1 Thursday, 25 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.
7 Mr. Registrar, can you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the
13 MR. NEUNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning, Counsel
14 and everybody in and around the courtroom. For the Prosecution,
15 Ms. Laurie Sartorio, Matthias Neuner, and our case managers, Alma Imamovic
16 and Fraser McIlwraith.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Neuner.
18 And for the Defence.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
20 morning to my learned friend from the Office of the Prosecutor and
21 everyone in and around the courtroom. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and
22 together with Nicholas Robson, I appear on behalf of General Delic, with
23 our legal assistant, Lana Deljkic.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
25 And good morning to you, sir, Mr. Husic.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning. And just to warn you that you are
3 still bound by the declaration you made at the beginning of your testimony
4 to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth. Okay?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand that.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, you are still cross-examining.
7 Thank you.
8 WITNESS: EDIN HUSIC [Resumed]
9 [Witness answered through interpreter]
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic: [Continued]
12 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Husic. I hope you have rested.
13 I won't take much longer.
14 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the day before
15 yesterday -- the day before yesterday we stopped working with -- when it
16 was time for Exhibit 640 to be shown to the witness. The witness asked to
17 be allowed to read the document.
18 If it is easier for the witness, Your Honour, I can give him a
19 hard copy.
20 Q. Witness, can you read off the screen? Since it appears to be
21 somewhat illegible, can you read that?
22 A. Perhaps a paper copy would do better.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we have the English one pushed up. Yes, thank
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could we please scroll down in the
1 B/C/S, since I cannot see the bottom of the document.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, now you can see
3 the rest of the document. We've enlarged it; therefore, we were not able
4 to see the signature block before.
5 Q. But, Witness, can you see it now?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Very well.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we see the rest of the document in English,
9 please. I'm trying to see the name of the person who signed. Thank you.
10 "Name illegible." Okay.
11 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Witness, as regards this document, you've already answered some
13 questions. Your Honour -- His Honour asked you something about the first
14 sentence, whereby several soldiers captured are mentioned, and here we
15 have some information on one prisoner.
16 It is true, is it not, is that this document by way of information
17 was forwarded to the 37th Division, as the document reads?
18 A. It is correct.
19 Q. That was because the military unit that this soldier was serving
20 with was from an area which was of interest for the 37th Division.
21 A. Yes. From the document, one can see that the unit was engaged in
22 the area of responsibility of the 37th Division.
23 Q. And that is the reason why you sent information to the 37th
24 Division only on one this one person; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, it is.
1 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
2 questions concerning this document; perhaps the Bench may.
3 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I just wanted to know to see
4 whether the witness was able to recognise the signature, which according
5 to the interpreters was illegible.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you have the signature in mind, I
7 cannot recognise it. This is a truly poor copy.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to recognise the name of the author
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the left-hand side
12 from the signature block, it says: "MSA/AP," I believe. "MS" would stand
13 for Mrkaljevic Sejfulah; therefore, he should be the author of the
15 As regards the portion where the name cannot be seen, I have a
16 somewhat better copy in -- on paper before me. Perhaps I can read it off
17 that copy, but I cannot read it off the screen.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please read it off the hard copy, sir.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I be of assistance?
20 We enlarged that version; therefore, on the hard copy, there is no
21 signature block. We only enlarged the body of the text, but perhaps on
22 the screen we can zoom in on the signature block itself.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I don't understand what you mean in the
24 document, the hard copy doesn't have any signature block, ma'am. Is it
25 the same paper? Is it the same document as we are seeing on the screen?
1 Why doesn't it have that page which has a signature?
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is the same
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
5 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] However, the enlarged copy -- the
6 enlarged copy, Your Honour, that we received had no signature; however,
7 the body of the text is exactly the same. If you wish, you can have a
8 look at it. It is identical save for the signature block.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not asking for the enlarged copy. I'm just
10 asking him to read from the hard copy the name of this person. The name
11 of this person, even if there is no signature, must be there. The name of
12 the author, not the drafter. The drafter he has told us is "MSC," but we
13 want to know the person who takes ownership of this document.
14 Are you able to find that name, sir, from the hard copy.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the paper copy
16 before me, that part is missing. You can see it for yourself, if you wish
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. If you look at this enlarged document on the
19 screen, are you able to make out the name of that person?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I truly cannot.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's a poor copy.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Excuse me. I had a question to the witness before
2 we conclude this document.
3 And my question is: Why was the information, information that was
4 given by the witness -- by the prisoner of war, not passed on to the other
5 units that took part in this same operation? Or to put my question in
6 another way: What happened to the information that was offered by the
7 other prisoners of war?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we can only see from
9 this document that it was sent to the command of the 37th Division;
10 however, that doesn't necessarily mean that information was not forwarded
11 to other units in a different form, since we would usually send circular
12 information on a weekly basis. What I can confirm based on this document
13 is what is contained therein and what can be seen.
14 As regards the second part of your question, also based on this
15 document alone, I cannot confirm or say anything about other prisoners and
16 whether such information was forwarded or not. If I was shown some other
17 documents of that nature, perhaps I could be able to confirm something;
18 but judging by this document alone, I cannot state that.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: And, finally, was all of this information passed
20 on to the General Staff?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it was standard
22 procedure that everything that was our -- at our disposal be forwarded to
23 them; however, I can only repeat that by the looks of this document alone
24 it was -- it seems only to have been sent to the command of the 37th
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you so much.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic, you may proceed.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can put this document away.
4 Could the witness be shown a document already shown by the
5 Prosecutor. This is Exhibit 634.
6 Q. Witness, do you recall having seen this document?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. It is a 3rd Corps command document of the intelligence department,
9 dated the 9th of September.
10 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Perhaps we can scroll down so that
11 the witness could see. Yes.
12 Q. This is your signature, is it not? That's what you've confirmed
14 A. That is correct.
15 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we also scroll down in the
16 English, or perhaps could we focus on this part of the text. I meant to
17 say the first paragraph of the text. Could both versions be centred so as
18 to be able to see that part of the text. The English one as well. It is
19 fine now.
20 Q. Witness, I wanted to draw your attention to this part of the
21 document. This document speaks of the fact that the liberation has been
22 concluded pertaining to the wider area of Seona, Stog, and Vozuca, and
23 you've offered your comment.
24 The next sends reads: "The establishment of an authority is
25 underway in Vozuca, where there are around 200 MUP members."
1 I'd like to ask you this: You received information that on that
2 day, on the day of liberation of Vozuca, there were 200 MUP members who
3 were trying to establish some sort of governance or authority.
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. The MUP is the Ministry of the Interior, meaning the civilian
6 police; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. These 200 members were assisting the military police of the 2nd
9 and 3rd Corps in order to introduce some order; is that so?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This information is what was received by the intelligence
12 administration of the General Staff; is that correct?
13 A. Yes. It was sent to them.
14 Q. Do you agree that 200 MUP members is a large number of policemen
15 that arrived to introduce some order in the area?
16 A. Yes, it's a fairly sizable number.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] We can move away from this document
19 now, Your Honour.
20 Q. I'd like to show you another document. In your testimony, when
21 responding to the Prosecutor's questions, some of them had to do with the
22 El Mujahedin Detachment. Concerning that, I'd like to show you D588.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] This is not D588. This is the
24 document. Now it's on. Okay.
25 Could the English version be focused.
1 Q. Witness, this is a document of the Ministry of the Interior from
2 Zenica. The date is 2nd September 1995.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please blow up the first
4 half of the document for the witness, and the version in B/C/S. Thank
6 Your Honour, I think it would be better for the witness to peruse
7 the hard copy, because it's much clearer than the copy on the screen and
8 it is also more complete.
9 Thank you.
10 Q. Witness, this is the minutes of 2nd September, but the minutes
11 concern a session that was held by the Ministry of the Interior in Zenica
12 and the representatives of the military security of the 3rd Corps. Am I
13 right in saying that? This session was held on the 28th of August, 1995,
14 according to this document.
15 A. Yes, that's what I can read in the document.
16 Q. Yes. And now I would like to ask you this: The third name from
17 the top, Mr. Edo Husic, the assistant commander for intelligence, is that
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. The question is: Is your nickname "Edo"? I apologise for asking
21 you this.
22 A. Yes, that's what they normally call me.
23 Q. And now will you agree that -- or do you agree, do you remember,
24 first of all, that you attended a meeting at which you discussed the
25 issues -- issue of citizens originating from African and Asian countries
1 with the persons who are mentioned in this document?
2 A. I can't remember, but would you please allow me to read the
3 document to remind myself of the contents.
4 Q. Of course. Go ahead.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Q. Particularly pay attention to the third page of that document and
7 item 5, which is important for us as it concerns the detachment. The
8 other bullet points do not concern the detachment.
9 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] And for the Honourable Chamber,
10 could the last page of the document be put on the screen for the
11 Honourable Chamber's use.
12 Q. Item 5 in this document says that: "The incidents involving
13 persons from African and Asian countries. It is being said that those are
14 members of the El Mujahid Detachment, which is arbitrary nation. And the
15 conclusion is that measures should be taken, when such incidents are
16 investigated involving persons from African and Asian countries, these
17 persons should be identified."
18 Do you remember whether you ever attended a meeting where such
19 issues were discussed?
20 A. I believe so.
21 Q. It is also stated herein that some malevolent persons spread
22 rumours that all persons originating from African and Asian countries are
23 members of the El Mujahid Detachment; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, I can read it here.
25 Q. And now what I would like to ask you is this: Did you personally
1 hear, at least at that meeting, that there were several different groups
2 of Arabs that acted in the territory of Central Bosnia in the course of
3 1995 independently of the El Mujahedin; i.e., of the El Mujahid
5 A. Of course I can't remember the details of that meeting, but the
6 fact remains that there were several people who hailed from those
7 countries and arrived from those countries. It is absolutely certain that
8 they were not all members of this El Mujahid Detachment, and it is also
9 true that they were involved in certain incidents.
10 Q. Please, did you have information about some other groups, save for
11 the El Mujahid Detachment, that were active in the territory of Central
12 Bosnia? I'm not talking about individuals; I'm talking about groups, if
13 you know.
14 A. As far as I can remember, people from African and Asian countries
15 mostly settled in the area around Travnik, in Mehurici, for example. That
16 was one area in particular. I believe that there were also such people in
17 the area of Zepce, in the general area of Zepce, rather than in town
18 itself. I believe that there were some in the area of Tesanj.
19 Q. And now I would like to ask you this: Please, based on the
20 discussion at this meeting, it seems that our state and military bodies
21 could not tell the difference between these Arabs and that they were not
22 in a position to tell who participated in certain incidents and that's why
23 they insist on identifying these people. Am I right in saying that?
24 A. Yes, in a way you are. All of us in the BiH army wore uniforms
25 and this was not their custom, so how could you tell a difference at all?
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can this document be
3 given an exhibit number, please.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: Before we do so, I would like to put a question
5 relating to this document to the witness.
6 Mr. Husic, why was there a need to identify particularly members
7 of the El Mujahid Detachment?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to answer with
9 any degree of precision, but it was very important to know who was
10 creating problems when it came to public peace and order.
11 From the intelligence point of view, since we were in charge of
12 this activity, we were responsible for this activity. Contacts with
13 members of foreign military and international organisations, it was very
14 important for us to know what was happening, because every time you were
15 in a situation, when you were told that this was done by the Mujahedin, it
16 was very important for us, to put it that way, to know whether they were
17 indeed members of the El Mujahid Detachment or some other -- others who
18 only looked the same or looked that way.
19 And why is that? Because if members of the El Mujahid Detachment
20 were involved, then we were duty-bound to inform the commander; and if
21 those people were civilians, then they were not our responsibility but,
22 rather, the responsibility of the civilian police.
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: Were the members of the El Mujahid Detachment
24 known commonly to be particularly misbehaving against the local
25 population? Was that the reason?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wouldn't be able to give you an
2 exact answer to that.
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: The other groups that you mentioned in Zepce and
4 elsewhere, were they outside the area of responsibility of the 3rd Corps?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We can say that they were not, but
6 it all depended on the time frame.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, then I don't understand the reason why it
8 was important to have a meeting with the CSB in order to identify
9 particularly the members of the El Mujahid Detachment, but you have given
10 your answer to this question. I guess that there's not more information
11 we can have about this point, so I suggest we move on.
12 Thank you.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, is it true that this
15 document refers rather to incidents which was upsetting law and order,
16 rather than behaviour patterns that occurred during combat activities?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, one may put it that way. It
18 was very important to know who is responsible and to make a distinction
19 between the military part and the civilian part. The responsibilities had
20 to be well-defined so as to take proper measures, and this was the goal of
21 the meeting.
22 If we were able to identify the perpetrators, then we knew who was
23 responsible for them, but I can agree that what is mentioned here is
24 mostly measures and violations of public peace and order.
25 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this clarification.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to have to do this. Could you explain to
2 us what "CSB," "SJB," and "BVP" mean.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, "CSB" is Security
4 Services Centre, which is a segment of the Ministry of the Interior; i.e.,
5 this is the civilian police.
6 Here I can see "SJB," which is Public Security Service; although,
7 I believe that in the document there should also be "SVB," which would be
8 Military Security Service.
9 As for the "BVP," that is the Battalion of the Military Police,
10 the Military Police Battalion.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 A little earlier, in response to an answer, you mentioned that you
13 wore a uniform. What did you mean to imply by that? It is generally
14 known that soldiers must wear a uniform. Why was it necessary to mention
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that because a lot of people
17 from African and Asian countries wore civilian clothes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did the El Mujahedin Detachment not to wear a
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe they did, but I also
21 believe that there were those who did not wear uniforms; although -- I
22 apologise. If you're not on duty, if you had time off, then you did not
23 have to wear a uniform. You were not duty-bound to wear a uniform on your
24 free time.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's applicable to everybody, all soldiers. All
1 soldiers who are off duty didn't have to wear a uniform, did they?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree with you; but
3 for the purposes of identification, it was very important to identify all
4 those who committed certain breaches or violations of law.
5 But, generally speaking, people tended to believe that all those
6 who hail from African and Asian countries were members of the El Mujahid.
7 That's why we wanted to establish their identity, in order to be sure
8 whether they indeed belonged to the El Mujahid Detachment or not.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to ask you a very straightforward
10 question: When the El Mujahedin Detachment was in combat, did they wear
11 a uniform?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer that, because I never
13 participated in combat together with them. They should have, but I can't
14 answer your question.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then, I don't understand why you referred to
16 "uniform" a little earlier then. Why did you refer to "uniform," then,
17 sir, if you don't know, because you used that word?
18 The impression you left me with, let me tell you, was that the
19 rest of the soldiers wear uniform and the El Mujahedin Detachment didn't.
20 Now, if that is not what the impression you are wanting to give, can you
21 tell us why you said that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I used the
23 word "uniform" because that was the most basic way to make a distinction
24 between a soldier and a civilian; however --
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: But my problem is where you said that an ordinary
1 soldier, who is off duty and not wearing uniform, he's equally difficult
2 to identify as a soldier, like it would be to identify an El Mujahedin
3 Detachment member who's off duty and not wearing uniform.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really did not understand this
5 part. I said that uniform was and is something that distinguishes a
6 soldier. But if somebody is off duty, they don't have to wear a uniform;
7 and if they commit a breach of law, they have to be identified. Maybe I
8 was misunderstood by you.
9 Of course I mentioned "uniform," because that's the easiest way to
10 tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian. I may have been
11 misunderstood by Your Honour.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Then how did you then solve the problem that
13 is mentioned in this document of making sure that you distinguish between
14 members of the El Mujahedin Detachment and other members from African
15 Arabic countries who were not members of the El Mujahedin Detachment?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the document here,
17 it says that it is necessary to identify persons; i.e., to establish their
18 exact identity, the first name, the last name, irrespective of the clothes
19 that they are wearing. In that case, if that person says that they are a
20 member of the army, the civilian police had to refer the case to the
21 military security or the military police, that will then be able to
22 establish whether that person indeed exists on the list of army members.
23 That's what I meant and that's what the document means when it
24 says that persons who are wearing civilian clothes have to be identified.
25 If, on the other hand, they are in uniform, then it's much easier to -- to
1 do all this.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, did you come across any El Mujahedin
3 Detachment member who was in uniform and was able to identify as one of
4 yours by the uniform?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I suppose I probably did.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what uniform was he wearing, sir?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't remember precisely any such
8 moment, but it would have been customary for them to wear the uniform with
9 a pattern that was worn by us at the time in the area.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's the question. It would have been customary
11 to do so. So my question to you really is did they; and if you don't
12 know, say so. If you don't know, say you don't know. I want to know what
13 actually happened on the ground. Did they wear uniform?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think they did.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
16 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. I'm going to put just one more question to you.
19 Sir, in addition to thinking that they did, did you actually see
20 them in combat? Can you tell us something about that?
21 A. Let me put it this way: I did not see them in combat, so I cannot
22 confirm any answers to such questions.
23 As far as this document is concerned, neither I nor the Department
24 for Intelligence had the obligation to establish identification. That was
25 not my duty. So even if I had encountered somebody, it was just by
1 accident at that particular moment.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't have any other
3 questions. I would kindly ask for this document to be given an exhibit
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Vidovic. But the answer to your
6 very last question raises a question in me.
7 When you say it's neither yours or the Department of
8 Intelligence's obligation to establish identification, then what
9 intelligence did you collect, sir? If you can't begin to be able to
10 distinguish between your own members and those who are not your members,
11 because the El Mujahedin Detachment was part of you, what intelligence
12 were you collecting?
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, obviously, we're
15 talking at cross-purposes here. Our forces were not a subject of work or
16 interest of the intelligence services. It was rather the enemy forces
17 that were the subject of our interest. However, the intelligence
18 department of the 3rd Corps was in charge of contacts with foreign armies
19 and international organisations that arrived with their questions,
20 statements, with their agenda, to put it that way. It was very important
21 for us to have information about --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse me, sir. I'm sorry. You're going too far.
23 I hear what you're saying, that your forces were not subject or interest
24 of the intelligence but, rather, the enemy was. But how do you know who
25 is your enemy if you don't know who your own members are?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you, Your Honours.
2 That's why there is the military intelligence service that is involved
3 with our forces. That's what you call counter-intelligence. When they
4 get hold of information and when this information concerns the enemy
5 forces, then it will be customary for them to refer that information to
7 That -- what was important for us was the enemy that was beyond
8 the contact line. If there was an enemy infiltrated within our lines,
9 then it would be the security services who would be concerned with them.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I can't take the question any further.
11 Any re-examination, sir?
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 Re-examination by Mr. Neuner:
14 Q. Good morning, Mr. Husic.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before you go for your re-examination, document
16 D588 is admitted into evidence. May it please be given an exhibit number.
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 641.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
20 MR. NEUNER:
21 Q. Good morning, Mr. Husic. I have just a few questions relating to
22 a document which you have seen on Tuesday by my learned friend, as well as
23 by myself. It is Exhibit 630.
24 MR. NEUNER: I don't think there's a need to put it up right now.
25 Q. It's the plan for intelligence support, and you explained to us it
1 is relating to Operation Farz. This is on page 70 of Tuesday's
3 You were asked by my learned friend about the axis
4 Svinjasnica-Paljenic-Stog-Miljevici-Vozuca. You will remember this. And
5 in response to her question, you said: "Given that this document is a
6 working draft, any part of the document may be subject to changes, to
8 Do you recall having said that?
9 A. I believe I did say so.
10 Q. My question to you is: Who could make such changes or
12 A. For us to be able to do our part of the work, we were supposed to
13 be provided with a general idea, general concept that was supposed to have
14 been provided by the commander. As regards our part of the planning, we
15 can introduce changes and alterations to the document if there were some
16 changes which went against the initial or general concept.
17 Another possible thing is that given that this was a working
18 version, all alterations were possible.
19 Q. Okay. I want to pick up on your answer. You say you could get
20 from the commander some suggestions. Which commander are you referring
21 to? Could you name him?
22 A. There was only one commander, that of the 3rd Corps. At the time,
23 it was Brigadier Sakib Mahmuljin.
24 Q. So, if Brigadier Mahmuljin would suggest a change in your plan for
25 intelligence support, who in fact would make the change in the working
2 A. It would be made by us, the intelligence department.
3 Q. So would you know about any change being made to your plan for
4 intelligence support?
5 A. I'm afraid I cannot understand the question fully.
6 Q. We were discussing changes -- possible changes to the working
7 draft, which is called "Plan for Intelligence Support," which you had
8 seen. My question to you was: If any such questions were made, if you as
9 the head, the assistant commander of the intelligence department of the
10 3rd Corps, would you know if changes were made to this working plan?
11 A. Yes, I should know about it.
12 Q. Okay. Having that established, could you tell me: You drew for
13 us the axis Svinjasnica-Paljenic-Stog-Miljevici-Vozuca on the map. At the
14 time, was this axis for intelligence support, this focus of intelligence
15 support changed?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Vidovic.
17 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour. The
18 Prosecutor led the witness when marking the axis; therefore, he cannot now
19 start by saying that the witness marked the axis. He did, but he was led
20 by the Prosecutor. It didn't come about because the witness was indeed
21 claiming that that particular axis was subject to the operational plan.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Neuner.
23 MR. NEUNER: I can withdraw the part of my question relating to
24 the map itself, but my question could in essence be the same.
25 Since the witness has told us that he would know any changes to be
1 made to the working plan, I can ask him without touching upon the map.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead.
3 MR. NEUNER:
4 Q. Mr. Husic, we discussed the focus of the axis for intelligence
5 support in the wider Vozuca area on the basis of a working plan. My
6 question to you is: Did you at the time become aware that this axis had
7 changed before the document was finally adopted?
8 A. I cannot recall that. In any case, Vozuca was within our area of
9 interest. I cannot confirm what the exact axis was, unless I am given a
10 document from which I can read that.
11 Q. But could you at least confirm whether you had to make changes or
13 A. I cannot confirm that either. Anything that is ordered or
14 anything that we were told to do we did. Since you're asking me about
15 this specific example, without other supporting documentation, I cannot
16 say anything for certain.
17 MR. NEUNER: Thank you very much. No further questions.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Neuner.
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a general
22 question to ask from you, but now it comes from a question which was asked
23 by the Defence this morning.
24 I would like to have some clarification concerning the status of
25 the civilian police during wartime, the civilian police who belongs to the
1 MUP. During wartime there was a cooperation or collaboration between
2 civil police, MUP, and military police, wasn't there?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] What is not clear for me is
5 whether there was the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but during wartime there
6 were the armed forces who included also the civilian police. Could you
7 please enlighten us on this point.
8 A. I can tell you this: It is my understanding that the forces of
9 the civilian police were not part of the 3rd Corps; therefore, the
10 commander had -- held no authority over them. The municipal chief did,
11 though, or rather, anyone who was directing and controlling and ordering
13 I cannot confirm therefore anything in relation to your question
14 concerning the armed forces. It is a fact that the commander did not
15 issue orders to those units.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] You say the commander of the 3rd
17 Corps or the commander of the Bosnian army? Which are you saying?
18 A. Generally speaking, if we are talking about the units of the
19 civilian police -- well, we had the military police. They were part and
20 parcel of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were directly linked to
21 the commander; however, the civilian police was not.
22 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I understood that they were
23 different institutions; but in wartime, during wartime, these two, were
24 they cooperating and making a sort of joint institution, a single
25 institution called armed forces or something like that? Was it the case,
1 if I remember rightly, therefore permitting a cooperation to fight against
2 the enemy during wartime?
3 A. Your Honour, I can agree with your hypothesis; however, I can
4 confirm to you that the 3rd Corps commander did not issue orders or
5 control the forces of the civilian police which, for example, were in the
6 town of Zenica.
7 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Yes. But in asking this
8 question, I was not asking that relating to your own functions of
9 assistant to the information department, but in your functions as a
10 military who has been to a military academy. So, maybe, in the military
11 academy, you were told how during wartime this will work in the general
12 defence of the country and who are the organs who are directly engaged in
13 this common defence. But if you have -- if you can't answer me, this will
15 A. Your Honour, I tried to tell you about the situation to the extent
16 of the things I knew, irrespective of what I learned or did not learn at
17 the military academy. As far as I know, I never saw the commander order
18 anything to the civilian police. They had nothing to do with the 3rd
19 Corps command, and we held no authority over them.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
21 Mr. Husic, you will have understood that your testimony here is
22 particularly relevant to the issue of the registration of prisoners of war
23 and also for the information of what happened to these prisoners of war
24 that were taken by the ABiH during the war and, in particular, during the
25 Vozuca operation in September 1995.
1 Last Tuesday you testified about this, and you told us that
2 information had been received by the 3rd Corps, and that there was, after
3 the liberation of the area down in the southern part of the Vozuca
4 pocket - I believe it was the Prokop area, around Kamenica, the
5 Kablovac-Stoska area - reports had been made that there were, I think you
6 called it, broken-up groups of Chetnik soldiers still roaming around in
7 the woods.
8 One information was passed on by the 2nd Corps and another
9 information came from the 3rd Corps, your own corps, and the groups were
10 in one case a group of 40 to 60 Chetnik soldiers, and the other
11 information was a group of 50 Chetnik soldiers. I believe we also heard
12 Tuesday from you that there was possibly a third group of 100 Chetnik
14 I remember we asked you Tuesday if the information that was
15 received by your unit was information that really concerned one and the
16 same group, that altogether there was perhaps a group of Chetnik soldiers
17 running around out there approximately of the size of somewhere between 40
18 to 100 soldiers. You told us that you couldn't say for sure because at
19 that moment, when these documents were written, the information was only
20 preliminary, and there was no final assessment of how many people we were
21 really talking about out there in the woods.
22 My question to you now is: Were the 3rd Corps ever able to
23 establish how many Chetnik soldiers were left behind enemy lines after the
24 liberation of the Vozuca pocket, and do you know what happened to these
25 people? How many of them were actually taken prisoners of war?
1 A. Your Honour, for us, the people of the intelligence department,
2 POWs were merely a source of information. The information gained through
3 interviews with them need not to have been correct. Within the
4 intelligence department, we did not keep any record of their numbers, and
5 we did not follow through in order to establish what happened to them.
6 They were only important to us to conduct an interview in order to obtain
7 some data which may be of assistance and which are of intelligence
9 I cannot confirm what the number was. I cannot tell you how many
10 there were or were not; therefore, from that point of view, I cannot be of
11 assistance to you. It was our priority to have what they had stated at
12 our disposal. As for the rest, they fell under the competence of the
13 military police and the military security service. The intelligence
14 branch held no obligation towards them.
15 If we are talking about this specific case, since your question
16 was rather long, I cannot tell you anything precisely. There is data in
17 the intelligence reports pertaining to prisoners of war, and that was the
18 extent of information we had processed. As for any other information, I
19 cannot be held responsible for it.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: I apologise for having spoken at length. The
21 reason was just that I wanted to provide you with a bit of background for
22 my question. To put it shortly, then: How many prisoners of war did you
23 talk to after the Vozuca operation? Roughly just. You don't need to tell
24 us any specific numbers; but to your recollection, what are we speaking
25 about? 20 people? 40 people? Please give us your estimation of the
1 number of persons that you were questioning after the operation.
2 A. Your Honour, based on my recollection, I cannot tell you
3 precisely, not even a rough estimate. If there were interviews conducted
4 at lower levels, this is where our interest in them ceased; therefore, I
5 truly cannot answer to your question. I don't know what the exact number
6 would be, and I cannot even offer an estimate.
7 JUDGE HARHOFF: Sir, with all respect, I accept that you would be
8 unable to provide an estimation of the total number of prisoners that were
9 taken during the Vozuca operation, but I believe that you should be able
10 to tell us approximately how many of these prisoners of war that you spoke
11 to, that you were actually questioning and seeking information from.
12 I realise that it's a long time ago, but you must be able to have
13 some sort of an idea of how many people you spoke to.
14 A. I will try to be more precise. As far as I recall, I personally
15 did not interview anyone. As far as I recall, during that time in that
16 department, we never kept any figures. I am truly sorry, but I cannot
17 even estimate in answering your question.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
19 I believe it's time for the break, so let's adjourn.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 We'll take an adjournment and come back at quarter to 11.00.
22 Court adjourned.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.14 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Judge.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Colonel, as a man, as an officer of
2 intelligence, I am sure that you did hear rumours at the time about how
3 many Chetnik soldiers were left in the area in September 1995. Did you
4 hear any such rumours, and can you tell us what you heard?
5 A. Your Honour, I really cannot confirm that there is anything that
6 could confirm that existence. For us in the intelligence department, I
7 can't really say that it didn't mean anything; but for us, it was
8 important to complete our part of the job; i.e., to carry out interviews
9 with all prisoners of war.
10 As for any rumours, we really were not concerned with any of that.
11 The information that we had was put in our reports. I really can't
12 remember, and I really can't answer your question in a positive way.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, Colonel.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I have maybe one or two questions to you. One
15 specific issue that I want to raise with you, sir, and let me just say I
16 raise this issue with you because you mentioned that you went to the
17 military academy. Am I right?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 So the question really doesn't arise from what you have been
21 testifying about, but I just want to find out from your knowledge as a
22 person who has been to the academy just to cast light, if you can.
23 We have heard evidence here, and what I'm going to say is subject
24 to confirmation by the parties. I would like them to listen carefully;
25 and if I am wrong, correct me. But in the El Mujahedin Detachment, really
1 no numbers could be given, but there are some times when we have heard
2 numbers of between 600 and 800 and, if I'm not mistaken, really not beyond
4 Would it be normal, if that is the number generally, more or less,
5 is it normal within the structure of an army for a unit of that size to be
6 subordinated to a corps?
7 A. Let me tell you straight away. I cannot see a link between my
8 education and your question, and let me explain that by saying this: The
9 education that would enable one to work for higher commands also
10 implying -- implied the completion of command staff school. So we can
11 easily say that the military academy did offer some knowledge that
12 sufficed for an officer to eventually become a battalion commander.
13 Everything above that would have required additional education.
14 Obviously, since there was a lack of personnel and given the
15 circumstances, and also in light of the fact that I had completed the
16 education that I did, I am absolutely sure that there were other -- if
17 there had been other officers with intelligence education, my position
18 would have been filled with somebody else. It would not have been my
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let's not go on for too long. Okay. I understand
21 and I'm sorry if I'm asking you a question that is not covered by your
22 education; but, you see, I think the problem is that I have no military
23 education at all, so I'm trying to get information here.
24 Let's put aside your education, then. Let's look at the structure
25 of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as it was at the
1 time. Would you agree that the El Mujahedin Detachment was the smallest
2 unit in number subordinated to a corps?
3 A. It's very difficult for me to answer that question because I
4 really don't know what the strength of that particular unit was.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I did say is we have heard evidence that
6 nobody really knew what the strength of that unit was, but I've given you
7 ballpark figures of what we have heard so far, which I said are subject to
8 the confirmation by the parties if I am wrong.
9 Working on that ballpark figure that I gave, would that be a large
10 enough unit to be directly subordinated to a corps?
11 A. It is just my opinion. It may have been the case. I believe that
12 there were some staff units that were linked to the corps that were even
13 of a lower strength, and I believe that at times there were even --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give an example?
15 A. An example of such a unit?
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
17 A. All staff units; for example, the signals company, the
18 reconnoitering company. Their strength was lower, and they were all
19 linked with the corps command.
20 When I say that their strength was lower, those units usually
21 numbered anything between 60 and 100 men. It all depended on the
22 characteristics of those units. But, as I've already said, I really can't
23 and I don't know anything about the strength of any other unit. I really
24 can't answer your question with any precision.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And are you saying that those units were
1 subordinated directly to the corps? They didn't come -- they were not
2 subordinated to the corps via battalions and brigades and what have you?
3 A. Yes. Let me give you an example. For example, the sabotage unit
4 that was some 100 men strong was directly linked to the corps, and the
5 command was the one who decided how to use the unit, whether to
6 resubordinate it to somebody or engage that unit independently; in other
7 words, there were units that were directly linked to the corps.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Those are units which were doing specialised work
9 like sabotages, as you say, not general combat work.
10 A. I agree with that.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Now, this takes me back to the question
12 we discussed a few minutes ago, before we went on break, the question of
14 You see, we have heard testimony here - again, I'm subject to
15 correction by the parties - that the El Mujahedin Detachment did not wear
17 A. I really didn't say that in that sense. I said that I couldn't
18 confirm with any degree precision. I was never in that unit, and I said
19 that they should have had. I was never with them either during combat or
20 at any other time, so how can I say whether they did or they didn't? I
21 suppose that they should have had them.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. We are probably talking at cross-purposes,
23 you and I. Understand, I'm not trying to challenge your testimony. I
24 understand that you are saying they should have. I'm talking about what
25 actually happened on the ground. You don't know what happened on the
1 ground because, as you have just explained, you were never with them in
2 combat, so you never saw them in combat.
3 I understand that, but all I'm saying to you is -- and understand
4 when I asked you this question about uniform earlier, it's because you had
5 used the word, and I just wanted to get confirmation from you if you
6 knew. Now you are saying you don't know.
7 I'm saying that there are those who claim to know, who have
8 testified before the Tribunal in this case, who have told us that the El
9 Mujahedin Detachment did not wear uniform.
10 I wanted to say to you if --
11 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
12 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
13 if I may. The testimonies in that sense, especially by members of the El
14 Mujahid Detachment, differed to a large extent, and the gist of their
15 testimony may be reduced to them saying -- some said that they did wear
16 uniforms; some said that they didn't, if I may put it that way.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That may be so --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's Correction: Some did wear
19 uniforms and some didn't wear uniforms.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: That may be so, but all the other members of other
21 units of the army, when in combat, wore uniform. That's right. Now,
22 that's the point I'm making. There is this distinction.
23 It seems to me as if, right from the beginning, the El Mujahedin
24 Detachment was treated differently from the rest of the army. Would you
25 agree with that?
1 A. What I can say, when we are talking about this issue, is that we
2 in the intelligence department did not have any contacts with them. I
3 don't know whether they had an intelligence man among them. They never
4 sent us any reports. There were no contacts on our part. That's as much
5 as I can tell you when it comes to that issue.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's a further point of distinction between that
7 detachment and the rest of the units. And because of that, just what you
8 have just said, would you agree that they seem to have been treated
9 differently from other units of the army? Some wore uniforms, some
10 didn't. They didn't have an intelligence department that reported to you.
11 They never gave any reports to you, and everybody else was given reports.
12 We've seen orders here that whenever orders are given to
13 subordinates, it's an order. When they relayed to the El Mujahedin, they
14 are asked to do things in conjunction with the El Mujahedin. They must
15 consult the leadership of the Mujahedin.
16 They seem to have been treated different. Wouldn't you agree,
18 This seems to -- yes, Madam Vidovic.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am really concerned
20 about this question. The actions that you've just described may imply
21 other sort of behaviour on the part of the unit and not that their
22 attitude towards them was different. That's why I'm kindly asking you
23 to -- to bear that in mind as well.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't understand what you are saying, Madam
25 Vidovic, because I'm not talking about the actions of the Mujahedin. I'm
1 talking about the actions of the army towards the Mujahedin, how the army
2 treated the Mujahedin.
3 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with all due respect,
4 the witness can talk about his attitude or the attitude of his unit and
5 his command in that sense, and that's why I believe that the question is
6 really -- I appreciate that the Bench may put questions in order to deal
7 with some factual issues, but I'm very concerned with the fact that this
8 is a very leading question that goes beyond the framework of the witness's
9 possible knowledge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, I'm just going on asking this
11 witness to comment on the facts that have been led before this Tribunal,
12 and I did say at the beginning that I'm not dealing specifically with
13 things arising from his testimony, but I'm asking him these questions
14 because of his -- what I thought to be his specialised knowledge because
15 of having to have been to the academy. He said the information has
16 nothing to do with his schooling.
17 But I am now telling him the facts that we have been told, and I'm
18 asking him to comment. I can't understand what your problem is. You
19 know, all I'm asking him to say is whether in his view would he -- given
20 the facts that I've put to him, does he agree that the El Mujahedin
21 Detachment was treated differently.
22 It was not a specialised unit like a sabotage unit, yet it was a
23 small unit. It was subordinated right from the beginning to the 3rd
24 Corps. Some didn't wear uniform. They, as he says, they had no
25 intelligence department. Can't anybody comment, given those facts?
1 That's all I'm asking him to do.
2 Sir, are you able to make a comment given those facts? There are
3 many others I could give you that I won't give you, but those three:
4 They are subordinated to the corps, the fact that they some of them didn't
5 wear uniform, and the fact that, as you say, they just didn't send
6 intelligence reports to you.
7 They were treated differently, were they not? If you don't know,
8 sir, you don't know; if you know, sir, you know. Or rather, if you agree,
9 say you agree; and if you don't agree, you don't have to agree.
10 A. Your Honour, as far as my views are concerned, I've already told
11 you that I did not have any contacts with that particular unit.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but --
13 A. We did not receive from them --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me interrupt you. Just understand the
15 distinction between a view and fact. It is fact that you didn't have
16 contact with them. Now, I'm giving you that fact back to you, and I'm
17 saying: Does the fact that you didn't have contact with them indicate
18 that in fact they were treated differently, because you had contact with
20 A. Looking at things from that point of view, I can say that, as far
21 as I'm concerned, they did not carry out their obligations, that they did
22 not comply with their obligations.
23 I asked for the 35th Division to report on them as well, to
24 include them in the information that they were privy to. That's what you
25 can read in one of my documents.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, now, you're now moving into an area which I
2 wasn't in, talking about them complying with their obligations. I'm
3 talking about them complying with their obligations, number one; number
4 two, yes, I understand that they were at some stage re-subordinated to the
5 35th Division, but at some stage they were also subordinated directly to
6 the 3rd Corps.
7 At that time, when they were directly subordinated to the 3rd
8 Corps, they gave you no reports, did they? You've told us that.
9 A. Correct.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And the very fact that they didn't have any
11 intelligence department in their unit, does this -- what does this mean to
12 you, given the fact that every unit had to have that?
13 A. I can tell you that I don't know what their composition was. I
14 don't know whether they had an intelligence department or not. I only
15 know that they did not submit any reports. As far as I'm concerned, we
16 did not have any contacts with that unit.
17 As for the control of that unit, I can't tell you anything about
18 that because the commander was the one who was in charge of the command of
19 all the units. I am referring to the commander of the 3rd Corps.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you able to answer specifically to the question
21 that I am putting to you, which is: Would you agree that they were
22 treated differently? If you don't -- I'm not forcing you to agree but I'm
23 just asking you: Are you able to answer to that question?
24 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm really concerned
1 that you keep insisting on the witness answering this question because
2 this question goes directly to establishment of the elements of guilt.
3 It doesn't arise at all from the previous testimony of this
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Vidovic, I think I've explained myself and
6 I'm ruling you out of order.
7 Sir, are you able to answer my question? "Yes, I'm able," "no,
8 I'm not able," and I'll stop.
9 A. Bearing in mind that they didn't submit a reports, they were --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Listen my question.
11 Are you able to answer my question? "Yes, I'm able to answer
12 you," or "no, I'm not able to answer you." Don't try to answer that --
13 what you are now saying is what I'll asking you depending on what you say
14 to this one question that I'm asking you.
15 A. Your Honour, could you then please repeat your question.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question is: Are you able to answer my
17 question? That's my question.
18 A. I can give it my best shot.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Give it your best shot. Do you want me to
20 remind you what the question was?
21 A. Yes, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: The question was: Would you agree that they were
23 treated differently or not?
24 A. I don't think that I'm in a position to be able to answer your
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You have answered me. You
2 should have long done that. Thank you.
3 Any questions arising from the questions from the Bench?
4 Mr. Neuner.
5 MR. NEUNER: I want to follow up a little bit on the lines of
6 questioning by Judge Harhoff.
7 Further Re-examination by Mr. Neuner:
8 Q. He had asked you about the presence of enemy soldiers in the wider
9 Vozuca pocket. I'm not interested in the numbers, since they were given
10 in the documents we discussed.
11 I'm more interested in the direction of their flight. You had
12 explained to us that the Vozuca pocket was cut off through convergence of
13 2nd Corps coming from the east and 3rd Corps coming from the western side
14 and they had met.
15 Could you explain to the Chamber in which general direction were
16 Serb soldiers, who were cut off by convergence of 2nd and 3rd Corps, in
17 which general direction were Serb soldiers trying to flee?
18 A. I don't know exactly. If there is a report where I could read
19 this, maybe I could confirm the contents of such a report.
20 MR. NEUNER: Your Honours, no further questions.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Madam Vidovic.
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to follow
24 up on the questions put to the witness by Her Honour Lattanzi.
25 Further Cross-examination by Ms. Vidovic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, do you remember that Judge Lattanzi
2 asked you about the status of the civilian police and the attitude of the
3 civilian police -- or rather, the relationship between the army and the
4 civilian police? Do you remember that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Please, I would like to ask you this: You are a member of the
7 armed forces, aren't you? You were a member, rather, of the armed forces,
8 and you can answer my next question: Will you agree with me that this
9 issue was resolved by the decree on the Armed Forces of the Army of Bosnia
10 and Herzegovina, and that there are, in other words, regulations dealing
11 with that issue?
12 A. Let me put it this way: I can't give you any detail without the
13 document before my eyes. I told you how things were in practice. I was
14 never in the position to see the commander issuing any orders to the
15 civilian police, nor were any links between my service and the civilian
16 police that would give us authority over them.
17 Q. Thank you. I want to ask you something else now. Please, do you
18 agree with me that the civilian police was under the authority of the
19 Ministry of the Interior?
20 A. Absolutely.
21 Q. The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina was part of the government of the Republic of Bosnia and
24 A. Yes.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: No further questions.
2 That is the end of your testimony, sir. Thank you very much for
3 coming to testify. You are now excused. You may stand down. Travel well
4 back home. Thank you so much.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are you calling the next witness, Mr. Robson?
8 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour.
9 Your Honour, it's just a matter of clarification, if I may. It
10 relates to the question that you put to the witness relating to uniforms,
11 and you said that was subject to confirmation from the parties.
12 Obviously, Madam Vidovic gave you some information about evidence that we
13 heard from Mujahedin members, and I'd just like to state for the record
14 that in relation to certainly one of the Serb victim victims that
15 testified, Mr. Trivicevic.
16 At page 3601, lines 7 to 11, he stated that: "In respect of the
17 Mujahedin, they weren't all wearing the same type of uniform. They even
18 were wearing some civilian clothes, bits and pieces of civilian clothing
19 items. In a manner of speaking, different types of uniform."
20 So I just wanted to put that on record, Your Honour, that there
21 was other evidence as well suggesting there were a mixture.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. That confirms what we were
23 told by Madam Vidovic, that some were, some were not. Thank you so much.
24 Yes, Mr. Neuner.
25 MR. NEUNER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry. I wanted to leave
1 the courtroom --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone please, when you speak, Mr. Neuner.
4 MR. NEUNER: I apologise. I just wanted to leave the courtroom to
5 make space for my colleagues to lead the next witness.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, sir.
7 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
8 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 We will call the next witness, Mr. Goran Krcmar.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please make the declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: GORAN KRCMAR
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. Good morning. You may
17 be seated.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning to you as well.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
20 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
21 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
22 Your Honour, as -- as Your Honours know, we have proposed that
23 this witness be 92 ter, and we have reached an agreement, I believe, with
24 Defence counsel with regard to the admissibility of this witness's
25 previous statements. I'll just ask the witness some preliminary questions
1 about those statements, and then we will ask that they be omitted -- I
2 mean, excuse me, that they be admitted into evidence with minus certain
3 paragraphs that we have agreed would be deleted, or however Your Honours
4 want to -- want us to handle it: Whether you want us to submit redacted
5 statements or just ignore --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think you should submit the redacted statements.
7 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. We won't have those today. We will
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
10 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Thank you.
11 Examination by Ms. Sartorio:
12 Q. Sir, would you please state your full name.
13 A. My name is Goran Krcmar.
14 Q. And what is your date of birth?
15 A. I was born on the 12th of February, 1963.
16 Q. And in what municipality and country do you currently reside?
17 A. I currently reside in Banja Luka in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
18 Republika Srpska.
19 Q. And in -- what is your current occupation, sir?
20 A. Currently, I worked for the governmental office for the missing
21 persons of the Republika Srpska.
22 Q. And how long did -- have you worked in that governmental office?
23 A. I've been working there since 1996, since April that year.
24 Q. And just one more question about this: What -- do you have a
25 title or a position there?
1 A. I am the office clerk of the commission. We are in charge of the
2 missing persons who had gone missing during the war in Central Bosnia and
3 Posavina area.
4 Q. Thank you. Now, in your capacity in this position, have you
5 provided a written statement or statements to investigators of the Office
6 of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?
7 A. Yes, I gave statements.
8 Q. And let's talk about the first statement. Do you recall the date
9 of your first statement?
10 A. I think it was in 2004.
11 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Your Honour, I'd like the witness to be
12 shown P06195, and for -- I have hard copies, which I understand is
13 procedure 92 ter, so he can look at the entire statement. I don't know if
14 that's appropriate, but would the Court allow me to give a hard copy of
15 his statement to --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead, ma'am.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you to the usher. Thank you.
18 Q. Sir, I've just given you a copy of what I'm going to ask you
19 about; and, also, you can see on the screen in front of you the first page
20 of a document in English and the Bosnian.
21 Is this the first statement that you gave to OTP investigators?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Would you agree that this statement was dated -- is dated 21st
24 December 2005?
25 A. You are right.
1 Q. And --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I rise to my feet just to say that
4 the -- what is on our screen is the statement from the 6th of June, 2007.
5 I'm content for my learned friend to lead on the dates of these statements
6 and obviously that they're going to be introduced into evidence, so
7 there's --
8 MS. SARTORIO: Sorry, Your Honours. I meant P06194. I said "95,"
9 but I was thinking 2005, so if we could have 6194. I apologise.
10 Can you -- is the B/C/S -- I can't see the date on the Bosnian
11 version. Thank you.
12 Q. Okay, sir, I apologise. What is the date of this document in
13 front of you?
14 A. The date is the 21st of December, 2005. This is the first of the
15 two statements.
16 Q. Okay. And is this your statement, sir, that you gave to the OTP?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can he see the signature --
18 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. That would --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- before he confirms that.
20 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour.
21 May we see the signature page.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And ask him about the signature.
23 MS. SARTORIO: I will.
24 Q. Looking at the first page of the English, sir, is that your
25 signature, at the bottom of that page?
1 A. Yes, this is my signature.
2 Q. And in a moment I'm going to show you the last page so you can
3 confirm that that is the last page of -- of your statement, if it is, and
4 that's your signature.
5 MS. SARTORIO: But I will proceed with questions, if I may, Your
6 Honour, assuming it is his signature.
7 I don't see it on my screen. Oh, okay. Sorry. I apologise. I'm
8 not -- okay.
9 Q. Sir, at the time you provided this written statement, did you
10 answer the questions of the investigator truthfully?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. And did you answer these questions freely; that is, without any
14 A. I've answered all of the questions freely.
15 Q. And, at the conclusion of this interview in December of 2005, your
16 statement was actually typed in English, and was it read back to you in
17 your language, the Bosnian language?
18 A. Yes. The statement was read back to me in Bosnian, and I signed
20 Q. Yes. We'll get to that, because that was recently. So did you --
21 originally, though, did you sign this statement in English?
22 A. I think I signed the English version and I received the
23 translation somewhat later. I was able to notice that there were some
24 changes made there.
25 Q. Okay. And when you say "sometime later," was that -- can you give
1 us a time frame? Was that recently?
2 A. Some two months ago or so.
3 Q. Okay. And the changes that were made - and I'm going to show you
4 that statement as well - was that also read and signed by you?
5 Does -- you don't understand my question, sir?
6 A. I still cannot see those changes on my screen.
7 MS. SARTORIO: All right. May the witness please be shown P06196.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: What do you want to do with P06194 in the meantime?
9 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I'll ask that it be admitted; but if -- the
10 witness has -- is discussing changes that he made, I want to make sure
11 that he know it is changes were made.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: This is the point. We can't admit something to
13 which he say there is are changes.
14 MS. SARTORIO: That's right. That's why I'm going to ask to put
15 this aside, and I'll show the witness 6196 for the time being.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Sartorio.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Could we move down to the bottom of the page,
18 please, to see ...
19 Q. Okay. Sir, now, there's a document in front of you. Can you
20 identify what this document is?
21 A. The document I signed dated the 6th October 2007 contains the
22 changes in relation to the first, original statement.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I believe those changes had to do with translation.
25 Q. Fine.
1 MS. SARTORIO: May the witness please be shown page 1 in both
2 English and Bosnian -- excuse me, page 2, the first page of the statement
3 actually, substantive. To the top, please.
4 Q. So, sir, at the top of this document, if you would read --
5 MS. SARTORIO: If the B/C/S version could be moved up, please.
6 Thank you.
7 Q. Now, this -- could you tell us what -- the paragraph number 1,
8 does it refer to changes that you're making in this document to two
10 A. Precisely so. This is my statement by the virtue of which I tried
11 to enumerate the corrections I wanted to make to the two statements. Each
12 of the paragraphs contains a correction that needs to be introduced.
13 For example, the cover page, it states that I speak both Serbian
14 and English; whereas, it should only read "Serbian."
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. And it goes on by the paragraphs.
17 Q. Yes. Thank you, sir.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Can -- may the witness be shown the last page of
19 this document, please.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This is the statement
21 containing the changes.
22 MS. SARTORIO:
23 Q. Okay. Thank you.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we ask that P06196 be admitted into
25 evidence, as well as P06194.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are these -- yes, Mr. Robson. First, let's hear
2 you first.
3 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, before these statements are admitted
4 into evidence, I think it's important for the Prosecution to put on record
5 which paragraphs it has been agreed between the parties have been
6 redacted, have been removed from the statements.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was actually going to ask her --
8 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- whether in fact these statements have those
10 photographs redacted, because at the beginning we agreed we will only have
11 those which are redacted.
12 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, the statements are not physically
13 redacted because we -- we were going to ask Your Honours if they just --
14 if they wanted to accept the statement and then disregard in evidence
15 those paragraphs.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You asked that question at the beginning,
17 ma'am, and I answered you.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, you did. But we don't have time to redact
19 them at the moment, so we can --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand that, but --
21 MS. SARTORIO: So I can put on the record that we will be
22 submitting a redacted statement, and I'll state the paragraphs on the
23 record that are going to be redacted, if I may.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you do that, then I would suggest that these
25 statements, 6194 and 6196, be not tendered into evidence, but that the
1 redacted form be the one that is tendered.
2 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can use them to cross-examine --
4 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- as long as you don't cross-examine on those
6 redacted paragraphs, but then Court I think must get documents that are
7 agreed between the parties.
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I am being advised also that P06194 has attached to
10 it some annexes, like newspaper cuttings, and it is not known whether they
11 form part of the statement or not. Now, can the parties agree on that and
12 make sure that what then does get tendered into evidence is what the
13 parties agree on.
14 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we would -- we would seek to admit the
15 entire statement, including the attachments to the statement, for the
16 reason that the witness discusses these documents within the statement.
17 So the statement isn't going to make any sense unless Your Honours can see
18 the documents.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Fine. Thank you so much.
20 Yes, Mr. Robson.
21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the Defence would be content for the
22 statements to be admitted with the attachments forming an integral part of
23 the statement.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
25 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if I could just make one other suggestion as
1 well, because procedurally I'm not sure how it's going to go if I start
2 cross-examining a witness upon a statement which hasn't been introduced
3 into evidence. One proposal I would have is that we admit the three
4 statements now, pointing out the paragraphs to be redacted, and we simply
5 mark them for identification; and, then, at the first opportunity the
6 Prosecution has, they substitute those documents for the redacted
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, but for now we have got two statements, not
10 MR. ROBSON: For now, that's correct, Your Honour. I'm
11 anticipating another one being discussed soon.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I would imagine that other one is going to be
13 a replacement.
14 MS. SARTORIO: No, there is a third statement.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon. You know her case. I don't.
16 Okay. So be it. Then the two statements are admitted into
17 evidence. May then they please be given an exhibit number, each one of
19 MS. SARTORIO: But would you like me to put on the record the
20 paragraphs that --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please do so, ma'am.
22 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
23 With regard to 6 -- P06194, the following paragraphs will be
24 redacted: 18, 19, 27, and 32. With respect to P06196, paragraph number 8.
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MS. SARTORIO: Is that correct?
2 MR. ROBSON: I concur with that, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
5 Now I'll move on to the other statement. May the witness please
6 be shown P06195.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you move on, can we have them admitted
8 into evidence and they then be given an exhibit number.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the statement 65 ter number P06194
10 will be MFI 642 [Realtime transcript error read in error "6142"].
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: MFI?
12 THE REGISTRAR: MFI, marked for identification, as requested by
13 Defence counsel. And 65 ter number P06196 will be MFI 643 [Realtime
14 transcript read in error "6143"].
15 MS. SARTORIO: And when the -- when the Prosecution submits, Your
16 Honour, the redacted versions, will they be made automatically into
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we deal with that at the time?
19 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let the record show that these are not exhibits
21 6142 and 6143 respectively. They are 642 and 643.
22 Thank you very much.
23 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
24 Now, may the witness be shown P06195.
25 Q. Sir --
1 MS. SARTORIO: Could we move up so he may see signatures and date,
2 if it's on here. Okay.
3 Q. Sir, can you tell us the date of this document.
4 A. In the English, the date is the 6th of June, 2007. It was signed
5 on the 7th of June, and that is my signature.
6 Q. Okay. And is this the second statement that you gave to OTP
8 A. Yes, that is correct. This is my second statement.
9 Q. And, again, at the time you provided this statement, did you
10 answer the questions of the investigator truthfully and freely?
11 A. Yes. I answered truthfully and freely to all of the questions.
12 Q. And then, at the conclusion of this interview, the June of 2007
13 interview, was the statement read back to you in the Bosnian language?
14 A. Yes. The interpreter read it back to me in Bosnian.
15 Q. And did you sign at that time the English version of the statement
16 after it had been read back to you in the Bosnian language?
17 A. Yes, I did sign it. The date is the 7th of June, 2007.
18 Q. And did you also sign the Bosnian translation in early October of
19 this year, of this statement?
20 A. I signed the statement with the corrections made or included in
21 the corrigendum, in the annex that we have just discussed.
22 Q. Yes.
23 MS. SARTORIO: Now, Your Honour, we ask that this statement and
24 the attachments be admitted into evidence -- or marked for identification
25 when we'll discuss the -- the omitted paragraph numbers.
1 There is one slight issue here, and that is the -- I have a hard
2 copy of the statement that was signed by the witness in Bosnian. I'm not
3 sure why it's not in -- in e-court.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You were rising on your feet, Mr. Robson.
5 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, yes. My learned friend makes reference
6 in relation to this statement to "attachments" to the statement, and this
7 is the October [sic] 2007 one, the third one, we're talking about.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, wait a minute. We're talking about the June
9 2007 one.
10 MR. ROBSON: I beg your pardon. June, 6th of June, 2007.
11 Could my learned friend please clarify what she means by
12 "attachments," because as far as I'm aware, there are no additional
13 attachments attached to this document, unlike the one going back to 2005,
14 which had the series of annexes, so ...
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sartorio.
16 MS. SARTORIO: [Microphone not activated] One moment.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I apologise if I've caused confusion,
20 because my colleague here is showing in fact there were attachments to
21 both the 2005 and the 6th June 2007 document.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Robson.
23 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. I was going to state that -- that that's the
25 case. The range of the -- the June 2007 statement includes the area in
1 range that was on the exhibit list includes the attachments.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. So you want that to be given an MFI exhibit.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, I would, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: May it please be given an MFI exhibit.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, MFI Exhibit 644.
6 MS. SARTORIO: It's marked for identification; and for the record,
7 the following photographs will be redacted from this statement: 7, 8, 21,
8 25, and 34.
9 And, in evidence, Your Honour, we would like the signed copy of
10 the Bosnian statement, and I have a hard copy here. So if we could scan
11 it into e-court, that would --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Wait a minute, Madam Vidovic --
13 MS. SARTORIO: Madam Sartorio.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry to you, Madam Vidovic.
15 Madam Sartorio, we have just put in three statements into
16 evidence. Now you want to give us a fourth statement?
17 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour. It is just a -- it is a
18 translation. It is the 2007 statement that the witness signed.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: There are two 2007 statements. Which one?
20 MS. SARTORIO: Well, he signed the English version when it was
21 read back to him; then he signed the -- the Bosnian version in October of
22 2007. So we wish to have that -- for the -- for the sake of -- of
23 accuracy, to have this statement, this version of the Bosnian translated
24 statement, in evidence.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
1 MS. SARTORIO: Because it's signed, Your Honour. See, it's the
2 same statement. It's just signed.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you go through the motions of getting that
6 statement admitted into evidence before we can then have it. Let's have
7 it as a fourth statement, because --
8 MS. SARTORIO: It's not --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- I don't understand what you are talking about.
10 MS. SARTORIO: It's substituting in e-court, Your Honour, one
11 statement for the second -- the others. It's not a new exhibit. It's the
12 same --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's my problem. We now have an exhibit here
14 which we have just admitted. You want to substitute it. We don't know
15 what it is you're substituting it with.
16 MS. SARTORIO: It's -- it is the statement dated 6th June of 2007.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hear that. I hear that.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: But all I'm saying, all I'm saying is --
20 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- what you want to substitute now is something --
22 is not something that we have been talking about. We have talked about
23 three statements here which are on e-court.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now you want to introduce a fourth statement, and I
1 don't know whether your learned friend on the opposite side has a copy of
2 what you now want to put in, and what other changes there are in that
4 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: So that's why I'm saying is, if you have to, put
6 that statement in as a fourth statement. You have put three already. One
7 more is not going to kill us. I don't know what it is you -- you want to
9 MS. SARTORIO: I just wanted, for the sake of the record, to have
10 the signed version of this document that you see on your screen right
11 now - it's the exact same document, except it's signed by the witness -
12 and that's all. It's a substitute in e-court. We'll drop it, Your
13 Honour, because of time, and we'll admit the English statement that is
14 signed by the witness and the Bosnian translation.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Sartorio.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Now, may the witness please now be shown P02964
17 [Realtime transcript read in error "P09624"]; and, in particular, I would
18 like the witness to be shown page 14, and it's page 27 in English.
19 Q. Sir, are you able to identify what this document is?
20 A. This is an order of the competent prosecutor from Zenica for the
21 exhumation of bodies in the mass grave of Kamenica in Zavidovici
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this order not part of the evidence that is
1 being tendered pursuant to Rule 92 ter?
2 MS. SARTORIO: It is, Your Honour, but we're -- we're seeking to
3 admit a few exhibits in addition to the witness's statement, which we
4 understand that is part of the 92 ter process, that you may introduce the
5 witness's statement; if you want -- wish to ask clarifying questions about
6 the statement, you do that, but I have no clarifying questions; and then,
7 in addition, we're seeking to admit additional documents through this
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: These documents are not part of --
10 MS. SARTORIO: That's --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- or are not attached to his statement.
12 MS. SARTORIO: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You may proceed.
14 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I will use this little pause to
17 remind the -- everybody that I've got some problems to follow. One should
18 speak more slowly and respect a pause between a question and an answer.
19 MS. SARTORIO: May I proceed, Your Honour?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, proceed, ma'am.
21 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
22 Q. May -- and, sir, you have -- you've just identified what this
23 document is. Have you seen this document and -- during the course of
24 your -- in your position as a -- as a clerk at the office for missing
1 A. Yes. I saw the document during the post-mortem of the bodies that
2 was carried out in Visoko.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Your Honour, we ask that this document be
4 admitted into evidence. This particular -- there's actually two documents
5 under P02964. So may the witness be shown page 15.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: 2964?
7 MS. SARTORIO: We're in the same exhibit.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
9 MS. SARTORIO: Which is --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, it's just that I know that the record wrote it
11 down as "9624." Now I just want to be sure that it's "2964."
12 MS. SARTORIO: It's 2964.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the record show that earlier it said 9624.
14 MS. SARTORIO: No, it -- it -- if that's what it says, it should
15 be 2964, and may the witness be shown page 15.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. Okay. Are you --
17 MS. SARTORIO: I'm going to admit them both after I ask him about
18 the next two pages.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. You may proceed.
20 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. It's a rather long exhibit. We don't
21 need the whole exhibit.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what page in the English?
23 MS. SARTORIO: 29, please.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: 15 September 2006.
25 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Now, would we --
1 Q. Sir, I'm going to ask -- before I ask you to go to the third page,
2 I'm going to ask you to identify from the front page what this document
4 A. This document is a record of handover of mortal remains signed by
5 the office for the missing persons that I signed myself and the federal
6 commission, signed by Zaim Kablar and representatives of the cemetery.
7 That is the third signature. My apologies. That's the third signature.
8 MS. SARTORIO: May we see the signature page, please.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's that.
10 MS. SARTORIO:
11 Q. Is this -- is your signature on this page?
12 A. Yes, on the right-hand side.
13 Q. Okay. Now, just for the Judges, because they -- they don't
14 know -- they've never seen this document before, what exactly is this
15 document purporting to do?
16 A. The document contains the record of the handover of eight mortal
17 remains exhumated in Kamenica near Zavidovici that had been identified by
18 the DNA method, and this document speaks of the bodies that were on the
19 list of the missing persons of the office of Republika Srpska. That means
20 that we have eight skeletal remains and seven skulls that do not belong to
21 the bodily remains, the skeletal remains.
22 Q. Thank you, sir. I don't want to get into the substance of the
23 exhumation at this point. I just want you, to make it clear, you say
24 "turnover." From whom to whom? Where are this -- where are these items
25 going? From what entity to what entity?
1 A. From the Federation to Republika Srpska. I represented the
2 commission of Republika Srpska, and the second signatory, Zaim Kablar,
3 represented the federal commission in this case; in other words, the
4 commission of Republika Srpska is taking bodies over from the federal
6 Q. Thank you.
7 MS. SARTORIO: Now, still staying with this exhibit, I would like
8 the witness to be shown page 17, and it's only in English at this point,
10 [Prosecution counsel confer]
11 MS. SARTORIO: I apologise, Your Honour. I've -- there's
12 miscommunication in terms of the page numbers that I was given, and I just
13 need to clarify it, if I may. I'm sorry.
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MS. SARTORIO:
16 Q. Sir, have you ever seen this document before?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And what context did you see this document?
19 A. This is the DNA findings for the person called Radomir Blagojevic.
20 Q. And, again, where did you see this document? Did you receive in
21 the course of your job duties; and if so, who did you receive it from and
22 what did you do with it?
23 A. I received this document from --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second, sir.
25 Yes, Mr. Robson.
1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, before my learned friend goes any
2 further in questioning -- questioning the witness, I note from the outset
3 of this witness's testimony that he doesn't speak English, and I just
4 wonder whether it could be established how the witness knows what the
5 contents of these documents are.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
7 MS. SARTORIO:
8 Q. Sir, as -- as you heard Defence -- Mr. -- My learned colleague
9 state --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: He wouldn't have heard because, as he just said, he
11 doesn't understand English.
12 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Well, I assume it was translated to him.
13 Q. Okay. The question, sir, is, because your primary language is
14 Bosnian, and I presume you don't speak much English, after -- because I've
15 met with you a few times: How is it that you know what this document is
16 if it is only in English?
17 A. If you'll allow me. I come across such documents every day. I've
18 encountered over 1.000 such reports. This is a DNA report that
19 commissions receive from the DNA laboratory, and we know for a fact which
20 person is in question. We have the number of the DNA findings. We have
21 the KT mark. We have the donors that have donated blood. We know where
22 the bone sample originates from.
23 We know for a fact what this is about. The identification is
24 usually done by forensic experts, pathologists, together with me and the
25 competent judge. So I know exactly what this document is.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that okay with you, sir?
2 MR. ROBSON: That's fair enough. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may proceed, Madam Sartorio.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
5 Q. And, in fact, in terms of the forensic pathologist, do you see the
6 doctor's name on this document anywhere?
7 A. On this particular document, there is no signature. This is
8 findings that we receive from the DNA laboratory, and the signatures are
9 put on the identification records. This is only a DNA report.
10 Q. Yes. That's --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, sir, where on the right-hand bottom corner,
12 "final release review," signature, date 11.09.06, there is something that
13 looks like a signature there. Do you know that signature.
14 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you nod your head, it is not recorded on the
16 transcript. Could you please say verbally whether you are agreeing or
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree that this is a signature;
19 however, this signature was put in the laboratory.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Do you know that signature?
21 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: You don't know?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not familiar with the
24 signature at all.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
1 MS. SARTORIO:
2 Q. Okay. And one more question. I wasn't -- disregarding the
3 signature, do you see in the bottom right-hand side the name of any doctor
4 or pathologist with whom you worked with regard to this exhumation?
5 A. Yes. The authorised pathologist here is a lady doctor,
7 Q. And one more question about this document: Do you see -- do
8 you -- can you identify from this document the name of the person who
9 provided -- the relative who provided the DNA sample?
10 A. Yes. This was the mother. If you can blow it up, I could see the
11 name. I believe that her name was Mila Blagojevic -- I apologise. It is
12 Miljana. I can see it now. The father was Vlado Blagojevic.
13 MS. SARTORIO: May the witness now be shown page-- the next page,
14 page 18. They're all part of one exhibit number, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're just running out of time.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Sorry.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: How long are you going to be with this?
18 MS. SARTORIO: Well, half an hour, if we can move --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: With this document?
20 MS. SARTORIO: No. Well, no.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. It's time to break now.
22 MS. SARTORIO: Oh, yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now I want to know how long you're going to be with
24 this document. Can we accommodate before you take the break or shall we
25 take the break.
1 MS. SARTORIO: Probably not. Five, ten minutes.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Let's take the break now. We'll come back
3 at half past 12.00.
4 Court adjourned.
5 --- Recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
8 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
9 May the witness be shown PT2964, page 18.
10 Q. Now, sir, can you identify what this document is.
11 A. This is a DNA report for the bone sample KTA-804200 [as
12 interpreted] Kamenica, and it concerns Radomir Blagojevic.
13 Q. Now, is this the same person from -- that was the subject of the
14 DNA report of -- that was on page 17 that you saw just before the break?
15 A. Yes, the same person, and the same donors of blood samples.
16 Q. Can you tell us why there would be two different -- two separate
17 reports for one person?
18 A. In principle, sometimes we even have more than two DNA reports;
19 For example, when we have reassociation, when body is not complete. In
20 that case, the forensic pathologist takes samples from all bone samples
21 that cannot be associated to a certain body, and such samples are marked
22 and sent to the laboratory; and, then, when we receive DNA reports from
23 the laboratory, it will happen that for the same person we will find three
24 or four matching DNA reports, which means that bone samples were taken
25 from several samples for the -- from the same body and sent for analysis.
1 That's why we will have more than one or two DNA reports for the
2 bodies that are not complete.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second.
4 Sir, could you repeat the reference number of this DNA report,
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. KTA-248/06, Kamenica, Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, because it had said
10 MS. SARTORIO:
11 Q. Now, sir, can you tell us what that KTA number stands for?
12 A. The KTA number stands for the prosecutor's order to take certain
13 action; and, in this case, the action was exhumation, and this
14 prosecutor's order bore the -- this number, KTA-248/06.
15 Q. Okay. And can you also tell us what the "BR.1-3" stands for, if
16 you know.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where is that, Madam Sartorio?
18 MS. SARTORIO: Just below the number KTA-248/06, Kamenica.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The page I have doesn't have anything written just
20 below it.
21 MS. SARTORIO: Oh, sorry.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: There's a little block below that says "9120425."
23 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. That was in page -- that was in document
24 number 17. I'll ask that question later.
25 Q. Next to the person's name, sir, is "ICMP" ID number. Can you tell
1 us what that is, if you know.
2 A. The ICMP number is the indication or the identification of the
3 bone that arrived in the laboratory. The laboratory accords a number to
4 the bone; and, sometimes, as I've already explained to you, three bones
5 reach the laboratory for the same body. Still, all these bones bear
6 different numbers.
7 So this is the number of the bone or the indication for the bone
8 that has arrived in the laboratory. In this case, the laboratory marks or
9 assigns its own number to the bone sample.
10 Q. Well, let's go back.
11 MS. SARTORIO: Can we go back to page 17 for a moment. Okay.
12 Just -- it was good enlarged. Okay.
13 Q. If you look at the ID number here, sir, 14464, it does appear,
14 does it not, to be the same number as page 18?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So is your answer -- I'm just trying to get clarification if it's
17 a separate number per bone or a separate number per person or what?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I'd be grateful if my learned friend
20 would not lead on this particular issue.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
22 MS. SARTORIO: Well, okay, Your Honour. I'll just --
23 Q. In accordance with your previous answer, you see that these --
24 these numbers -- ICMP ID numbers are the same. Can you explain that?
25 A. This is a DNA report for Vlado Blagojevic, son of Rade
1 [as interpreted]. For that body, for that person, there could have been
2 five or even six different bone samples; however, once the matching
3 process is completed and the bone and sample -- and blood samples are
4 compared, then we end up with the ID number of the laboratory, which is
5 1446 [as interpreted] for this particular person.
6 I don't know whether I have made myself clear.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have not, sir, because at page 67, starting
8 from line 1, you said: "The ICMP ID number is an identification number
9 for a bone," if I made read it to you.
10 Answer: "The ICMP ID number is an indication or the
11 identification of the bone that arrived in the laboratory. The laboratory
12 accords a number to the bone; and, sometimes, as I've already explained to
13 you, three bones reach the laboratory for the same body. Still, all these
14 bones bear different numbers. So this is the number of the bone or the
15 indication for the bone that has arrived in the laboratory."
16 That differs substantially from what you are now telling us that,
17 this ID number is for the person. So you are not clear. What is it?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that we didn't understand
19 each other. Now I have on my monitor a number "1/3," and this is what I
20 was talking about, "1/3."
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sir, what you were being asked about, if we can
23 The question to which what I've just read to your answer
24 was: "Next to the persons name, sir, is ICMP ID number. Can you tell us
25 what that is, if you know?"
1 So I don't know where you're talking now of the "1/3." The 1/3
2 came later, and it wasn't there on the page. I asked the counsel.
3 Counsel said, "No, it's on the previous page." We'll come to 1/3.
4 Can you explain what ICMP ID number stands for.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] ICMP ID is the identification number
6 for the person Blagojevic Radomir. This is the number that the laboratory
7 assigns when it has a match; then it assigns the number to the name, and
8 that's the ICMP 14464 for Mr. Radomir Blagojevic.
9 I believe the misunderstanding arises from another thing. On this
10 page, there was no identification of the sample that goes to the
11 laboratory. And as I've already told you, for one person there could be
12 several numbers if we did not know from the beginning that all the bones
13 belonged to the same person. I believe that's the source of our
14 misunderstanding here.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then let me ask you this question: Does the
16 laboratory assign a number for each bone of a person, of one person?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When it comes to the laboratory, I
18 can't tell you what the laboratory does, because I don't have access to
19 the laboratory. I can only tell you about the things that I am involved
20 in and that I'm familiar with, and I can only tell you how many bones we
21 send to the laboratory.
22 What the laboratory does from that point on, I wouldn't be able to
23 comment upon because I don't know. All we receive from the laboratory is
24 a report.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Given just that answer that you have just given us,
1 are you able to tell us what this number, ICMP ID number, refers to?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is the ID number of the
3 laboratory that is related to a certain name after the matching process of
4 blood samples and bone samples is completed. That's what I was talking
5 about. There can be several bone samples that are matched in the
6 laboratory to complete one body; and, in this person, it's the body of
7 Radomir Blagojevic, who is finally assigned a -- a number after the
8 identification was completed.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'll ask you to please listen to questions and try
10 to answer as briefly as possible to the question. The answer to my
11 question should have been: Yes, I know, or I don't know.
12 You may proceed, Madam Sartorio.
13 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, can you just tell us, if you know, what the -- on this
15 document, underneath the "KTA-248/06 Kamenica," what that "BR.1/3" stands
16 for, if you know.
17 A. Number "1" is the location. There was one grave, and "3" is the
18 number of bodies.
19 Q. "3" is the number of bodies, or "3" is the number -- there were
20 three bodies, is that what you're saying?
21 A. The number of the bones from a body that was sent to the
23 Q. Okay. I'll move on.
24 MS. SARTORIO: May -- before -- I have other pages from this
25 exhibit that I want admitted; but for now, I need to move to another
1 exhibit to show the relationship, Your Honour. So we'd like to witness to
2 be shown P02575.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: You are not having this one admitted just yet?
4 MS. SARTORIO: Right. Yes, Your Honour. I think if you bear with
5 me you'll see what I'm doing.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I hope.
7 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
8 MS. SARTORIO:
9 Q. Sir, are you able to identify this document?
10 A. This is a list of the persons missing from the territory of Ozren
11 in October 1995 in the course of that month. This is a part of the list
12 of those persons that I received from the investigator of The Hague
14 Q. Okay. Now, when you received this, or after you have reviewed it,
15 did you do anything with this document, with the contents, with the names
16 that are contained in this document?
17 A. Yes. I analysed the list and I compared this list with our
18 database of missing persons.
19 The list suffered certain changes, such as typos contained in
20 certain names or dates of birth.
21 Q. Okay. And did -- and did you make a determination about the
22 persons named in this document?
23 A. I analysed the list and I compared this list with our database of
24 the persons missing from the territory of Ozren, and I concluded on the
25 basis of this list that these were soldiers of the Republika Srpska army
1 who all went missing on the 9th of September, 19 -- on the 10th of
2 September, 1995 from the territory of Ozren.
3 Q. Have you spoken with any of these persons?
4 A. Are you referring to the persons from the list?
5 Q. Yes, sir. I'm asking if you have ever found and spoken with any
6 of these persons on this list.
7 A. No. No. They were missing.
8 Q. Have you spoken --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
10 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: When do you expect him to have spoken, before they
12 went missing or?
13 MS. SARTORIO: I'm asking if he found any of the persons on the
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, ask that question.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Well, it's a leading question, Your Honour, so I
17 was going to ask him if he has a conclusion with regard to the persons,
18 but I think he's answered that -- the question. I was trying not to ask a
19 leading question, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't think it's leading to say: Were they ever
22 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Thank you.
23 Q. Now, did you -- did you have an occasion in the course of your
24 duties to -- to speak with and interact with any family members of these
25 persons on this list?
1 A. Yes. I believe I interviewed members of the families of all of
2 the missing.
3 Q. And did you do other -- other -- what did your investigation
4 consist of?
5 A. My role was, upon receiving information from the army, to -- that
6 a certain person had gone missing, or if that person was reported by his
7 or her family as missing, to initiate the process of tracing. First of
8 all, to try and determine what the fate of that person was, whether it is
9 still among the living or is deceased.
10 As for this list here, these were soldiers of the Army of
11 Republika Srpska who went missing at Ozren, as I said. Only six of the
12 people from this list were found and identified by using the DNA method.
13 Q. Okay. Now, I'd like to direct your attention --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I beg your pardon. Just a second. That
15 answer is not clear. You're saying only six of the people from this list
16 were found and identified by using the DNA method they were found living?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct -- no, no, no. No,
18 no. We only use the DNA method to identify dead people.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's --
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were found dead.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But when you say "only six of the people on
22 this list were found," it gives the impression that they were living.
23 You've got to say only six bodies of these people were found, and they
24 were identified by DNA method.
25 So you only found the bodies of six people out of fifty-one; is
1 that correct?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
4 You may proceed, Madam Sartorio.
5 MS. SARTORIO:
6 Q. And, sir, were these six bodies the subject of a previous document
7 that you were shown and -- and identified as the -- discussing the
8 handover of mortal remains? Are these the six bodies that are the subject
9 of that document?
10 A. Yes. It is precisely those bodies were -- as discussed, the
11 bodies from this list.
12 Q. Okay. Now I would like to direct your attention to number --
13 well, first let me ask you this: The -- the documents that we saw, the
14 DNA reports that we just discussed a few moments ago, do you see the name
15 of the person on this list that was the subject of those DNA results?
16 A. I believe it is Todorovic --
17 Q. No, no, no. No, the person that was on the DNA sample we just
18 saw . If you need to is see that again, just say so.
19 A. Blagojevic. I don't see that name here. We would have to scroll
21 MS. SARTORIO: Could you scroll down, please, so the witness can
22 see the entire list.
23 Q. Do you see his name, sir?
24 A. No, I haven't found it.
25 Q. Okay.
1 MS. SARTORIO: You need to scroll over, please, the document so he
2 can see. Yes. Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. I see number 40,
4 "Radenko Blagojevic".
5 MS. SARTORIO:
6 Q. And what is -- what is the number next to this -- the number -- is
7 this -- 19. I can't read the number. Could you tell us what that is.
8 A. 1965.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
10 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I -- just a point of clarification. My
11 learned friend asked the witness to identify the name of a person whose
12 name appeared in the DNA reports, and his name was specified there as --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I was going to ask that we go back to that report.
14 MS. SARTORIO: I'm getting --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- Radomir Blagojevic.
16 MS. SARTORIO: I'm getting to that. I'll be getting to that, Your
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
19 MS. SARTORIO: May I proceed?
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, please. Can we just see this list, this part
21 of the list where number 40 has been shown?
22 MS. SARTORIO: Well, it's not fully translated.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no, I'm asking for the B/C/S, the handwritten
25 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: It was just not --
2 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we enlarge it, please: Blagojevic Radenko.
4 And this number you were asking about, Madam Sartorio?
5 MS. SARTORIO:
6 Q. Is the number on the right-hand side of the name -- is it -- I
7 see -- it says "19-something." Can you tell us what that number is and
8 what that number represents to you?
9 A. The year of birth and place of birth, Vozuca.
10 Q. Okay. Now --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what is this number? What is this year of
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This person was born in 1965 in
15 MS. SARTORIO:
16 Q. Okay. Now, as you just may have heard, there -- the name on this,
17 number 40, appears -- it says "Blagojevic Radenko." Okay? Is that
18 name -- is that first name different from the name that we just saw on the
19 DNA report; and if so, can you explain that?
20 A. I see no difference. This is Radenko Blagojevic.
21 Q. Okay.
22 MS. SARTORIO: Can we please go back to 2964, page 17. Did I --
23 2964. Did I say 14? I meant 17. Can I see 17? Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, sir, without -- does this name say "Radomir"?
25 A. Yes, "Radomir."
1 MS. SARTORIO: Then go back to, please, 2575.
2 Q. I believe that says "Radenko." So that's not the same name, is
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Okay. So can you explain why -- how you concluded that this was
6 the same person if the first name is different.
7 A. My office is in possession of all missing persons from the area of
8 Ozren. There is no Radenko Blagojevic born in 1965 in Vozuca. There was
9 a Radomir. There was no person with the other name as someone who had
10 gone missing on that day. This is what I was explaining a while ago.
11 Together with other clerks from my office, we analysed the list
12 and certain names suffered some changes; for example, there were some
13 typos. As in this case, there was Radenko, or Radomir. In principle,
14 Radenko/Radomir, born in 1965, if checked against our database and the
15 database of ICRC, there is no Radomir. There is another first name there.
16 As for Radenko or Radomir, when we use such names, these two names
17 are basically one and the same name; therefore, this mistake of mine was,
18 of course, inadvertent. It wasn't intentional; however, it is the same
19 name and the same person. There was no other person by the last name of
20 Blagojevic born in 1965 in Vozuca that had gone missing.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 MS. SARTORIO: Now, in this connection, I'd like the witness --
23 this document to be put away for the time being and the witness be shown
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before we do that, I just want to find out
1 from the witness: Given your explanations, can you just tell us what the
2 correct name of this person is? Is it Radomir or is it Radenko?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the name is Radomir
4 Blagojevic. But, if I may, I had to work with 5.000 different names of
5 missing persons. Please do not expect me to know each and every name by
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, sir.
8 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
9 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I have a question regarding this
10 particular document. You told us that two people on this list, two
11 missing people on this list, you used an identification method that uses
12 DNA tests and thereby were able to identify six bodies. You also told us
13 that you conducted an investigation in order to find the other people that
14 were on this list.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] After this inquiry was conducted,
17 were you able to find any of these people?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. From this list, I found
19 another person that was not part of the so-called Kamenica group, as we
20 called it.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Was this person alive, or was it
22 somebody who had gone missing?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
24 this person's dead body was found. His name was -- well, let me just
25 consult -- or rather, let me try to recall the name.
1 There was another person found from this list whose DNA was
2 identified and the name was assigned to the dead body.
3 Can I see the list, please.
4 Yes, it is Obrad Petrusic.
5 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. I was going to go through each --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But when the Judge finish, I have a question,
7 because I'm confused now.
8 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like to know whether you
9 found any people alive, people who were on this list.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no one was alive.
11 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Now, after the research you
12 carried out, did this cover the entire former Yugoslavia -- territory of
13 the entire former Yugoslavia?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, first, we went looking in the
15 area of Ozren. No one from the list was found alive, ever.
16 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] So, basically, you only conducted
17 your research in the Ozren area.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In principle, where the persons had
19 gone missing, we searched the wider area. There is no need to look into
20 other locations if we know what our methodology is. Our methodology and
21 practice indicates that it was only there that we could find them.
22 As well as --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
24 repeat the last portion of his answer.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, Judge. The translators are asking that the
1 witness repeat the last portion of his answer.
2 JUDGE LATTANZI: Oh, yes.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The seven persons were found in the
4 wider area of Ozren exactly where they had gone missing.
5 As regards refugee camps, all of the families reported their
6 missing members to the International Red Cross, and all those who remained
7 alive returned a year or two after the war. Twelve years, I believe you
8 will agree, is a very long time for one not to get in touch with his or
9 her family.
10 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
12 Sorry, sir. You testified that these people were involved in war
13 in Ozren. Is that what you said?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. These were all
15 members of the Army of Republika Srpska.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, at page 78, lines 23 to 25, you say: "Yes.
17 From this list, I found another person that was not part of the so-called
18 Kamenica group, as we called it."
19 Did you call these people"the Kamenica group"?
20 A. When I said that I found another person, I had in mind this list
21 before me.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But listen to my question. My question is:
23 Did you call these people who are on this list, did you call them "the
24 Kamenica group"?
25 A. That is correct.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't call them "the Ozren group."
2 A. No, we did not. To be more precise, Kamenica or Gostovici. That
3 was the name we assigned to the group.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Kamenica and Ozren, are they one and the same
6 A. Kamenica is a micro location within the Ozren area, and Gostovici
7 was in the wider area. Kamenica was a micro location, and these people
8 went missing at that micro location. This is what we referred to. We
9 called them by that location.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: At that micro location, which is Kamenica?
11 A. I did not understand.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: You said, "Kamenica was a micro location, and these
13 people went missing at the micro location. This is what we referred to.
14 We called them by that location."
15 I'm saying the micro location is Kamenica.
16 A. Yes.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if you know, sir, - I just really want to get
18 clarity, if you do know - do you know when they went missing or when they
19 were involved in the action that resulted to them getting missing?
20 A. They went missing on the 10th of September, 1995 in the area of
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. You're a little bit ahead of me,
25 because I have going to show a document to the witness to confirm what he
1 said about going missing, because we want to admit that as an exhibit.
2 So -- so I would like the witness to be shown 2 -- 2883, please,
3 and page 79 in English and page 40 in B/C/S -- in Bosnian.
4 Q. Okay. Now --
5 MS. SARTORIO: The English isn't up.
6 Q. Okay. Now, sir, can you identify this document for us?
7 A. Yes. This is an index card of missing or captured person that we
8 keep at our office.
9 Q. And from -- what is the source of the information that goes into
10 this document?
11 A. Primarily the source was a report from his unit; then we have the
12 BAZ number, 917893, if I'm not mistaken. That is from the report of the
13 ICRC, meaning that this person was reported missing to the ICRC as well;
14 and then it is also based on the information received by family members
15 concerning his date of birth, place of birth, the place he was last seen
16 at, and the clothes the person was wearing at the moment of disappearance.
17 There is also information on whether the person was found or not.
18 It says "no" here; then we have the category, meaning soldier or civilian.
19 This person was a soldier.
20 These were the -- this was the information, and all other
21 information that we could get our hands on would be introduced into our
22 database and made part of the index card.
23 MS. SARTORIO: And if we could scroll down a little bit on the
25 Q. Can you tell us here what identifies the mother's name and what
1 that name is?
2 A. Well, mother, it is Mirjana.
3 Q. Okay. That's all.
4 And, now, is that the same name that was on the DNA analysis?
5 A. Yes, it is the same name.
6 Q. Now, the information on this document -- and you just told us and
7 I don't want to -- you said it came from different sources, but I just
8 want to make it clear for the -- for the record that you didn't -- did you
9 draft this document based on the -- the DNA report or based on this list,
10 or did you draft it from independent sources?
11 A. This data was created far ahead of receiving the results of DNA
12 analysis; and, as I said, we collected that from several different
14 Q. Okay. Now, with respect to this particular body and can you --
15 can you confirm or tell us whether this body was one of the -- the six
16 that you've mentioned; and if so, what -- what does that mean, "one of the
18 A. Yes. This body is one of the six, meaning that by using the DNA
19 method, it was identified and as such the results were accepted by the
20 family and the body was buried under that name.
21 Q. Okay. But, no, what I'm trying to get at, sir, is -- again, we've
22 introduced your statement into evidence, and you -- within your statement,
23 you discuss different exhumations that you attended or you participated
24 in. Is this body from one of those exhumations?
25 A. This body was exhumed by the federal commission. I took no part
1 in their work.
2 Q. Right. But we just talked about the handover. Is this one of the
3 bodies that's in the handover report?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Okay. And do you know where those bodies came from that were the
6 subject of that handover report?
7 A. Do you mean where I got it or where they had come from?
8 Q. Where the bodies had come from.
9 A. The bodies were taken over in Visoko. They were exhumed in
10 Kamenica, near Zavidovici.
11 Q. All right. And just to follow up on one of the Judge's questions.
12 And I don't -- again, it's in your statement, but you identified in your
13 statement. Do you know how many in total that you have reported missing
14 from your region?
15 A. In the area of Ozren, 460 people went missing.
16 Q. And do you know how many live persons of those -- persons that you
17 found alive of those?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I object to this line of questioning
20 because this is contained within one of the witness statements. So we --
21 we're really overlapping and duplicating matters by going into this sort
22 of questioning.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that a ground of objection, sir?
24 MR. ROBSON: It is, Your Honour, because I recall Judge Harhoff
25 saying that Rule 92 ter witnesses would be permitted to testify solely on
1 the basis that there would be no duplication, and any viva voce type
2 evidence would not deal with matters contained within witness statements.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: That latter explanation is slightly more
5 Actually, what I was going to raise with Madam Sartorio was going
6 to be that it looks like now she's no more tendering exhibits. She's now
7 leading this witness, and is this information she's leading not contained
8 in the statement? What is the point of a 92 ter procedure if now we're
9 going into this kind of leading.
10 MS. SARTORIO: Well, Your Honour, it was just to clarify what I
11 believe Judge Lattanzi was asking him about in terms of his investigation.
12 I -- I'm not sure that it's clear to the Court and to the Judges what the
13 extent of this person's job and the extent and nature of his investigative
15 It doesn't -- I don't think it came across in his answer with the
16 Judge, and I would like to just have him explain the magnitude of his --
17 of what he had to do and what -- what they did do. I -- I just think
18 it -- the way it was left, it looks like they just looked for people in
19 Ozren and that was the end of I, and I don't believe that's the case. So
20 I would like the witness to be much more detailed.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It would have been helpful to preface your question
22 by saying: "I would like to clarify the point that Judge Lattanzi raised
23 with you."
24 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, we just don't see the connection if you don't
1 say so. So it looks like you're leading this witness, and this witness is
2 supposed to have testified on paper.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. So may I proceed or ...?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do proceed, ma'am.
5 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Bear in mind what Mr. Robson said. Don't overlap
7 with viva voce evidence.
8 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Thank you.
9 Q. Sir, I just want you to explain to the Judges, without going into
10 what's repeated in your statement, when you were asked by the Judge if you
11 just looked in one particular area -- you need to explain further, please,
12 how extensive your search was and what it involved, in general; Not
13 particular names or persons, but what it involved in general.
14 If it involved interviews, record searches, whatever it involved,
15 please clarify for the Judges the nature of your investigation --
16 investigative work.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm sorry to object, but you will have
19 noticed from the witness statements that the witness does deal with these
20 types of issues within the statement. By phrasing a question in such an
21 open and wide manner, and bearing in mind this is supposed to be a
22 time-saving exercise, the witness is inevitably going to overlap on
23 matters contained in the statement, and it's inviting a matter which could
24 last for a significant period of time, I would submit.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just to clarify the method of investigation, I
1 think that's the question.
2 "Now, please clarify for the Judges the nature of your
3 investigation." That's all she's asking for. Do you think it's going to
4 open -- it's a wide question?
5 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, yes. When it went on to say if it
6 involved interviews, record searches, whatever, it's --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, I --
8 MR. ROBSON: -- it's really, in my submission, an invitation to go
9 in -- into this issue at great length.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I didn't even want to refer to that, because I
11 found that to be leading.
12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it's in your hands. What I'm trying to
13 drive at is that in view of the -- the life that 92 ter is a time-saving
14 exercise, I would submit that the question should be focused.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have heard that, Madam Sartorio.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. If Your Honours would mind, I would like to
17 focus, as we are allowed to do in 92 ter, on two paragraphs in the
18 witness's statement, if I may, so that the Judges have a clear
19 understanding, while we proceed, what it is I'm asking the witness to --
20 to -- to clarify.
21 It's the June 2007 statement. It's P -- it's been marked for
22 identification. Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can I see it on the screen.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what you're referring to.
1 MS. SARTORIO: In particular, I would like paragraphs 4 and 5.
2 That is on page 2 of each statement.
3 Q. Now, sir, I'd like you to read paragraphs 4 and 5 briefly, if you
4 may, to yourself.
5 A. Yes, I've done it.
6 Q. Okay. And just to --
7 A. Thank you.
8 Q. And I want to make -- I want you to make it clear to the Judges
9 what -- exactly what was involved in trying to locate the missing persons.
10 A. Can you go back to the fourth paragraph, please. Yes.
11 I believe that this paragraph speaks for itself and says what the
12 role was of the officials of the office and all the persons involved in
13 the search for the missing persons.
14 When the families are provided with information about a lot of
15 their loved ones, whether they're alive or dead, we had to provide them
16 with full information. If we found out that they were in prison, that
17 they had been in prison, we got in touch with the authorities and we
18 agreed on the methodology of the exchange of these persons, and that job
19 was completed in 1996.
20 As of 1996 onwards until this very day, all the persons that have
21 been found were found dead, save for the 15 persons who were on the list
22 who were found on Ozren alive.
23 In order to get hold of the information about the locality of a
24 certain grave, we had to invest a lot of effort and use all the allowed
25 and permissible methods in order to find out where a certain grave was.
1 When the grave was located or when some surface remains were located, at
2 that moment we addressed the competent prosecutor's office, and we
3 requested from the prosecutor to issue an order for the exhumation of
4 those mortal remains.
5 Once such order was received from the prosecutor's office, we
6 would inform the International Commission for Missing Persons as well as
7 the Federal Commission for Missing Persons, and the two of them launched
8 their mechanisms in order to further inform the police. The police come
9 to the spot and secure the location of the -- up to the moment of the
11 As far as I know, it is the obligation of the international
12 commission to inform about all the locations, and this is also provided
13 for in various agreements.
14 Q. Okay. And can you just -- and, again, I don't want to get into
15 much more detail, sir. But you've been doing this work since 1996; is
16 that what you just said?
17 A. Yes. I've worked there since 1996; although, I was a member of
18 the Military Commission for Missing Persons from 1993 to 1996. But as of
19 1996, I've been working with this other commission.
20 Q. And are you still continuing --
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Carry on. Carry on, ma'am.
23 MS. SARTORIO: I was waiting for the Judge to --
24 Q. Are you still continuing your investigation regarding missing
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Now, I would like the witness to be shown again
4 P02575. Well, I --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: The same document that he has seen earlier?
6 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. I'm going to go through another body, Your
7 Honour, unless I admit them -- admit all of the documents in whole, and
8 then we can argue in our closing brief, Your Honour.
9 There's names on this list that we allege match DNA reports, and
10 so I can go through each one individually or we could just admit all of
11 the documents and deal with it in writing.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, all I was asking was are you going
13 back to the same document that we have seen before?
14 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. I'm going back to all of the documents --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
16 MS. SARTORIO: -- unless -- I see Judge Harhoff is ...
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Go ahead, ma'am.
19 MS. SARTORIO:
20 Q. Now, sir, I'd like you to refer to number 33 on this list, if you
21 may, and, sir, are you familiar with this name?
22 A. Drago Stjepanovic, he is a missing person.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Now may the witness be shown P02964 and page 23.
25 Q. And, sir, can you tell us what this document is?
1 A. This is a DNA report concerning Drago Stjepanovic.
2 Q. And can you tell us the name of the wife on this report?
3 A. Jela Stjepanovic.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Now may the witness please be shown P02883, page 65
5 in English and page 33 in Bosnian.
6 Q. And, sir, can you -- can you identify for us what this document
8 A. This is a chart for a missing person. In this case, for
9 Stjepanovic Drago, from our database.
10 Q. And if you look down - and in the English version, it's there -
11 can you identify what it says as the -- as the wife's name?
12 A. Jela Stjepanovic.
13 Q. And did your -- did your office or did you make a determination
14 about this person with regard to the -- your index card, your -- the DNA,
15 and the list of names? Do you have a conclusion on that?
16 A. There is a -- the family took over the body and signed the
17 identification record.
18 Q. Okay. My specific question, sir, is: What is the connection? Is
19 the person in the DNA report and the person on your index card and the
20 person on the list, are they the -- did you conclude they are the same
21 person or not?
22 A. Yes. It is the same person.
23 Q. And you just mentioned that the -- the body was turned over to
25 A. It was handed over to the family, who buried the body.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MS. SARTORIO: Now may the witness be shown --
3 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Sartorio.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
5 JUDGE HARHOFF: Do you intend to go through all the names on the
6 list, all 51 of them? I mean --
7 MS. SARTORIO: No. It's -- tomorrow, Dr. Brkic will be
8 testifying, who conducted the examination and identification, and there
9 are six bodies that we seek to draw these inferences -- or these
10 conclusions, not inferences. So that's what I was going to go over today.
11 But I -- the -- I will admit the -- the documents in whole. I
12 will ask, seek that they be admitted in whole.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think you should request this. You were given
14 one hour, and I think you've already spent an hour and a half.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. All right.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: So this has to come to a conclusion; otherwise,
17 we're completely defeating the purpose of having Rule 92 ter.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. Yes, sir. But these -- these were not
19 specifically referred to in the statements.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why call this witness here, Madam, and tender
21 documents through him if those documents are not referred to in his
23 MS. SARTORIO: Because they're additions.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If they're additions, get an additional statement.
25 MS. SARTORIO: Well --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You've given us a number of statements by this
2 witness, some of which we're going redact. What is the purpose of a 92
3 ter procedure?
4 MS. SARTORIO: Well, this is a -- an extremely important witness,
5 Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't dispute that, ma'am.
7 MS. SARTORIO: And I believe that in the statement he identifies
8 the -- the persons that I am talking about today, but we are admitting
9 documents to corroborate and support the witness's statement and
10 testimony. That's what we're seeking to do.
11 At this point I will ask that the -- the three exhibits be
12 admitted into evidence.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: But let me find out from you: When you say "these
14 are additions," are these additions -- do your opposite members have these
16 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. We've submitted to them, first
17 of all, disclosure a long, long time ago, as well as an exhibit list.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: And are those additions on the e-court?
19 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, they are.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: And have you given them to the Bench?
21 MS. SARTORIO: They're in e-court.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Why do you need to lead the witness through each
23 one of them?
24 MS. SARTORIO: Because the Defence is disputing that these --
25 these particular bodies and aspects of it.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: But you have used this witness to give his
2 testimony about these bodies in the statement. That's the purpose.
3 MS. SARTORIO: Well, in the statement, there's not a one-on-one
4 connection between the DNA records, the index cards, and the list, which
5 is what I am trying to do --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, if there is no one-on-one connection, what is
7 the purpose of that statement, of what use is it going to be?
8 MS. SARTORIO: Well, Your Honour, he concludes in his statement
9 the -- the DNA results, but I'm asking that the documents be admitted
10 to --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Answer my question, Madam Sartorio. My question
12 is: If his statement does not give a connection between the DNA records,
13 the index cards, and the other lists, of what use is it going to be?
14 MS. SARTORIO: Well, because it has --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's supposed to be the sum total of his
16 testimony on paper.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Well, the -- the sum total of what he gave -- we're
18 asking that his statement be admitted because it discusses many things in
19 general, and also it's not disputed what he discusses. But these
20 particular documents were -- were not -- are not connected one-on-one in
21 the statement, and we're allowed in 92 ter to ask questions about
22 additional documents.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true, ma'am, but the 92 ter is to clarify
24 little things, not to -- you've gone well over your time to present this
25 witness's testimony. The idea was you're just going to ask a few
1 questions and turn him over for cross-examination. I don't see the
2 purpose of the 92 ter procedure if it does not save us the time that you
3 were claiming you're going to save for us. You might as well have led
4 this witness right through.
5 MS. SARTORIO: Well, it -- perhaps that's true, Your Honour, and
6 I'm having the same doubts myself. I wish that I had led the witness
7 through. I think it would have been quite faster.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: And perhaps even clearer.
9 MS. SARTORIO: Right. I understand that.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know whether I understood this witness's
11 testimony today. That's my biggest problem.
12 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I think if -- I would hope, Your Honours,
13 and -- that between reading the statement and the testimony that -- that
14 it will become clear. But I -- as I said, because I didn't lead the
15 witness through a direct examination to set the background, that he was
16 involved in exhumations and did this and did that, I've had to jump right
17 into the documents that we wanted admitted.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Because the assumption is that background is
19 in the statement.
20 MS. SARTORIO: That's right, and it is.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Please. You speak the same
22 language. Maybe you've forgotten that what you are saying is being
24 MS. SARTORIO: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I apologise.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, ma'am.
1 MS. SARTORIO: Be that as it may, Your Honour, we have asked that
2 the statements be admitted, and I would like to ask that three pre-trial
3 exhibits be marked as exhibits.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Ma'am, before you ask for pre-trial exhibits to be
5 marked as exhibit, I would like you to give guidance to the Chamber on how
6 to deal with these documents that you have referred to: P02964, page 27,
7 29, then something about page 17, then there was an official note, page
8 18, 2575, 2883, 2575 again, 2964 again. Just tell us how to deal with
9 these for purposes of exhibits.
10 MS. SARTORIO: For the purposes of the exhibit, we ask that the
11 entire exhibit of -- of 2575 be admitted in evidence. It is two pages
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. And then what about 29 -- in chronology, how
14 they came into evidence: 2964 came before 2575. Can you tell us what to
15 do with 2964.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Well, we ask that the entire document be admitted
17 in evidence, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
19 Yes, Mr. Robson.
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, we object to the entire document being
21 admitted into evidence. It's some -- the PT2964 consists of, by my
22 calculations, 13 different documents. Today, we have dipped into three of
23 those documents. I believe one as an order from the prosecutor, the
24 second was another document, and then we've touched upon two DNA reports,
25 two pages of DNA reports.
1 It's a substantial document together; and, in line with the Trial
2 Chamber's previous decisions, I would suggest that we only admit those
3 portions that have been dealt with in evidence today.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Isn't that the document that you did admit a little
5 earlier that it did have attachments to it, and you didn't object to it
6 going in with the attachments?
7 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, you've got an objection, Madam Sartorio.
9 Would you like to deal with that?
10 MS. SARTORIO: I would, Your Honour. I can -- I can designate
11 certain pages of the -- which includes all of the DNA reports, although
12 each one has not been precisely covered with the witness, but I think
13 there's enough foundation laid. He understands what is these reports are,
14 and I will limit it to that.
15 Dr. Brkic -- I believe this is on the exhibit list for the doctor,
16 and we'll get in the whole exhibit. We referred to that --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which pages are you going to designate, madam?
18 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Of 2964, we would like the document that
19 starts at page 27 in English and page 14 in Bosnian; and the second
20 document, which is page 29 in English and page 15 in Bosnian. Those two
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
23 MS. SARTORIO: Then pages 17 through 25.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may mention, madam, today you also attached --
25 okay. Page 18 is --
1 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- included.
3 MS. SARTORIO: 17 through 25, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: There it is, Mr. Robson.
5 MR. ROBSON: Just bear with me, Your Honour, for a moment, please.
6 [Defence counsel confer]
7 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, just so I can clarify, because I don't
8 have page numbers in my document like the Prosecutor does.
9 Page 27 in the English, the -- and page 29, is that the
10 Karahasanovic list?
11 MS. SARTORIO: No, that's P02575.
12 MR. ROBSON: I'm sorry, that doesn't mean anything to me. What
13 document would that be?
14 MS. SARTORIO: You mean -- the Karahasanovic list is 2575.
15 MR. ROBSON: Okay. And the first document that was mentioned
16 was --
17 MS. SARTORIO: Those are the orders: The handover, the mortal
18 remains, and the order of the exhumation.
19 MR. ROBSON: Okay. And pages 17 to 25 are the DNA reports.
20 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
21 MR. ROBSON: Okay. Your Honour, we'll go along with that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Thank you very much.
23 May P02964 --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Honourable Judge, please.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
1 May Document P02964 at pages 27 - I'm talking about only the
2 English here - 29, and 17 through to 25 be admitted into evidence and be
3 given an exhibit number, please.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that will be Exhibit number 645.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Now, Madam Sartorio, the next
6 document that you refer to was P02575.
7 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. We ask that that be admitted into evidence,
8 Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. May P02575 be admitted into evidence and
10 given an Exhibit number, please.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 646.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 MS. SARTORIO: And the Prosecution requests that P02883 be
14 admitted into evidence.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: P02883 is admitted --
16 Sorry, Mr. Robson.
17 MR. ROBSON: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm trying to deal with four
18 different PTs at the same time. I've lost track of what that is, so I'd
19 be grateful if my learned friend could explain what that document is
20 before it's admitted.
21 MS. SARTORIO: These documents are index cards of the missing
22 persons and index cards of the government of Republika Srpska Office for
23 the Search of Missing and Captured Persons.
24 MR. ROBSON: No objection there, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did he say objection? Oh, no objection. Thank
1 you very much.
2 MS. SARTORIO: I just --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sartorio.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Sorry. May we have a number.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Document 2838 is admitted into evidence. May it
6 please be given an exhibit number.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 647.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
9 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honours --
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
11 MS. SARTORIO: -- I note the time. I just have one more
12 photograph, if I could show the witness, and I'll be finished with the
13 direct examination.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: You show him the photograph, Madam Sartorio.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
17 Q. Sir, do you recognise this photograph?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And can you tell us where you recognise this photograph from. Do
20 you -- have you seen it before?
21 A. Yes. I received it in 1997.
22 Q. And can you tell us from whom you received this photograph.
23 A. I got it from the military intelligence services of the Army of
24 Republika Srpska.
25 Q. And I'd like you to tell us, if you can, what this document is,
1 what this photograph is of.
2 A. This photo was taken on the 17th of September, 1995 and depicts
3 five people whom the families recognised. Of the five person, two are on
4 the aforementioned list. They are Marko Maric. He is the second on the
5 right. The last person is Dragan Lukic, and he's also on the
6 aforementioned list.
7 Q. Okay. Just quickly to clarify. When you say "the
8 aforementioned -- sorry, "aforementioned list," which list is that?
9 A. I don't know what your number is. The list of -- containing 51
10 names from Kamenica.
11 Q. The handwritten list?
12 A. Yes. Yes, precisely.
13 Q. Now, just for the record, for clarification, because it's --
14 it's -- can you tell us again, starting from the right hand of the
15 document, looking at the photograph, the persons that you identified and
16 which number of what person?
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you give him a pen and ask him to circle them
18 and give them a number.
19 Mr. Robson, sorry.
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it -- I think it's the -- the way the
21 question is being formulated. It was put to the witness that "you
22 identified." I don't think the witness has stated that he identified any
23 witness -- any people in this photograph.
24 MS. SARTORIO: That's fair, Your Honour. I'll withdraw the
1 I have a hard copy. Perhaps we could put it on the ELMO and ask
2 the witness to identify the persons.
3 Q. Sir, could you just write and put an arrow for the persons that
4 you said - if that's your testimony - that family members had identified.
5 A. The family members have recognised all the five persons. Of the
6 five, two are on the handwritten list. The first one is here, Dragan
7 Lukic; and this person here, that is Marko Maric.
8 Q. Could you write the name on the list so this document can be
9 admitted into evidence, sir. Write the name of the person. Thank you.
10 A. [Marks] It's not very easy to write like this.
11 Q. And, sir, do you -- do you know where this document -- photograph
12 was taken?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, that's plainly a leading question.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: How is it leading?
16 MS. SARTORIO: I don't know how -- I don't know how it's leading,
17 Your Honour. I'm just asking him if he knows.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: How is it leading, sir?
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, it's leading because it's suggesting
20 that he does know where it is. The question could be phrased more
21 neutrally: What do we see?
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: But he has told us what we see. He's told us it's
23 a photograph of five people.
24 MR. ROBSON: He's told us that members of families identified,
25 told him who these people were as well.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. Right.
2 MR. ROBSON: So --
3 MS. SARTORIO: But how is the question "Do you know where this
4 photograph was taken," leading? How is it leading?
5 MR. ROBSON: It's inviting an answer, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you phrase it in such a way that's not inviting
7 an answer, the same question.
8 MR. ROBSON: I would like to, Your Honour, but it's the
9 Prosecution's go at the moment, so I will decline, if you don't mind.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, thank you. But if you decline, then I'm
11 going to rule you out of order.
12 MR. ROBSON: Fair enough, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 Please continue.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you very much.
16 Q. Sir, can you answer the question?
17 A. Yes. I know where it was taken. It was taken in the former base
18 or the --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That was not the question. The question is: Do
20 you know where it was taken? "Yes, I know," that suffices.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 MS. SARTORIO:
23 Q. And can you tell us, if you know, where it was taken and how --
24 and what it is that leads you to that conclusion.
25 A. This photo was taken in Gostovici in the Mujahedin camp in the
1 house owned by Nestor Ristic. And how do I know that? Behind Marko
2 Maric, if you look, the damage on the wall, in 1997, in November of that
3 year, I had been in that room and I had carried out a reconstruction of
4 that photo, and there was an identical damage on the wall that year.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Another trial is coming in here.
6 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. We seek to have this document admitted into
7 evidence, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
9 please be given an exhibit number.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 648.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would only like to know: This
13 photograph has been taken on the 17th September 1995; is that so? Perhaps
14 you've said so, but I didn't note it. I don't remember, anyway.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
16 In the right bottom part is the date which was generated by the camera.
17 You can see the date, the 17th of September, 1995.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: After what I'm going to say --
19 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. I'm going to ask that we all
21 wait until the translation has been made for Judge Lattanzi.
22 The court is going to adjourn now until tomorrow, the 26th, in the
23 same courtroom at 9.00.
24 May we rise.
25 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.51 p.m.,
1 to be reconvened on Friday, the 26th day of
2 October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.