1 Friday, 26 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, everybody.
7 Mr. Registrar, will you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, and good morning, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-04-83-T, the Prosecutor versus
11 Rasim Delic.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
13 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the
15 MS. SARTORIO: Good morning, everyone. Laurie Sartorio for the
16 Prosecution and Matthias Neuner, and our case manager, Alma Imamovic.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning.
18 And for the Defence.
19 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good
20 morning to my learned friends from the Prosecution, to everyone in and
21 around the courtroom. My name is Vasvija Vidovic, and together with
22 Nicholas Robson, I appear here on behalf of General Delic's Defence,
23 together with Lana Deljkic, who is our legal assistant.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Madam Vidovic.
25 Sir, may I just remind you that you are still bound by the
1 declaration you made yesterday at the beginning of your testimony to tell
2 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing else but the truth.
3 Thank you very much.
4 Madam Sartorio, may I remind you this is a 92 ter witness and we
5 should finish.
6 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. I appreciate that, and I did
7 spend some time last night. I would like, with the Court's indulgence, a
8 short period of time just to --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: How short is short?
10 MS. SARTORIO: Thirty minutes, Your Honour?
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, that is too much. Ten minutes.
12 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, this is a very important witness and
13 it's our crime base in September; and, you know, if things didn't go
14 smoothly yesterday, I apologise for that. That's was my fault, but the
15 case shouldn't suffer. All I want to do this morning, Your Honour, is
16 just link the documents that were shown yesterday to paragraphs in the
17 indictment, and I'll go as quickly as possible.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Please do, Madam Sartorio.
19 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 I would like the witness to be shown the statement, the statement
21 of June of 2000, which was marked for identification 643, please.
22 If he could be shown paragraph 33. No, that's October. Please,
23 June of 2007.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we can zoom in to this statement, we can hardly
25 read it.
1 MS. SARTORIO: 643. It should be the June. That's not the correct
2 statement, please.
3 THE REGISTRAR: MFI 644, Madam Sartorio.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Paragraph 33, please.
5 WITNESS: GORAN KRCMAR [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 Examination by Ms. Sartorio: [Continued]
8 Q. Sir, in this paragraph, you refer to a handwritten list of names,
9 dated 11 September, 1995, that you had received from an ICTY investigator.
10 You also state in this paragraph that the list had been made, according to
11 you, by an ABiH soldier and that it contained the names of VRS soldiers
12 who had been detained at Kesten.
13 I just want to make it clear, by this list, that -- is this the
14 list, the handwritten list, that was shown to you yesterday in court?
15 Can you answer that question? Remember you looked at a
16 handwritten list yesterday?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters are
19 A. Yes, that is the list we were looking at yesterday.
20 MS. SARTORIO:
21 Q. Thank you. Now, if you could look at paragraph 38, please.
22 A. Could we zoom in?
23 Q. Now, in this paragraph, you also refer to the Kesten list; and I
24 just want it clear for the record, is this the same document with the
25 handwritten names?
1 A. Just a moment. Allow me a second to go through it.
2 On the list, we were looking at yesterday that is handwritten,
3 there are names of people who used to belong to the 4th Ozren Brigade, and
4 we had received that list from their home unit. By comparing that to the
5 list written by hand, we found certain names of certain people who had
6 been reported as missing from that unit.
7 Also on that list, in addition to the 4th Ozren Brigade soldiers,
8 there were other people who were -- did not belong to the 4th Ozren
9 Brigade but were part of the missing persons list, since they were
10 captured at Kesten.
11 Q. Thank you. The point that I'm trying to ask you is: When you
12 refer in your statement to the Kesten list, are you referring to that
13 handwritten list of names that was shown to you yesterday?
14 A. Yes, that is the list.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you. I'd like the witness to be shown
16 paragraph 19, please.
17 Q. Now, sir, could you please take a look at paragraph 19, and then I
18 will ask you a question.
19 A. Yes, I know what it's about.
20 Q. Okay. Now, you refer to a grave that was located at the Gostovici
21 River near Kamenica, and I just want to make it clear that these -- and
22 you discuss six of seven persons that were bodies. I want to clarify
23 whether these are the same bodies that we talked about yesterday, with
24 regard to the ICMP DNA records, and also with regard to the index cards
25 for missing persons. Does this paragraph relate to those documents?
1 A. These are the bodies from the mass grave that were identified by
2 the DNA method. We looked into some those cards yesterday, and those
3 people are also on the handwritten list.
4 Q. Yes. Okay. In paragraph 41 of your statement --
5 MS. SARTORIO: Please, may the witness be shown 41.
6 Q. In paragraph 41, sir, you use the phrase "Kamenica grave," I
7 believe, at least that is how it's translated. And then in 43, down
8 below, you also refer to -- well, you refer to "Kamenica grave." In
9 paragraph --
10 MS. SARTORIO: May we look at paragraph 36?
11 Q. I believe in 36, sir --?
12 MS. SARTORIO: If we can see the English, please. You have to go
13 to the previous page.
14 Q. In 36, you refer to "mass grave near Kamenica." And in paragraph
15 19 that you just looked at, it says "a grave at Gostovici River near
17 So can you tell the Judges, is this -- when you refer to this
18 gravesite in different ways, "Kamenica grave, "mass grave near Kamenica,"
19 "grave at Gostovici River," is this all the same grave that you're
20 talking about, and is it the grave we were talking about yesterday?
21 A. Yes. It is the same grave which is located in Kamenica, next to
22 the River Gostovici, some five or six metres away. We refer to it as the
23 Kamenica grave at the Gostovici River. It is the same grave.
24 Q. And in paragraphs 41 and 42 --
25 MS. SARTORIO: May the witness -- would you scroll up for a
1 minute, please.
2 Q. Again, if you look at 41 and 42, again, we're talking about the
3 Kamenica grave and DNA samples, and my question to you is: Again, so we
4 can focus on these paragraphs, are these the paragraphs that we talked
5 about yesterday with regard to the DNA records?
6 A. Yes.
7 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Now, this document may be put away, and one
8 more document --
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Hold on, Ms. Sartorio. There's something that
10 caught my eye.
11 Can we scroll up to paragraph 19.
12 Sir, paragraph 19 includes a piece of information which you may
13 not be able to explain, but I just wanted to ask you, nevertheless. If
14 you see a little down in paragraph 19, you say that: "We have confirmed
15 that six of these seven persons were VRS soldiers captured by the ABiH and
16 handed over to the Mujahedin at Kesten."
17 Do you know if this is a correct explanation of how these people
18 ended up in the hands of the Mujahedin?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to a statement of a
20 witness -- or rather, the witnesses that survived, we know that some
21 people were held captive in a hall at Kesten. We also know that that
22 group was turned over to the El Mujahedin unit, and they ended up at the
23 Gostovici camp.
24 Yesterday, we saw the photographs of people taken prisoner at
25 Kesten. Those photographs were taken at Gostovici. That was one of the
2 In my operative work, I learned from several different sources
3 that those people who were captured at Kesten, some 50 of them, were
4 handed over to the El Mujahedin unit. As I said in the statement, I don't
5 know whether they were captured by the 2nd or 3rd Corps of the ABiH, but
6 however we do know that they were handed over to the El Mujahedin.
7 Those information --
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you, sir.
9 So just to be sure, they were not captured by the Mujahedin
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] According to the stories and
12 statements of those who survived, they were taken prisoners by the Army of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The witnesses do not know whether it was the 2nd or
14 the 3rd Corps, but it was the ABiH, in any case, not the El Mujahedin.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you very much, sir. We can then move on.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
17 May the witness now be shown Exhibit 646, please, which is the
18 list of names, and could we start with the top name, please. Thank you.
19 The first page, the first page in -- yeah, thank you.
20 Q. Okay, sir --
21 MS. SARTORIO: If we could enlarge it a tad bit.
22 Q. Sir, I'd like to you look at this list, and go down the list and
23 tell me the first person that you see on this list that was identified --
24 the body was identified from the Kamenica grave. Give us the number and
25 the name, please.
1 A. Radovan Radojcic, number 9.
2 Q. And according to the records, is the spelling of this name -- is
3 this the correct name?
4 A. As I said yesterday, I worked with 5.000 names. I don't know
5 whether it was Radovan or Radenko. It is almost the same, and I'm afraid
6 to make a mistake here. Perhaps that could be compared with the list of
7 the missing that I forwarded to you.
8 Q. Well, we're not going to look at the other documents, but what I'm
9 trying to ask you is: You made certain alterations to some names on this
10 list, and you did that according to records that you --
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. And when you made those changes, what were the criteria for the
13 items that you looked at in order to come to the conclusion that the name
14 was changed?
15 A. The criterion was my database at my office, because it is credible
16 for several reasons. First of all, families reported on their missing
17 members with correct data, correct date of birth, first and last name, and
18 other information. Another criterion was a report of these people's home
19 unit, which was authentic. The third source was the ICRC database, which
20 is also credible and authentic.
21 That is why there was some changes compared to this list. Some
22 names were changed to a certain degree: Dragomir or Dragutin. Based on
23 this list of 51, we entered some changes, and we forwarded the index cards
24 of these people as well as the addresses of their families.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before this list was corrected by you, how had it
1 been generated and by whom?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This list looked exactly the way we
3 see it on the screen.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Listen to my question: How had it been generated
5 before you corrected it, and by whom?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know who created the
7 document. I received it from an investigator of this Tribunal. I was
8 told that it comes from a soldier of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I
9 don't know who drafted this.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
11 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we'll have a witness testify to that.
12 Thank you.
13 Q. Okay. And then, just quickly, who is the next person on this list
14 that you recognise as being one of the bodies?
15 A. The next person is Bozidar Todorovic.
16 Q. And that's number 10?
17 A. Yes, number 10.
18 Q. And can you tell us the next person?
19 A. Number 16, Cedo Dabic, born 1952 in Vozuca.
20 Q. Now, can you go to the next person? And if you have to go to the
21 next page, just please say so.
22 A. Number 18, it reads "Obrad Petrovic." Instead, it should be
23 "Petrusic." This person was found and identified, but not at the
24 Kamenica gravesite. That was the body I mentioned specifically yesterday
25 as having been found some 500 metres from that location, Obrad Petrusic.
1 And then we can move on to the next page.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. Just a moment. Stjepanovic, Drago, or rather, Drago Stjepanovic,
4 number 23. I apologise. There may be certain mistakes in the last name,
5 since we have same or very similar last names between people. I'm
6 speaking from memory. I forwarded all of the names of those identified
7 and even the statements of family members who signed and confirmed that
8 that person had been identified, Drago Stjepanovic.
9 Q. Thank you. And do you see anyone others on the list?
10 A. I apologise if I omit any names, but it's very difficult for me to
11 speak about every single name, especially if you bear in mind that I had
12 to go through 5.000 names. Mistakes are possible.
13 Q. Yes, sir, I'm just asking from your memory. If you don't
14 remember, that's fine.
15 A. That's it.
16 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
17 One moment, Your Honour, and I'll be finished. May I have one
18 moment? Thank you.
19 Your Honour, I have no further questions, and thank you for your
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 Yes. Is it you, Mr. Robson? Yes, Mr. Robson.
23 MR. ROBSON: Good morning, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good morning, Mr. Robson.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Robson:
1 Q. Good morning, Mr. Krcmar. I appear on behalf of General Delic,
2 and I'm going to be asking you some questions this morning.
3 What I'll do is I'll be taking you through your statements and
4 also your testimony that you gave yesterday.
5 Could you please confirm, at the outset, that during the war in
6 1993, you were appointed a member of the Exchange Commission of the 1st
7 Krajina Corps?
8 A. Yes, I can.
9 Q. And you've told us in April 1996 you started to work for the
10 Republika Srpska Missing Persons Commission, which is a civilian body?
11 A. Yes. It is a governmental institution.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, just for my own clarification, when you
13 say the witness was appointed a member of the Exchange Commission of the
14 1st Krajina Corps, is the 1st Krajina Corps an army unit?
15 MR. ROBSON:
16 Q. Can you answer that, Mr. Krcmar? Is the 1st Krajina Corps an army
18 A. The 1st Krajina Corps is one of the corps of the Army of Republika
19 Srpska. We've been also discussing the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm
20 just trying to be careful about distinguishing between the two.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed, thank you. Thank you very much. That was
22 going to be my next question, which army, and now we know.
23 MR. ROBSON: Thank you.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krcmar.
25 I'd like to take you to your statement of June 2007. At paragraph
1 9, you talk about two VRS officers that were found in 1998, and they told
2 you that sometime before their capture, around an area described as
3 "Pejanovici," they saw a bus containing captured VRS soldiers heading
4 from Kesten towards the direction of Stog. Do you remember mentioning
5 that in your state statement?
6 Do you remember mentioning that, Mr. Krcmar?
7 A. Yes, I do, and I remember which officers are in question. I know
8 about the whole situation.
9 Q. Perhaps, if you're able to answer simply "yes" or "no" to my
10 questions, if you're able to do so, I would encourage you to do that.
11 Now, in your statement, you'd agree with me that you are just
12 simply recalling what you were told by the two soldiers back in 1998?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you mean the statement in that paragraph or in
15 the whole statement? Is the whole statement recalling what he was told by
16 the two guys, or is it that paragraph?
17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'm focusing on paragraph number 9.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But, you say: "Now in your statement, you
19 would agree with me that you are just simply recalling what you were told
20 by the two soldiers back in 1998." You're saying "statement," so I just
21 want to be clear. Is it the entire statement or is it just paragraph --
22 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'll clarify.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Clarify.
24 MR. ROBSON:
25 Q. So, paragraph 9 contains information that was relayed to you by
1 the two soldiers; is that so?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. You don't know when the two soldiers were supposed to have seen
4 this bus, do you?
5 A. That is correct. One needs to read the last sentence of paragraph
6 9, though.
7 Q. And you'd agree with me that you don't know the identities of the
8 men who were supposed to be on that bus?
9 A. They were captured, according to the statements of the two
10 captured officers. I didn't see that.
11 Q. The question I asked you is: You don't know the identities of the
12 men who were supposed to be on that bus?
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. And, in your statement, you've mentioned the name of the two --
15 the names of the two soldiers that gave you this information. It's true,
16 isn't it, that the Office of the Prosecution could have interviewed those
17 men with a view to obtaining a statement directly as to what they saw?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'd like to move on to a different subject, and this is the grave
20 that you have referred to as the "Kamenica grave." You'd agree with me
21 that this grave was by the Gostovic River at about the 15 Kilometre
22 location; is that right? That would be 15 kilometres from Zavidovici?
23 A. No -- yes.
24 Q. And this grave was opened, and investigations took place on the
25 21st to the 23rd of June, 2006; is that so?
1 A. That is so.
2 Q. And according to paragraph 19 of your statement of June 2007, the
3 persons carrying out the exhumation at the grave reported finding eight
4 persons? And it's paragraph 19 I'm referring to.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can we be shown paragraph 19, please.
6 MR. ROBSON: So if we can enlarge paragraph 19 in the B/C/S
7 version, it's in the first sentence.
8 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Krcmar, that the -- it was reported
9 that the remains of eight persons were found at that grave?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. You were not at that exhumation; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. It's right to say that the first time that you saw the remains of
14 the bodies was in Visoko, when the autopsy took place?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you know, were photographs taken of the location where the
17 bodies were found?
18 A. I know I saw the photos.
19 Q. And when you were in Visoko, at the autopsy, it's correct that the
20 bodies were brought in contained in separate sealed plastic bags; is that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, I'd like to deal with one aspect of your evidence that is
24 rather confusing.
25 In paragraph 42 of your statement, and perhaps if we can bring
1 that paragraph up on the screen, what you say about the bodies is that the
2 police marked the bodies starting at number 1, and then you say: "At
3 Kamenica, they were 1 through 8 bodies."
4 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we can find that, it's the first two
5 sentences of paragraph 42.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct.
7 MR. ROBSON:
8 Q. So, as I understood your statement, the eight bodies that came
9 from the mass grave were labelled as "1/1," "1/2," "1/3," through to
11 A. Yes.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where do you see the "/1"?
13 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, that information is not contained in
14 this statement, but it would appear to be the case from other material
15 that's been provided to the Defence. This is what I'm trying to
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But is this witness aware of that material,
18 because I have seen what you are talking about in the expert report, but
19 not in this witness's report.
20 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honour, if the witness isn't aware, I'm
21 sure he'll tell us so.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
23 MR. ROBSON: All right.
24 Q. So, Mr. Krcmar, you've just told us that it's correct that the
25 bodies were labelled "1/1" through to "1/8."
1 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps at this stage if we could bring up an example
2 of the DNA reports we saw yesterday.
3 And, Your Honours, for ease of using these reports, we've actually
4 removed the reports from the Prosecution's exhibit, which contained a
5 number of documents, and we have the reports as one separate document.
6 It's D593.
7 This is just one document in English, so perhaps it could take up
8 the full screen.
9 Q. So, Mr. Krcmar, this was a DNA report that you referred to
10 yesterday, and we can see a name on it: "Radomir Blagojevic."
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And in the box in the top left-hand corner, we can see a
13 number: "br.1/3". Now, what confuses me, Mr. Krcmar, is what you said
14 yesterday in your testimony. You said, in relation to this number, the
15 number "1" indicated the location where the body was found, and the number
16 "3" indicated the number of bones from the body that were sent to the
17 laboratory. Do you remember saying that?
18 A. No, no. We misunderstood each other. Number "3" indicates the
19 bag, i.e., all the bones that arrived in that bag. When the bag is
20 opened, the doctors who did that could use that bag to form four or five
21 sub-numbers, which means that they are not certain that the bag contained
22 the bones of only one person.
23 In the Kamenica case, we ended up with 17 numbers, but maybe the
24 best thing would be to have professionals talk about that, i.e., the
25 doctors. I know how things are done, but I'm not a professional in that
1 particular aspect, and I'd rather have the professionals speak about such
2 detailed matters.
3 Q. Thank you for that response, Mr. Krcmar.
4 So this is exactly what I wanted to clarify, because what I put to
5 you was the answer you gave to Judge Moloto. But your evidence is the
6 number we can see here, so, for example, the "1/3," what this tells us is
7 this is the third body that was found at that mass grave location? That
8 was the label given to this body; is that so?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now, at the autopsy, you were present when DNA samples were taken.
11 Could you confirm that a sample was taken from the femur of each body and
12 a sample was taken from the teeth of the skulls that were there?
13 A. If you will allow me, the doctors are the ones who decide where
14 DNA samples should be taken from, from which part of the body. In
15 principle, it is from the skull and from the femur, but it is up to the
16 doctor to decide which bones to use. I was there. I was present. I know
17 how things are done, but I'm not a decision-maker and I can't talk about
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Krcmar.
20 Now, on the screen in front of us is an example of one of the DNA
21 reports, and I'd like to ask you about what you had to say concerning the
22 DNA reports.
23 You were asked by the Prosecutor if you saw the signature of the
24 forensic pathologist on the report, and you responded: "On this
25 particular document, there is no signature. This is findings that we
1 received from the DNA laboratory, and the signatures are put on the
2 identification records. This is only a DNA report."
3 Now, as I understood the answer that you gave to the Prosecutor,
4 the DNA report that we see on the screens in front of us does not provide
5 official confirmation that body remains have been identified; and, in
6 order to obtain official verification, you would need to look at the
7 identification records. Is that correct?
8 A. Yes, it is.
9 Q. And those identification records are entirely different documents
10 which have been signed by an official involved in the DNA analysis
11 process; is that so?
12 A. Yes. This would be an entirely different document. The one that
13 we are looking at is just a working document, so to speak.
14 Q. Now, moving on from there, what I'd like to do is to show you a
15 few pages from the DNA reports to see if you can help us. If you can't
16 answer my questions, then obviously please say so.
17 MR. ROBSON: If we could look at page 2 in this document, please.
18 Q. So here we can see a document that states: "Possible identity,
19 Bozidar Todorovic" -- I beg your pardon, Bozidar Todoric," and we can see
20 a number there, "1/4." Do you see that?
21 A. I do.
22 Q. So what we can say is the remains of this body were assigned with
23 the label number "1/4." It was the fourth body to come out of the mass
24 grave; is that so?
25 A. This was a bag, a bag marked "number 4."
1 MR. ROBSON: If we could please move to page number 4 in this
3 Q. And while we're waiting for that, you say it's a bag, but let's
4 just be clear about that. This is a bag containing body remains, isn't
6 A. It is a bag that is used during exhumation to collect mortal
7 remains. Mortal remains are put in the bag, but we cannot be certain that
8 the mortal remains in the bag belong to any one body. One bag can contain
9 remains of two bodies, or you may even have two bags containing remains of
10 just one body.
11 The mass grave had been moved, the bones had been mixed, and
12 that's why the bags are multiple, containing multiple body remains, and it
13 is only after the postmortem that we can be certain. Wherever there's
14 suspicion that the bodies had been mixed, that the bones do not belong to
15 a certain body, a sample is taken and the sample is sent to the DNA
16 laboratory, who then comes back to us with the identification.
17 But I repeat, again, these are very, very expert questions, and
18 you really need to talk to an expert who can give you more information.
19 Q. You may well have preempted my question. I'll put this to you,
20 and if you can't answer it, then I will move on.
21 But here in front of us, we have another document. Again, it
22 states: "Possible identity: Bozidar Todoric," and here we can say these
23 are the remains found in bag "1/7"; is that so?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So, on the face of it, what we have here, from these reports, is a
1 situation where a person called Bozidar Todorovic -- Todoric is -- his
2 remains are both contained in bag 1/4 and 1/ 7. Do you agree with that?
3 A. Correct, yes. This is precisely what I was talking about. This
4 means that the bodies were mixed, and it is only when we get the
5 information from the laboratory that we can do what we call "the
6 reassociation" and decide what body is actually in question, but that's
7 the doctor's job.
8 Q. Okay. Thank you.
9 I'm going to move on to the handwritten list that you have
10 referred to during your evidence.
11 MR. ROBSON: And please could we have that document brought up on
12 the screen. It's Exhibit 646.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. Before you go to 646, Mr. Robson,
14 what do you want done with D593, because D593 is a page you have split out
15 of the previous exhibit.
16 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I think it would be useful as an
17 exhibit, if there's no opposition to that.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, okay. D593 is admitted as an exhibit. May
19 it please be given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 649.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
22 MR. ROBSON:
23 Q. Now, Mr. Krcmar, we've seen this list contains the details of 51
24 persons, and we can see from the list that somebody has recorded the
25 names, year of birth, and place of birth on this document. Do you agree
1 with that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And if we just quickly go down the list, we can see that the
4 person who made the list has recorded various names: Number 1, Nedjo
5 Jovic; number 2, Nenad Gligoric; number 3, Slavko Todorovic; and so on.
6 You see that, don't you?
7 A. I do.
8 MR. ROBSON: Now, what I'd like to do is bring up a Defence
9 document, D564, which is a document that was disclosed to the Defence by
10 the Prosecution.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Krcmar, would you agree with me that what we can see here
12 is a letter addressed to Mr. Daryl Mundis of the Office of the Prosecutor
13 of the ICTY, dated the 19th of April, 2006?
14 A. I have not seen this before, but I agree with you.
15 MR. ROBSON: And if we look at the bottom of that page, and if we
16 could go to page 2 in the English version.
17 Q. Would you confirm that this letter comes from Nikola Radovanovic,
18 who is a Minister of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Ministry of Defence?
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: How does he say that when he just said that he
20 doesn't know anything about this letter, and he has seen it for the first
21 time? He can read that.
22 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can read just like anybody else in
24 the courtroom; but as I've told you, I've not seen this document before.
25 I don't know what comments you are expecting from me.
1 MR. ROBSON:
2 Q. Don't worry about that just now, Mr. Krcmar. All I am simply
3 asking you to do is just confirm where the letter is from, or to
4 certainly --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: He just told you he can read that, he cannot
6 confirm that.
7 MR. ROBSON:
8 Q. So, Mr. Krcmar, you can --
9 MR. ROBSON: If we can go back to page 1 in the English version,
10 please, and see what the document is about.
11 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Krcmar, that what the first paragraph
12 of this letter says is:
13 "Dear Mr. Mundis. Please find enclosed information and documents
14 relating to 49 persons. The information was supplied to BiH MoD by the
15 former RS MoD and the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces of BiH in connection
16 with the case number IT-04-83-PT, the Prosecutor versus Rasim Delic."
17 And we can see at the bottom there that there are also a number of
18 enclosures. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I can see that.
20 Q. Now, what I'd like to turn our attention to is the enclosure --
21 one of the enclosures with this letter, which can be found at page 3 of
22 the English version and page 2 of the B/C/S.
23 Would you agree with me, Mr. Krcmar, what we can see there is a
24 document dated the 3rd of April, 2006, from the BiH Ministry of Defence,
25 and what it says at the top, in the first paragraph of the document:
1 "With regard to your letter bearing above reference, we received
2 a report from the Chief Staff of RS Army with details of 51 individuals
3 missing or killed."
4 Is that what it says?
5 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
6 Q. And if we could quickly take a look down the list of names in this
7 document, we can see that the first entry is "Nedo Jovic"; the second
8 entry is "Nenad Gligoric"; the third entry is "Savo Todorovic"; and so on.
9 Do you see that, Mr. Krcmar?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. And would you agree with me that the names on this list are
12 similar to the names that we read out a moment ago on the ABiH list?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 MR. ROBSON: Now, Your Honours, this witness has told us that the
15 names of six bodies have been identified. He was asked to identify those
16 bodies and gave us some information. Now, although it's unclear which of
17 the six remains have been identified, it's important for the Defence to
18 compare some of the entries in this RS Army list with the ABiH handwritten
20 So, in order to make that exercise a little simpler, what I'd ask
21 is that hard copies of both the handwritten ABiH list and this RS list be
22 distributed for the courtroom so that we can make that comparison.
23 Before I proceed further, could I please confirm that all the
24 parties have received copies of both the ABiH handwritten list and the RS
25 Army list? Okay.
1 Q. Now, the first --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry. I will not be able to read the RS Army
3 list in Cyrillic, sir. I'm sorry.
4 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, what you should find is the English
5 translation is at the rear of the document.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
7 MR. ROBSON: I apologise for not making that clear. Apparently,
8 that's the standard form that the B/C/S is always on top.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
10 MR. ROBSON:
11 Q. Mr. Krcmar, yesterday, in your testimony, you were asked about
12 Radomir Blagojevic; and, again, we've seen a DNA report that mentions that
13 name today. What I'd like you to do is take a look at both documents and
14 find entry number 40.
15 So if you go down the RS Army list and the ABiH list, if you could
16 please find entry number 40.
17 Now, if we compare the two entries there, would you agree with me
18 that the name contained within the RS Army list -- if we look at the name
19 contained within the RS Army list, we can see a name there: "Radomir
20 Blagojevic." Is that so?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If we look at the ABiH handwritten list, we can see that entry
23 number 40 has a name "Radenko Blagojevic." You'd agree with me that there
24 is a difference between these two names?
25 A. Yes, there is a difference. Yesterday, I explained. Please, if I
1 may, if you will allow me to do so, that I reviewed the handwritten list
2 and submitted my revision to the Prosecution.
3 I would like to discuss that latter document. I have not seen
4 this document before, and I would hate to be asked to comment upon
5 something that I have not seen before.
6 I have another list that was matched with the original list, and
7 that second list contains the date of birth, the address of the family,
8 and similar data, and I would really hate to have to comment upon
9 something that I've not been -- seen before.
10 And I know that you have the do I actually compiled, that I
11 compared with the original. I compiled it, and I stand by that document.
12 Q. Mr. Krcmar, I would like you to comment on this RS Army list, so
13 you have the opportunity to see what it is. You have the hard copy in
14 front of you.
15 You would agree with me that there was a cover letter which is
16 submitting the list to the Office of the Prosecution. We can see that the
17 list has been prepared by the BiH Ministry of Defence, and then it
18 says: "We received a report from Chief of Staff of RS Army."
19 So this appears to be where this information comes from contained
20 within this list. And if you look at the last page of the list - that
21 would be page 4 of the B/C/S version - we can see that there's a name at
22 the end of the list. Do you see that?
23 A. Yes. I see that, but I've never heard of the person before.
24 Q. Now, what we're concerned about is the information which is
25 contained -- that we can see in this list. That's what we're really
1 interested in, because we can see that this information provided in the
2 list has come from the RS Army.
3 I've asked you about one of the persons that is purported to have
4 been identified at the mass grave, and I'd like to ask you about a few of
5 the names and a few of the entries contained in these lists.
6 The next person that I'm interested in can be found at entry
7 number 10 in both lists. Could you please find that entry in both
9 So, first of all, dealing with the RS Army list, here information
10 is provided about a person by the name of Bozidar Todoric, and we can see
11 that that person was born on the 14th of January, 1973, in Doboj.
12 Do you see that?
13 A. Yes. I can see that, but, please, I'm not a member of the
14 Republika Srpska Army. I work at the Office for Missing Persons. And if
15 you want to talk to me, please use the documents of that office, which is
16 a legal institution that deals with searching for missing persons.
17 I stopped working in the army in 1998, and I really cannot comment
18 upon the things that somebody else wrote and signed.
19 There is a document that I submitted to the Office of the
20 Prosecutor which is similar to this list, and I can comment upon that. If
21 you want somebody to comment upon this, please ask the person who compiled
22 this list and who signed it.
23 So I don't know. I can't be sure of anything that's contained in
24 this list. It may be correct, but it also doesn't have to be. So I
25 really wouldn't want to comment on something that I have not seen before.
1 Q. Mr. Krcmar, you work for the RS Missing Persons Commission. You
2 were a former member of the RS Army, and you've told us that you get
3 information from many different sources.
4 All I'm simply asking you to do is to take a look at this
5 document, which has come from a high-level authority. It's information
6 that's been provided by the Prosecution to the Defence, and it would seem
7 that you are the appropriate person to deal with this information.
8 Could you please confirm for us that when you compare the entry
9 number 10 in the RS list with the ABiH list, the names are different? In
10 the ABiH list, we can see the name is "Bozidar Todorovic," rather
11 than "Todoric"?
12 A. Those last names are similar.
13 Q. The question is: Would you confirm that they are different?
14 A. I can repeat again, these names to me are similar.
15 Q. It's possible -- would you agree with me that "Todoric"
16 and "Todorovic" are two different possible surnames that somebody could
17 have in that part of Bosnia?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And would you agree with me that when we look at the ABiH list, we
20 can see that the entry for "Bozidar Todorovic" has his date of birth as
21 1974, rather than 1973 in the RS list?
22 A. That is correct. It says here: "Bozidar Todorovic, born in 1974
23 in Doboj."" But if I may, such a person never went missing. A "Todoric"
24 went missing.
25 Q. So where we have two different surnames, two different dates of
1 birth, would you agree with me that it's possible that we're talking about
2 two entirely different people? It is possible, isn't it?
3 A. One can only discuss one person here, and that is Bozidar
4 Todorovic. Whoever was writing this document wrote down his name
5 incorrectly. We can discuss the similarity between the last names, but we
6 cannot discuss two different last names and two different persons.
7 Q. I don't want to get into an argument about this, but it wasn't
8 just his name. It's the date of birth which is different as well.
9 What I'd like you to do is now look at entry number 33 in both
10 lists, please.
11 Do you see in the RS list there an entry for Drago Stjepanovic?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I beg your pardon.
13 MR. ROBSON: Entry 33, Your Honours.
14 Q. Do you see the entry?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Now, in the RS Army list, we can see it has Drago Stjepanovic's
17 birthplace as Doboj; and if we refer to the ABiH list, we can see that it
18 is given as Maglaj. Those are two entirely different places, aren't they?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So we have another discrepancy. But of particular significance
21 and what I'd like to ask you about is: We've confirmed, haven't we, that
22 this RS list was prepared in April 2006? That was the day it -- it was
23 sent to the Office of the Prosecution in April of 2006. Do you agree?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you've told us that the exhumation at the Kamenica grave took
1 place from the 21st to the 23rd of June, 2006; is that so?
2 A. Yes, it is.
3 Q. Now, if we look at the last sentence under entry number 33, what
4 it says in relation to Drago Stjepanovic is that: "The body was found and
5 exhumed." Do you see that?
6 A. Where is that?
7 Q. It's entry number 33. It's the last sentence within that entry.
8 A. I can see that. I've already said that I cannot comment on this
9 document, since it is not mine. I do not stand by it. It wasn't
10 forwarded by my office, and now you're asking me to comment on something
11 that I know nothing about.
12 Q. Would you agree with me that this entry, which was prepared by the
13 RS Army, suggests that the body of Drago Stjepanovic was found at some
14 stage before April 2006?
15 A. First of all, there is no Army of Republika Srpska or the Army of
16 the Federation. It is a joint army. Therefore, after that date, this
17 could not have come from the Army of Republika Srpska.
18 And the second thing is, please, again ask me to comment only on
19 the documents that I sent, rather than having to comment on things I've
20 never seen or know nothing of. The person who signed this document, I
21 don't know who that is. I cannot comment on it.
22 I have the documents which I had forwarded to the Prosecutor, with
23 the index card of each person, with the address. I've already said that,
24 and so as not to waste any time, I can only say yet again that I cannot
25 offer my opinion on that.
1 Q. You would agree with me that on the information which the
2 Prosecution has provided, that, on the face of it, Drago Stjepanovic was
3 found and exhumed prior to April 2006, and yet also there seems to be
4 information suggesting that he was -- his remains were discovered in June
5 2006 as well?
6 How can it be? I take it you have no explanation for that.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I think the witness has explained his position to
8 this question several times. He's told you he cannot comment on a
9 document he doesn't know. He doesn't know why this person who wrote here
10 wrote what he wrote, sir.
11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I still have a few more names to
12 discuss, but I note the time. So it might be an appropriate time for a
13 break now.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
15 We'll come back at quarter to 11.00.
16 Court adjourned.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.15 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.45 a.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Robson.
20 MR. ROBSON:
21 Q. Mr. Krcmar, one of the DNA reports that has been admitted into
22 evidence refers to somebody by the name of Radovan Radojcic. If we can
23 look at entry number 9 on the ABiH handwritten list, can you please
24 confirm that the date of birth given for that person is 1942?
25 A. "Radovan Radojcic, born in 1942," that's what this document reads
1 in the handwritten one.
2 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I'd like another document to be brought
3 up on the e-court screen, please. It's Defence document D595.
4 Q. Mr. Krcmar, do you agree with me that what we have here is a
5 record of the forensic and criminal/technical examination of dead body
6 remains, prepared by the Office of Tracing Detained and Missing Persons of
7 the Republika Srpska?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And can you confirm that this is the organisation that you work
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You're familiar with this type of document; is that so?
13 A. Yes. I forwarded this.
14 MR. ROBSON: Now, Your Honours, if we could look at page 2. First
15 of all, if we could scroll down in the English version.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Does it have a signature?
17 MR. ROBSON: If we could look at page 2 in the B/C/S version as
18 well, please. If we could please focus on the and close in on the names
19 at the end of the document.
20 Q. Mr. Krcmar, do you recognise those names?
21 MR. ROBSON: Perhaps if we could look at page 2 in the English as
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I'm familiar with these names.
24 MR. ROBSON:
25 Q. Can you tell us who the document is signed by, please?
1 A. The document is signed by the forensic specialist, Dr. Zeljko
2 Karan, and a court expert in ballistics, Milko Maric.
3 Q. Just above the names, is right, isn't it, that this document says
4 that: "Using DNA analysis, the skull belonging to the dead body was
5 identified as that of Radovan, father's name Blagoje, Radojcic." You see
7 A. Yes, I can see that.
8 Q. And, here, it has his date of birth as the 27th of October, 1956.
9 Would you agree that that is different to what is recorded as the date of
10 birth in the ABiH list?
11 A. That is correct. The difference is in terms of years.
12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, could this document please be admitted
13 into evidence.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: This one on the screen?
15 MR. ROBSON: Yes. I haven't finished with the other one as yet.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is this D595?
17 MR. ROBSON: This is D595, yes.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: D595 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
19 given an exhibit number.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 650.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
22 MR. ROBSON: And perhaps if we could return back to the RS Army
23 list on the screen, please, I'm going to deal with the final discrepancy.
24 Q. Mr. Krcmar, could you please look at entry number 3 on both the
25 ABiH list and the RS Army list.
1 Could you confirm for us, Mr. Krcmar, that entry number "3" on the
2 RS list refers to somebody by the name of "Savo Todorovic"; whereas, entry
3 number "3" in the ABiH list refers to "Slavko Todorovic"?
4 A. In the handwritten version, it reads "Slavko Todorovic." In this
5 document that you called the document of the Army of Republika Srpska,
6 whereas it was signed by the Ministry of Defence, Joint Staff of the Armed
7 Forces, it reads "Savo Todorovic."
8 If I may, Your Honours --
9 Q. Would you agree with me, Mr. Krcmar, that those are two different
10 first names?
11 A. That is correct. Slavko and Savo are two different names;
12 however --
13 Q. Mr. Krcmar, hang on. If you could please focus on the question.
14 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, I object. If the witness wants to
15 complete an answer, he's not being allowed to do so. Obviously, he wanted
16 to say something else. I think that he should be allowed to finish his
17 statement -- his answer.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
19 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honour, I have given the witness
20 opportunities to give his answer in full on previous occasions; and,
21 essentially, I'm controlling --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're dealing with this one.
23 MR. ROBSON: Yes. So I'm just dealing with specific questions,
24 and I anticipated that the witness was going to go off on a tangent and to
25 a different matter. So I was just merely trying to focus the witness on
1 the question at hand.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
4 MR. ROBSON:
5 Q. Mr. Krcmar, if you can again look at entry number "3" in the
6 document which the information came from the chief of Staff of the RS
7 Army, I'd like to refer you to the last sentence of that entry.
8 Again --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Which one is from the Chief of Staff of the RS
11 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it's the RS Army list, that's what I've
12 been calling it.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: The one from the Ministry of Defence?
14 MR. ROBSON: Yes. But if you look at the first paragraph, it
15 says: "We received a report from the Chief of Staff of RS Army."
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: It says, "We received ..."
17 MR. ROBSON: It's the underneath reference: "With regard to your
18 letter bearing the above reference, we received the report from the Chief
19 of Staff of RS Army."
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. The Ministry of Defence received the report
21 from the RS Army, but this letter comes from the Minister of Defence?
22 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Krcmar, in relation to the person named Savo Todorovic,
24 again we can see that according to this list, his body was found and
25 exhumed at some point prior to April 2006; is that so?
1 A. That is what I wanted to mention. This is incorrect, "Savo
2 Todorovic," and the persons we discussed just a minute ago, "Blagojevic";
3 and, for the sake of truth, there was another number that we discussed.
4 They were identified on the 29th of November, 2006. This document is
5 the 19th -- is the 3rd of April, 2004.
6 Someone cannot be identified beforehand. I'm trying to say that
7 this document is not valid. The families, on the 29th of November, 2006,
8 identified the bodies. This body was identified as such on that date, and
9 the Prosecution's -- the Prosecutor's office has that information.
10 Again, I must say that this is not a document I can discuss. This
11 was six months after the list that the man was identified. I don't know
12 how this information made its way into this document, but I am not
13 familiar with this.
14 Q. So what we can say is that according to the material that has been
15 generated relating to these bodies, there are discrepancies, aren't there?
16 A. Something is wrong.
17 Q. You said earlier in your evidence mistakes can be made. Is that
19 A. But the mistakes had been dealt with. That material is in
20 existence here, and that is what we need to discuss, or rather, that is
21 what I can discuss. I cannot discuss other people's letters and documents
22 that I have nothing to do with.
23 Q. Mr. Krcmar, you say that you're not able to comment on this
24 document or discuss it, but the fact is that you have been very willing to
25 discuss the ABiH handwritten list, which is also a document that you were
1 not involved in the preparation of. That's right, isn't it?
2 A. Correct. I said I revised this list.
3 Q. Okay. Now, before we leave this document that comes from the BiH
4 Ministry of Defence, I'd like to take you through the entries. We have
5 already noted that two of the bodies we've discussed apparently have
6 already been found and exhumed prior -- at some stage prior to April 2006.
7 If I can take you through the list, would you agree with me that
8 according to this document, entry number 2, "Nenad Gligoric," his body was
9 found and exhumed prior to April 2006?
10 A. Sir, that's what it says here, and a document I cannot comment.
11 This is stated there.
12 Q. Number 3, we've just discussed a moment ago. Number 4, "Slobodan
13 Markovic," according to the document, his body was found and exhumed. Is
14 that so?
15 A. I cannot recall. There is a list of the seven bodies from the
16 Kamenica site that was forwarded. We can discuss that list. Please do
17 not try and trick me into something I know nothing about.
18 Again, to me, this is not a valid document. It is impossible that
19 the date is April 2006. And in item 33 or 30, Drago Stjepanovic -- excuse
20 me, allow me to finish. Drago Stjepanovic, his body was exhumed and
21 found. It is impossible, because his family, on the 29th of November,
22 2006, signed the identification report. This document is from April. I
23 have no idea what it means.
24 Concerning the documents I handed over, that is what I can
25 discuss. This is a document of the Ministry of Defence, signed by someone
1 I don't know. It seems to me -- it seems to be Mr. Sifet --
2 Q. It deals with a matter that you have spent a great deal of time
3 looking into and have come here to testify upon. You've also showed
4 willingness to comment upon other documents generated by other army
5 organisations that you were not part of.
6 What I'm asking you to do is just to confirm with me that what we
7 can see on this document is that there were other people who were found
8 and exhumed prior to April 2006. We can see from this list that entry
9 number 4, his body was found and exhumed, wasn't it, according to the
11 A. That is what you inferred.
12 Q. Thank you. Number 5 --
13 A. No.
14 Q. Entry number 5, again it appears the body was found and exhumed?
15 A. Dragutin Lukic, his body was not found and exhumed. It relates to
16 the photographs of yesterday. He was the last on the right. That person
17 has still not been found.
18 Again, I can only comment on the documents I handed over. I
19 cannot comment on this. I don't know what this is. Give me the
20 photographs back; and, on the photographs, I'll show who Dragutin Lukic
21 is. That person has never been found. I don't know what this thing
22 before me is.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Defence, please.
24 MR. ROBSON:
25 Q. You've explained that you don't agree with the contents of this
1 document, but if we can just do this simply. Please, can you confirm that
2 in entry number 7, according to the signed document from the BiH Ministry
3 of Defence, a body relating to entry number 7 was found and exhumed?
4 A. I can't confirm anything. We've gone too far. Call the person
5 who signed the document and let him confirm, not me. I've not seen this
6 document before.
7 Yesterday, we spoke about the documents that I'm familiar with,
8 although they originate from other organisations. This is something I've
9 not seen before, and now you're asking me to comment upon it. I am not in
10 a position to comment upon other people's documents, especially documents
11 drafted by the Ministry of Defence.
12 I don't know what this is. Don't ask me to comment upon this
13 document, please.
14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'd ask for this document to please be
15 admitted into evidence.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, I have a difficulty admitting this
17 document into evidence through this witness, who has protested his
18 ignorance of the document so much. He has talked about the contents, but
19 he just has no link to the document. I think you must get a witness that
20 can tender the document.
21 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the test for admission is that the
22 document should be relevant and have probative value. Now --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
24 MR. ROBSON: Clearly, this list deals with -- it's highly
25 pertinent. It looks as though it was prepared in conjunction with the
1 ABiH handwritten list. The witness has protested that he knows nothing
2 about the contents, but this is a document that has been provided to the
3 Defence by the Prosecution. And --
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is being tendered by the Defence, sir. You see,
5 the Defence has been arguing right through this trial. In fact, just the
6 other day, you were arguing when a witness was being led by the
7 Prosecution, and the witness was commenting on the contents, and the
8 Defence stood up and objected. I confirmed that objection on the basis
9 that there was -- a link was being made between the document and the map.
10 Now, here a link is being made between this document and the other
11 document, but not between this witness and the document.
12 I have allowed you to cross-examine the witness because, yes, I
13 can see the similarities, but I do think you need to get a witness who can
14 authenticate this document. Because if this witness says this document,
15 as he has said so now, this document is not valid, he said so in one of
16 his protests, what should the Court do with it? It can attach no value to
18 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, just to raise a couple of points, if I
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
21 MR. ROBSON: First of all, it's been permitted for the ABiH
22 handwritten list to be admitted through this witness, when again this
23 witness has not had anything to do with the preparation and --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: And this witness said, sir - you'll remember I
25 asked him who generated this list - He said he got the list from the
1 Prosecution or from the Tribunal. He corrected it using his own list. He
2 has seen this document before.
3 He's seeing this document for the first time today. He doesn't
4 know anything about it, but he has said, "Yes, I have seen this document.
5 It's not generated by me, and that is why I could see the mistakes in it.
6 And based on the information that I collected, that I have verified, I
7 corrected the statements."
8 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I don't know when the Defence would have
9 a chance to show this document to the witness prior to cross-examination,
10 so we haven't had the good fortune to do so. But --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not my point. My point is: You've got to
12 get a witness to tender the document, a witness who can authenticate it,
13 but you can't tender it through this witness.
14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the second point is that this document,
15 the Defence submits, is relevant for credibility, because we've heard
16 testimony from the witness about what happened. We also have his witness
17 statement, and this document, which is from, on the face of it, a
18 high-level official source, provided by the Prosecution, contradicts some
19 of that evidence. So --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: I agree with you entirely, Mr. Robson. If you can
21 understand my point, my point simply is that this witness disavows this
22 document. Therefore, if it goes into evidence, it hasn't been
23 authenticated. We can't even begin to look at it. But if you bring in a
24 witness who can come in and say, "I drafted this document," or, "I
25 authenticated this document, I know about it, I say the contents are
1 true," then we can see. This man says, "No" --
2 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, the third point I make, and really this
3 is -- obviously, the Trial Chamber has had it in mind throughout the
4 proceedings to try and save time and move expeditiously, and for the
5 Defence to now attempt to contact a member of the Ministry of Defence to
6 come and testify to this document is going to extend the length of the
7 trial proceedings.
8 And, in connection with that, I would just draw to the Trial
9 Chamber's attention that there didn't appear to be any objection from the
10 Prosecution. I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but that was --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: There may be no objection, but I think it is the
12 Chamber's responsibility to see to it that proceedings go fairly and
13 even-handed. What is happening today is exactly what happened the other
14 day with a document and a map on the screen here.
15 MR. ROBSON: There would be a final distinction, a point I would
16 make, a distinction I would draw to Your Honour, and that is: In
17 connection with what happened the other day, where a document was put to
18 the witness and the witness simply stated, "I know nothing about this, I'm
19 not prepared to say anything," this witness --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's not what was said last week. A witness was
21 taken through a document and made markings on a map.
22 MR. ROBSON: Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And I said to the counsel at that time, "What you
24 are busy doing is establishing a relationship between this document and
25 the map." Now, what you have been busy doing today is establishing a
1 relationship between these two documents, but not a relationship between
2 this witness and this document. This witness disavows this document. He
3 disavows this document completely. He says,"I know nothing about it." He
4 has been saying to you so many times, "Why do you ask me to comment on a
5 document that I know nothing about."
6 And, yes, expeditiousness is a matter to be taken into account.
7 To get a witness to come in here for five minutes to say, "Yes, I know
8 this document, I can vouch for the authenticity of this document," you get
9 tendered, two minutes and he's gone.
10 The Defence is still far from calling its own witnesses. We can
11 mark it for identification.
12 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, my final comment on this.
13 The witness, in my respectful submission, has not simply said, "I
14 don't know anything about this document, I'm keeping my mouth closed." He
15 has gone on to refer to the different entries and said, "In respect of
16 this person, they were exhumed."
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's true. Exactly like the map and the document
18 the other day. He didn't say, "I know nothing about this map." He did
19 point out things. I said to him, I said to counsel, the other day,
20 "Anybody who can read can do what you are doing." Now, anybody who can
21 read these two documents can do what this witness is doing.
22 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, again, I'm repeating myself, but we
23 would submit it goes to credibility --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't dispute that.
25 MR. ROBSON: -- and the other day credibility was not an issue
1 with this document.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't dispute that. I don't dispute that, but
3 I'm saying tender it correctly. That's all I'm saying. Tender it through
4 the correct witness, not a witness who disavows the document. Find a
5 witness who can tender this document.
6 MR. ROBSON: Well, Your Honour, at least I'd like it marked for
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: We'll mark it for identification.
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's hear what they have to say.
10 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honours, I just for the record would like to
11 state our objection to the document. Just for the record, we do object.
12 JUDGE HARHOFF: To what?
13 MS. SARTORIO: To the admissibility of the document in evidence
14 for the reasons stated. That this witness is -- he's not -- he is
15 repeating just what's in the document.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mrs. Sartorio, the issue is: Do you challenge the
17 authenticity of this document?
18 MS. SARTORIO: Well, yeah, I have -- I don't know where it -- yes,
19 that's one other reason. Well, it comes -- it came from the Prosecution,
20 Your Honour, but we disclose everything we receive from whatever source.
21 But, again, he's not from the Department of Defence.
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: I repeat my question. Is this document not an
23 authentic document?
24 MS. SARTORIO: I don't know the answer to that question, Your
25 Honour. I think a witness has to make that determination.
1 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
2 MR. ROBSON: Your Honours, I'd just like to note that this list
3 was attached to a cover letter sent to Mr. Mundis. Mr. Mundis has
4 disclosed it, well, through his team, no doubt, disclosed it to the
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: All I'm saying is it is being tendered by the
7 Defence, sir, and I'm saying the Defence must get a witness to tender it.
8 I am prepared to mark it for identification. I'm not precluding it. I
9 just want it to be tendered correctly.
10 Okay. The document is admitted into evidence. May it please be
11 given an exhibit number.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit MFI 651.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: And what document did we call it when it came in
14 here, sir? Did it have a "D" number?
15 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it's D564.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: D564. Thank you so much. Is it Exhibit 651?
17 THE REGISTRAR: MFI 651.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, 651. Thank you.
19 You may proceed, Mr. Robson.
20 MR. ROBSON: Thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Krcmar, at paragraph 27 of your 2007 statement, you say the
23 "All this information indicates to me that the skeletons and skull
24 were just thrown into the grave, rather than one full body having been
25 buried intact. This is consistent with information I received from
1 sources, that the large mass grave had been dug up and the bodies reburied
2 in several other graves."
3 Now, I don't want to ask you about what you were told by other
4 people, so I'd be grateful if you could answer this with a "yes" or "no."
5 Is it your assessment that the bodies that were found at the
6 Kamenica grave were initially buried at some other location and then
7 subsequently dug up and moved to the Kamenica grave location?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So this would mean that the burial location at Kamenica was a
10 secondary burial location?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, moving on to the autopsy, in your statement you explained how
13 DNA samples were taken by Dr. Brkic; is that so?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In paragraph 29 of your statement, you say:
16 "Dr. Brkic conducted autopsies according to regular procedures.
17 She determined that there were eight bodies and one extra skull.
18 Therefore, to my knowledge, it appears that there were the remains of nine
20 That's in paragraph 29 of your statement. Is that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, if I could take you back to what you said a little bit
23 earlier in your statement at paragraph 19, in paragraph 19 you state
24 that: "Dr. Karan concluded that there were possibly ten to 15 bodies in
25 the grave.
1 First of all, just to clarify, Dr. Karan was another forensic
2 expert that was participating at the autopsy that day; is that so?
3 A. On that day, Dr. Karan was assisting Dr. Brkic. Later on,
4 Dr. Karan re-examined these bodies and established that those were the
5 remains of ten to 15 different bodies. He re-examined those bodies at the
6 request of the Prosecutor.
7 Q. So just to go back up to what you've stated, at paragraph 29, you
8 said that: "To my knowledge, there were the remains of nine victims," and
9 that is based on what Dr. Karan has concluded; and then, elsewhere in the
10 statement, you've referred to Dr. Karan concluding there were possibly ten
11 to 15 persons.
12 Are you able to say which was correct? Were there nine remains,
13 the remains of nine persons or the remains of ten to 15?
14 A. I can tell you. The first postmortem that was done by Dr. Brkic,
15 based on the first preliminary examination, it was established that there
16 were eight or nine bodies. Later on, when the bodies were brought to
17 Banja Luka after the reassociation, Dr. Karan concluded that there were up
18 to 15 bodies.
19 The true findings were confirmed by the DNA laboratory that
20 confirmed that there were 11 bodies in question. You don't have that
21 document, but later on we received confirmation from the DNA laboratory
22 that there were 11 bodies in question here.
23 Q. This is not contained in any of your statements, is it?
24 A. No. This data about 11 bodies is not contained in any of my
25 statements, yes.
1 Q. You met with Ms. Sartorio on the 22nd of October, some three days
2 ago, in Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that right?
3 A. Yes. Not three days ago, actually -- or maybe, yes, I'm sorry.
4 Yes, yes. You're right.
5 Q. And you didn't mention to Ms. Sartorio that 11 bodies had now
6 been -- it was now concluded that there were 11 bodies in the mass grave?
7 A. At that meeting, we did go through my statement. That's what we
8 did; the existing statement, that is.
9 Q. Well, I want to turn to one of the bodies that you mentioned
10 during your testimony and also in your statement.
11 At paragraph 44, you refer to a person on the ABiH list by the
12 name of Obrad Petrusic?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Would you agree with me that the Trial Chamber has not seen any
15 evidence that DNA samples were taken from that particular body, and there
16 is no DNA report in respect of that body?
17 A. Yes. That body was not with the group of bodies in the Kamenica
18 grave, the bodies that were examined as part of this exercise.
19 Q. You would agree with me that without official confirmation from
20 the ICMP, there is no real proof as to who that body belongs to?
21 A. It was, according to my statement, that the body of this man
22 Petrusic was found, and I'm speaking the truth here.
23 Q. And my question is: Without official confirmation, such as a DNA
24 identification report, we can't really tell who the remains of that body
25 belonged to, can we?
1 A. No.
2 Q. And the body that you referred to, that body could have been
3 placed at that location at any time prior to its discovery; would you
5 A. I personally participated in the exhumation of that body. The way
6 of identification -- in addition to the DNA method, there is also the
7 so-called classical identification. That is when family members can
8 visually identify their next of kin without having to resort to the DNA
9 method. In that case, the DNA method is only an auxiliary method.
10 Q. And we've heard no evidence of a classical identification, have
12 A. That's because all the bodies that we're discussing here were
13 identified by the DNA method, so there was no need to mention the
14 classical method. But what I'm saying is that in addition to the DNA
15 method, there is also the classical way of identifying a body.
16 Q. Now, I want to turn to a different location where body remains
17 were discovered. Is it your understanding that the remains of a person
18 named "Gojko Vujicic" was found in Bosici village, together with two other
19 bodies belonging to Predrag Kanesovic and Bogoljub Topic?
20 A. The bodies were discovered in Bosici, a place called Bosici, not
21 Vozuca. It is in Zavidovici Municipality, but the place is actually a
22 meadow called "Bosici," and I personally participated in the exhumation of
23 those bodies. I was the one who discovered them.
24 Q. And can you confirm for us that the location of Bosici village is
25 approximately about 27 kilometres away from the 13th kilometre by the
1 Gostovici River?
2 A. It may be anything between 25 and 30. One would actually have to
3 look at the map and measure the distance, but I would say that you were
4 approximately right, thereabouts.
5 Q. And then the final body remains that I want to discuss with you.
6 At paragraph 40 of your statement, you say that remains were found at
7 Djurica Vis, and it's your understanding that those remains belonged to
8 Zivinko Todorovic. Is that what you say in your statement?
9 A. The name of the location is Bare, you're right. I personally
10 found the body, I participated in the exhumation, and I worked on that
11 body up until the moment when it was identified.
12 Q. And would you agree with me that, during the proceedings today and
13 yesterday, no forensic evidence has been put before the Trial Chamber
14 confirming the identification of those body remains as being Zivinko
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, in fairness to this witness, does this
17 witness know the witnesses who have testified before this Tribunal before
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I said "during the proceedings today and
20 yesterday," so I'm referring specifically to this witness's testimony.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Certainly, and he has been saying he's not the
23 Carry on.
24 MR. ROBSON:
25 Q. Are you able to answer that question or please say so if you
2 A. Please repeat your question.
3 Q. During the course of your testimony today and yesterday, have you
4 seen any evidence confirming that the remains of the body found at Djurica
5 Vis belonged to Zivinko Todorovic?
6 A. I submitted evidence to the Prosecution, but it hasn't been
7 presented here, the evidence concerning Zivinko Todorovic from the Bare
9 Q. Okay.
10 Now, moving away from discovery of bodies and so on, I'd like to
11 turn to the --
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I'm waiting for the translation,
13 and I would also like to know: According to what you know, Zivinko
14 Todorovic was identified, was he?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could you please repeat that? I'm
16 not sure that I understood you properly.
17 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] To your knowledge, Zivinko
18 Todorovic, was he identified?
19 A. Yes. He was identified, and his body was handed over to the
20 family for burial.
21 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] According to which method, a
22 classical method or the DNA method, was he identified?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In 2002 or 2003, he was identified
24 by the DNA method. I'm actually not sure about the years, so I don't want
25 to make any mistakes there.
1 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
2 MR. ROBSON: If I could turn to the photograph that were shown by
3 the Prosecution yesterday. If the document could please be brought up on
4 the screen, I believe it's Exhibit 648.
5 Q. So, Mr. Krcmar, we can see a picture with five men in this room,
6 and you say the men have been identified. Would you agree with me that
7 the quality of this photograph is quite poor?
8 A. Let's clarify one thing. These men were not identified. They
9 were recognised by the families in the photo, but their bodies were never
10 found. They were never buried. They were only recognised by the families
11 in the photo.
12 Q. I think there might have been some -- we might have been at
13 cross-purposes. That's what I was driving at, Mr. Krcmar. You say that
14 these five men were recognised, but you'd agree with me that the quality
15 of the photograph is quite poor?
16 A. The photo we see, it looks poor, but other methods were used. The
17 photos were blown up. Parts of the photos were blown up in order to
18 enable the families to recognise their faces.
19 But if you look at the photo even as it is now, I'm sure that
20 every family would be able to recognise their next of kin in that photo.
21 If I were a family member, I'm sure I would recognise these men if they
22 were my next of kin.
23 Q. I'm not disputing that, Mr. Krcmar. I'd be grateful if you could
24 please focus on the question you've been asked.
25 As you look at this photograph, it's of poor quality, isn't it?
1 A. It really depends on the person. It would be ever so important to
2 me if I had more of such photos.
3 Q. We can see that the room is bare, can't we? There are no
4 distinguishing features, such as any picture, or wallpaper, or anything
5 like that; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, it is.
7 Q. You can't tell how many windows are in the room or the size of the
8 room, can you?
9 A. I was in this room. I can even specify the dimensions, although I
10 had no measuring tape on hand.
11 Q. Again, I'll repeat what I said before, if you could please focus
12 on my question.
13 From looking at this photograph, you can't tell how many windows
14 are in the room or its size, can you?
15 A. By the photograph alone, no.
16 Q. And as we look at the wall behind the five men, we can see
17 markings; and, certainly to me, it's unclear whether those markings might
18 be caused by water or perhaps it may be due to plaster coming away from
19 the walls. We can't tell, can we?
20 A. I don't know what caused this, whether it was something hard or
21 caused by water, but we see the damage on the wall.
22 Q. We can't -- from looking at this photograph, we can't tell if it's
23 a room within a house, or a room in a garage, or a room within any other
24 type of building, can we?
25 A. It is in a building.
1 Q. But you would agree with me, we can't tell what type of building
2 it is from this photograph?
3 A. I cannot agree with that. In my statement -- or rather, in my
4 testimony yesterday, I said I was in this room. I identified that room
5 precisely, based on the damage on the walls that can be seen here. I even
6 know who owns the property.
7 Q. Focus on the photograph and the questions I'm asking you: This
8 room could look like thousands of rooms in buildings in that part of
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina, couldn't it?
10 A. Well, for the sake of argument, let's say "yes."
11 Q. And you'd agree with me that many buildings during the war would
12 have similar types of markings as what we can see here, caused by damage
13 from the war or perhaps if the building had been neglected?
14 A. This property - and I'm telling you the truth - is what I visited
15 in 1997, in late November. This photograph, I am 100 per cent certain,
16 tallies or corresponds to --
17 Q. Please, sir --
18 A. I'm listening. I'm all ears.
19 Q. We'll come to your visit there in a moment, but the question I've
20 asked you is: You'd agree that many buildings in that area would have
21 similar markings like the ones we can see in this photograph?
22 A. Similar perhaps, yes; not the same.
23 Q. And you said that the photograph was taken on the 17th of
24 September, 1995. I'm right in saying that the reason you've given that
25 date is because we can see some figures in the bottom right-hand corner of
1 this photograph? You say that is the date generated by the camera?
2 A. Yes, that's what one can read there. All of us can.
3 Q. And it's right, isn't it, that you have no way of knowing whether
4 that date feature was set correctly on the camera or not?
5 A. I'm not stating either way. I'm just going by what I see.
6 Q. Now, yesterday, in your evidence, you claimed that you knew the
7 location where this photograph was taken because, in November 1997, you
8 went into the room and carried out a reconstruction of the photograph, and
9 you said there was identical damage on the wall.
10 Do you remember saying that?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Now, you've been interviewed twice by the Office of the
13 Prosecution, in connection with the disappearance of missing VRS soldiers,
14 in December of 2005 and June of 2007. That's right, isn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in neither of those statements do you mention that you have
17 direct knowledge that soldiers were kept in the Mujahedin camp. We know,
18 from what you've told us today, that you told the investigator about what
19 you were told by two VRS soldiers back in 1998, but I'm interested as to
20 why you didn't mention that you claimed that you went to the Mujahedin
21 camp yourself.
22 Wouldn't this have been something worth mentioning to the
23 investigator, Mr. Krcmar?
24 A. I learned from several sources about missing persons and their
25 whereabouts, inter alia Gostovici. My statement would have been far more
1 voluminous had I mentioned all of this. I have been going back and forth
2 for years now. I only mention in my statement what I thought was of key
3 importance. As far as I recall, this photograph was handed over to the
4 Prosecution by myself. I think you have had it before that, though; but
5 now we have it before us.
6 Q. You didn't think it was of key importance to mention to the
7 investigator something that you claimed to have direct knowledge of.
8 Let me move on.
9 You've mentioned this photograph and your visit to -- that you
10 claim to have made to the camp for the very first time on the 22nd of
11 October of this year, when you met with Ms. Sartorio; is that correct?
12 A. I think it was much earlier that I talked to the investigators
13 about my going to the camp, and I even think that I was there with one of
14 the investigators.
15 Q. Well, we have a proofing note of what you discussed -- well, first
16 of all, let's confirm. You did meet with Ms. Sartorio three days ago on
17 the 22nd of October. I think you verified that already.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that was in Bosnia?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, as I say, we have the proofing note and I can show it if
22 necessary, but you told Ms. Sartorio that you visited the camp in 1998 and
23 saw markings on the wall. There was no mention made of you going there
24 and conducting a reconstruction of the photo.
25 A. I was there in 1997, in late November or in the second half of
1 November. And as for the Prosecutor, I mentioned and described the damage
2 on the wall.
3 Q. If you were adamant you were there in 1997, why is it that only
4 three days ago you told Ms. Sartorio that your visit was in 1998?
5 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio.
7 MS. SARTORIO: I object. Well, this is a proofing note that I
8 wrote, so I don't believe he can ask the witness if he ever he looked at
9 my proofing notes, because this is me, my notes to the Defence counsel.
10 So he can ask the witness whether that's what he recollects telling me or
11 ask the witness if he read my proofing notes. I just -- this witness
12 cannot be held accountable for what my proofing notes are.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
14 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I can certainly do that. We would
15 expect proofing notes to be accurate.
16 Q. Mr. Krcmar --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But do you hold this witness for the accuracy
18 of the proofing note, or do you hold Ms. Sartorio for the accuracy?
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, what I'll do is I'll take on board my
20 learned friend's comments, and I'll ask the correct question.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
22 MR. ROBSON:
23 Q. Mr. Krcmar, did you tell Ms. Sartorio that you'd visited the camp
24 in 1998 when you met with her three days ago?
25 A. Yes. I showed her this photograph, which you already had
1 knowledge of, as far as I could judge from her reaction. But I can
2 repeat, I was there in late 1997, in November.
3 If there is a discrepancy in terms of dates, I'm poor when it
4 comes to remembering dates. For 12 years, I've been going out in the
5 field. It is difficult for me to recall an exact date without a document
6 being put in front of me.
7 Q. So now that you accept that you told the Prosecutor a different
8 date from the date that you now say you were there, let me ask you
9 something else: Why didn't you tell Ms. Sartorio that you had carried
10 out a reconstruction of this photograph, as you explained to the Tribunal?
11 MS. SARTORIO: I object again to the form. He can ask me if he
12 told me that. Again, he's making this witness repeat -- well, he's trying
13 to say that that is exactly what he said, and proofing notes are what
14 my -- what I take down. I don't take down every word. We don't have a
15 stenographer at the proofing sessions.
16 So, again, it shouldn't be used in court against this or with this
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
19 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, I'll rephrase my question.
20 Q. Do you agree with me that when you met Ms. Sartorio three days
21 ago, you made no mention of carrying out a previous reconstruction of the
23 A. I disagree, I disagree. We carried out that reconstruction, we
24 discussed the photograph, and we discussed the damage on the wall. I
25 don't know what was entered into evidence, but I don't know what we
1 discussed [as interpreted].
2 Q. And this reconstruction of the photograph you said that you
3 carried out, you haven't brought any documents along showing the
4 reconstruction or anything like that, have you?
5 A. No. I was there on the spot, and I testify here under oath. I'm
6 saying I was there in November 1997, say, the 25th of November or later.
7 I was there. I carried out a reconstruction. I don't know what documents
8 you wanted me to have here if I'm telling you I was there. I'm telling
9 you that these people were recognised by their family members.
10 Q. If you'd attended the camp and gone into a room and recognised it,
11 as you say you did, either in 1997 or in 1998, you should have made some
12 sort of record of that, shouldn't you?
13 A. I have such records. It should be contained in the reports that I
14 sent to my office. I report on my field trips upon my return to the
15 office; however, at that moment we were still looking for 460 people.
16 It is difficult to record every detail you see in the field.
17 Perhaps, at that time, it doesn't amount to much, but later it does.
18 Q. The reality is, Mr. Krcmar, that this room could be one of
19 thousands of rooms that existed in that part of Bosnia?
20 A. It could be, but it's not.
21 Q. And the fact is that you can't recognise the room, and you have no
22 way of knowing which room these men were in. Do you accept that?
23 A. I don't. You're trying to persuade me that I wasn't there. I
25 Q. Before we leave this photograph, as I recollect from your
1 testimony yesterday, you said that two of the men - indeed, it's written
2 on here - two of the men, we have Dragan Lukic and Marko Maric.
3 MR. ROBSON: If I could go back to the ABiH handwritten list,
4 please, for a moment, it's Exhibit 646. It's the ABiH handwritten list.
5 That's the one that I'm after.
6 As everybody has a copy of that, I don't think there's any need
7 for us to wait for it to appear on the screen.
8 Q. Mr. Krcmar, if you could please look through this list, would you
9 agree with me that neither Dragan Lukic nor Marko Maric appear upon this
11 A. On this list, these two persons' names do not appear. However, on
12 the list I compiled, they appear under items 5 and 46. It reads
13 there "Marucic," but it wasn't Marucic, but Maric, Marko and Lukic,
14 Dragan. Under 5, you have Dragutin Lukic. I keep referring to the
15 revised list.
16 Q. Thank you. So they weren't there.
17 Now, the final point --
18 A. I did not understand this.
19 Q. My final issue, Mr. Krcmar: Judge Harhoff asked you a question
20 about paragraph 19 of your statement, and that is the part where you
21 state: "We have confirmed that six of the seven persons were VRS soldiers
22 captured by the ABiH and handed over to the Mujahedin at Kesten."
23 Could you tell us, who were the sources of this information? Who
24 informed you about this?
25 A. The six identified persons from the list, and the seventh one
1 being Mladen Pejic, were found in the same grave in Kamenica. The sources
2 are DNA reports and identification on the part of family members.
3 Q. The question you were asked by Judge Harhoff related to the
4 capture of certain persons by the ABiH, who then handed them over to the
5 Mujahedin at Kesten.
6 Now, you weren't present that day, were you? You have no personal
7 knowledge of what happened. You would agree with me?
8 A. Yes. Had I been there, I wouldn't have -- I wouldn't be sitting
10 Q. So, please, could you tell us, if you're able to, who was it that
11 told you that VRS soldiers had been captured by the ABiH and handed over
12 to the Mujahedin at Kesten?
13 A. That information came from several sources. The first one was the
14 exchange of prisoners from the Zenica Prison in 1995, on the 24th of
16 The second one was on the 27th of January, 1996. The people who
17 left the prison told me that in Gostovici there were 64 POWs.
18 Another source were the three surviving women.
19 Allow me to finish.
20 Another piece of information is since Bosnia-Herzegovina is a
21 small country, people know each other. The missing people's families were
22 in contact. They were looking for their loved ones, and they learned that
23 there were 64 men held at the camp.
24 The third source was the Commission. During negotiations with the
25 commission for Bosnia-Herzegovina, they told me there was a camp of a
1 sizeable group. They didn't mention a figure, but they also told me that
2 at that moment they were unable to discuss that.
3 There were several different sources of information. And even
4 later, in 1997 and 1998, the local population, the Bosniaks living there,
5 told us of a large group of people who were taken from Kesten to
6 Gostovici, to the camp. There were several different unrelated sources.
7 And to conclude, the list that appeared confirmed that we had
8 found six of those people at Kamenica and identified them.
9 What else do you need?
10 Q. Just to go back to the -- one of the last sources of information
11 you've mentioned, you said, "in 1997 and 1998, the local population, the
12 Bosniaks living there."
13 It's right, isn't it, that during the war, and particularly in
14 1995, there were no Bosniaks living in Kesten and that area?
15 A. Those were the people from the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina who were
16 there in other units as part of the 2nd and 3rd Corps of the ABiH.
17 Q. Would you agree with me that there were no members of the local
18 population who were living in that area at the time who could have passed
19 on information to you about what happened during 1995?
20 A. Not civilians. There were military formations there comprising
21 the people of Ozren, from the village of Delici and others.
22 Q. So just to conclude, what you have stated in paragraph 19 of your
23 statement is simply recalling or repeating what others have told you and
24 no more?
25 A. That is correct. I wasn't there in 1995, but I've been doing
1 research and investigating the case for 12 years now.
2 Q. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Krcmar.
3 MR. ROBSON: I have no further questions.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Robson.
5 Madam Sartorio.
6 MS. SARTORIO: I have maybe ten minutes, Your Honour, but I don't
7 know if you want to take a break. It's up to you, but I would like to
8 also, for the record, I withdraw the objection in terms of authenticity of
9 that prior document. I don't think that -- I think our office received
10 it, and I apologise for that.
11 I recognise that it probably came from the Ministry of Defence, so
12 I don't want that on the record that I object to the authenticity.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well, Madam Sartorio --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Very well, Madam Sartorio, but I think it doesn't
17 change the issues.
18 MS. SARTORIO: I understand, yes.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 We'll take a break and come back at half past 12.00.
21 Court adjourned.
22 --- Recess taken at 11.59 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 12.30 p.m.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, are you done?
25 MR. ROBSON: I've finished, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Robson.
2 Madam Sartorio, any re-examination?
3 MS. SARTORIO: Just a short ten or 15 minutes, Your Honour. Thank
5 May the witness be shown Exhibit P06176, P06176.
6 Re-examination by Ms. Sartorio:
7 Q. Now, sir, this is the front of the document, but can you identify
8 this document at this point?
9 A. This is photo documentation for Zivinko Todorovic, son of Savo.
10 MS. SARTORIO: And could we go to the last -- well, actually it's
11 page 7 of the document, at least the English.
12 Could you enlarge the English, please.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Are we having any technical problems?
14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
15 MS. SARTORIO: It's page 14 of the Bosnian version and 7 of the
17 I don't have the English. Do the Judges have the English?
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't have. The usher's computer is having
20 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. There it is. Excellent.
21 Q. Sir, can you tell us what this document is?
22 A. This is the file card of a missing or detained person, a document
23 issued by the Office for Missing Persons. This particular one belongs to
24 Zivinko Todorovic and contains all the data that my office has. We saw a
25 number of such file cards yesterday.
1 Q. Yes. And was this -- this is the person that you referred to in
2 your statement and which you were asked about by Defence counsel on
3 cross-examination; is that correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 MS. SARTORIO: Okay. Could we go two more pages into this
6 document, please. Right there for the English. You don't have to go any
7 further, and the next page for the Bosnian, please. Okay.
8 Q. Sir, can you tell the Chamber what this document is?
9 A. This is a report of the identification of mortal remains for
10 Zivinko Todorovic, and we can see the signatures of the members of the
11 family and persons competent for the identification. All their signatures
12 are there.
13 Q. And I believe that you testified, or if you didn't, were you
14 present at the exhumation of this body?
15 A. Yes. I found the location, and I also attended the exhumation of
16 this body.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we would ask that this document be
18 admitted in evidence.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document is admitted into evidence. May it
20 please be given an exhibit number.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, Exhibit number 652.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
23 MS. SARTORIO: Now, can we go back to the handwritten list one
24 more time, please. It's 646, the exhibit number, and the beginning. I'll
25 wait for the English. Actually, there's no English. That's correct.
1 Q. Sir, number 5, I know you've talked about this quite a bit, but,
2 looking at number 5, did you ever find anyone in your database with the
3 first name "Dragutin Lukic" with that date of birth and place of birth?
4 A. We don't have anybody called "Dragutin Lukic." We only have
5 a "Dragan Lukic."
6 Q. Okay.
7 MS. SARTORIO: And if you scroll down to number 10 -- well, you
8 don't need to scroll.
9 Q. Now, did you ever find anyone -- has anyone ever been reported
10 missing to your office or have you ever -- during your research, or anyone
11 in your computer by the name of Bozidar Todorovic?
12 A. No. We don't have anybody by the name of Bozidar Todorovic.
13 Q. But do you have someone by the name of Bozidar Torovic [sic].
14 Right? That was one of the --
15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. All right. If you scroll down to number 9, does your computer --
17 do your records show that there was a Radovan Radojcic, as spelled there?
18 Is that a correct spelling of that name?
19 A. We don't have a Radovan Radojcic. We have Radenko Radojcic, I
21 Q. And number 16, in your computer and your database, do you have
22 someone missing, unaccounted for, and it was Cedo Dabic?
23 A. I believe that we had that person. That person was identified and
24 buried. I don't know whether this is a spelling mistake. This list has
25 to be collated with my list. But, in any case, that person was identified
1 on the 29th of November, 2006, and buried.
2 Q. And number 33.
3 MS. SARTORIO: If we may scroll down to 33.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Stjepanovic, and it says "Drago"
6 MS. SARTORIO:
7 Q. And is that name correct?
8 A. "Stjepanovic" is correct. I don't know whether the name is
9 Draguslob or something else. I don't remember and I don't want to
10 speculate. Again, I am referring you to my table. I've had 5.000 names
11 to deal with. I don't know what the correct name is; but in any case, I
12 know who this is, I know that the body was found and buried.
13 Q. And, number 66, did you have anyone in your system by the name of
14 Mirko Maricic? Was there anyone that you found that was reported missing
15 or you found was missing --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, number 66?
17 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
18 JUDGE HARHOFF: Forty-six, perhaps.
19 MS. SARTORIO: Forty-six, you're correct. Sorry. It looks
20 like -- sorry, 46. I apologise.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It says here "Marko Maricic." His
22 name is Maric, Marko, and the father's name is Marko as well. He was born
23 in Podsjelovo in Zavidovici Municipality, born in 1946. He was not
24 located ever.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson.
1 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, previously this witness has expressed an
2 unwillingness to comment on documents not prepared by him. It's been put
3 to him by the Prosecutor that this name, Mirko Maricic, is somebody else.
4 The question -- the objection I pose is: Is he in a position to
5 say the correct name has not been put down on this list? He's told us
6 he's not the author, so I'm just wondering whether he can answer the
7 question that's been put.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry. I'm trying to look for the question you say
9 was put to the witness by Madam Sartorio. You say Madam Sartorio put to
10 him that this name, Mirko Maricic, is somebody else. Where is that?
11 MS. SARTORIO: Well, at line 14.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Line 14 is the witness speaking or am I talking?
13 MS. SARTORIO: No. In the question, I say: "In number 66, did
14 you have anyone in your system by the name of Mirko Maricic?"
15 I'm not asking him --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: But that's the same as saying is this somebody
18 MS. SARTORIO: No. I am not asking him that. That's correct.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm trying to check with Mr. Robson.
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, perhaps Madam Sartorio can continue, and
21 we'll see where it goes.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 You can continue.
24 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
25 Q. My question is, sir, in your database and in your research for the
1 RS Commission for Missing Persons in the last 12 years, have you ever
2 located or been told of a person who is missing by the name of Mirko
4 A. No. M.
5 MS. SARTORIO: I have no further questions.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Madam Sartorio.
7 Questioned by the Court:
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge?
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Honourable Judge.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge, the interpreters asked for your microphone,
11 please, madam.
12 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge?
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: No.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just one question. I am not even quite sure
16 whether I should ask you. Yes, let me ask you.
17 You've been asking, sir, that you be shown the list that you have
18 compiled, that you collated. This one. I haven't seen it being shown to
19 you. Do you have it?
20 A. Not here. I have submitted it to the Prosecutor's Office with all
21 files, for every person, and even the addresses of the families of the
22 persons on the handwritten list. All the corrections have been made, and
23 for every person a file was submitted similar to the one that we've just
24 seen on the screen.
25 I just wanted to make sure that you understand that the lists are
1 more or less the same. They're more or less identical, save for the typos
2 that existed in the original list.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I understand, sir. Now, you say you gave it to the
4 Prosecution. Have you been shown that list in the last two days that you
5 have been testifying here?
6 A. No. You mean my list?
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
8 A. Yeah, I understood you, yes.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have been shown your list in the last two days?
10 A. No, no.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. I'm just sympathising because
12 even begging for this list and it's not coming, and I don't understand why
13 it's not coming.
14 Anyway. Thank you so much. You don't have to answer.
15 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, well --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. This brings us to the
17 conclusion of -- I beg your pardon.
18 Any questions arising from the questions by me, Madam Sartorio?
19 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson?
21 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, sir. That brings us to the
23 end of your testimony. We thank you very much for taking time off from
24 your very busy schedule to come and testify, and we hope you have a safe
25 journey back home. You are now excused. You may stand down.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Madam Sartorio, the Chamber has received a note
4 here from VWS, I suppose that is this, concerning the next witness. I'll
5 just read it out, and maybe you have better instructions and you can tell
7 It says: "The witness that's due to testify shortly. She is
8 terribly upset. Through no fault of her own, her luggage was lost on the
9 flight yesterday. Crucial papers relating to her testimony, largely
10 statistics explaining her case, were lost with her suitcase. The suitcase
11 is now recovered, however. She received the suitcase from one of our
12 drivers only one hour ago; therefore, we are asking for her testimony to
13 be delayed so that she is able to prepare herself properly before her
14 appearance in court.
15 Please advise Chambers of the matter. I believe the testimony she
16 would give if asked to proceed immediately would not be on an acceptable
17 standard, considering that she is very upset and has not been able to
18 prepare properly."
19 Have you heard anything about this witness, ma'am, in addition to
20 what I've just read?
21 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour. I spoke with her personally, and
22 that's what she told me.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Given that, the Chamber filed a decision
24 sometime either early this week or last week in response to the Defence
25 motion asking for a four-day sitting session; and according to the
1 schedule, we were therefore supposed to be off on Monday.
2 This witness is here already. We would like to propose that we
3 sit on Monday and maybe take Friday off, just to accommodate this witness,
4 because she's here already, unless she's going back now. If she's going
5 back, then we can start on Tuesday.
6 MS. SARTORIO: No. She's not going back, Your Honour, but I did
7 ask her about her availability, and she is available on Monday, even on
8 Tuesday. She doesn't have to be back.
9 That proposal may not be a bad idea, because I think we may have
10 to postpone or move a witness or two from the end of next week if we don't
11 sit on Monday. We were anticipating that we would be sitting on Monday?
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. The order said we would not be sitting on
13 Mondays, where possible. That's a scheduling problem, and this coming
14 here, the scheduling office was able to accommodate us on Monday.
15 So, according to the schedule, we are not supposed to be sitting
16 on Monday, and this suggestion that we sit on Monday is based simply on
17 the fact that there is a desire to accommodate this witness and the
18 Tribunal, so that we don't sit here Monday doing nothing and we are paying
19 for a witness in a hotel.
20 MS. SARTORIO: That's fine with the Prosecution, Your Honour.
21 That's acceptable.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is that acceptable to everybody?
23 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: You have no microphone, Madam Vidovic.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] I must say that I am not very happy,
1 because we are really overworked; but given the situation, obviously we
2 will accept that proposal, bearing in mind that the witness is important
3 and she is here, and we have to accommodate her, obviously.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much for your consideration, Madam
6 Yes, Madam Sartorio.
7 MS. SARTORIO: We would propose perhaps, though, that we do sit
8 through the whole week next week, because the following week, it's going
9 to put all the other days off. I believe the following week, we're off on
10 Tuesday -- Monday or Tuesday, so it would be a Friday and a Monday, I
11 think. In other words, I don't know what the day off next week is.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: I don't know what the day off the week after next
13 is, but let's see if we can find it.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Ms. Sartorio, I thought you just said that it
15 would be convenient for the Prosecution to put off some witnesses for next
16 week's schedule.
17 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I did, but my colleague discussed it with me
18 and said it might require some juggling with witnesses, and I'm not sure
19 what their availability is going to be until we can talk to them.
20 We anticipated contacting them anyway because we --
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just before you say what you want to say, we are
23 just being advised that according to the schedule, we are not sitting on
24 the 6th of November, which is the week after, and that the 6th of November
25 is a Tuesday.
1 Yes, Madam Vidovic.
2 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really have to say
3 that we need that day, because we are expecting some very difficult
4 witnesses, bearing in mind that we only received transcript at the last
5 moment, which the Prosecution knows very well. And, second of all, for
6 medical reasons and for reasons of the well-being of my team, I would
7 kindly ask you to stick to the schedule as you decided, to only work four
8 days a week, and to have either a Monday or a Friday off. The day doesn't
9 really make a difference, but we need that one day.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Madam Sartorio.
11 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, we'll agree to that and just deal with
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you very much.
14 In that event, then, we are sitting on Monday next week, the 29th
15 of October, at quarter past 2.00, Courtroom II.
16 Court adjourned -- I'm sorry, yes.
17 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it's a housekeeping matter, if I may. I
18 apologise for not getting up to my feet any faster.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I apologise.
20 MR. ROBSON: Your Honour, it relates to Rule 92 ter witnesses.
21 The Trial Chamber may be aware the Prosecution have written to the
22 Defence and indicated they may want to call approximately ten witnesses or
23 so using this procedure. Obviously, we've just had the first 92 ter
24 witness, so to a certain extent I think we are testing the waters a
1 What I would like to put on the record is that the way it went
2 with the last witness didn't really accord with the Defence's view or idea
3 as to how it should have gone. The Defence was of the view that with this
4 type of witness, the Prosecution would call the witness, ask a few
5 questions to establish the voracity of any statement, then perhaps just
6 deal with any small matters of clarification, and then hand over to the
7 Defence. Obviously, with the last witness we had the statements, plus we
8 had two hours or so of effectively viva voce --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Three.
10 MR. ROBSON: -- evidence. Three.
11 The Defence are trying to propose this in a collegial manner and
12 trying to agree, to the largest extent possible, with the Prosecution that
13 witnesses can be used in accordance with this Rule, but we feel that with
14 the last witness, it wasn't in keeping with the spirit of Rule 92 ter.
15 So, although this witness did deal with some complex matters, the
16 Defence would indicate that there are more important witnesses to come
17 which the Prosecution have indicated will be called pursuant to Rule 92
18 ter, and we would just like to note for the record that we wouldn't like
19 to see a similar situation whereby witness statements are introduced that
20 the Defence have to prepare in relation to for cross-examination, and then
21 in addition we have a significant amount of viva voce evidence that we
22 then also have to deal with.
23 If all the other witnesses are going to follow in a similar
24 manner, it may mean that we may have to take a bit more of a robust
25 approach and perhaps not -- and indicate our displeasure to the Trial
1 Chamber, if need be.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Robson, thank you very much for raising that
3 point. It was the intention of the Chamber to raise it, but it slipped my
5 You've heard what Mr. Robson has said, Ms. Sartorio, and before
6 you respond I just want to say to you that, as the Chamber, we were
7 thinking very seriously of dropping the idea of using 92 ter witnesses if
8 this is the way things are going to go.
9 MS. SARTORIO: I apologise, Your Honour. I will take full
10 responsibility for that. As I said yesterday, we talked and perhaps this
11 wasn't an appropriate 92 ter witness.
12 And, also, one of the issues is that normally the Trial Chamber, I
13 believe, is -- a motion is filed and the Trial Chamber's given the
14 statements in advance; therefore, you're able to read the statements so
15 that the follow-up questions are put in context.
16 I realise yesterday that that wasn't the case. So the way I
17 understood some questions from the Bench early on, I felt there was going
18 to be confusion if I didn't go back over the testimony and try to lay some
19 foundation or context.
20 So I would propose that we -- if we are going to do it, that the
21 Defence counsel agree to us submitting the statements in advance so that
22 Your Honours can read the statements.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: But this is what has been happening. Is there any
24 rule that says because a witness is 92 ter, you don't have to submit a
25 statement in advance?
1 MS. SARTORIO: Is there any rule that says we don't or do? --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
3 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honour, not that I'm aware of, because it
4 didn't happen in this case.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Then why didn't it happen in this case?
6 MS. SARTORIO: Your Honour, I can't -- I don't know why. I guess
7 I didn't think it could happen, but I guess I was wrong. It could have
8 been done, and I apologise for that.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: You didn't think it could happen?
10 MS. SARTORIO: I didn't think that we were allowed to do that,
11 even though there's no rule. I didn't --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yet you are allowed to do that with a viva voce
14 MS. SARTORIO: Allowed to do what with a viva voce?
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: To give an advance statement?
16 MS. SARTORIO: We don't give advance statements to the Court with
17 viva voce witnesses. His statements aren't in evidence, is my
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: I receive statements every day before, in fact --
20 MS. SARTORIO: Okay.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: If I could perhaps seek some clarification.
22 The proper way, at least in my view, to apply Rule 92 ter is, of
23 course, to rely on the statement which we have. The issue is, then, if
24 further documents can be admitted through the witness. That is basically
25 the issue. If you have a huge number of documents in mind, then my advice
1 would be that you should then go for 92 bis.
2 However, if you do choose to go down the avenue of 92 ter in order
3 to save time, then I think that two things need to be adhered to.
4 One is that if you wish to have documents admitted through a 92
5 ter witness, then in any case that has to be a very small number, one or
6 two documents and that's about it.
7 Secondly, those documents should be documents that relate to
8 simple points of clarification of what is in the statement and should not
9 be documents that import a whole series of other documents and import
10 issues which will need extensive examination-in-chief.
11 So if you can steer clear of those two caveats, then I think 92
12 ter is a good way to go ahead, but you have to be careful.
13 Thank you.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, madam.
15 JUDGE LATTANZI: [Interpretation] I would like to add, to avoid
16 Judges asking questions which will be mooted in preliminary statements, it
17 would be better to have them before, and this would solve one of the
19 But the question asked by Defence is much wider and concerns those
20 problems which also Judge Harhoff has expressed; therefore, presenting
21 preliminary statements to the Chamber does not actually solve the problem.
22 MS. SARTORIO: I agree, Your Honour. The problem is with the fact
23 that this was the first 92 ter, and it was a testing for myself. Again, I
24 take personal responsibility for going over, and I think we will take what
25 Judge Harhoff has said and what you have said very, very seriously in the
1 future in terms of 92 ter witnesses.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. I think, as a rule, any witness who's been
3 led pursuant to 92 ter should not be asked viva voce questions for more
4 than five to seven minutes. You're just introducing the witness.
5 MS. SARTORIO: Right.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see you are --
7 MS. SARTORIO: Well, Your Honour, this has actually been a subject
8 of much discussion lately in the entire OTP, and there's been a lot of
9 group e-mails going around. What I've learned from this is that in the
10 other -- I think the other six trials, that they are allowed to do some
11 viva voce outside the statement, up to 60 minutes is what a lot of --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Up to 60 minutes?
13 MS. SARTORIO: Yes. It generally averages between 30 and 60
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: In my view, if you're going to take 60 minutes, you
16 might as well lead the witness viva voce. Sorry. I don't see how much
17 more time you are saving.
18 MS. SARTORIO: Well --
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me put it this way: If you've got to take 60
20 minutes to lead a 92 ter witness, how much would you have taken were you
21 to deal with that witness viva voce? What would have been your estimate
22 of the time?
23 MS. SARTORIO: With this particular one?
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. A witness about whom you take 60 minutes
25 to lead.
1 MS. SARTORIO: Well, hopefully less than that, if it's done
2 correctly. That is the purpose of why we're asking for 92 ter. This was
3 not a good -- is not a good example that I set.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. You see, you're talking about this
5 example. I'm not talking about this example.
6 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Listen to what I have said. You say in other
8 trials you are given something like 60 minutes, in other Chambers.
9 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm saying if you have a witness who's 92 ter, and
11 you need 60 minutes to introduce that witness, how much would you have
12 taken if you had led that same witness viva voce?
13 MS. SARTORIO: Well, I can't think of many witnesses we've done in
14 less than 60 minutes in this trial viva voce; very few, I think. So I
15 think it does save some time, but I would think that the 60 minutes is all
16 relative. If it's a witness that was scheduled for three hours, then it
17 might be 60 minutes. If the witness is only scheduled for an hour, then I
18 would propose that we would be -- it wouldn't make any sense to direct the
19 witness for 60 minutes.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Indeed. Madam Sartorio, the whole purpose of 92
21 ter is to save on time --
22 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- so that there's not much time wasted by the
24 leading team, and then the time is used for cross-examination. I don't
25 think that 60 minutes is saving time on a 92 ter, but my colleagues might
1 have something to say.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: I have nothing to add to this, Mr. President. I
3 just wanted to clarify a small mistake that I made in my intervention in
4 saying that the alternative to 92 ter was 92 bis, which of course was a
5 mistake. I meant to say "65 ter," of course.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
7 MR. ROBSON: Just a final point, Your Honour.
8 Just in response to what Ms. Sartorio is saying, that the
9 Prosecution be permitted to have up to 60 minutes to examine a Rule 65
10 witness viva voce -- I beg your pardon, 92 ter. I would just like to
11 point out that could well have an impact on the length of time the Defence
12 needs to cross-examine, because obviously we need time to deal with the
13 statement, and we would need an additional period of time to deal with the
14 60 minutes. It raises the question of are we really saving --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's what I'm saying. If you're going to take an
16 hour, you might as well lead viva voce, because then you're really
17 expanding. You may be saving time on the leading side, but you're
18 expanding it on the cross-examining side, so it does not serve the purpose
19 of 92 ter. So you might as well go viva voce.
20 MS. SARTORIO: Yes, Your Honour. I would suggest that we take the
21 next witness and do it within a short period of time, and make a decision
22 after that if we're not able to do that.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: No. We're not making a decision now. We're just
24 sounding a warning now that, look, if this happens again, then we're going
25 to cancel all your 92 ter --
1 MS. SARTORIO: Yes.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: -- witnesses, and then you'll have to lead them
3 through viva voce.
4 MS. SARTORIO: Thank you.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
6 Any other housekeeping matter?
7 MR. ROBSON: No, Your Honour, thank you.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: From your side, Madam Sartorio?
9 MS. SARTORIO: No, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: From the Bench?
11 Thank you. We'll take a break. I did say we would adjourn to
12 Monday, the 29th, at quarter past 2.00, Courtroom II.
13 Court adjourned.
14 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.11 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Monday, the 29th day of
16 October, 2007, at 2.00 p.m.