7.243.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: So are they covered by the objection that has
11 already been referred to? We have the response anyway.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: The translations were disclosed on 21st of
13 February, 2003.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: The objection, Madam Baruch and Mr. Cunningham, in
15 Mr. Ackerman's response of 21/5 -- 5/21, in order to make myself
16 understood better with you, stated as follows: "The defendant has no
17 objection to the Rule 92 bis statement of Witness 7.243 if limited to the
18 statement itself without attachments. The attachments are irrelevant. If
19 the Prosecutor insists on the attachments, then in that event, the
20 defendant would insist that the witness be produced for examination so
21 that the contents of the attachments could be explored." So the way we
22 are going to go about it, Madam Richterova, that's partly deciding the
23 matter, as we go along today, if the Prosecution intends tendering into
24 exhibit the attachments that were accompanying -- that accompanied the
25 Rule 92 bis statement of Witness 7.243, if they are relevant to what we
1 are discussing today, then they will be admitted for the purpose of this
3 Then the fact that they will be admitted will automatically
4 entitle the Defence to bring -- to insist on bringing forward Witness
5 7.243 to be cross-examined on these attachments. Do you read me?
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: I understand, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So in other words, my assistant legal officer will
8 need to prepare a decision relating to Witness 7.243 accepting the
9 Prosecution's request to have his statement admitted under Rule 92 bis,
10 and also making it clear that the witness will have to be brought for
11 cross-examination on the contents of the attachments which, for the
12 record, have been admitted during the testimony of Dr. Colin Kaiser.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, if I may, the Witness 7.243 in his
14 statement stated that he received these attachments we are talking about
15 from respective Islamic communities. And we have also these confirmations
16 from these Islamic communities that they filled in these karton objekta,
17 these charts and sent them to Witness 7.243 and he just put them into
18 record and stored them.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, but anyway, I think, Mr. Cunningham and
20 Mrs. Baruch, are taking the point --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, microphone.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Sorry. I'm sure that you're taking the point that
23 Witness 7.243 will not be in a position to testify on the contents because
24 he was only a recipient of the documents. You will refer the matter to
25 Mr. Ackerman, and as has happened in the past, usually if Mr. Ackerman
1 believes there is no need to bring forward the witness for Mr. Ackerman
2 believes there is no need to bring forward the witness for
3 cross-examination purposes, then I'm sure that the same procedure will be
4 resorted to as in the past. And Defence will liaise with the Prosecution,
5 and you should be put in a position to know whether you need to bring
6 forward a witness or not.
7 As far as his statement itself is concerned, Mr. Ackerman
8 seems -- does not have any objection to the tendering of his statement
9 under Rule 92 bis, and there seems to be no need, at least looking at the
10 response for the witness to be brought over for cross-examination, except
11 and insofar as the attachments are concerned. All right? So I take it
12 that you will liaise with the Defence -- with the Prosecution.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We'll do that, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: As soon as possible.
15 Let's proceed.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Your Honour. I just really want to
17 stress --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you for the information, because it also
19 helped me clear the matter up in my mind.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: This Witness 7.243 is not able to testify about
21 the content of these documents, and it is Mr. Kaiser who is able, based on
22 his own observation, to make comment on the content of these documents, on
23 the reliability of these documents. It's the reason why I --
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: -- Used them with Dr. Kaiser.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA:
3 Q. Dr. Kaiser, you have two documents. Can you tell us --
4 JUDGE AGIUS: So this will be document -- we haven't given it a
5 number yet.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: We haven't given them the number. It is P1884.2
7 and .3, because there are two documents from Sanski Most.
8 Q. Please, Dr. Kaiser, can you have a look at these two separate
9 documents and tell us, did you use them, did you see them before, and what
10 would you tell us about the content, the reliability of information in
11 this -- in these two documents?
12 A. Okay. First of all, these documents I consider they are in fact
13 three documents. There is one document which is from 1997 which is
14 established by the Islamic community board in Sanski Most. This document
15 was the first one to come into my possession. I don't know about the
16 numbers, but the date's on the left-hand side at the top, 1997. This
17 document was established again for the reasons of funding. There has been
18 a lot of rebuilding in Sanski Most municipality. There's a lot of money I
19 think from middle eastern donors. This is that sort of document. It's an
20 information document. It's interesting. It's established in 1997.
21 Now, there are sort of two other documents that are indicated.
22 And these came -- one of these, I've seen. It is again like the document
23 in Prijedor where there is a karton objekta which, in fact, is more or
24 less a transcription of some information from this earlier series. I
25 believe that these documents are produced later. I don't find it so
1 useful. It contains dates that came from the first document, but it has
2 some other dates. It moves dates around in an odd way. I didn't rely
3 particularly on this document.
4 And then attached to that is a document that I have seen, but only
5 in fact only a few days ago. And this is a document which is established
6 by one of the Islamic communities in -- it's in Arabic. This is
7 information about buildings. It has a date: 1997. It has pictures,
8 which I would have been interested in sort of seeing. But when I look at
9 these pictures, very, very often or some of them come from an excellent
10 series of photographs that were taken in Sanski Most after the war. So
11 that particular document, I have only seen recently. I haven't used it.
12 It is the first document which I found to be the most useful for my work.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your Honour, may I interrupt. As I would request
14 that as the witness goes through, say, a series of documents that have two
15 exhibit numbers, if he could by chance identify the documents --
16 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm going to ask the same question, Mr. Cunningham,
17 because we have the same problem here. Let's stop for a moment. Document
18 or Exhibit number P1884.1 is what was attachment 1 to the statement of
19 7.243. Correct? That is the document starting with ERN numbers 01149297,
20 and finishing, ending, with 01149372.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: I don't have the document in front of me because
22 I lent my copy --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Not that, Madam Registrar. It's a thick...
24 Usher, give this to Madam Richterova, and ask her to confirm to me
25 that that is...
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, you gave me Prijedor, so I would
2 need attachment to Sanski Most.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: No, this is Prijedor as well.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: One document should be dated clearly from the
5 year 1997, and it is the document which was used primarily by Dr. Kaiser.
6 Q. Is it correct?
7 A. Yes, be careful. One has the Arabic formatting, it's also 1997.
8 I didn't use that one. You're talking about one which is in
9 Serbo-Croatian language dated December 1997.
10 Q. If you would be so kind, on the top of this document --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: The one I have from Sanski Most is attachment 2, and
12 it starts with 01149431.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, it's correct.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: So this is P1884.1. No?
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: .1.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Gustin, can you help us?
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is .2, this document from the year 1997 which
18 is in Serbo-Croatian language. And then is the other document --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: How can it be 1997 if it starts with the date of
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can I please ask the usher to show me the copies
22 which are on the...
23 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not that.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: I will be able to identify.
25 Yes, the document which is -- and it is right at the end when we
1 send the exhibit list yesterday, we put this number right at the end in
2 handwriting because I forgot to mention it. But this document is 0212 --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. 0212-1328 to -1374. This is what you
4 mean by P1884.1?
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: No, there are two documents. I'm sorry, Your
6 Honour. I know a little bit complicating the procedure. The document
7 which has words "attachment 2" and is --
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Wait, wait, all right, okay. Last one.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: And it has --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: But are you sure this was an attachment to the
11 statement of 7.243?
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, the attachment which is dated 2002 was
13 attachment to the Witness 7.243, and it is a document which the Defence
14 objected to. And Dr. Kaiser just stated that this document was not too
15 reliable. The dates were changing.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's start from here because I'm still confused.
17 Let's go through them one by one. This document which has the
18 ERN number 02121328, in other words, starts with that ERN number which is
19 the one which is handwritten at the bottom of the page, the document list
20 that was distributed yesterday.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: That was going to be what, P1884.1?
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: This .1 is from Prijedor.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: This is why you have confused us completely because
25 that's what I said. Which is P1884.1?
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is the document from the Prijedor.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Give me the ERN number, the first one.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: The ERN number is 01149297.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, okay. So I had it correct. This was
5 what -- well, I showed it to you, so this is of Prijedor.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is Prijedor.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: Not Sanski Most. This is 1884.1.
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: 1884.2. ERN number?
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: Is 0114.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: 9431.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Through 9487.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. P1884. Sorry about this, Dr. Kaiser.
16 Yes, P1884.3.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, it is Document 0212.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA: From 328.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. This is the one that the witness was not
21 impressed much.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: This second document, I'm sorry Your Honour, this
23 second document is dated 1997.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: And he was using this document.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: The 1997 one is P1884.3. Correct?
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: Next I want to know which is P1884.4.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: We haven't attached this number yet because we
5 are going to.
6 I would like to give this to document to the usher. Now, I want
7 to show you a document which is from Kotor Varos which is called
8 attachment 3, and...
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Kotor Varos. That would be 1884.4.
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: We are done with Sanski Most. This is
13 Kotor Varos.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And it is 1884.4, no?
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
17 Attachment 4 is about Kljuc, the Kljuc --
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I confused you with the
19 fact that on the top is the word "attachment 4." But I am talking about
20 attachment 3.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, that was the last one. Attachment 3 was
22 Kotor Varos.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: It was .4. We are talking about exhibits but
24 attachments are slightly different.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. What I want to make clear now is the exhibit
1 number. I don't care about the attachment.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: The Exhibit number will be P1884.4, and it is
3 Islamic community for Kotor Varos.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA:
6 Q. Did you see this document?
7 A. Yes, I've seen this document.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's give them the number first, and then we will
9 refer the question to Dr. Kaiser at the end because otherwise we are going
10 to get bogged down.
11 Next document, next exhibit that you intend to tender.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: Next exhibit is from Kljuc.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: It will be --
15 JUDGE AGIUS: 1884.5.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: .5.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Okay.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: Then will be Bosanski Novi.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: Which will be .6.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: 6.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: And the last one will be Donji Vakuf, which will
23 be .7.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: So now what we will -- and there is another
25 attachment that I have. What was -- what is P1884.1? 1884.1, what is the
1 last page according to you? What is the last ERN number?
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is 9430. Is it correct?
3 JUDGE AGIUS: No, it can't be.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: 01149430.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: 943... Okay. That's perfect. All right. So what
6 I want you to do now, what I would like to ask you to do, is to hand to
7 Mr. Kaiser -- to Dr. Kaiser, sorry, all these exhibits. And I would
8 proceed by asking him to enlighten us in a generic way or in a general
9 manner as to what he knows about these documents and what he thinks that
10 we ought to know about these documents, one by one. And then you can ask
11 the particular questions. But first, let's go through the documentation.
12 I want a confirmation from him that he has seen these documents, and I
13 want to hear from his mouth what he knows about these documents. And then
14 you obviously ask the relative particular questions.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, I only want to ask because
16 Dr. Kaiser already went through Prijedor and Sanski Most. So you are now
17 referring to these four --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: We are referring to now P1884.3, which
19 is -- 1884.4, which is Kotor Varos.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, yes.
21 Q. Dr. Kaiser, you heard the Judge.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Is there anything you think we ought to know about
23 the origin of this document and the contents of this document in a general
25 THE WITNESS: Okay. These are documents that all of them use the
1 same karton objekta. These documents seem to share something in common.
2 I think that their date of establishment is not so ancient. It looks like
3 it has been done fairly recently, in the last few years. The documents
4 are interesting to help to find, say, a mekteb existed or a mesdzid
5 existed somewhere, so this is another one to look for. They are very
6 useful as a list. The information on them is not -- there's some dates,
7 but, for example, Kotor Varos, nearly everything is dated damaging is done
8 the month of July. I find this a little bit -- it raises questions. All
9 of a sudden, somebody says this happened in July, you didn't make an
10 effort to find out anything else. Some of them don't have very much in
11 the way of damaging information.
12 There are other documents, I believe, attached to these. For
13 example, we have Kljuc.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA:
15 Q. Now you are talking about Kljuc, which is P1884.5.
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 Q. How did you find this document?
18 A. This document -- this was I think one of the last ones I think I
19 saw, in fact. There were a few extra buildings on it that I didn't have a
20 chance to see. But nonetheless, this is a document which is established
21 not in 1997, but later on. This document, if you compare it to as a
22 narrative established by -- I think maybe it's even the same person who
23 actually signed the cover letter to it, you discover that in the list of
24 the fiche here, you find that you have a mosque that was destroyed in the
25 1940s which was said to have been destroyed during the last war. That
1 mosque was destroyed in the 1940s, but it was put on the fiche as being
2 destroyed in the last war. That raises some problem. That kind of
3 information, this doesn't happen with everyone. It happens from time to
4 time. It means that the document has to be used with a great deal of
6 Q. Dr. Kaiser, did you find this discrepancy in dates of destruction
7 or damage only in this Kljuc document, or did you find it with other
8 documents as well?
9 A. Well, as I said, I believe they are established by a community on
10 the spot. I think in Bosanski Novi, I think there are no dates, there are
11 no specific dates for destruction. Somebody has just put 1992 on all of
12 them, you will see. In the other documents, there is specific dates of
13 destruction, which can be given for Kotor Varos, and you will find them,
14 as I say, most of them in July. And I think in Donji Vakuf, there's not
15 very much, not Kljuc, not so much in terms of dates.
16 Q. How did you use this Kljuc document?
17 A. This one, I don't recall using very much at all for the dates
18 because there's nothing there. However there was a document that was
19 established, which is a narrative of the Islamic community in the
20 municipality of Kljuc which gave some dates. So that was of some utility.
21 This document here on Kljuc was not so useful for dates.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Could the interpreters explain to me the meaning of
23 the word porusena? The interpreters in B/C/S, they could translate to me
24 the word porusena?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, it means "destroyed."
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I see, okay. And what is the meaning of minirana?
2 THE INTERPRETER: Your Honour, it means "mined."
3 JUDGE AGIUS: And trajno ostecena.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Trajno Ostecena.
5 THE INTERPRETER: It is "permanently destroyed."
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
7 Now we are receiving interpretation in B/C/S. On channel 4, we
8 are receiving interpretation in B/C/S now. So it's switched on. I
9 appreciate your interest in having us learn the language.
10 Yes. Let's proceed.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA:
12 Q. So I will ask again the question. Bosanski Novi documents, how
13 did you find these documents? And I'm referring to Exhibit P1884.6. Did
14 you use this document during your work on the report?
15 A. Frankly, I know this document. I checked it against a list, I
16 think, in Muharem Omerdic. I didn't use this document very much. It's
17 not very good.
18 Q. You said you checked the list of objects with Muharem Omerdic's
19 book. Did you find in this respect the document reliable or unreliable?
20 A. They're sort of about the same. The useful supplementary
21 information to Omerdic's book would come from these rather odd narratives
22 or documents which were provided independently by an imam for example in
23 Prijedor who would list all sorts of things that existed in the
24 municipality, or by the head of the Islamic board in Kljuc, a narrative.
25 Those were useful in supplementing the information. Usually much more
1 useful than these particular documents.
2 Q. And the last one is Donji Vakuf, P1884.7.
3 A. Again, I didn't use this very much. I mean, this is the kind of
4 document that has, for example, on the town mosque in Donji Vakuf says it
5 was built in 1572. Okay, that's true, but it was rebuilt twice, and the
6 minaret is left from the 16th century. Often these documents aren't very
7 accurate even in terms of the dating of the buildings. So I didn't use
8 this document very much. I notice this version has a few photographs in
9 it I haven't seen.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: One question before you proceed --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, I'm sorry about that. Are you in a
13 position to confirm to us whether these documents were compiled only,
14 solely, for the purposes of these proceedings, for the -- for this
16 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I'm a historian by training, and so I
17 have -- we have to be sceptical of information, and we are often having to
18 look for things internally inside of documents when we can't check them
19 outside. I think I'm usually more rigorous than a lot of people. And a
20 document that I -- I mentioned the documents in Prijedor, and one set of
21 documents from the Sanski Most, religious authorities of the Islamic
22 community, I used these because I believed they were not produced for the
23 Tribunal. They are produced for the internal usage of the Islamic
24 community, and they were especially looking for funds. Now, these other
25 documents that have been -- came up later on that all have the same sort
1 of Islamic -- the format, and by the way, these other Prijedor and Sanski
2 Most, they had their own individual formats, okay, they were just done up
3 in the corner, you know. These other ones are all sort of similar
5 I saw them later. I'm not sure how these have been transmitted,
6 these documents. In Bosanski Novi, everything was destroyed in 1992.
7 That sort of makes me nervous about what the purpose of the document is.
8 These are documents that could have been produced for the Tribunal and for
9 this case. It's possible. That's why I --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Are you aware of any international fund for
11 compensation, restructuring? I don't know --
12 THE WITNESS: Restructuring the Islamic community? I don't
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Rebuilding, sort of a compensation, international
15 compensation, money available for the rebuilding, reconstruction of these
17 THE WITNESS: In Sanski Most, which is now a Federation
18 municipality, we have to go and ferret out the old pictures, because a
19 great many of mosques have been rebuilt and new mosques have been built
20 where there were no mosques. So, the Islamic community in Sanski Most
21 after the war were very, very interested in securing funding for
22 rebuilding, and these documents --
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Whether -- because I'm thinking of insurance claims.
24 Sometimes the description of the damage is inflated unlawfully. Anyway,
25 is there anything else you would like to know about these documents?
1 THE WITNESS: Just about a remark about your last remark, Your
2 Honour, is that one has to be very careful when one sees the words
3 "completely destroyed" and "destroyed." And those words appear all the
4 time. I'm not saying those words are written down because somebody is
5 making up a story. Those words really very, very often correspond to a
6 psychological reaction to something being damaged. But they appear so
7 often, and I suppose my skepticism is pretty strong about them.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: In the course of your investigations and in the
9 compilation of your report, you tried your level best to be as objective
10 as possible and to present us with a picture that is in no way biased?
11 THE WITNESS: This is exactly what I've tried to do. I think only
12 the truth is going to help anybody in that country. And only the truth
13 will diffuse a lot of the problems. I'm a historian, and I'm a UNESCO
14 functionary as well.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Cunningham, Madam Baruch and Madam Richterova
16 will give you an indication of how much importance the Tribunal will
17 attach to these attachments as compared to the testimony that Dr. Kaiser
18 will be giving and his reports. In other words, we can proceed along
19 those lines, and that's what we precisely intend to do.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: After the adjournment, I would like to focus
21 primarily on the assessment of the damage to the mosques and Catholic
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Right.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA:
25 Q. I have only one more question before the break. And it is: You
1 referred to some books. Can you tell us which books you used during your
2 work, during your preparation for your report?
3 You mentioned Muharem Omerdic. Did you use this book?
4 A. Yes, I used this book essentially for looking different types of
6 Q. Do you have the title of the book?
7 A. "Prilozi izucanvanju genocida na Bosnjacima," I can't do the date
8 in the local language. Published in 1999.
9 Q. And did you use some books by Kemal Zukic?
10 A. Yes, I've used Mr. Zukic's book, "Islamic architecture in the
11 Balkans and Bosnia-Herzegovina."
12 Q. How did you work with these books? Did you use the pictures? Did
13 you use the information? Did you compare the information with your own
15 A. Okay, with these two books, Mr. Omerdic's book is useful for
16 trying to find something. It's not so useful for actual information on
17 it. Mr. Zukic's books as far as six municipalities are concerned is
18 useful mainly for the Federation municipalities to which he had access at
19 the end of the war because there are photographs of buildings that since
20 have simply been pulled down or rebuilt. And it is mainly from the
21 standpoint of the photographic material in Mr. Zukic's book. This is the
22 reason I used it. He actually doesn't indicate very much in terms of the
23 dates of damaging which is of course important to this case.
24 Q. Dr. Kaiser, what kind of material did you use for evaluation of
25 destruction or damage of Catholic churches?
1 A. Well, the Catholic church published "Raspeta Crkva" for
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina which could be translated as crucified churches. It
3 was published in 1997. It contains a great deal of photographic material.
4 It also contains great many details on damaging, dates of damaging. Now,
5 what's very important about the book is it's 1997. It wasn't produced
6 last year, in the last six months.
7 I think that if you look at a picture in a book sometimes and then
8 you read the text, you'll see, well, the text is maybe not exact, doesn't
9 give you exactly what had happened to the building in the picture. But
10 the picture is there as well, and that's very, very important. The dating
11 of incidents, of damaging, I think -- I really think is credible.
12 However, this book does not indicate who is the source of information for
13 the damaging. So we don't -- we don't know. But we do have an attempt to
14 establish a chronology, a picture of damaging of the Roman Catholic
15 community's buildings. Goes beyond buildings; it also includes
16 graveyards, it includes chapels and that sort of thing.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: What I suggest we do, Madam Richterova, during the
18 break, if you would be kind enough, Dr. Kaiser, to write down on a sheet
19 of paper the books that you have referred to, the main ones in particular,
20 so that we will check whether they are available in our library.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, if I may, Muharem Omerdic's book,
22 and Kemal Zukic's book is on the CD which we provided you in the Defence,
23 so they are in electronic form. The book "Crucified Churches," it is in
24 the possession of the OTP, one copy. What we did for disclosure purposes,
25 we have extracts from that book which was disclosed to the Defence.
1 Unfortunately, we have only one spare copy. For inspection, we can, of
2 course, provide the whole book, so the Defence, the Judges, can inspect
3 the "Crucified Churches" book.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: That's important. And for the time being, if you
5 could perhaps let us have a photocopy of that extract so we will have it,
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: If Your Honours don't mind to have just one copy,
8 I can provide this one copy --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: We don't need it now. We have enough to read. So
10 take your time, and let us have a spare copy.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: We can provide you with spare copies. It won't
12 be unfortunately today.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: No problem, Madam Richterova. Three copies, one for
14 each of the three of us.
15 So we will have a break now resuming at 11.00. Thank you.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment.
19 [Trial Chamber and legal assistant confer].
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Incidentally, Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Korner would like
21 five minutes to address us on the matter you brought up this morning,
22 well, Madam Baruch, and that will be at 12.25, in other words, we'll stop
23 with the witness at 12.25 instead of 12.30, and then we can hear what
24 Ms. Korner has to say, and you can refer it to Mr. Ackerman. It's about
25 tomorrow's witness in other words.
1 MS. BARUCH: Yes, I know. And she did speak with me, just so the
2 Court will know, and I have spoken with Mr. Ackerman about it already.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Does she still need to come?
5 MS. BARUCH: Well, we have widely divergent views about the state
6 of affairs, so I wouldn't want to take aware her opportunity to speak to
7 the Court.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.
9 So, yes, Madam Richterova, you may proceed.
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. After the break, I would like to focus on the evaluation damage,
12 which to the sacral building, but first I want to start with one thing.
13 You were tasked to focus on the six municipalities within the Autonomous
14 Region of Krajina. There is a list of villages building in the
15 indictment. Did you evaluate only those buildings which are in the
16 indictment, or were you able to identify more buildings than stated in the
18 A. Well, it may sound odd, but I ignored the indictment and the list
19 of buildings that was in the indictment for those municipalities. What I
20 attempted to do was to find all the buildings, the sacral buildings, in
21 the municipalities.
22 Q. And we already heard that you used these sources, like books,
23 Islamic community documents, and other materials to identify these
24 buildings. Is it correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Now let's focus on the damage. Just generally, which way did you
2 use to determine the nature and the source of damage? And I forgot to
3 mention at the beginning, if you could slow down for the interpretation so
4 they can manage to interpret everything what is said.
5 So first question is how to determine the nature of the damage?
6 A. Well, you notice from the report that I have used slightly
7 different categories that you usually encounter, talking about damaging.
8 First category is destroyed. For me, destroyed is usually fairly obvious.
9 And I use destroyed to mean "destroyed." I don't mean it to have two
10 holes in it, to have the roof off it. It means that a building has
11 disappeared from the site, or what it could also mean, that is the
12 building structure, the supporting walls, have been so badly damaged that
13 the building will probably be pulled down. Now, that's not so unusual.
14 You will find that sort of description "destroyed." But I also -- but
15 then I talk about something repairable, and what I really sort of mean is
16 that doesn't matter how badly damaged, it's heavily damaged, it's
17 moderately damaged, but it can be repaired, but what I mean by repairable
18 buildings is also usable buildings, are these buildings usable? Whatever
19 the level of damage could be ascribed to them. So there is then a third
20 category, and I put minor damage, which is like broken glass, pillaging,
21 vandalism, minor damage or no damage, and I actually put them together in
22 one category.
23 I want to remind the Tribunal here that we are talking about
24 events that often happened 11 years ago, and for a lot of us, although it
25 seems like it happened yesterday, it did happen 11 years ago. And over
1 time, over rebuilding, over -- things simply get -- they change, they
2 change a lot. Buildings that are lightly damaged, for example, 1992, if
3 they are still standing 11 years later, can often look rather different.
4 How they look now doesn't really -- may not at all correspond to their
5 situation in 1992 when they were damaged.
6 I try to find simple and meaningful categories, and not get
7 involved in questions of -- or arguments between experts. I worked on the
8 cultural heritage afterwar reconstruction, so I know a lot about experts.
9 I've seen buildings get repaired that everybody was going around saying
10 they had been completely destroyed. It's not true. They, in fact, were
11 repairable. The office of UNESCO worked on 45 schools for rehabilitation,
12 and in a couple of cases, actually building the schools and equipping.
14 Q. Before we go to -- we will move to the pictures, I want to ask you
15 about the method which you use to evaluate the level of damage.
16 A. Well, I thought that I explained the degree, the way I was
17 proceeding. I think I made it clear for destroyed -- I'll go back to
18 repairable. What we're talking about here -- and unusable. Remember I
19 used these words together. Because mostly talking about the impact on a
20 community. If we're talking about repairable, we could be talking about
21 buildings that are heavily damaged, but I don't say they are heavily
22 damaged. Heavily damage would mean bad damage to walls, one or two walls
23 are missing, the roof is missing, because you will get heavy damage after
24 the roof is gone. I would call that to be heavy damaging, the
25 minaret -- if the minaret is down on the building, it's heavy damage. If
1 it's down beside the building, you may not call that heavy damage.
2 I think we're very, very often, in fact, with something we would
3 call heavy damage in the six municipalities. But I prefer to talk about
4 the usability and the repairability of a building first.
5 Q. Dr. Kaiser, when I ask you about --
6 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Madam Richterova, according to the
7 criteria that you used in your evaluations, what would amount to a
8 writeoff according to you?
9 THE WITNESS: Writeoffs, first category, I explained. Writeoff,
10 it disappeared. Or the structural damage to load-bearing walls is so bad
11 that the whole thing goes. That would be total destruction.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: We will demonstrate on the pictures exactly the
13 separate categories of damage.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Exactly, that's what we need to see here. And
15 having finished with that, I don't think we would need to see more
16 pictures. All I want to know is an example of a mosque that is structural
17 beyond repair, it's a writeoff; those which have been totally demolished
18 or destroyed, I suppose, we need to see one picture only of rubble if it's
19 still there. And then we need to see pictures of other categories of
20 damaged mosques. But just a sample of each, and we'll leave it at that,
21 because otherwise we'll never finish.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: Exactly. I just wanted -- and my question was
23 only whether you saw these buildings by yourself, or whether you did your
24 evaluation just based on photo materials or some other information.
25 Q. It's my last question before we move to the pictures.
1 A. I visited 91 per cent of the sites of mosques, mesdzids, and
2 mektebs. Ninety-one per cent of the sites. Keep in mind a lot of things
3 had been rebuilt. So for example in Prijedor, I had to go on photographs,
4 and I visited 57 per cent of the sites of the Roman Catholic churches.
5 That's a bit of a different thing. Nothing has been completely rebuilt.
6 Things have been restored, but basic structures are there that were
8 Q. Dr. Kaiser, now, can we show the examples, totally destroyed,
9 heavily destroyed, and buildings that just sustained some minor damage.
10 So if you could tell us which photographs you would like to show us, and I
11 will use the hard copies which I have here. So if you could tell us which
12 pictures you would put into category of destroyed.
13 A. Do I need numbers and things of pictures or just the names?
14 Q. Just the names?
15 JUDGE AGIUS: Just the names. And usually on top, there is a
16 reference number, so if you could refer us to that, it can be located very
17 easily by Ms. Gustin.
18 THE WITNESS: First is the mosque Kevljani in Prijedor.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA:
20 Q. The mosque in Kevljani, it is in Prijedor. Is it correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. This picture was taken by the investigators of the OTP, and it is
23 the reason why on the top is our reference number which will be, of
24 course, different than those which is on the CD. So please ignore this
25 number because it is there just because it was scanned with this number.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, on the CD, this would be which one? That's
2 what we are interested in. I mean, we are not interested in the number as
3 we see it on the monitor here if that is not the number that we should
4 take into account. What is it on the CD?
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, if you would be patient with me, I
6 will provide you with ERN numbers which are on the CDs at a later stage
7 because my hard copy is identical, but without ERN numbers. These ERN
8 numbers are on the CD. But this document can be always very easily
9 identified because it goes the name, which is on one page, and the
10 following page has the image of the mosque or the church.
11 And as I already stated, we have these tables. If Your Honour
12 find the table for Prijedor and look up Kevljani. Do you have it, Your
13 Honour? It is Prijedor 1, municipality Kevljani, and it is third on that
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I haven't found it, but...
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: And you have copies, Your Honour, with ERN
17 numbers, so to help you, it is 03235222.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: Mm-hmm.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA:
20 Q. So on this occasion, you can also explain to us how this table can
21 help us to understand your report.
22 A. The first thing is the table is not a collection -- it's not a
23 database. It's not a collection of fiche. What the tables are were an
24 aid to me, and the order on the tables usually corresponds to my only
25 visiting of them. And I used that ordering simply because I remember
1 better from place to place. It's not conceived for you; it is conceived
2 for me. It contains information on it which is useful to me, but also
3 contains things like question marks because I'm asking myself questions.
4 Sorry, I'll slow down.
5 I ask myself questions about the buildings. It does not contain,
6 for example, references to witness -- the witnesses. I'm not particularly
7 interested in the witnesses when I do my table. I'm interested in the
8 building and in the other sources. It contains some information which I'm
9 not a hundred per cent sure of. These are my notes. What is of interest
10 to the Tribunal is probably simply the letters in the very left-hand
11 column, RMDD, et cetera, on this.
12 Q. Would you --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'm sorry. Dr. Kaiser, would you be so kind and tell us what
15 these letters mean, RM --
16 A. D is destroyed. R is repairable. M is minor. Question mark is,
17 well, do we really have a building that existed? What about this
18 building? Because sometimes there is a question about whether something
19 actually existed. I don't pretend to have the answers to all of them. I
20 may be, in fact, a little bit too severe on some of these.
21 Q. And we can see columns for damage and cause of damage. So can
22 you --
23 A. If you see an X in the column, you realise that I have some degree
24 of certainty that it's in the column of minor or repairable or destroyed,
25 and there's columns also for possible types of damaging. That becomes
1 harder to figure out over time.
2 Q. So let's be specific. Kevljani, what can we read from this table?
3 A. From the table, okay. Well, I mean, do you want me to just say
4 what's written on the table? Okay.
5 Q. Yes, please. It will help --
6 A. I call it a mosque because it has a minaret. It's not a mesdzid.
7 A mesdzid doesn't have a minaret. Dating is very interesting to me. This
8 was one of numerous mosques that was finished or was being
9 constructed - this one is in fact finished - before the war. I'm
10 interested in knowing that, when the mosque, in fact, or the structure I'm
11 looking at, either the real structure on the ground or the structure that
12 was destroyed, I'm interested in knowing when it was built, because I
13 think it's also indicative of what some of the conditions are of the
14 destruction of it. So prewar, 1990-1991. Historic interests, well, it's
15 too new to be interesting. Structure, collapsed. What I mean by that is
16 that two things we can look at in the picture if you want to look at it.
17 One of them is the minaret is gone. The other thing is that the whole
18 mosque structure is gone with it. This has been destroyed by mining. The
19 minaret has been blown up with explosives, and the building behind it is
20 also -- the building it was attached to was blown up with explosives.
21 This is a complete writeoff.
22 Q. So this is an example of a completely destroyed building.
23 A. Just one other remark is this is a new building in a rural
24 context. This is a rural mosque that is destroyed completely. And
25 that's -- maybe that's a point we'll come back to later on.
1 Q. Can you show us one more example of completely destroyed either
2 mosque or church.
3 A. Well, I'd like to show you the mosque in Donji Kamengrad in Sanski
4 Most municipality.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, it's in Sanski Most.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: The ERN number on the list?
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is 03235232.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA:
10 Q. So is it correct, do we read correctly from your table that
11 this -- the damage is destroyed? That is to say, there is no damage; the
12 building was destroyed, and it was -- the cause of this destruction was
13 mining. Is it correct?
14 A. That's absolutely correct. I've chosen this because this part of
15 the structure which is part of the building structure is still standing,
16 but this would have to be pulled down. It's so badly damaged. It was
17 pulled down, and there is a new mosque on this site. Just one other
18 possible remark --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: But, Ms. Richterova, you mentioned Donji Kamengrad.
20 On 5232, I can't see --
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is right on the bottom, and it goes to the
22 following page.
23 THE WITNESS: They are different. They are different.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: I see, all right.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Donji Kamengrad on the one -- on the one page
1 Donji and --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: They are not the same. They are not the same. The
3 one on page 5232, at the bottom, is not the one -- no, it's Kamengrad.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: It's on table 2.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: I see. All right. Okay, okay.
7 THE WITNESS: There are a number of buildings in this area called
8 Donji Kamengrad. This is -- as I said, this is something left. You can
9 pull it down. It was pulled down. The other thing is that this is very
10 expert kind of mining, and I'll come back to this maybe later on because
11 in fact the building has been destroyed by mining in the rear, in such a
12 way to bring down the building structure. But not in all four corners.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: One question: When under the column "date of
14 damage" when we see 27/7/92, and then SMIC.
15 THE WITNESS: Sanski Most Islamic community. This is the 1997
16 record -- that's right, that's right.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to make that clear. And also, I notice on
18 some of the documents, there is a description, instead of "mosque" it's
19 called mekteb. What's a mekteb.
20 THE WITNESS: Mekteb is a small Koranic school. Often it's a
21 house, looks like a house. Hasn't got any minaret. It has a mehrab
22 [phoen]. It can be used as a place for prayer as well. Usually is, in
23 small communities.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA:
25 Q. Dr. Kaiser, you just mentioned that in your opinion, this was done
1 in a professional way. Were you able to obvious when a mosque or any
2 sacral building was destroyed or damaged professionally, as you say, and
3 when the damage or destruction was done unprofessionally? How would
4 you -- how would you judge this conclusion?
5 A. Well, if we get around to more pictures later on, you'll be able
6 to see a few examples of buildings that have not been professionally
7 damaged or approached. For example, you'll see variants on the mining of
8 the rear of a mosque, and somebody had an idea and somebody told them that
9 was the way to do it but it didn't work. There's a problem because the
10 damaging of mosques, buildings, doesn't necessarily take place at the same
11 time, it takes place over time. It's very hard to sometimes correlate
12 photographs, correlate testimony, correlate dates. But there are a few
13 examples. I haven't put them in this particular case. But in Sanski
14 Most, you'll see other examples of nonprofessional mining and examples
15 also of professional destruction.
16 The witnesses' testimony often indicates whether it's done
17 professionally or not. In Sanski Most, the town, the main town mosque
18 seems to have been mined about three times. And one of the pictures taken
19 after the second mining, and it shows this not being done in the
20 proper -- excuse me, using the expression not the proper way, but it's not
21 being done in a particularly professional way.
22 Q. Thank you. We will go through this in details when we go through
23 Sanski Most. So we have two examples of totally destroyed buildings which
24 you put into category "unrepairable."
25 Now, can you tell us some examples of repairable building which
1 you said was heavily damaged but still in your opinion repairable.
2 A. You're going to have to get out your tables again, and we go to a
3 mosque in Gornji Jakupovici, also in Prijedor.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, it is also on the 03235223.
5 Q. So if you could make comment on this picture.
6 A. Well, I think this is going to explain why I talk about things
7 that are repairable. This is -- this mosque, as you can see, was damaged
8 clearly by mining on the minaret, which is where -- you see the ladder,
9 there on the left. There's another picture which comes from the earlier
10 collection done by the Islamic community in Prijedor, which actually shows
11 the minaret leaning over on the roof. Now, some people would say it was
12 destroyed. Well, fortunately, these optimistic people said "no, it's not
13 destroyed." The evaluation by this engineer who was working for the
14 Islamic community said "it's not destroyed." This is being repaired.
15 That is what was damaged was of course the walls of the corner, the roof,
16 and people are putting it back together. That's a repairable mosque. But
17 it's badly damaged.
18 Now, I noted, and I can't remember exactly perhaps why, that the
19 roof was gone. And I thought it was a question of firing. Sometimes it's
20 firing; sometimes the roof is removed. Maybe the firing is -- it's also
21 evident, attempt to fire from the picture that was taken from the Islamic
23 Q. Can we see one more example of repairable building.
24 A. One?
25 Q. One more example.
1 A. Okay, let's go to, in that case, to Bosanski Novi, and
2 Donji Agici, the mosque in Celopek.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is on the page 03235208.
4 Q. If you could make a comment on this picture. Is it correct that
5 it is one of your pictures?
6 A. Mm-hmm, this is one of mine, my pictures. One thing I should say
7 is that I didn't systematically take pictures because if there were good
8 pictures from the ICTY investigators, I used them. They took very bad
9 pictures of this, so this is why I took it. This changes from other
10 buildings that we've seen. This is a stone mosque. I'm not sure when it
11 was built. Maybe it was built in the 1930s. It's a stone mosque. It had
12 a country mosque. It had the minaret in the roof. Now, there would
13 happen to be a local standing there and explained to me how it happened.
14 They blew up the minaret in the roof. The roof structure collapsed. So
15 the building was unusable. Didn't burn, and if anybody wants to put the
16 roof back, it's okay, could be used. It should be noticed that the third
17 building down the road, that's the new mosque. And the new mosque was
18 unfinished before the war. And the door was mined after the war,
19 according to a local person. It wasn't touched during the war. So that's
20 the kind of situation. If you want to have the old mosque, nice old stone
21 mosque, it's still there to be used. But the intention was clearly to
22 build a new mosque a little bit down the road.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: The other one is a memento mori.
24 THE WITNESS: I hope not. It's a nicer building, the stone one.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can we have now an example of a building which
1 you evaluate as -- it sustained just a minor damage.
2 Q. Can we have just one example.
3 A. Well, I said, minor or no damage. And so one that has a little
4 bit of damage may be -- let's go to Demisevci mekteb in Sanski Most. It's
5 number 5, table 5.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is the very last page, it is 02325237.
7 Q. We can see in your table that you call this structure mekteb. We
8 already mentioned that a mekteb was used for praying, but the primary
9 purpose was or is it's a school to teach Koran. Mekteb, does it have a
11 A. Mekteb doesn't have a minaret.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: He has already explained that.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA:
14 Q. So do you have an explanation why the buildings with minarets were
15 damaged? And this, as we can see, didn't taken almost any damage?
16 A. Well, the discussion about the minaret is a big discussion in its
17 own right. I mean, if you want me to enter into that discussion, okay, I
18 will. But if we want to talk about first this, then --
19 Q. Let's first talk about this, and then I would like to hear your
20 conclusion on this.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: First of all, Madam Richterova, sorry to butt in
22 again, but I need to know whether the mosque or the construction we are
23 seeing in this photo is the newly constructed building or whether it's the
24 old mekteb that was damaged and, according to what I have here, pulled
25 down. So what am I looking at?
1 THE WITNESS: What you're looking at is a building I didn't see.
2 This is a photograph that was taken in early -- well, maybe the fall of
3 1996. Systematic collection of photographs taken of the Islamic community
4 properties. This was in Demisevci. I went to look for this in Demisevci,
5 and we couldn't find it in Demisevci, but we could find a new mosque going
6 up on the location. This had been pulled down just very, very recently.
7 We're looking at the mekteb that was built probably after World War II.
8 It looks like a house. I say it's pillaged because there are other photos
9 that showed a little bit of trashing inside. You can see a window broken
10 on the outside. This is a building that missed destruction in Sanski Most
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA:
14 Q. If we could go back, do you have any theory why these mekteb and
15 mesdzid survived generally and why the mosque with minaret were usually
17 A. I think you've heard this before that there is a link --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: First of all, Dr. Kaiser, would you agree with this
19 statement to start with?
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: So if you have an explanation, perhaps you could
22 answer the question. But first of all I needed to know if you agree with
23 what has been put to you as a statement.
24 THE WITNESS: First of all, if your target is the mosque and the
25 minaret, and especially the minaret, it's an easy thing to find. It's
1 quite clear that minarets are targeted specifically. You will find lots
2 of examples of a minaret has gone down first. Sometimes somebody will
3 come back and get the rest of the building; sometimes not. In the very
4 first picture that we saw of Kevljani, we saw a minaret on the ground, and
5 we also saw the building in the background. It's highly possible in
6 Kevljani somebody came and first destroyed the minaret, and then came back
7 and destroyed the rest of the building. Buildings will be standing. The
8 minarets will be gone. I can give you -- show you an example of
9 unfinished building which were usually not much attention was given to
10 them in Vrhpolje. There's an unfinished mosque, but it had a minaret.
11 They went and got the minaret. But they didn't touch the rest of the
12 building. The minaret was singled out for destruction.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Would you agree that the minaret is the distinctive
14 feature of a mosque?
15 THE WITNESS: The minaret is the sign, either in a town or
16 especially in the countryside that there is a Muslim community because the
17 minaret, especially the minarets of the new mosques. You saw a little
18 while ago a mosque which I said its minaret was in the roof. You can't
19 see those. But in the 1970s, the 1980s, there began to be minarets all
20 over the countryside. And the minaret of where the Muslim lives. If you
21 eliminate the Muslim from the countryside, physically the person, you can
22 also eliminate the idea, the sign, the memory, you eliminate first of all
23 the minaret. And then maybe you get around to the rest of the building.
24 I think there was only one minaret that was found still standing
25 in Republika Srpska after the war. I've seen one in Kupres that was an
1 unfinished minaret. It was not knocked down. That means if you don't
2 have a minaret on the building, already the interest in that building is
3 somewhat less. A lot of mesdzids are, in fact, burned. A lot of mektebs,
4 though, they look houses, so they're not destroyed. Maybe that raises
5 another question, who is doing the destroying? If it's local guys, they
6 know where all these places are. The mektebs and the mesdzids and the
7 ones that look like houses. That's a question that has come to mind
8 especially to me working on this case. Does that answer the question?
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: That answers the question.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA:
12 Q. In your report, you prepared a table in which you stated how
13 many -- it is on page 4 of your report. And in your -- in this table, you
14 have destroyed sacral buildings, repairable, and minor or no damage. And
15 you broke down the table according to municipalities.
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 Q. We can see the total number of destroyed is 37; repairable, 61;
18 minor or no damage, 14. And then you have numbers or figures for
19 buildings which you were not able to evaluate. Is it correct what is
20 stated in your report?
21 A. Yes, the bottom figures are correct in that table.
22 Q. Can you tell us if you want to add something to your findings
23 which are in your report?
24 A. Well, the numbers are there, but I think it's the percentages
25 which I think are of particular interest. We're talking about the Islamic
1 sacral buildings, and I mean, 29 -- saying what I could prove, what I was
2 satisfied with, prove that 29 per cent of the Islamic buildings were
3 destroyed. Three in ten are definitely destroyed; 48 per cent are badly
4 damaged; 77 per cent demonstrably unusable. If you start looking at these
5 other categories, something has been replaced, something you couldn't find
6 it, there wasn't any information, maybe ten months later you discovered
7 the fact that it was there, you start getting up to certainly between 80
8 and 85 per cent of the Islamic sacral buildings unusable.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You will be able to refer specifically to where we
10 need to look at. This table that you have just been referred to, I take
11 it it covers the period 1992-1995. Is that correct?
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct, yes.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: For the purposes of this trial, we are now
14 interested in the mosques and other religious buildings that were possibly
15 damaged or destroyed either before or after the period covered by the
16 indictment, which is part of 1992 and part of 1993. So where do we need
17 to go to establish which religious buildings were destroyed during this
18 period only, and not at some other -- yes.
19 MS. BARUCH: I may be confused, but was it not 1991 and 1992 for
20 this particular indictment? No, it was 1992 and 1993. 1992.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: 1992 and also I think part of 1993.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: No, just until 31st of December, 1992.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: 1992. But that's what we are interested in.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA:
25 Q. In your report, on page 7, you provided some kind of chronology of
1 damage and destruction of Islamic sacral buildings and Catholic churches,
2 and you focus on the year 1992. Can you now elaborate on this part of
3 your report.
4 A. Okay, yes. Page 7 of the report you have information -- okay, for
5 all the years, because that has to be sorted out first. That comes from
6 the secondary sources only. Only secondary sources. So you can see that
7 according to the secondary sources, the far greatest number of damaging or
8 destruction occurs in 1992. Sometimes those sources say 1992; they don't
9 say 1st of August, 1992. So you have to go, when talking about the
10 secondary sources, you have to go now to the next step, and the next step
11 is to say, well, do they something about the months of damaging?
12 Page 8, we go on with this kind of further refinement for
13 municipalities. Now this table shows a smaller number than the number
14 that's in the first table, 1992, because now we have some sort of date
15 indicated, some sort of month. We also, for example, for Sanski Most, we
16 have a mining given the date of April from a secondary source. That's
17 very early. I hope I'm not going too quickly for the interpreters.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: If you have problems, interpreters, please give me a
19 sign, okay.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I think you're doing fine.
22 THE WITNESS: Okay. The second table, then, shows, if you take a
23 look at it, it looks -- it seems that -- excuse me. The second table
24 shows that according to secondary sources, giving months of damaging, May,
25 June, July, and August, in these four municipalities seem to be months of
1 a lot of activity towards mosques. That's secondary sources.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA:
3 Q. Excuse me. When we are talking about secondary sources, can you
4 again probably repeat what kind of sources you were using?
5 A. Okay, these are the sources from the Islamic community that I'm
6 particularly -- I have some confidence in. Sometimes it's -- I put them
7 there because I'm not quite sure, but they're interesting. They deserve
8 to be sort of cross-referenced with what the witnesses will say. We're
9 talking only about the Islamic community now, but it's mainly Islamic
10 community sources here in this particular table.
11 Then we go on to something which is different; that is, witnesses.
12 For the secondary sources, we don't know who they are. We don't know on
13 what basis the Islamic community is saying on the 16th of August,
14 something was blown up. We have to have something a little bit more than
16 Q. So you are talking about witnesses. Were you able to read
17 statements or summaries of statements, and were you provided with
18 transcripts and when?
19 A. In the very beginning of the cooperation with the Tribunal, I was
20 given summary, summaries of the witnesses' statements, and those are
21 indicated in the report. There were then people I talked to when I was
22 going around. It was not systematic, and I'm very careful when I talk to
23 people, when I go around and get the information. And transcripts were
24 given -- just a few days ago, I was given by the Office of the
25 Prosecution, I was given transcripts from this trial, and I was given
1 additional witness statements that these witnesses had been asked only
2 about destruction of sacral buildings. In the summary, summaries of
3 witnesses' statements that I was given at the very beginning mentions of
4 the damaging of sacral buildings would appear, but this is passing
5 information. This is -- I noticed -- it's a different sort of, different
6 sort of statement. So we have two different types of witness statements.
7 The general statements that they're making about what's happening to them,
8 and then we have just a few days ago I was given a number of witness
9 statements that were targeted specifically on the destruction of
10 buildings, mainly in Sanski Most.
11 Q. If I may interrupt, Dr. Kaiser is talking about statements which
12 we submitted according to Rule 92 bis, to be admitted according to Rule 92
13 bis. So he is talking about these statements which were provided to the
14 expert witness, has been provided to the witness recently.
15 Did you incorporate this new information into your report, or did
16 you prepare supplemental to your report based on this information?
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Actually, I mean, I would not rephrase but add
18 something to your question. Was there a reason that you can give us or
19 explain to us why you needed to compile also a supplement to your report?
20 There must have been, otherwise you wouldn't have. So I would like to
21 know is you needed to compile a supplement, and then also the part of the
22 question that has been put to you by Madam Richterova.
23 THE WITNESS: It's partly because I'm a historian. I have a lot
24 of doubts. I have doubts about summaries of witness statements, people
25 looking at something else, and just sort of remember something. I have
1 doubts about something that is cited in a book without backing, backing it
2 up. I did, on some occasions, say that I thought it was important to have
3 detailed witnesses' statements about the destruction of sacral buildings.
4 It was very, very important. We're not talking about 1992 to 1995; we're
5 talking just about a few months -- well, half a year in 1992, and we are
6 awash in a lot of different materials here. And so, in a certain sense,
7 it was -- I'm not saying I provoked it. I think possibly the
8 investigators also realised that it was necessary to do something like
10 Does that answer, Your Honour, your question?
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Does it answer yours, Madam Richterova?
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
13 Q. And it was the reason -- and you prepared the supplement, and with
14 the supplement, do the figures change?
15 A. The supplement, I think, does change. It changes especially for
16 Sanski Most. Other municipalities may have some interesting summaries.
17 Sanski Most didn't. But Sanski Most now has a certain number of
18 interesting, really interesting statements, that can be sort of compared
19 to dates which have been given by the Islamic community, and also compared
20 to what photographic materials we have.
21 Q. So when we go to your chronology of damaging, what can we
22 conclude, or better said, what is your conclusion about the damage and
23 destruction of Islamic sacral buildings in the year 1992?
24 A. On page 2 of the supplement, there is a table which incorporates
25 all the different witnesses, the witness's testimony that was given, along
1 with the summaries of earlier witnesses' statements. And basically, it
2 basically beefs up what might be considered a hypothesis in the first
3 report, the period of damaging of Islamic sacral properties is between May
4 and August, of intensive damaging, between May and August of 1992.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Richterova, before we proceed, just something
6 that --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: My apologies to you.
9 You are aware that there are more municipalities involved in the
10 indictment, in this indictment, than are actually covered by your report.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes. Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: And I should like you to address this because it's
13 of great importance, as you can imagine, because it seems that the report
14 covers only Bosanski Novi, Donji Vakuf, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Kljuc,
15 and -- six municipalities anyway, something like that.
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: In the indictment itself, you have Banja Luka,
18 Bihac, Repak, Bosanska Gradiska, Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Novi, Bosanska
19 Petrovac, Celinac, Donji Vakuf, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor, Prnjavor,
20 Sanski Most, Sipovo, and Teslic.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, Your Honour. I agree with you. And you
22 will also notice that the list under each of these municipalities is not
23 exhausted because it was prepared before we had Dr. Kaiser's report.
24 We can deal it with this -- we can deal it with the changes in our
25 Rule 98 brief, or we can apply for the amendment of the indictment which
1 would mean to withdraw some of the municipalities which we already have
2 dropped. And for the other municipalities which are not covered by the
3 expert witness, we intend to rely on witness statements of witnesses which
4 already which have testified or which will testify in respect to these
6 JUDGE AGIUS: But still, I think it is my duty to ask the expert
7 witness, Dr. Kaiser, whether he is in a position or whether he has
8 information that relates to other municipalities that are not amongst
9 those that you have dropped, whether he has conducted any investigations,
10 whether he has any reports, verbal or otherwise, that he could give us
11 about destruction and damage to religious sacral buildings in the other
13 THE WITNESS: Well, I didn't carry out an investigation to them.
14 But it amounted to destruction and damaging in the other municipalities is
15 the same for this, the chronologies may be different, but it is the same.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: The pattern is there.
17 THE WITNESS: The pattern is there.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: My next question to you, Dr. Kaiser, is at least on
19 the copy that I have, your report, not the supplement one but the original
20 one, does not carry a date. I would like to know the date when it was
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: The date is right at the end on the bottom of the
24 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the supplement. Were they filed together?
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I didn't hear you
2 JUDGE AGIUS: There is a report, and there is a supplemental
3 report. I know that there is a date at the bottom of the last page of the
4 supplemental report. But there is no date on the -- on any of the pages
5 of the first report.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: The main report.
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, you are right.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to know the date of the report, when it was
10 filed with you, or with the registry or whoever, or when it was compiled.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA:
12 Q. Dr. Kaiser, are you able to answer this question before we will
13 manage to find this information in our record?
14 A. I'm trying to remember when I filed the report. It was months and
15 months ago.
16 JUDGE AGIUS: In the first paragraph, it does mention "until the
17 summer of 2002," so it must have been after that.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes, the summer of 2002, yeah. It was sometime in
19 the fall of last year.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, we have this information. It was filed on
22 18 of November, 2002.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's great.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA:
25 Q. Before this interruption, we were talking about the chronology,
1 and in fact, I am now not sure whether you answered the question. Yes,
2 you answered the question about the year -- your findings about the level
3 or the amount of damage which occurred during -- in the period of the year
4 1992. The numbers which are either in your report or in the supplement,
5 are they correct, the figures which are in your report? Do you want to
6 change anything on what is stated?
7 A. No, I won't change anything. I point out that on page 2, that
8 these witnesses, we put all the witnesses together, you mentioned -- they
9 mention a total of 28 per cent of the Islamic sacral buildings in the six
10 municipalities. That's the witnesses, 28 per cent of the buildings are
11 covered or touched upon by a statement for 1992.
12 Q. And you also said that you spoke to people on the spot during your
13 on-site investigation, and that you reviewed other materials. Based on
14 your findings and the figures in your report, what do these figures
15 indicate in respect to damage or destruction?
16 A. Well, 28 per cent of the Islamic sacral properties damaged - we
17 know this; we have people who have seen it happen, know about it - are
18 damaged between May and August, that implies that quite an enterprise of
19 vandalism was going on. Whether that is blowing up minarets, setting fire
20 to roofs of mosques - we're only talking here about Islamic sacral
21 properties, we're not talking about Roman Catholic sacral
22 properties - quite an enterprise is taking place over the summer, that is,
23 targeting of these kinds of buildings.
24 Q. Would you conclude that this damage was accidental or that there
25 was some pattern in this behaviour?
1 A. I think it's a pattern. I don't think it's accidental. It
2 is -- in the first report, I said it looks like things you could call the
3 blitzkrieg against sacral buildings in these municipalities. When you
4 look at it in detail, it looks like a rather disorderly sort of thing.
5 It's not the same things happening to the same buildings everywhere. It's
6 something else. It's accumulation of different types of destruction of
7 properties that's going on.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Put the same question to you using a
9 different term, Dr. Kaiser: Would you agree that there was, according to
10 your findings, a systematic --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think it was systematic --
12 JUDGE AGIUS: -- Destruction or damaging?
13 THE WITNESS: Systematic damaging, yes, systematic damaging.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: And from what you saw in the other municipalities,
15 the ones that are not covered in your report, would you think that this
16 would strengthen your statement, your conviction, that there was a
17 systematic wanton destruction of sacral buildings?
18 THE WITNESS: You would find systematic damaging across
19 municipalities. If you looked at the municipalities one by one, you would
20 find nuances and differences in it. But you would find something looked
21 pretty well like the same systematic pattern.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA:
24 Q. Would you be able to state the causes of the damage? You already
25 mentioned that the mining, what other causes you came across during your
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 16424 to 16444.
1 evaluation? And maybe we can use photographs or if Your Honours wish to
2 use other photographs, or we can just talk generally.
3 JUDGE AGIUS: It's up to you. I mean, I am satisfied with what I
4 have seen so far by way of description. I do have certain questions that
5 I would put particularly, for example, to one of the mosques that he
6 referred to, I think it's Demisevci. No, it's not the Demisevci. The one
7 that had a little damage.
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: Little damage was Demisevci, it was the mekteb,
9 the building without the minaret.
10 THE WITNESS: Unusable.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah, but that's not that one. There was -- what
12 was the one, the last one, the one before that?
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: We had Donji Agici, which was in --
14 THE WITNESS: Celopek in Bosanski Novi.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: In Bosanski Novi. Maybe we can place it on the
17 Your Honour, was it this building you --
18 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. Could I see the other one, the Demisevci
19 one, please.
20 No, it's not that one. This is one which is still standing, in a
21 way. It seemed that the roof had collapsed, part of the walls had
23 THE WITNESS: Donji Kamengrad.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Donji Kamengrad. May I see that, please.
25 That is in which municipality?
1 THE WITNESS: Sanski Most.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Sanski Most, Donji Kamengrad.
3 No, it's not that.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: In fact --
5 JUDGE AGIUS: This is a photo we had of the mosque seemingly being
6 rebuilt, and there is a gentleman doing some work there nearby, or picking
7 up stones or whatever.
8 THE WITNESS: That's right. It's Gornji Jakupovici.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the one, yeah. And this is which
11 THE WITNESS: Prijedor.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: This is Prijedor.
13 Yes. Now, you say here, or rather, in this report or in this
14 statement that we have here, it seems that the cause of the destruction
15 was mining, as far as the minaret is concerned. And roof, as far
16 as -- firing as far as the roof is concerned.
17 My -- what puzzles me a little bit is that it seems that the
18 minaret has been blown up. I don't see it there. And the roof has
19 collapsed. And still, this is considered to be a repairable mosque?
20 THE WITNESS: They are repairing it. Yes, they are repairing this
21 building. The building, if you take the roof off it --
22 JUDGE AGIUS: You can repair it.
23 THE WITNESS: You can repair it.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: But if the minaret has been blown up, you can't
25 rebuild it.
1 THE WITNESS: Depends where it goes. In this particular case, we
2 don't have an enormous minaret that weighs a lot. And it has come down a
3 little bit on the corner, you see. We have pictures -- if we show you the
4 mosque in Okrec, we can show you really excellent mining of a minaret
5 which is brought down, and it destroys the building. But the minaret is
6 also somewhat different construction, it's heavier.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm asking the question so that you put me in a
8 better situation to understand why two buildings that are, on the face of
9 it, both look very much damaged, and to me would be a writeoff completely
10 are described either "destroyed" or "repairable." I want to know whether
11 the criteria is actually the visual impression and assessment that is
12 made, or whether the assessment also includes as a criterion the fact that
13 it is being repaired and not rebuilt.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, if I may, just -- I'm sorry to
15 interrupt you. Maybe we could put next to this picture the picture
16 taken --
17 JUDGE AGIUS: If you take Kamengrad, for example.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: -- In Donji Kamengrad, for example, because the
19 witness will be able to explain why the walls here are still in such a
20 stage that there is possible reparation, and here it is not possible. But
21 it is up to the expert to -- if you could show the picture below. It is
22 the same building.
23 THE WITNESS: We are talking about words, and we are always
24 talking about words.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: This one has collapsed. I mean, this you can't
2 THE WITNESS: That's a good reaction. Because that's exactly --
3 JUDGE AGIUS: You look at it and you know it cannot be repaired.
4 I mean, you would be crazy to try to repair that.
5 THE WITNESS: You know, you use repairable, and I say rebuilt.
6 Maybe I'm a little slipshod. The problem with this is you often have to
7 talk about rebuilding. We could show you the example -- I understand that
8 the minaret question is of interest to you. We could show you the mosque
9 in Okrec, and then you could see something where the minaret's come down
10 and you can see the building and you can see why the building is
11 completely destroyed, even though the walls are standing.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: Let's see it, please, Madam Richterova.
13 In the meantime while this building is being found, Judge Janu
14 would like to put a question to you, Dr. Kaiser. Judge Janu.
15 JUDGE JANU: Dr. Kaiser, looking at your curriculum vitae, I can
16 see that you are an historian. When deciding the question what is
17 repairable and what is not repairable, did you consult the expert from
18 construction or statistics?
19 THE WITNESS: I have worked in the milieu of architects and
20 engineers. I am not an architect. I am not an engineer. I have an
21 engineer who is an assistant. When I have some doubts, I ask him. I have
22 seen thousands and thousands of damaged buildings, I think. I make
23 mistakes. But we're usually talking about a level of damaging to
24 something which is not so difficult to understand. If you went through
25 the Islamic community fiche for Prijedor, you would see the bottom. There
1 are notations who are clearly an engineer's notations. My own
2 satisfaction was that, in fact, that was the same -- it was the same
3 diagnostic except for one building, I think, and I'm not quite sure -- I
4 don't think -- maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm too far off, and
5 I've often asked something about buildings if I had a question. Okrec, I
6 saw first with my own engineer back in 1996 and 1997.
7 JUDGE JANU: So there was some sort of verification.
8 THE WITNESS: Not systematically, not systematically, but I did
9 consult when I wasn't sure about something.
10 JUDGE JANU: Thank you.
11 THE WITNESS: That's why I use repairable, which is a large
12 notion, as well. Okrec. Can I explain --
13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes, yes, please.
14 THE WITNESS: All right, this is a mining that is in 1993. The
15 minaret you can see has been brought down very clearly on the building.
16 On the building. It's not an amateur. Lots and lots of minarets are
17 brought down beside the building in the six municipalities, which shows
18 that the minarets are what they are looking for. In this case, the
19 minaret is brought down to destroy the mosque. If you look in the first
20 picture here, just look at the left-hand corner of this building, you can
21 see the wall just leans out. The front wall is destroyed. If we look at
22 the -- sorry. If we look at this, you can see the walls are all leaning,
23 they are all cracked, they are all moved. It simply has to be dismantled.
24 That's all. The building is destroyed. Sometimes, this is brick. This
25 is, I think, solid brick. This is a little bit tougher than hollow brick.
1 Hollow brick is shattered. But this is, I think, solid brick. Normally
2 you put these back together, but not this one. It has just moved too
3 much, the whole building.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
5 THE WITNESS: And it's very different from the mosque that we saw
6 in Gornji Jakupovici.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: It also had a concrete structure, it seems.
8 THE WITNESS: I can't remember exactly it was, but I think
9 it's --
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Either a concrete or a steel --
11 THE WITNESS: Probably not steel. We have reinforced concrete in
12 the modern structures, and the kind of armature that holds them up and
13 gathers the walls. But the point there is that it's the minaret that
14 fell. It's a different kind of minaret. It wasn't laid down properly on
15 the building. This minaret was laid exactly where those who destroyed
16 wanted to lay it. They were professionals.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you. I can see that we have ten more
18 minutes. I would like to use --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: You have five more minutes because we agreed to stop
20 at 12.25, and I see that Ms. Korner is already here.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: And because I would like to use the maps, I think
22 I will use the maps after the lunch break. But I don't expect to spend
23 more than probably 30 minutes. But you know that I am very bad at
24 estimating the time.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: So perhaps we can stop here for the time being.
1 Ms. Korner can make her intervention. In the meantime, the usher
2 will escort the witness. We will resume, Dr. Kaiser, at 2.00. Thank you.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Korner.
6 MS. KORNER: I don't know whether Your Honour has been given a
7 copy of the motion.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: Not yet, I haven't seen the motion as yet.
9 MS. KORNER: I can summarise it very quickly. It's a very short
10 motion. It's an objection to us calling tomorrow's witness on the basis
11 that although they were given a box of disclosure on the 14th of May, it
12 wasn't opened until this Monday. That's what the motion says. The box of
13 material was not opened and consulted until Monday, the 26th of May.
14 Now, Your Honour, may I say, I have every sympathy for counsel for
15 the Defence having to return after the break for the reasons that
16 Your Honours know about. But it's right to say that the notification that
17 tomorrow's witness was going to be called tomorrow was given around the
18 16th of May, if not before. Your Honour, the documents about which
19 Ms. Baruch complained this morning, Your Honour, may I say that the most
20 liberal view of Rule 68 was taken in describing them as such. Because
21 they're not translated, but a language assistant was asked to go through
22 them and give a general gist of what they are. They're all documents
23 which are from either late or middle 1993 or 1994. The first is a
24 newspaper article dated the 14th of July, 1993. And it deals with a
25 newspaper that was edited by the witness -- sorry, it's not a news -- it's
1 an information about this newspaper. I'm sorry, I slightly misquoted
2 that. Which effectively says that the editor shows an anti-Serb bias,
3 which I don't imagine will surprise many people given the description he's
4 going to give.
5 The second is dated the 31st of January, 1994, and is a detailed
6 report about the situation in Tesanj municipality, not Teslic. But is
7 details of the forces that were in that municipality at that date, 31st of
8 January, 1994. There is one mention of tomorrow's witness, which
9 describes him as the president of the war presidency of the Teslic
10 municipality with which he will agree. He says that was the position that
11 he took.
12 The third document is dated the 13th of March, 1994, and is an
13 evaluation of the security situation in Teslic in 1994, and there's a
14 mention of tomorrow's witness as one of the refugees who are in certain
15 police, intelligence and political positions.
16 Now, Your Honour, the witness is here. He's ready to testify
17 tomorrow. The documents in our submission can be read by the language
18 assistant who the Defence have working for them. It was pointed out to me
19 that the language assistant had no knowledge of the Defence, that that may
20 be right. But Your Honour, she can certainly give a summary to the
21 Defence of what is contained within those documents.
22 Your Honour, as I say, a most liberal view must have been taken by
23 Rule 68 by the person who took the decision to disclose them. But, Your
24 Honour, our application, and obviously I would like it to be if possible
25 ruled on now or certainly early this afternoon, is that the witness be
1 allowed to proceed.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: What's the relevance of these documents that date
3 1993 and 1994? For example, the third document that you mentioned is an
4 evaluation of the security situation in Teslic in 1994. What's the
5 relevance of that?
6 MS. KORNER: I have no idea. Your Honour, they've not been
7 translated. They are not going to be used by us. As I say, somebody felt
8 because of course there has been a great deal about the Muslim resistance
9 or the like of it, that may have fallen into that category, or the like of
10 it, and because of the mention of the witness's name.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: May I ask you if you have any information as to how
12 many more documents this box had?
13 MS. KORNER: That, I can't, without taking instructions. I don't
14 know what -- I think Ms. Gustin can give me a note of what was in it.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: I think we need to know before we can
16 actually -- yes, Madam Baruch.
17 MS. BARUCH: My understanding from seeing that box brought to our
18 offices is that it was about this high, that it had a cover letter that
19 mentioned Celebici - I'm probably pronouncing that word wrong; I haven't
20 seen it in writing - it did not in the cover letter mention anything about
21 Teslic or indicate that there might be information relevant to Teslic.
22 And may I proceed in response as well.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, yes.
24 MS. BARUCH: Okay. My feeling and my position, our position with
25 regard to that, is that the decision as to whether or not this was Rule 68
1 material was made not only by experienced prosecutors, by even more
2 experienced lawyers. And my familiarity with prosecutors, Your Honour,
3 tells me that Prosecutors do not make that determination lightly. It is
4 frequently the case that I believe something would be helpful to the
5 Defence, that the Prosecutor does not. It was stated that this material
6 was placed in the box on May 14th. As Your Honours know, we did not
7 arrive in The Hague until the 20th of May. And the box was opened and
8 reviewed and we did not get to those documents, not knowing to look for
9 them, until Monday. So that the dates and the chronology of how this
10 occurred, I think is not relevant.
11 But more than, more than that, Your Honour, specifically with a
12 response to relevancy, how could this be relevant to something before May
13 of 1992, I have sat in this courtroom and again and again heard witnesses
14 say "I later learned with regard to earlier events." Now, when I get a
15 summary from a language assistant who is totally unfamiliar with the
16 Defence and our plan of how to attack this case, they cannot know when
17 certain words are important or a certain concept is important, even if
18 they can generally summarise "well, this was a newspaper article that
19 mentions the next witness." And so I cannot rely on the summary of a
20 language assistant to tell me that this -- for me to conclude or
21 Mr. Ackerman to conclude that this is not of importance, and there were 55
22 pages of documents. I did, I want Your Honours to know, take the
23 opportunity to review the tiny newspaper article with our language
24 assistant today. In fact, I have my own translation in discussions with
25 her and asking her particular information about words. That was easy.
1 But when I get 55 pages of documents and a book this thick of exhibits to
2 read as well as the witness's statement, and to familiarise myself with
3 the other Teslic witnesses, so I get a big picture of what is going on in
4 Teslic, it becomes impossible to assure myself or Mr. Ackerman that these
5 55 pages are useless, which is what has been suggested.
6 I asked -- I'm sorry. Just one other thing. I asked Ms. Korner
7 if she could assure me that the witness would not say at any time "I later
8 learned..." And she could not do that.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: You can't expect Ms. Korner or anyone for that
10 matter including ourselves to tell you: "There will be no questions or
11 answers allowed which state `I learned at a later'".
12 MS. BARUCH: I only point that out because so many times what they
13 learned later is important.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Of course it's important. It may be important or it
15 may not be important.
16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, can I assist.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, please.
18 MS. KORNER: Certainly.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Korner.
21 MS. KORNER: Can I just assist on two matters, first I think
22 Ms. Baruch must have made a mistake on the dates we started trial on the
23 19th, and they were back on the 16th.
24 MS. BARUCH: I apologise.
25 MS. KORNER: But that's irrelevant. Your Honour, as far as the
1 witness is concerned, he left Teslic in May of 1992. The area in which
2 his statement deals is the political background leading to the, if I can
3 put it that way, the beginning of the expulsion events in May. Although
4 I've listed the Teslic binder, that's because I haven't had an opportunity
5 to speak to the witness yet. But it is my belief that there will be
6 documents, the only documents that he will be referred to will be the ones
7 that are prior to May, the end of May 1992, plus there's a report at the
8 end which deals, although written later, deals with the early events.
9 Your Honour, nonetheless, none of this deals with the situation.
10 Whatever he learned later, even if he learned that there was a huge BiH,
11 HVO, HOS presence in Tesanj in 1994, it couldn't conceivably be relevant
12 to the events of 1992.
13 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. Let me ask you a question, Ms. Korner:
14 How long -- if this witness starts his testimony tomorrow, how long is he
15 expected to be here?
16 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, originally we put him down for two
17 days. But when I looked at his statement and looked at the documents, I
18 don't think -- he may just go into the Thursday, but it's unlikely. Of
19 course, he is listed for two days. And so if Ms. Baruch wants further
20 time or Mr. Ackerman wants further time, they will, of course, this
21 afternoon and -- I know Mr. Cunningham is taking this witness, so I
22 imagine Ms. Baruch could take this afternoon plus tomorrow.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: I also understand unless I have been given the wrong
24 information, you will have a case manager appointed later on today,
25 Mrs. Baruch?
1 MS. BARUCH: We have requested a case manager. He is not here.
2 So he will not be available to me tonight or even tomorrow night, I don't
3 believe, because a visa needed to be obtained.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay. We should be in a position to hand
5 down an oral decision first thing when we resume at 2.00. And more or
6 less, this is just to give you an idea, this is not the first time this
7 has arisen, there was at least two other occasions in the past when we
8 found ourselves in exactly the same position. And the remedy was "move
9 ahead with the hearing of the testimony and reserve to the Defence the
10 right to have the witness be called back at a later stage for a further
11 cross-examination or for some supplemental cross-examination if
13 MS. BARUCH: I just have one other thing I'd like the Chamber to
14 consider, and that is that a witness's bias and motivation to colour their
15 testimony, just colour their testimony, is frequently established by
16 events that occurred after the specific events about which they testify,
17 but prior to their testimony in Court. And that's another reason why
18 these documents may be of very big importance, which we don't know right
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
21 My apologies, and also thanks to the interpreters and the
22 technicians. I did not ask for your indulgence, I'm sorry. We went
23 beyond the time. But I wish to thank you publicly. Thank you.
24 We will resume at 2.00.
25 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.38 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.02 p.m.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Before we proceed with the testimony of
3 Dr. Kaiser, there's the decide the Defence motion to reference was made
4 earlier on. This is an oral decision which the Trial Chamber is giving on
5 the motion of the Defence to delay the testimony of Witness 7.113, which
6 motion was filed yesterday, 26th May, 2003.
7 The Defence seeks that the witness's testimony be delayed until
8 such time as the newly supplied documents have been appropriately
9 translated. The newly supplied documents in question are those to which
10 paragraph 4 of the motion refers; namely, three documents totalling 53
11 typewritten pages which are in the B/C/S language, and a short description
12 of which Ms. Korner gave earlier on during the sitting.
13 The Defence brings forward the following reasons for the request:
14 Namely, the first reason is that since other matters seemed to have
15 priority, for example, getting the trial restarted and running smoothly,
16 including responses to various Prosecution motions, the box of material
17 was not opened and consulted until Monday, 26 May, 2003. The Trial
18 Chamber notes that the Defence had from the 16th of May until the 26th of
19 May to open this box and consult and check the contents, and it is not
20 satisfied with the explanation given to justify why the box should have
21 remained closed until yesterday.
22 Number two: The other reason which is brought forward by the
23 Defence is that the three documents applied under Rule 68 regarding
24 Witness 7.113 would require 53 hours approximately to have -- to be
25 translated. And in the absence of Marela Jevtovic, there is no one on the
1 Defence staff at this point who can read and translate for counsel the
2 contents of these documents. This objection or this ground for the
3 request of the delay is only partly true and relevant only in insofar as
4 it seems that the Defence did not have at its disposal since the 16th
5 of -- since the 14th of May when these documents were handed officially to
6 it someone who could provide the non-B/C/S-speaking components of the
7 Defence team with a proper translation, or at least information as to the
8 contents. This will be taken into consideration in the latter part of the
9 Trial Chamber's oral decision.
10 A last ground that is brought forward is that these documents may
11 very well heavily impact cross-examination of this witness and may also be
12 useful as exhibits during the testimony of this witness. The supposition
13 is that they cannot be used until translated into the English language.
14 The allegation that they may well heavily impact cross-examination is a
15 supposition which is not at all proven at the moment, an effect that they
16 may be used or useful as exhibits during the testimony of this witness
17 will be covered by the decision which this Trial Chamber is taking.
18 Accordingly, the decision of this Trial Chamber is to proceed, to reject
19 the motion as put and order that the Prosecution proceeds with bringing
20 over Witness 7.113, the testimony of whom will be heard starting from the
21 sitting of tomorrow, but reserves the right for the Defence to ask for the
22 reproduction of Witness 7.113 at a later stage should this become
23 necessary and solely on the basis of any reason arising out of the three
24 documents mentioned earlier.
25 Yes, sorry, Dr. Kaiser, you had to listen to all this.
1 Ms. Richterova can conclude.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA:
3 Q. Dr. Kaiser, before the lunch break, we were talking about the
4 destruction of Islamic sacral buildings. Now I would like to focus on
5 Catholic buildings. Can you tell us what are your conclusions, what are
6 your findings in respect to Roman Catholic sacral buildings.
7 A. First of all, the number of Roman Catholic sacral buildings in the
8 six municipalities is far smaller, about 127 Islamic sacral buildings, and
9 there were 23 Roman Catholic sacral buildings. That leads us to another
10 question, which is -- another point, is that the Croat population in the
11 six municipalities is a totally different order than the Bosniak, the
12 Muslim population. That's something I think also should be kept in mind.
13 When we look at the damage, say, these three different categories
14 of buildings destroyed, repairable, minor, we find -- excuse me, I'm going
15 to be looking in the text. The degree of unusability which I mentioned
16 for the Islamic buildings was 77 per cent. For the Roman Catholic
17 buildings, it was 61 per cent, which means that the amount of damage is,
18 in fact, a bit less. If we look at the number, the percentages of
19 destroyed, it's not 29 per cent, which is what it was for the Islamic
20 sacral buildings; it's something like 13 per cent. Number of repairable
21 but damaged is 48 per cent. So we have sort of different levels of
23 There are also a higher percentage that escape with no or little
24 damage, 27 per cent. But I think -- trying to understand this phenomena,
25 we have to look municipality by municipality. There are some
1 municipalities in which the level of unusability of Catholic buildings is
2 extremely high, for example, Prijedor, Sanski Most, it's also extremely
3 high. These are municipalities in which there is also a large Croatian
4 population. It's the third ethnic group.
5 We go to municipalities that have no -- very small Croatian
6 population, there are three. Bosanski Novi, Donji Vakuf, Kljuc, you find
7 in two cases, two of these municipalities, there's not really -- the
8 buildings are spared, Donji Vakuf, little church which is sort of on the
9 edge of the town, it's undisturbed. The church, very small church in
10 Bosanski Novi, sort of hidden between buildings, it has a little bit of
11 damaged in the roof which, because it was neglected for ten years, turned
12 into substantial damages. But in fact these places where there's only a
13 small Croatian population, the building that's there is not important. I
14 suppose perhaps because the Croatian population is not important. So what
15 I would say is that to be meaningful, to be meaningful comparison, I think
16 you have to take into consideration such things as the demography of the
17 municipalities. And these are just general -- these are general for the
18 period of 1992 to 1995 because we have very, very few witnesses, very few
19 witnesses, only two, I believe, who say something about Roman Catholic
20 sacral buildings. There are more detailed notations about them in the
21 "Crucified Churches," so there is a chronology which is set up, and this
22 chronology also tends to show a lot of damaging in 1992 in the summer
23 months, but starting later. But starting later.
24 It's comparable when you're comparing comparable municipalities.
25 This is my only remark. It is -- looks less systematic or later, but it's
1 also serious.
2 Q. Now, Dr. Kaiser, I would like to talk about differences among
3 municipalities. And I would like to use your maps. You provided some
4 maps. They are big, so we managed to do some extracts.
5 MS. RICHTEROVA: I provided the Defence with these maps yesterday,
6 and I am going to provide you, Your Honours, with these extracts right
7 now. As we are going through these maps, I will always give you the map.
8 First would be Kotor Varos.
9 Is it possible to zoom it a little bit?
10 Q. Would you be so kind and first tell us what exactly you were
11 attempting to accomplish by annotating these maps.
12 A. I was trying to make it simpler for myself to understand if there
13 are patterns of events that are taking place according to geography. I
14 think that's really basically the reason. It doesn't necessarily help you
15 to visualise a lot more easily, especially when you have, you know, a lot
16 of colours, and you have certain symbols. But my intention was to try to
17 visualise, to understand what may have been going on a little bit better
18 by putting it on a map.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA: Excuse me, I forgot to provide you with the
20 legend for the maps. And again, I provided this legend to the Defence
21 yesterday. So now it will be easier for you to understand what red,
22 green, yellow means.
23 Q. Can you give us just a brief evaluation of your findings in
24 respect to Kotor Varos.
25 A. Well, first thing is this is a municipality I didn't talk about a
1 few seconds -- a few minutes ago because this is a municipality that has
2 13 Islamic sacral buildings, and has 10 Roman Catholic sacral buildings,
3 and has a population of 33 per cent, 33 per cent, and 33 per cent. I
4 think it should be kept in mind. There may be enough to know about the
5 dynamics there to draw any hard and fast conclusions. 69 per cent of the
6 Islamic sacral buildings are unusable. 50 per cent of the Roman Catholic
7 buildings are unusable. 31 per cent of the Islamic sacral buildings are
8 in fact destroyed. No Catholic buildings are in fact destroyed in this
9 municipality. And 40 per cent of the Catholic buildings have minor or no
10 damage. Minor damage on this map, this may help you a little bit, are the
11 red or green, the little houses with the roofs. That's minor damage.
12 Q. Maybe -- I'm sorry to interrupt you. But I would like to show
13 some pictures. We can maybe show the picture of the church in Sokoline.
14 It's in Kotor Varos. We are talking to Kotor Varos.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: So if Your Honours would be so kind to in the
16 tables go to Kotor Varos. It is the first... It is on the page 03235216
17 of your tables. According to your table, this is one of the mosque you
18 marked as repairable.
19 Q. Is it correct?
20 A. Yes, this is marked R. This is a repairable building.
21 Q. And I would also like to show you the Roman Catholic church of the
22 Holy Family in Kotor Varos, which is probably quite remarkable example of
24 Can you make -- did you see, did you visit this location, and can
25 you make a comment on this picture and the way how this building was
2 A. Well, I visited both of these buildings, the church as well at
3 Sokoline. This is the main church in Kotor Varos, so this is in the city,
4 in the capital. This building had two big towers, both sides of the
5 entrance. And these towers carried on the top of them, each tower, a
6 cross. And the towers were mined, and the crosses come down. But the
7 mining of this particular church, it dates -- seems to date from 1993,
8 August 1993. There is mention of damage made about this in 1992, but it's
9 an attempt to put a fire in it on the 2nd of July, and this is actually
10 mentioned by the extracts of minutes of the crisis committee. So there
11 was an attempt at burning, but...
12 I suppose you're also interested in this because this is
13 also -- this is repairable, in fact, is being repaired.
14 Q. Thank you. Just go back to what you stated, so how would you
15 generally evaluate the level of damage in the municipality of Kotor Varos?
16 A. Well, generally speaking, the level of damage in this municipality
17 is not as high as in other municipalities. What's very interesting is
18 that there is a pattern of damage that emerges quite frequently which is
19 bad damage in a town. This is particularly when you go after a religious
20 building, a mosque or a church, in the town. Now, in Kotor Varos, and
21 you'll find less bad damage outside. I mean, we can go into perhaps the
22 reasons for that later. But in Kotor Varos, the church survives, damaged,
23 wounded, with very, very symbolic damaging to crosses. The mosque in
24 Kotor Varos, which we don't have a photograph for and which I drove past a
25 whole number of times in the past, was damaged, but it was standing. The
1 town mosque. So this is a bit of an unusual pattern of damage.
2 Kotor Varos sort of behaves as a big village, in the town, there's not a
3 sort of urban part of town of damage that is carried out. But there is
4 something which is is interesting, is that one of the traits of bad damage
5 or what you find very frequently is really bad damage is carried out along
6 the road, you see, along the main lines of communication, or roads that
7 are very close by or the minaret can be seen, the mosque, et cetera, et
8 cetera. And we have a few cases of these, these little greens triangles
9 that you can see are, in fact, not far from the main road, and that is a
10 kind of pattern which one finds elsewhere.
11 But otherwise, we find just kind of a mixture of the buildings
12 that are damaged by mining. One of the differences in this municipality
13 is there actually seems to be artillery damage, shelling damage to
14 buildings. Something that is talked about in other municipalities, but
15 over time, you don't see very much trace of it left. But in Kotor Varos,
16 in, for example, the churches here, Jakotina, Sokoline, the mosque Vecici,
17 there are two mosques there, they have shelling damage, it's possible
18 there is shelling damage as well in the mosque in Hrvacani.
19 Q. Try to place the mosque in Vecici. Dr. Kaiser, are you talking
20 about the new mosque in Vecici, or --
21 A. New mosque, old mosque, they are both damaged in the same sort of
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: So we can place on the ELMO the new mosque in
25 Q. And we are still talking about the Kotor Varos municipality. And
1 we can also show the old mosque. And if you can explain on these photos
2 the signs of artillery attack, as you just mentioned.
3 A. This is the older mosque.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. The minaret is knocked down. You can see an impact, in fact, on
6 the minaret between -- and on the stump, halfway down the stump. Right
7 there. That's an impact. But in fact, the minaret has been cut by
8 artillery piece. This is not such a good photo, but this is the main,
9 sort of main structural damage that's visible on it. There are other
10 examples of damage. Perhaps the other -- the other mosque is a little bit
11 more interesting.
12 Q. If you...
13 A. Right. Because the same thing here is we have the minaret is cut,
14 in fact, by an artillery piece. And on the dome, you will see projectiles
15 here, probably up here as well. And then the broken windows. As I say,
16 this is a bit unusual to see this sort of damage, in fact, in the whole
17 area, in the six municipalities.
18 Q. So one sentence conclusion in respect to Kotor Varos? Can we
19 conclude --
20 A. It's not as bad as some. It's bad enough.
21 Q. Can we conclude what you stated in your report, that in
22 Kotor Varos, not one minaret survived?
23 A. Oh, yes, there's no problem about that. No minarets in
24 Kotor Varos.
25 Q. Now I would like to show you maps of Donji Vakuf.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know if I missed the exhibit number of this
2 map. What is the exhibit number?
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, my fault. Totally my fault. It will
4 be P1885.
5 JUDGE AGIUS: And the legend?
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: The legend is the same for all these maps.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. But are you giving it a number?
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: We can give it number P1885.1.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
10 MS. RICHTEROVA:
11 Q. So we can see the map of the municipality of Donji Vakuf. And
12 again, please, just a general overview on this municipality.
13 A. First thing is --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Cunningham, sorry, Dr. Kaiser. How long do you
15 expect or do you require for your cross-examination? It's a message to
16 Madam Richterova.
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM: She indicated to me before we broke for the lunch
18 break that she had maybe another 30 minutes, let's assume she finishes at
19 3.00. I still think I can be done by --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: Perfect. By 4.00.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but I will probably need
22 more time. And I was also informed that there is a problem with the
23 witness who was supposed to testify on Friday. And so it is also possible
24 that we could go with this witness until tomorrow.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: But the agreement was that we would do our best, our
1 level best, to let Mr. Kaiser, Dr. Kaiser, go home. You have another 15
2 minutes to -- another 30 minutes to finish your direct.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: Okay. I will do it.
4 Q. So just a brief overview of Donji Vakuf?
5 A. In fact, this is the municipality that has kind of the lease level
6 of unusability, 62 per cent for Islamic heritage.
7 Q. Please slow down. I know that I have only 30 minutes, but the
8 interpreters have to translate.
9 A. You have 30 minutes, and I have all the time in the world.
10 Donji Vakuf has the lowest level of unusability of buildings, okay. You
11 should keep in mind that this is -- not every building is considered in
12 Donji Vakuf because Donji Vakuf is really on a front line zone, there are
13 positions in Prcac, and that changes everything. I really simply
14 eliminated those mosques because Prcac is a front line zone. And then you
15 get into discussion of military use of buildings, et cetera. Small
16 Croatian population. There are -- there is a clear sort of what I would
17 call -- there's a rural damage pattern in the north, you can't see the
18 north. But these are little buildings up in the hills, little mosques,
19 little mektebs and things which are torched, burnt, and some witnesses for
20 two of these in June, not in July as the Islamic documents are always
21 talking about, but actually say nothing in that for Donji Vakuf, but in
22 June here.
23 If you go towards the town, Donji Vakuf, you also have a kind of
24 what I called mixed pattern of damage where again there's not the urban
25 pattern. The big mosque in the town, bas dzamija, carsiska dzamija, is
1 mined. There are witnesses that talk about the mining of this mosque in
2 the summer, and the damaging of two other mosques in the town. The two
3 other mosques are burned. Roofs are gone. One of them is mined. They
4 are squares on the map because they could have, in fact, survived. They
5 are all pulled down after the war. Little red house, it's a little
6 Catholic church which survives. Then you look around coming up towards
7 Travnik, which is this way, and going towards one of the fronts, you have
8 a mekteb up in Suhodol which survives completely, it's a big house. And
9 then, in fact, Seherdik is just a little bit up the road, and it's a
10 mosque which is totally destroyed, recent, recently built mosque. So the
11 little mekteb is completely missed and the mosque is totally annihilated.
12 You have another country mosque, and a mesdzid which is destroyed, and
13 another mekteb we're not a hundred per cent sure it was inside the Serb
14 lines or inside the Bosniak lines. That has only minor damage. So that's
15 the characterisation for Donji Vakuf, not as dramatic as some other
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: This will be P1886.
19 Q. Then I will start with the map which shows part of Bosanski Novi.
20 So let's start with this part. And again, please, a brief evaluation of
21 Bosanski Novi.
22 A. Here, the -- 69 per cent unusability for the Islamic sacral
23 buildings. So it's middling. But what's very interesting here, here
24 there are two damage patterns that emerge which other observers -- what
25 happened would stress a lot and I stress, too, is an urban pattern of
1 damage. If you look at Bosanski Novi, you'll see the little triangles.
2 These are destroyed. This is Gradska, Vitorja [phoen] mosques in the town
3 for which there are witnesses that talk about the destruction and
4 bulldozed afterwards. There's the little Catholic church which is hidden
5 away in its niche and gets away with minor damage. Then we have a little
6 mosque in Urije which is a Bosniak area of the town which is destroyed but
7 not razed. Then we have other mosques along the road in Prekosanje and
8 Buljuk. Buljuk from the state of the terrain, it's destroyed. Prekosanje
9 was bulldozed terrain that was photographed. I'm not sure it was knocked
10 down after the war. This is something I can't say.
11 Now -- but then, when you get to the Japra Valley --
12 Q. Dr. Kaiser, I will stop you here because Japra Valley continues on
13 this map. So the map which was used by Dr. Kaiser is P1887. And this map
14 will show us the remaining of the municipality of Bosanski Novi.
15 A. There we are.
16 Q. So you were talking about Japra Valley.
17 A. Yes, because in fact there's part of Sanski Most on this. Well,
18 up at the top of the other map, you could see some damaged buildings, but
19 not destroyed buildings. And if you look, you'll see all these little
20 symbols that go along the valley here, all the way down to Budimlic Japra,
21 which is in Sanski Most municipality but in fact seems to -- it's really
22 part of this other pattern of damage. These are all buildings that have
23 lost their -- sorry, up here. Yes. They have lost their roofs for the
24 most part. If they have minarets, the minarets have been mined. These
25 are buildings that I say are repairable. And that is more of a rural
1 damage condition; that is, to treat these mosques in the countryside
2 somewhat differently. They have minarets, then they get treated as badly
3 as anything else.
4 Of course, the other thing is that in the country, there are more
5 stone mosques, old stone mosques as well, which means they have the little
6 minaret roof, and that goes, but then the stone walls are left.
7 Q. And on this map is part of the municipality of Sanski Most. So
8 let's start with this part of Sanski Most, and then I will show you the
9 remaining. So again, how would you characterise the damage in the
10 municipality of Sanski Most?
11 A. Well, every case is a little bit different. Sanski Most has 73
12 per cent of unusable Islamic buildings, but one has to keep in mind a very
13 large number of mosques being constructed. Something like 23 per cent of
14 the buildings of Islamic sacral buildings were mosques undergoing
15 construction, so therefore 73 per cent unusability is maybe a little
16 misleading because if you looked at the usable buildings, the ones that
17 were in function and how many of them in fact were damaged, you would be
18 up to around 95 per cent damage. Catholic buildings are also 80 per cent
19 unusable. This is a municipality in which there is clearly, there is
20 really a lot of damage. And in both communities, both Muslim communities
21 and the Croat communities. It's a municipality where the balance of the
22 Serb population, the Muslim population is about equal. There is sort, as
23 I say, a rather different pattern of damaging. Nonetheless, there are
24 still the nuances, and this particular map, Lukavica, Modra, Gorice, these
25 are unfinished mosques and mektebs, and as a rule, they dealt with
1 minarets somebody is particularly interested in them. Modra mosque, its
2 building materials were taken. Skucani Vakuf is a mined mosque. There
3 are witnesses for this from 1992 -- one witness. Mosque, minaret is
4 mined. It's a stone mosque. Roof is gone. Probably perhaps destroyed,
5 burned in the mining of it. But these are still in the western part of
6 this municipality. These are buildings that can be put into commission or
8 Q. I will now show you the remaining part of Sanski Most map. This
9 one, which is on the ELMO, can be marked as P1888.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
11 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, we couldn't make it smaller because
12 then you wouldn't be able to see almost anything. So we have to fight
13 with the maps a little bit.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: I understand that. And I see that it wouldn't have
15 been possible.
16 THE WITNESS: Maybe I'll try to point out some sort of meaningful
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I think the map speaks for itself. I don't think we
19 need to go into much detail.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: If you could just --
21 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm allowing you to put these questions because they
22 tend to prove the systematic pattern of destruction of sacral buildings,
23 but please don't forget that we're talking for the purpose of this trial
24 the period April to December of 1992. That's about it. You know, I mean,
25 what happened in 1993 or 1994 or 1995 may or may not have been part of a
1 design which existed in 1991 and in 1992.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: I understand, Your Honour. And I think that Mr.
3 Kaiser clearly stated in his report, and we can see it in the table
4 exactly for which mosques and Catholic churches he was able to find the
5 date and for which we do not approve of the year.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.
7 MS. RICHTEROVA:
8 Q. So can we just conclude the Sanski Most municipality. What is the
9 pattern? What kind of causes where we can see, cause of damage we can see
10 in the Sanski Most -- in the municipality of Sanski Most?
11 A. Well, you remember there are -- there's a list of witnesses who
12 have said they have seen the damage in this particular period in Sanski
13 Most municipality. I haven't got the time to go through all of their
14 statements and correlate them with the information given by the Islamic
15 community. The bad pattern -- there are patterns of bad damaging.
16 They're along the main road out of Sanski Most towards Okrec, up here. A
17 number of these are in fact damaged according to witnesses 1992, badly
18 damaged. This is -- this urban zone here, Pobrijezje mosque, destroyed in
19 1992, according to a witness, and also according to documents emanating
20 from the municipal council about cleaning-up operations. Main mosque in
21 Sanski Most, Hamza Bey mosque, also apparently destroyed in 1992. The
22 Catholic church was destroyed much later, although there's a mistake in my
23 report, destroyed in 1995.
24 I would just point out that is an urban main communications route
25 system of damaging that appears, and in fact most of it in 1992, according
1 to the witnesses.
2 Q. If you have nothing else to add to Sanski Most, we can move to
3 Prijedor. And again, very brief evaluation of the municipality of
4 Prijedor, which is on the top of this map which we were just using.
5 A. Prijedor has the most systematic, brutal sort of damaging of
6 sacral buildings of both communities, the Bosniak, the Islamic sacral
7 buildings, and the Roman Catholic buildings. In fact, it goes up to 88
8 per cent unusability for the Islamic sacral buildings, and up to 80 per
9 cent for the Roman Catholic buildings. And you can go back and look at
10 the population balance where the Muslims are the largest population. I'm
11 just looking for things that try and explain simply why there is more
12 brutality in this than in other municipalities. There is the classic
13 urban pattern of damage. Every single mosque in the town area is
14 destroyed and is bulldozed. And the mosques even in, for example, the
15 Brdo area, here, the same thing happens, these little triangles, these are
16 all demolished. In the eastern countryside, you find other examples of
17 complete destruction. The other one in Garabi, actually, in 1995.
18 Everything is square. Everything is a square symbol, for unusable. The
19 triangle for destroyed. This is the situation in this municipality.
20 There are a number of witnesses, but they are not as many
21 witnesses. And there is less information, in fact, on the actual
22 damaging, the dates of damaging in this municipality than on other ones.
23 There are indications that some bad damaging is done a lot later, for
24 example, in Hambarine. Hambarine, which is here, there are two mosques.
25 There are witnesses for the shelling of the old mosque in Hambarine, and
1 hundred metres up the road there's another mosque, and the minaret is
2 supposedly mined, destroyed, in 1992, and then later on in 1995 or 1996,
3 after the signing of Dayton agreement, then the rest of it is destroyed.
4 So there's that kind of damaging to keep in mind. It makes it harder to
5 date things exactly.
6 Q. Thank you. I have one more map.
7 MS. RICHTEROVA: And it is really showing just two more mosques
8 which we weren't able to see on this map. So the big one, I would like to
9 mark as P1889. And the small one, we can place it on the ELMO just for a
10 second for the Defence to see what I am referring to, the remaining two
11 mosques from Prijedor, I would like to mark as P1890. And I am done with
13 Q. And I have for you a couple of final questions. And I would like
14 to go to your report on page 12. You concluded that - it is under (g),
15 conclusions, the last sentence in the first paragraph, the middle - "given
16 the concentration of significant damage within a period of a few months
17 across most of the municipalities, we are confronted by a targeted,
18 controlled, and deliberate campaign of devastation, a kind of blitzkrieg
19 against places of worship."
20 Is it still your view that it was targeted, controlled, and
21 deliberate campaign of devastation?
22 A. From the point of view of a cumulative effect, yes. If we went
23 through, for example, any particular municipality in great detail, we went
24 through Sanski Most municipality, we would see it's an extremely messy
25 sort of picture. But all these things are going on, they are all going on
1 concerning the same types of buildings. I mean, as I say, it's a
2 cumulative impact. And the question of masterminding of it, the
3 organising of it, that perhaps is something else. I mean, a bit more
4 mysterious. But you're looking, you know, at the investment of human
5 resources, sometimes military resources, to carry out an enterprise which
6 in fact is not particularly productive in terms of moving people around.
7 I mean, in an obvious kind of way. There seems to be -- there's a great
8 interest in doing this, in investing in it at a time when there's a lot of
9 things going on at the same time. And so in spite of it looking sometimes
10 a bit disorderly, yes, I think there's a will.
11 Q. And you also concluded that "this specific Blitzkrieg was only one
12 element of the large attack, the decisive factor was the removal of the
13 population and the destruction of its homes..." And it goes on and on.
14 A. I think that's --
15 Q. Can you make a comment on this.
16 A. I think that's why it's useful to relate the damage levels to
17 population levels in the municipality, to understand what's going on. As
18 I mentioned, it appears that where the Serbs were 50 per cent or the
19 minority, there was a lot more damage being carried out, in fact, against
20 the sacral places of the Muslims and the Croats than where they were in a
21 really big majority. Bosanski Novi, there's a majority of Serb
22 population, and you see, you know, not so much damaging being done to the
23 mosques, the churches almost ignored. I think you have to put the
24 destruction of sacral buildings in that context to understand it. It's
25 part of it, though. It's part of it. There's messages that are being
1 sent when sacral buildings are being damaged and destroyed. And maybe
2 also those that carry on the destruction are maybe forgetting -- it's
3 worthwhile making this investment because this message is perhaps
4 particularly an effective message to send to a population.
5 Q. And what is the message?
6 A. Well, the message -- one part of the message is "we don't respect
7 you, we don't respect your system of belief, we don't respect your culture
8 or psychology." Another one is "we don't want you." Many places, the
9 communities, Islamic communities, the Muslims have put the money together,
10 collected the money to build the mosque. This is not just a financial
11 investment; this is an emotional investment. And if you go and destroy
12 this kind of building, you're sending a message to that population. The
13 destruction -- so that's one thing towards the victims of that
15 But there's the other message that is sort of towards society,
16 where you find the urban pattern of destruction, which is annihilation,
17 bulldozing a monument, it's like saying, "they weren't there" basically.
18 Or even if you left a cemetery, "well, they were there but you left
19 nothing of value." Rewriting history, you're writing history without the
20 other and this history is written in the cities. You're saying something
21 about civilisation, about the past, and that's to your own people.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: Thank you, Dr. Kaiser. That concludes my
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Richterova.
25 Mr. Cunningham. Before you start, just in case we don't have time
1 at the end, good news. Next week, this coming week, in other words, we
2 were supposed to work in the afternoon. We are shifting the whole week to
3 the morning. So that should be -- prove to be convenient to everyone.
4 I'm talking of the week 2nd to 6th. All right.
5 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Very well, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's number one. Number two, Mr. Cunningham, may
7 I refer you to part of the proceedings of the 19th when Ms. Korner
8 referred to the binders that relate to Bosanski Novi, Donji Vakuf, and
9 five or so from Prijedor. And she had pointed out that to her knowledge,
10 these had not yet been formally admitted as exhibits as yet, that she was
11 under the impression - she could be wrong, though, although she didn't
12 believe herself to be - that there was no objection forthcoming from the
13 Defence to any of these documents. And we had agreed that you would check
14 and come back, come back to me. Yes, Madam Baruch.
15 MS. BARUCH: I think it was me who promised to come back to the
16 Court. And yes, we had not made any objection.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. So for the record, and for your
18 attention, Madam Registrar, please, all the exhibits to which Madam Korner
19 made reference during the sitting of the 19th May, these are all formally
20 being admitted as exhibits with the number that was assigned to them in
21 the course of the proceedings.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I would like to clarify
23 only one point.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: When I said that the report of Dr. Kaiser was
1 filed on 18 November 2002, it is the date of the report. The actual
2 filing was 12th of December. So the report is dated 18 of November, 2002.
3 It was filed on 12th of December, 2002.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you for the clarification. And the last
5 thing is I found on my desk the response by the Defence to the
6 Prosecutor's Rule 92 bis motions relating to Teslic. And I should like to
7 draw the attention of the Prosecution to Mr. Ackerman's response and come
8 back to us, particularly with regard to whether what stand the Prosecution
9 will be taking with regard to points made in paragraphs 2 of the
10 response. Paragraph 3 does not need any -- call for any comments from the
11 Prosecution. It can be attended to by the Trial Chamber. But we do need
12 to know as soon as possible what the Prosecution's position is; in other
13 words, whether it stands by its position or whether it intends to present
14 the statements of the witnesses mentioned under Rule 93 bis.
15 And then there is another document which is an objection by the
16 Prosecution relating to Teslic municipality. Again, I should like someone
17 from the Prosecution to be here tomorrow morning first thing to deal with
18 this matter so that we can hand down a decision on the admissibility of
19 these documents.
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, there will be someone who can deal with
22 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you.
23 So, Mr. Cunningham, sorry for interrupting you like this. But you
24 may proceed now.
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Your Honour. Absolutely no problem.
1 Your Honour, speaking to the Court but with the interpreters in mind, I
2 would ask them if I go too fast for the B/C/S interpretation, that they
3 tug on my robe and give me some sort of warning.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Cunningham:
5 Q. Dr. Kaiser, I want to visit about your findings, and prior to your
6 testimony, we were given literally a volume of reports that you had
7 prepared in your capacity, some UNESCO reports, some Council of Europe
8 reports. Most of my questions will be drawn from your 12-page report
9 which is in evidence, which is P1883.1, but I'm also going to ask you, it
10 may become relevant to talk about your report from 15 December 1995 as
11 well as your report from 19 January, 1994. That's going to be towards the
12 end. What I wanted to ask you is in that materials that you have out
13 there, are those reports there with you?
14 A. I don't have my -- I could have access to them, but I haven't
15 looked at them.
16 Q. Okay. I'm bringing this up now because as a courtesy to the
17 Tribunal, if we need to show you those documents later on, I would ask for
18 the opportunity to do that, and it is my understanding the procedure is
19 for the Prosecutor to provide those documents. So at this point, I would
20 like to give you notice that I may be questioning about his reports, 15
21 December, 1995, and of 19 January, 1994.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: I have the report dated 19 January, 1994, if it
23 is this one. And the 15 December 1995, are you referring to witness
24 statement or...?
25 MR. CUNNINGHAM: It's a document that he authored that is related
1 to that date. That may well be it. If you could have that available.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: It is available. So Dr. Kaiser can inspect it.
3 MR. CUNNINGHAM: With that, Your Honour, may I proceed.
4 Q. In talking about your 12-page report, you've told us that
5 basically at the time you issued that report, it was limited to those six
6 municipalities. And I recognise that in preparing this report, you had to
7 come up with some definitions, for example, what is a sacral building,
8 because of the nature of the various religions, you had to make, to a
9 certain extent, I guess, what would be an arbitrary decision that a sacral
10 building would be the usual place of worship for the Islamic or Catholic
12 In your report, let me phrase it this way, you come to us as a
13 historian, and as a historian, I take it a healthy skepticism with the
14 information you are provided in the course of doing this report. Is that
15 a fair statement?
16 A. Yes, it's a fair statement.
17 Q. And in your very report, you talk about some of the limitations on
18 the information that you received that affected, in effect, that
19 information's credibility and reliability. Is that a fair statement?
20 A. That's a fair statement.
21 Q. For example, your statement, and I don't have the page number, and
22 I apologise, but there was a commonly heard statement that all the mosques
23 in the Republika Srpska were destroyed. That is something that was heard
24 commonly, correct?
25 A. That's right. That's right.
1 Q. And obviously, that certainly was not the case, and your
2 investigation bore that out. Correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. But at the same time, and to be fair to you, I think your
5 conclusion at page 4 reiterated today was that somewhere between 80 and 80
6 per cent of the sacral buildings were either destroyed or significantly
7 damaged. Okay.
8 I want to talk to you about the information that you received in
9 how at times you found this information to be - and I'm going to use the
10 word - unreliable. If there's a better word for it, let me know, and
11 we'll work off that term. And specifically, I'm talking about your
12 report -- I believe it's on page 2 where you talk about one of the
13 difficulties you had is determining the actual number of sacral buildings
14 in the six communities. Correct? And you gave us two or three reasons
15 why the numbers you received originally, information provided to the
16 Tribunal for the -- by the Islamic community was not reliable. And could
17 you tell us why that was.
18 A. I made an allusion to it a little bit earlier, it's the
19 organisation of the -- simply the Islamic community. The Christian
20 churches have their own systems of administration and administrative
21 districts. And the Islamic community doesn't have it, it's a myriad of
22 Islamic communities. But this means that the gathering of information is
23 rather chaotic. I think that a lot of the problems simply come from this
24 sort of -- they're not really big problems. There are a number of these
25 places. But the -- how shall I say -- it's not anarchy, it's not the
1 right word. A certain amount of disorganisation and lack of types of
2 normal hierarchal structures such as the Christian churches have make it a
3 little harder to find out. There are things that are missing that are
4 unfortunate. Many, many of the sources don't mention such things as
5 turbe. A turbe is a tomb. And a turbe is not exactly a place of worship
6 but often functions as a shrine. So I discovered reading a witness's
7 statement in Trno Varos or Sehovci, some place like that, that there was a
8 turbe there, and people came to that when there is a dry spell and pray
9 for rain. So it's not a usual place of worship but it's very important in
10 terms of popular devotion. And very often, there was no mention made of
11 these, and there are a lot of them, I think, in the area.
12 Q. Let me focus in on your report, page 2, paragraph D(i) where you
13 talk about there -- I think you give at least several reasons why, at
14 least with respect to the numbers of damaged buildings as provided by the
15 Islamic community, how it was not reliable. Are we on the -- do you see
16 what I'm talking about?
17 A. I think so.
18 Q. I think one of the things you talk about is that for example, the
19 lists that they provided, that were provided to you, was often prepared in
20 the perspective of reconstructions, meaning that sites that were no longer
21 of interest were left out.
22 A. Or sites that may be you wanted to build something on, you would
23 refer to.
24 Q. So that was a factor that helped account to the -- account for at
25 times the unreliability of the information relayed to you. Correct?
1 A. I'm not really so sure. I'm sort of saying people don't know, in
2 fact, how many buildings there are. To give you an example, very often
3 you have maybe an old building, which is in the process of being abandoned
4 for a new building, you see, which is in construction, or has been
5 constructed. And then people just simply neglect the existence of the old
6 building. For example, in Prijedor Municipality, the investigators went
7 around with the imam, and he showed them this, showed them that, this has
8 disappeared, so on and so forth. The imam did not take them to see a
9 whole series of buildings I found. Those buildings weren't in Omerdic's
10 list, they were in a narrative provided by a local imam, and that's how I
11 found these particular sites. So this goes back to lack of organisation,
12 lack of communication, rather than fiddling things really at the level of
13 the numbers of buildings, I think.
14 Q. In that same paragraph, you talk about how material provided for
15 the Tribunal more recently in 2001 or later is sometimes unreliable,
16 "inflating the number of destroyed establishments". What did you mean by
18 A. Okay, this is true. I give the example of Kljuc Municipality.
19 Where we happened to have a good document by the local president of the
20 board of the community, it's a good document about the history of this
21 community, the ones that don't exist, the mosques that got destroyed and
22 so on and so forth. And then we have a list of buildings provided by the
23 Islamic community later on, and it has two buildings that the imam has
24 said, "well, this one was destroyed in World War II and this one was
25 destroyed at another time." That is -- I don't know what you want to call
1 it, but that's very unreliable, the least that one can say. And you have
2 to take a very careful look. But at the same time, I should say I didn't
3 say here, is that list also indicates a few other buildings that
4 are -- their existence is corroborated in a transcript. But when I went
5 around and asked people, is such and such, does it exist, nobody had
6 anything to say. So it cuts both ways. You really have to be careful.
7 Q. Okay. Just recently you talked about Omerdic's work, and then you
8 referred to Mr. Zukic. Am I pronouncing that word properly. Let me talk
9 about Omerdic's work because in your report you indicate interesting
10 baseline figures are provided by Omerdic. What did you mean by
11 "interesting baseline figures"?
12 A. This is a good place to start with.
13 Q. But then there are also limitations on this work in your study.
14 Am I correct?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. What were those limitations?
17 A. I'd have to go back to this. I tend to get rid of things that are
18 inconvenient -- not inconvenient, but no longer relevant. I say quite
19 clearly when he underestimates the number of mosques, mesdzids and mektebs
20 in the municipalities of Prijedor and Sanski Most. In the municipality of
21 Prijedor, he indicates buildings that had disappeared before the war. He
22 indicates ten destroyed mektebs in the municipality of Bosanski Novi in
23 the tables of his books. Doesn't mention any damage to the same mektebs,
24 and these mektebs do not figure in the list.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the record, sir.
1 THE WITNESS: Should I repeat.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: I think you better do.
3 THE WITNESS: I'm quoting from myself on page 2, Omerdic, "he
4 underestimates the numbers of mosques, mesdzids and mektebs in the
5 municipality of Prijedor and Sanski Most. In the Municipality of Prijedor
6 he indicates buildings that had disappeared before the war. Moreover, he
7 notes ten destroyed mektebs in the municipality of Bosanski Novi in the
8 tables of his book" --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the
11 THE WITNESS: Can I read it a third time. Okay. All right.
12 "Moreover, he notes ten destroyed mektebs in the municipality of
13 Bosanski Novi in the tables of his book, but does not describe any damage
14 to any named mektebs in the text, and these buildings do not figure in
15 documents submitted by the Islamic community." And I apologise for my
17 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
18 Q. Well it, provides interesting baseline figures, where to start,
19 beyond that do you find it a reliable work in your position as a
21 A. When we go on to another dimension. This is destroyed, this is
22 totally destroyed, that kind of information. Then I start to have
23 problems with these kinds of documents.
24 Q. Another author we talked about was Zukic, and I want to talk to
25 you about him, because I believe, and stop me if I'm mischaracterising
1 your earlier testimony, that much like Omerdic's, you found this to be a
2 good starting point, but beyond that, you had some questions with it about
3 its reliability as a historian.
4 A. I find it perfectly understandable that people feel passionately
5 about these events. I find it completely normal. Mr. Zukic, I think,
6 feels very passionately about these events, this enormous tragedy which
7 happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I feel that people from the international
8 community, that's why UNESCO is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, are trying to lead
9 the semblance of living together, and I think that living together is
10 important and we should work on it. We have a responsibility.
11 I have followed -- used Mr. Zukic's photographs because they are
12 taken in the fall/winter -- maybe 1996 or 1997. They are very useful
13 because they reproduces buildings that have disappeared or have been
14 changed or something. The information given in the texts, I take with a
15 very large grain of salt, about damaging.
16 Q. And that is because the passion that you've talked about affects
17 his findings and his representations in that book. Correct?
18 A. Yes, I think so.
19 Q. Would it be fair to say beyond the pictures, photographs provided
20 in that book, and the assistance those photographs gave you in your
21 investigation that Mr. Zukic's work is of limited value?
22 A. I think it is of limited value. I'm not saying that there are not
23 things of utility in the text themselves, but I think it is of limited
25 Q. Now, I'm going to get back to something that you talked about
1 earlier, and that is you talked about how at times, materials provided to
2 you by what I'll call the local Islamic community, some were good, and at
3 other times, some were bad. At times, you found them to be helpful; and
4 other times, I think you kind of just brushed them off, and that's my
5 term, and I don't mean any disrespect towards you when I bring that up.
6 How can you tell -- it seemed to me that the value of the material
7 provided was a function of the particular Islamic -- local Islamic
8 community. Right?
9 A. It's a function of the particular community, and I think function
10 of the time that the documents are, in fact, drawn up.
11 Q. How could you as a historian -- let's talk about the particular
12 community. How could you as a historian determine whether it was good or
13 bad? Was that determined on an ad hoc basis based on the particular
14 community? Does that question make any sense?
15 A. When you see something is described in a document, and its
16 condition is it's mined and burned and you actually go and see in fact it
17 is mined and burned, that's a good start. When the document usually says
18 completely destroyed, that's another consideration, but the document has
19 actually made an observant remark about something -- maybe I didn't
20 explain myself completely clearly. But documents that are established for
21 another purpose such as convincing the -- a donor or something like that
22 or what are we going to build, the documents from the Islamic community
23 Prijedor are really very, very targeted, and in some ways -- these are the
24 best ones, they are targeted at the question of "are we going to do this
25 building or not?" So you get fairly realistic comments about the
1 building, which again can be confirmed by what I see on the ground. That
2 does, in fact, correspond to the condition.
3 Now, when you're talking about something like dates, that's still
4 somewhat different. If you feel the general configuration of the document
5 is it's not fiddling, it's not telling lies, it's not drawn up for some
6 other function, then the other information that pops up in it is
7 interesting because that's not part of, particularly, the strategy. This
8 is not so important information to the people drawing up the document. If
9 people drawing up a document, because they want to say something happened
10 here than there, that time, it's a different document, and this is what I
11 felt with notably two of these series from Sanski Most and from Prijedor.
12 Q. Let me go back to what you said. It was often a function of the
13 particular community and the timing. What did you mean by the timing? Is
14 it if it's issued in 1993 during conflict or -- does that affect it, or is
15 it closer to the trial it becomes more reliable? What generally speaking
16 are you talking about there?
17 A. These documents that I'm talking about, I think they're about
18 1997. Documents that are 1999, 2000, 2001 are closer to this trial. And
19 as they get closer to the trial, then the questions that you and His
20 Honour sort of asked become questions you have to think about.
21 Q. Documents prepared in anticipation of a trial are less reliable.
22 Is that what I'm hearing?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. One of the things -- one of the documents - and I believe
25 it was from Sanski Most - that was the documents that talked about, dealt
1 with trying to convince a donor for money, you found those documents to
2 be -- to have a special indicia of reliability. Correct?
3 A. I think they're -- I'm not saying they're a hundred per cent
4 reliable. I think they are very useful documents to look at closely.
5 Q. It brings me back to something that His Honour asked you, and that
6 was about, you know, insurance claims, overinflating insurance claims.
7 How can -- and you know, certainly, I mean no disrespect when I ask this,
8 but if -- it seems to me that if someone is looking for money, that
9 sometimes they paint the picture a whole lot worse than it actually is.
10 And can you see how that could happen? We're going to talk --
11 A. That's fine. I understand perfectly well. I understand your
12 question. If you go back to sort of the answer I gave to an earlier
13 question, it was if a document said "this is burned and mined" that was
14 good for me. If it said it was a hundred per cent destroyed and it wasn't
15 a hundred per cent destroyed, I ignored that part of it. Any document in
16 Bosnia that has a number on it after the war is inflated. And anything
17 that has six 0s behind it is going to be inflated. It just goes that way.
18 Yes, in this case, a community is trying to fool somebody else.
19 It's not worried about Dr. Kaiser, and it's not worried about the
20 Tribunal. He's worried about the donor.
21 Q. But wouldn't you agree with me in trying to fool that donor, he
22 could make -- the author of that document could try to make things look a
23 lot worse than it actually was, figuring, we'll ask for a hundred thousand
24 deutschmarks and hopefully we'll get the 40.000 that we need. See could
25 that be a consideration, I guess is the fair way to ask it?
1 A. Definitely it could be a consideration, but it's of no interest to
3 Q. I know that. But don't you think that that could affect the
4 reliability of the documents?
5 A. Definitely. Yes, these are all documents that had to be handled
6 with enormous care. Even the ones that I think that are very interesting.
7 Q. If I've gone over this material, I apologise, but I want to cite
8 you to a passage you have in your report that talks about "partisan
9 works that mix serious information with propaganda, and at times it is
10 difficult to separate the two." And I apologise to you, I can't cite you
11 to the page and paragraph of, that but does that sound like a paragraph
12 you wrote?
13 A. I definitely wrote that, yes.
14 Q. Tell us what you meant by that.
15 A. I'm concerned by all the documents that I receive from religious
16 communities after the war. I'm concerned by them. They mix things. Even
17 a good document is mixing things.
18 Q. Is that because of the passion that you've talked about with
19 respect to Mr. Zukic, often finds it's way into those documents?
20 A. It's passion, sometimes it's not just passion. In fact, it's
21 something else. It's a feeling, it's the kind of wound that has been put
22 into people because of what they have seen, and maybe that's passion.
23 It's a little different from document to document. It's passion; it's
24 wounds, trying to convince an audience of something, all sorts of elements
25 to this mixture of propaganda and truth.
1 Q. I want to go to the very -- I found this next passage I want to
2 talk to you about. It's the very last paragraph on paragraph 3, in the
3 portion of the very next sentence where you talk about how the local
4 literature is vague and exaggerated, and it continues into the next
5 sentence that -- let me just go ahead and limit it to the vague and
6 exaggerated local literature. Is that again another manifestation of what
7 we talked about earlier about the overexaggeration that you see in these
9 A. Yes, it is.
10 Q. Okay.
11 If we can also go -- I'm going to take you to paragraph 6F on page
12 6 of your report, and I don't mean to be -- I take it back. It's
13 paragraph F on page 6. I apologise for that. And I don't mean to be
14 plowing old ground, but at the very last sentence in that very first
15 paragraph under paragraph F, you talk about the ICTY and documents
16 provided to the ICTY. That is, again, a reaffirmation of what we talked
17 about earlier, about the question of documents prepared in anticipation of
18 litigation or the trial. Correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Okay.
21 As a historian, you can rely on your secondary sources, but it's
22 also a wonderful thing to go out into the field and do your own
23 investigation. And you had the opportunity to do that, and I want to talk
24 to you about that. In paragraph F, you make this statement, and talking
25 about "my field trips were useful in discerning the condition of the site
1 and charting the overall tendency of treatment to the sacral buildings but
2 did not provide many clues --"
3 THE INTERPRETER: Will you please read slowly, sir.
4 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Absolutely. I apologise. Let me take it from
5 the start. I'm at the very first sentence under paragraph F.
6 Q. "My field trips were useful in discerning the condition of a site
7 and in charting the overall tendency of treatment to sacral buildings, but
8 they did not provide many clues on the chronology of the destruction and
9 damaging of these buildings during the war." Tell us what you meant by
11 A. I think it's self-explanatory. I mean, there's no date, there's
12 no date on a ruin.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. It's fairly clear.
15 Q. I want to talk to you about something that I'll call "rules of
16 engagement" and I think in some of your other reports, you might have
17 talked about -- let's see if I can find it. And of course, I can't. But
18 let me -- by rules of engagement, it could be rules that the command,
19 military command, lays down about how to engage and where to engage and
20 under what conditions to engage the enemy. And do you understand
21 basically what I'm talking about there?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. And I'm talking about your report and your personal observations.
24 Can your -- can you discern between damage caused by what I'll call - and
25 excuse the phrase - legitimate combat occasioned by, let's say, artillery
1 damage caused by an effort to weed out combatants inside a sacral building
2 as opposed to artillery damage just for the sake of blowing something up?
3 Can your reports discern that?
4 A. The observation of a building does not permit you, and my activity
5 is for the most part linked to the observation of conditions. I cannot
6 decide if something has been hit by artillery, if it was justified or if
7 it wasn't justified.
8 Q. And that's obvious, and I'm just asking these questions for the
9 record, and I believe you can understand and respect that.
10 You've collected secondary source histories. You've done your own
11 interviews where it was appropriate and where you had the opportunity to
12 do it at the scene. And I know the answer to this, but your report
13 likewise cannot discern whether the destroyed buildings were ever used in
14 a military context by any combatants. Am I correct?
15 A. This is really difficult. I cannot say if something was used. As
16 you get farther away from the war, you get further away from that
17 possibility. Earlier, in the war itself, after the war, there are often
18 traces. There are bullet cases, there is this, there is that. There are
19 soldiers' clothes, there's all sorts of different things. Seven years
20 after a war, it's very, very difficult from the observation of the
21 particular scene.
22 Q. With respect, I'm going to talk to you briefly about minarets, and
23 I want to apologise for my ignorance in the area of minarets. Are those
24 much like a church tower, bell tower, are those accessible at all?
25 A. No. They are very accessible. I can feel your question coming.
1 They are very, very accessible, but they're very different from a belfry,
2 a church tower.
3 Q. What I'm getting at, can an individual make its way up to the
5 A. Yes, of course.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Traditionally, I don't know what the person is
7 usually called in Islam, but someone goes up the minaret and sings songs
8 from it, and then areas, say in Egypt, sometimes, you have a tape recorder
9 instead of an individual up there. But you certainly can go up there. Or
10 a record player.
11 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
12 Q. With respect to the urban mosque, did you find - and I'm going to
13 ask for a general conclusion if you can draw this conclusion - were the
14 mosques ever generally speaking at a crossroad, at an intersection in the
15 roadway or...?
16 A. I just wouldn't like to generalise. Some are on corners, and some
17 aren't on corners.
18 Q. That's a fair answer, and I respect that.
19 Now, one of the things you've talked about and made reference to
20 both in your reports and in your testimony today was the mining of
21 minarets and the mining of mosques. And I know from prior testimony,
22 prior transcripts that you've provided that have been provided to this
23 Court, that you've testified that in some circumstances, and I'm sure that
24 there are some within the area of your study here, that the minings, the
25 destruction of the minarets was caused by explosives set by someone who
1 had training in the area of explosives. Correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Much as a historian, you cannot determine what occasion, for
4 example, the artillery destruction of the sacral building I talked about
5 earlier, I would assume that as a historian, you cannot differentiate
6 between who was the person who set the explosive that destroyed the
7 minaret and caused damage to the mosque, you can't tell us whether it was
8 VGS, a paramilitary, or a civilian?
9 A. The only thing I would say is that one would expect that military
10 authorities would do a good job, their engineering troops would do a good
11 job. The one -- we don't have this in the witnesses' statements. But in
12 one of the first trips when I went to Kljuc, I talked to a woman who lived
13 near the mosque and described in rather great detail the procedure of what
14 she considered to be the army to come, lay the charges on the corners of
15 the mosques, to come around to all the houses to evacuate the houses. And
16 this is what I would call very, very professional behaviour. Okay, you're
17 blowing up the mosque but you're making certain nobody gets hurt. Because
18 the mosque is blown up in a controlled explosion with four massive, five
19 possibly charges, and the building comes down at once. And so that's a
20 professional job. Civilians walking around with explosives, they're not
21 going to do that. With more information, one can discern, to a certain
22 degree, who has done what.
23 Q. I think this was -- Ms. Richterova, I'm going to talk about the
24 statement of 15 December 1995 with you want to provide that with the
25 Court's permission and the usher's assistance. I think in there there's a
1 passage, and I apologise that I couldn't put you to the correct page. "In
2 the war, deliberate damage can be imputed to military forces on all sides.
3 It can probably be imputed to civil police and civilians as well."
4 Does that sound like thing that you found --
5 A. I found the passage.
6 Q. That is you?
7 A. That's me.
8 Q. Seven years later, I'm assuming that that position has not
9 changed --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Can you please slow down, sir.
11 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I apologise.
12 A. But one learns more over the seven years after the war. Yes,
13 definitely, my position on that would not change.
14 Q. I want to talk to you about a statement that you made in your 19
15 January, 1994 report. And I have a surprise for you because I can direct
16 you to the paragraph. The paragraph is 64, and I hope your search bears
17 me out.
18 A. I've found the paragraph.
19 Q. Here, you're talking about what you have called the double dynamic
20 of reprisal and cultural cleansing, and there is a passage that reads
21 something like this, and I will try my best to go slow. "These acts of
22 vandalism are perpetuated by representatives of authority, soldiers and
23 military, and probably civilian police. It can be posited that they are
24 sometimes deliberately ordered by local authorities, but that many of them
25 are spontaneous." Did I get the pass sage right?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. To be fair, you're speaking in terms of the BH army and the HZ
3 side, right?
4 A. Excuse me, if I look at the context of this.
5 Q. I'm going to place it in that context.
6 A. Yes, this is in the context of -- yes, I think so. Excuse me, if
7 I just can have two seconds.
8 Q. Just take your time.
9 A. Yes, you're right, it starts on in a general thing and then goes
10 towards HVO and BiH.
11 Q. Can this same statement be applied to the VGS, the spontaneity of
13 A. You notice that spontaneity is also in quotation marks in my text.
14 Q. I know that many times it's hard to find the correct word.
15 A. I have thought about this a lot over the years, and I think it's
16 very difficult to answer that. There are some spontaneous acts that are
17 of vandalism. For example, the villagers come from a village, and they go
18 to a mosque, and they take this and they take that. I think that's
19 spontaneous, and I wouldn't immediately say that they have to impute that
20 to the mayor or the police chief or whoever. The question, is it -- when
21 people are in uniforms, what degree are they spontaneous? We're saying
22 these are types of actions, types of perpetration, but at the same time,
23 we don't have any clear idea of saying what percentage of the acts are
24 spontaneous and how many are this. But there are some spontaneous acts.
25 They are not so spontaneous when they involve, let's say, a complicated
1 operation of destruction. Right? For example, the one I described.
2 That's different. But then there's a whole gradation of possibilities,
3 and you may have somebody at the other chain who has a pal who has access
4 to explosives to the local mine and says "oh, let's go ask try and do
5 this." And that can be spontaneous. That can happen. We're looking at a
6 lot of acts here which are more organised, more successful.
7 Q. As one of the - and I'm going to change topics on you a little
8 bit, and I want to talk to you about the statements, witness statements,
9 that were provided to you where the sole focus was on damage and
10 destruction to the sacral buildings. Those documents were provided
11 relatively late in the procedure. We'll say, what, within the last year
12 or so, something like that. Let's just say relatively recently.
13 A. The summaries of statements were provided a long time ago.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. The other statements that you mentioned were provided a few days
17 Q. You've talked -- you've told us how the statements prepared in
18 anticipation of litigation could be unreliable. And yet, we have here
19 statements that are provided to you focussing on the question of
20 destruction; and yet, from a historian standpoint, you find these
21 reliable. How can you differentiate between the two, distinguish between
22 the two?
23 A. You'll see in the supplement that I have a table called
24 convergencies which immediately you will understand that there's always a
25 residue somewhere of a little bit of concern. So in the convergency, I
1 try to put this beside dates that would be given by documents. That's one
2 thing. Sometimes there are a couple of witnesses or it does correspond to
3 something else in a summary made earlier. The -- in a few cases, it's
4 also linked up because what we didn't talk about is there are a number of
5 documents that emanated from Serbian authorities, police authorities, and
6 civil authorities that corroborated the witness's statement. I mean, I
7 feel even more comfortable when I encounter that kind of document. It
8 would be far better to have all the documents that come from the
9 authorities in whose name the destruction was carried out than have any
10 witnesses from the other side. I would be much happier to have those
11 documents, in fact. But we have very few of them. The original purpose
12 to establish convergencies in the first report and in this report is to
13 come closer to the truth, to find that there are types of information that
14 corroborate other types of information.
15 You're asking me an existential question to a certain degree.
16 Q. I thought all historians could answer those types of questions?
17 A. I can't answer an existential question. Each statement has to be
18 taken for what it is, felt for what it is. Some of them seem to be rather
19 weaker than others. But they are not absolute, and I really many happy to
20 put them in a convergency. It's up to the Court to decide what the sense
21 of that convergency is, concerning the defendant.
22 Q. I understand. And again, I'm asking you now kind of
23 questions -- I'm asking you questions in isolation based on some things
24 you said this afternoon. And one of the things you talked about was the
25 church at Kotor Varos, the Catholic church, and I believe it was the one
1 with the twin steeples, and you talked about the destruction in there.
2 And I think you talked about how one of the documents that you used
3 as -- to assist you as an historian with respect to this was something
4 from the Crisis Staff. Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes, that's true.
6 Q. Was that the municipal Crisis Staff document?
7 A. I think it's a municipal crisis... No, that figures as a note on
8 one of my tables.
9 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, I have this document with me, if --
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I have no objection if she wishes to tender it.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: Has it not been tendered as yet?
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: It has not been tendered because this is a
13 document from the Kotor Varos municipality, and this municipality is still
14 in front of us now.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: So we may just have a look at it now and it will be
16 tendered at a later stage, together with the other Kotor Varos documents,
17 not to create a confusion. Unless it has a number already which we will
18 keep later on.
19 MS. RICHTEROVA: This has a disclosure number --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. It's not an exhibit number.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: It doesn't have an exhibit number yet.
22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. So we'll just make use of it now, for the
23 record. But it will be tendered together with the others.
24 MR. CUNNINGHAM: My sole purpose in asking him to look at this
25 document was to confirm that it was not the regional Crisis Staff but
1 rather a municipal Crisis Staff.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: We need to refer, Dr. Kaiser, please, before you
3 answer the question you just point out that you are looking at a document
4 with the ERN number that you have on the top left corner of the page.
5 THE WITNESS: I have a number on the right-hand side.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: Then it's on the right-hand side, yes.
7 THE WITNESS: Okay, I have 3.213.
8 JUDGE AGIUS: No.
9 THE WITNESS: I have this number. That's pages. Then I have
10 01909955 in my hands.
11 JUDGE AGIUS: That's just for the record. Now proceed with the
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
14 Q. And that is from the municipality Crisis Staff, Kotor Varos
15 municipal Crisis Staff?
16 A. This translation does not -- it just says "Crisis Staff." I am
17 really not sure.
18 Q. Fair enough.
19 A. Signed Nedjeljko Djekanovic.
20 Q. Again, moving to a slightly different topic, the maps that you
21 presented to this Court, the various maps that you prepared that have come
22 in as exhibits, do those maps include sacral buildings that were damaged
23 in 1993 or simply those damaged in 1992 based on your investigation?
24 A. It's all the buildings. That's the condition of all the buildings
25 damaged throughout the period 1992-1995.
1 Q. Final area that I want to talk to you about is in your report, in
2 your testimony, you've talked about the differences between a rural
3 pattern of destruction and an urban pattern of destruction. And I believe
4 you showed us a mosque that fell in the context of the urban pattern of
5 destruction. When you found, and do you remember which mosque I'm talking
6 about? I believe we looked at a picture of it.
7 A. Kevljani, I think, the first mosque I think we looked at.
8 Q. Would you find that when you saw this urban pattern of
9 destruction, would you find that the damage to the mosque would be
10 consistent with the buildings, say, within a one-block radius of it, or
11 how would you...?
12 A. Well, usually the target is a specific target. Going after a
13 given building, you want that building. And usually certain amount of
14 care is taken to minimise damage around. This is usually the case.
15 The -- if a house has been pulled down because something was burned or
16 mined, I'm not certain that I will know necessarily about it. There are a
17 lot of photographs in the reports, and they very, very often show
18 buildings that are very close by, and there -- very, very often, if they
19 were damaged it's because the windows blew in. The tiles were blown off
20 the roof by the detonation. But you can usually get the sense that
21 destruction is really for that building, and it's not an intention to
22 destroy everything else around it.
23 Q. Okay. And that's generally speaking, your conclusion. But based
24 on what you saw on your field trips - and I realise it's after the fact
25 and there are limitations because the passage of time and other events
1 beyond your control - but did you ever find the situation where the damage
2 to the mosque would be consistent with the damages to the buildings
4 A. You're talking about the town pattern now.
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. The town pattern, now. I think basically, from what I've seen,
7 no, it's a fairly consistent pattern. The buildings in that area around
8 are usually not damaged, but I haven't photographed consistently or looked
9 at all the buildings around, but that's the sense that I have in the
11 In a rural area, you might find something quite different.
12 Q. And your report speaks to that, and your findings there.
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your Honour, may I have a moment to confer with
14 Ms. Baruch, please.
15 [Defence counsel confer]
16 MR. CUNNINGHAM: If I may proceed, Your Honour.
17 Q. Dr. Kaiser, as a historian, I would assume that the more documents
18 that you have, the more sources that you have that can lead you in your
19 investigation, the better. I think that's a given. Correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And you've talked about how at least with respect to the review of
22 the Crisis Staff that you just talked about, you found that document to be
23 helpful in reaching your conclusions. Correct?
24 A. These are particularly helpful sorts of documents.
25 Q. If there was, for example, an official document that directed
1 individuals to not destroy mosques or other religious sites, likewise,
2 would that document be important in your investigation, in your findings?
3 A. That would be extremely interesting to have. It goes without
5 Q. Okay. Do you remember if any documents like that were ever
6 provided to you in the course of your studies?
7 A. In fact, there are very, very few documents that emanate from the
8 local Serbian authorities, in fact. So there is not -- there's not one
9 like the one you mentioned.
10 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Again, may I have again have one final conference
11 with Ms. Baruch, and then I believe I'm close to finishing.
12 [Defence counsel confer]
13 MR. CUNNINGHAM:
14 Q. You're finding out what a lawyer's last question is. All of the
15 documents that you have based your findings on were either documents that
16 were provided to you by the Office of the Prosecutor or the Tribunal, or
17 were documents that you collected in the course of your investigations in
18 this area. Correct?
19 A. That's correct, yes.
20 MR. CUNNINGHAM: I believe that's all I have, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.
22 Mrs. Richterova, do you have re-examination?
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: No, Your Honour. I do not have any questions.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. May I ask you a question to clarify
1 This morning amongst the confusion and the documents that we had,
2 I was given four sheets of paper. The first two I can place, they being
3 the first one as being a translation from B/C/S of what became then
4 P1884.2. Together with it, however, there were another two sheets of
5 paper, one in B/C/S, and the other one is a translation of it, a document
6 which allegedly is signed by Mr. Semir Hazic with ERN number 03078845 for
7 the English text. And 01149434 for the B/C/S text.
8 Was that tendered or do you intend to tender that as an exhibit?
9 And if yes, what number are you going to give it?
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm going to give you the explanation. When I
11 was copying these documents, I included by mistake these B/C/S versions.
12 They, of course, are already part of the documents which we tendered into
13 evidence. I think it was Sanski Most, if I am not wrong. And these
14 translations were just for you.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: But these last two pages, particularly the English
16 one, in which of the other documents that were tendered this morning do I
17 find it? It is definitely Sanski Most, but...
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: If it is Sanski Most, then it is --
19 JUDGE AGIUS: It seems to be Islamic community in BH...
20 MS. RICHTEROVA: You will find it under P1884.2, and the
21 translation is 03078345. Is it correct?
22 JUDGE AGIUS: 8845.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA: 8845, I apologise. So it is really a translation
24 of Document 01149434, which part of 1884.2.
25 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, I've found it. All right. It's the
1 fourth page in P1884.2. The first two refer to page 1; the last two refer
2 to page 4.
3 Yes, Dr. Kaiser, we tried to keep our commitment with you and
4 bring your testimony to an end. I have no questions, unless Judge Janu
5 has any questions to you, all that remains for me to do is to thank you
6 for having come over once more to give testimony before this Tribunal.
7 It's very much appreciated, also for the objective way in which you have
8 carried out your investigations and prepared your report and your
9 testimony here. You will be attended to allow you to return to your
10 country of residence. And on behalf of the Tribunal, we wish you a safe
12 So tomorrow, we start with 7.113, I think, or something like that.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, correct.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: And I did not misread you earlier on, you were sort
16 of a harbinger of bad news, what's the problem for Friday?
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: The witness is invalid, and he is very ill. And
18 we still do not have the doctor's approval to call this witness, so we are
19 trying to find a way to videolink his testimony and hopefully we will know
20 tomorrow morning whether he is able to come; and if he is not able to
21 come, whether the videolink is a possibility, how to obtain the testimony
22 from this witness.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: The important thing is that you must put us in a
24 position where we know if on Friday whether we are working or not
25 working -- whether we are sitting or not sitting. Whether we are sitting
1 or not. The Defence ought to know because they need to prepare for this
2 witness if we are moving ahead or prepare for some other witness, or we
3 are not sitting on Friday.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA: Unfortunately, it is not possible to bring
5 another witness at such a short notice because this witness was convinced,
6 he was convinced that he would be able to arrive. But the doctor's almost
7 last word is "I do not recommend the journey to The Hague." So we are
8 still -- we still do not know whether the witness would come or not.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Dr. Kaiser, please, you may leave. Thank you
10 once more.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: But what I want is for someone from the Prosecution
13 to put us in the picture tomorrow so that we know whether they need to
14 start preparing for this witness for Friday, irrespective of whether it's
15 a videolink or not. If nothing is going to happen, they don't need to
16 start preparing for that witness; they can start preparing for someone
17 else, someone who will come over next week.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: I understand, Your Honour. And the Defence and
19 you will be informed today.
20 JUDGE AGIUS: All right, okay. That's fair enough. All right.
21 And we will be the last to know presumably. The case stands adjourned
22 until tomorrow morning at 9.00. Tomorrow, I take it we are sitting only
23 normal hours, until quarter to 2.00. Thank you.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
25 at 4.00, to be reconvened on Wednesday,
1 the 28th day of May, 2003,
2 at 9.00 a.m.