1 Wednesday, 17th June 1998
2 (The accused entered court)
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 a.m.
4 (Open session)
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I ask the
6 registrar to call out the case number, please?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
8 Case number IT-95-13a-T, the Prosecutor versus Slavko
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. May I have the
11 appearances, please? Prosecution?
12 MR. NIEMANN: Your Honours please, my name is
13 Niemann, and I appear with my colleagues,
14 Mr. Williamson and Mr. Waespi for the Prosecution.
15 MR. FILA: Good morning, Your Honours. I am
16 Toma Fila here with Mr. Petrovic. Mr. Kosic lives
17 quite some distance away, so he hasn't been able to
18 reach us in time.
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Dokmanovic,
20 good morning. Can you hear me? Thank you.
21 Let me start by thanking, on behalf of the
22 Trial Chamber, both parties for promptly accepting our
23 suggestions to bring forward the resumption of our
24 trial. We are really most obliged and very
25 appreciative of the cooperative attitude of both
2 As you know, this will enable us to finish
3 another trial next Monday when we will be sitting on a
4 different case, and then we will resume on Tuesday, as
5 you know.
6 Now, before we start, let me deal with a few
7 housekeeping matters. First of all, I hope that
8 Mr. Fila has seen the urgent request for assistance to
9 the Republic of Croatia which I immediately --
10 MR. FILA: And I wish to thank you for it. I
11 really thank you very much because it worked because my
12 investigator was able to go to Vukovar yesterday, so I
13 thank the court for that.
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Good. Thank you. It's very
15 good news because I was prepared even to phone the
16 Ambassador of Croatia to The Hague, but I see there is
17 no point now. Excellent. So this proves that the
18 Croatian authorities are cooperating very well.
19 Then I would like again to ask the parties
20 about the various witnesses they would like to call
21 today. I understand Mr. Fila is calling five witnesses
22 this morning, probably, or today, five witnesses.
23 MR. FILA: I will call four witnesses this
24 morning, but the fifth witness is waiting in the hotel,
25 so if we finish on time, we can also hear him. Not a
1 problem at all. At any rate, I will finish today,
2 maybe not in the morning but for sure in the
3 afternoon. It doesn't depend on me.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I understand that
5 you are also calling today the expert witness,
6 Professor Aleksic. We have received the English
7 translation of his statement. Very good.
8 Now, I am not clear about the list of three
9 witnesses for whom you have enclosed in your document,
10 the document filed recently, the written statements.
11 These are Dragisic Mirko, Novakovic, and Tomasevic. I
12 think we heard those witnesses.
13 MR. FILA: Yes, but these are not the same
14 statements. This is what this is all about. Since we
15 are talking now informally, since I heard that the tape
16 is being disputed, I heard about that from
17 Mr. Williamson on the 28th, 29th, and then I read the
18 statement by Mr. Dzuro, I asked them to provide me with
19 their copies of the tape, that's what I asked of
20 Mr. Dragisic and Tomasevic, because they also got the
21 tapes in 1991, and they provided me with those tapes.
22 The statements tell you that under oath they stated
23 that they gave me those tapes, and I am prepared to
24 give you those tapes whenever you feel like it. It's
25 the same tape as the master tapes, and these are just
1 the copies of the tape that you already have as D2.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, but you are not going to
3 call again those two witnesses?
4 MR. FILA: No, no, no, no, no. No. Not a
5 single one of them. There has been a
6 misunderstanding. Mr. Vasic will testify as to their
7 statements. This will be in rebuttal of the evidence
8 provided by the Prosecutor.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. But you said the master
10 tape. Did you mean to refer to the original copy of
11 the tape?
12 MR. FILA: No. The first copy is the copy
13 that you have, and the expert of the Prosecutor, as I
14 can see, also stated that. But from that tape, those
15 two copies were made, and those copies were given to
16 those two witnesses, but that was in 1991. For us, it
17 is important to determine that these tapes were shot in
18 1991 in their present form.
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Now, turning now
20 to the Prosecution. I understand they are going to
21 call eight witnesses, and some of them are expert
22 witnesses; namely, Dr. Tabbush, Mr. Herold, Professor
23 Wagenaar, and Dr. Gudjonsson; is that correct?
24 MR. NIEMANN: That's right, Your Honour, yes.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you tell us, when do
1 you intend to call those witnesses? This week or next
3 MR. NIEMANN: It's anticipated, Your Honours,
4 that the order that we have to call witnesses will be
5 as follows: We will call the investigator,
6 Mr. Vladimir Dzuro, either today or tomorrow, we will
7 call the expert witness on the trees, Mr. Tabbush,
8 tomorrow, and then we will call Witness R, we have
9 sought protection for him, tomorrow as well, and then
10 next week it's anticipated that we will call
11 Mr. Herold, Witness S, and Mr. Corwin, and then,
12 finally, Dr. Wagenaar. Finally, yes, Dr. Gudjonsson.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Thank you. Concerning
14 the expert witnesses, you may have noticed that the
15 Defence counsel raised a few issues in particular
16 concerning the CVs, and I think I agree with Mr. Fila
17 that, if possible, CVs should be handed both to Defence
18 counsel and to the court.
19 MR. NIEMANN: Yes. Well, Your Honours, I
20 don't know whether you have noticed, but yesterday we
21 filed a response to that motion.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: No.
23 MR. NIEMANN: In that motion, we provided the
24 CVs. Mr. Fila has also raised the issue of wanting our
25 letters to the experts, which we're not prepared to
1 provide. It's work product. What we are prepared to
2 provide is the questions we asked the experts and asked
3 them to opine on, and we have done that in our
4 response, which Mr. Fila presumably should have or, in
5 due course, will be served with if he hasn't got it as
7 MR. FILA: I did receive it, yes. I received
8 the response, I received the CVs, not on the 12th or on
9 the 15th, but yesterday.
10 I just wanted to turn your attention to the
11 fact that I stick to the deadlines that you issue in
12 your orders, and I again received these too late
13 because on the 15th I was supposed to give my
15 The reason why I asked for the letter is
16 because they gave answers with regard to that letter,
17 so I could have been given the letter because it just
18 shows what was written to those two experts, Wagenaar
19 and Gudjonsson. I can't force them, of course, to give
20 me that, but I think that the court maybe can force
21 them to give me that because I don't know what the
22 questions were, yet I received their answers.
23 MR. NIEMANN: Well, he certainly has the
24 questions now, and we're in a similar position with
25 respect to the information about his Professor
1 Aleksic. We didn't receive any CVs or any of his
2 report until now either, so we're in the same position.
3 MR. FILA: No, no.
4 MR. NIEMANN: And he's calling Dr. Aleksic
5 today. We just received the CVs, Your Honours. We
6 provided the reports last week in compliance with the
7 order, so any suggestion there hasn't been compliance
8 with the order is rejected.
9 MR. FILA: No, no. Your Honour, I submitted
10 everything on time. I was not allowed to provide my
11 own translations in accordance with the registry
12 decision. I don't know how many times I have to repeat
13 that. I submit it as soon as I get it, and I don't
14 know how long it takes for the translation to be done.
15 I wanted to do the translations myself, but I wasn't
16 allowed to do so, so it's not up to me.
17 MR. NIEMANN: Well, we certainly didn't
18 receive it, Your Honour. We received it this morning.
19 JUDGE CASSESE: What? The CV?
20 MR. NIEMANN: No, the report. We still
21 haven't received the CV.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: No, sorry, the CV of
23 Professor Aleksic was next to the document filed on the
24 15th of June.
25 MR. NIEMANN: Sorry, yes, the report. We
1 just received it this morning.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: The report, yes, but I agree
3 with Mr. Fila, I must say, this is because of the
4 amount of work of the translation unit. It was handed
5 in in Serbo Croatian and then it was translated --
6 actually, it's a draft translation, I read here, by the
7 translation unit in the Tribunal, who are, of course,
8 overwhelmed with requests for translation.
9 But I would not enter into any polemics
10 because I think, by and large, both parties are
11 cooperating, and we do appreciate the problems you may
12 face in some instances.
13 So the only issue which is probably worth
14 discussing is whether or not the Prosecutor should
15 provide both the Defence counsel and the court with the
16 text of their own requests or letters to Professor
17 Wagenaar and Gudjonsson. However, since, of course, we
18 cannot but trust the Prosecutor, if the Prosecutor is
19 ready to give us the list of questions they actually
20 put to both experts, I think we should be happy with
21 that. As long as we know what questions were put to
22 both experts, we can understand the whole set of issues
23 much better.
24 MR. NIEMANN: The questions are fairly
25 straightforward, Your Honours, and it's not a complex
1 issue. This is rebuttal evidence, so it's obviously
2 not going to be expansive, the information we sought,
3 and as I say, we have provided in our response.
4 But I think this touches on a very germane
5 question in relation to the issue of discovery and
6 responsibilities. I mean, the parties do have a
7 necessity to investigate and to obtain information, and
8 it may be that the information is unhelpful or
9 unnecessary, so there is an exploration process that
10 goes on both by the Defence and by the Prosecution. It
11 would be oppressive to request the Defence to provide
12 work product material in relation to their
13 correspondence with witnesses. In some jurisdictions,
14 this is covered by legal professional privilege; in
15 others, it is covered as work product. Your Honours,
16 in my submission, certainly it assists all parties for
17 them to know what was asked. But it's not as though
18 these witnesses are just some sort of statement
19 tendered in a vacuum; they're going to be called.
20 Mr. Fila is quite at liberty to get up and ask
21 questions. If the professor or the doctor has the
22 information at hand, he can respond. He can say what
23 was the nature of correspondence between the parties.
24 The whole process of cross-examination is designed to
25 permit this to happen, and it doesn't necessitate
1 delving into speculative issues which could arise as a
2 consequence of the investigative process, whereby large
3 amounts of material are rejected. That just becomes
4 especially true when it relates to a rebuttal case
5 because in a rebuttal case you are confining it to a
6 very, very narrow concept. You may ask a wider,
7 broader range of questions, but when it comes to the
8 actual testimony of the witness, you want to
9 concentrate on what truly represents rebuttal.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. We do agree with the
11 Prosecution, and I think we will be content with the
12 list of questions that I understand have already been
13 submitted to the court and the Defence counsel. We
14 have not yet received this document which probably was
15 filed yesterday?
16 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: But I'm happy to see that
18 Mr. Fila has got it.
19 Now, let us now therefore move on and start
20 with the witnesses, if there are no other matters, with
21 the witnesses called by the -- yes, Mr. Fila, please?
22 MR. FILA: You may have noticed, Your
23 Honours, I also said something else in my motion. In
24 the system in which I have been acting as a Defence
25 counsel for 30 years -- it's a long time, but that's
1 how it is -- the behaviour of the person on trial is
2 important up to the time when he is acquitted or
3 convicted; even after that, in the sentencing
5 I propose that the court should obtain the
6 information about the behaviour of Mr. Dokmanovic from
7 the moment of his arrest up until his trial. That
8 means the medical records from the prison or maybe even
9 testimony by Mr. McFadden, the warden of the prison.
10 That's the system in my country. So this is just my
11 proposal. This is not something that I request.
12 Because we have had secondhand evidence, expert
13 witness, Vera Petrovic, said that she had seen the
14 medical records of Mr. Dokmanovic and saw what was
15 written in there, but you haven't seen this medical
17 So if the Trial Chamber deems that this is
18 necessary, I just wanted to make that suggestion. I
19 can see that the Prosecutor is not opposed that this
20 medical record be examined by Your Honours and maybe
21 even Mr. McFadden may testify here or submit a written
22 report on the behaviour of Mr. Dokmanovic, on the
23 conduct of Mr. Dokmanovic. This is just an explanation
24 of my motion.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila, you
1 could assist the court by clarifying for what purposes
2 you are proposing that medical records should be looked
3 at by the court.
4 MR. FILA: Because in my country, in the
5 sentencing proceedings, the fact whether a person has a
6 previous criminal record, the fact of his conduct,
7 aggressive conduct in prison, or his health situation,
8 if he refuses to obey the orders of the guards and so
9 on or if he behaves in a different manner, this is
10 something that's important. This is the reason why I
11 propose this. If you deem it necessary, okay; if not,
12 okay again.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: You know, this is a delicate
14 matter because this is an issue which may give rise to
15 a question of intrusion into the privacy of medical
16 records, medical data, things which we --
17 MR. FILA: With the approval, with his
18 approval and the approval of his Defence, I hereby give
19 you our consent that his medical record be examined,
20 just as we gave our consent for Mrs. Petrovic to
21 examine this record. Otherwise, she wouldn't have been
22 able to examine the record at all.
23 But again, I stress, if the court deems it
25 JUDGE CASSESE: May I ask the Prosecution
1 whether they have any views on this particular matter?
2 MR. NIEMANN: No, Your Honours, except that
3 it may assist the court more if Mr. Fila was to perhaps
4 seek the court's assistance in securing this evidence
5 to be brought before the court if he considers it to be
6 relevant and would assist in the sentencing process.
7 It may just be a little awkward otherwise in terms of
8 leading the evidence from the witness and being
9 responsible for discussing the issue with the witnesses
10 that he wants to call. It seems to me that Your
11 Honours may be better assisted if Mr. Fila is
12 responsible for these witnesses and perhaps seeks Your
13 Honours' assistance in securing their attendance.
14 One of them is a United Nations witness and
15 is not amenable to examination without special
16 exemption, I understand, so that needs to be obtained.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: This would be -- are you
18 referring to --
19 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. McFadden, I believe, Your
21 JUDGE CASSESE: McFadden.
22 MR. NIEMANN: I understand the situation to
23 be that way, but I wouldn't like to speak, but I think
24 there is some restriction on U.N. personnel
25 testifying. But that can be overcome and, of course,
1 it just means that steps need to be taken to secure the
2 approval, I think, of New York, is the process that one
3 obtains. But it's a little awkward for Your Honours to
4 take it upon yourselves to handle witnesses and bring
5 them before the court. You can do it. There is
6 provisions in the Rules for it. No one says it can't
7 happen. But it may be better if that responsibility is
8 left with Mr. Fila, with Your Honours' assistance.
9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. The court feels that
10 the best solution would be as follows: We will ask the
11 medical officer in charge of the prison -- I don't
12 remember his name -- to produce a medical report.
13 MR. FILA: Falces.
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Dr. Falces, yes, Dr. Falces,
15 to submit a detailed medical report, in a language
16 which is accessible to people who are not experts in
17 medicine, on the physical medical conditions of the
18 accused. So that we would simply receive this
19 medical -- the court will request -- it's not for
20 Mr. Fila -- the court will request the medical officer
21 of the prison to produce this medical report.
22 I wonder whether Mr. Fila, as I think I
23 understood him to say, also wants to have some sort of
24 report on the behaviour of the accused while in
25 prison. We could ask Mr. McFadden again to submit a
1 report on the behaviour of the accused while in
2 detention. So we would have two written statements
3 from the two relevant offices.
4 May I take this opportunity, since we are
5 talking about evidence which is relevant to the
6 sentencing, may I turn to the Prosecution and ask them
7 to clarify whether two of their witnesses, namely,
8 these are U.N. civil servants, I think, Mr. Corwin and
9 Witness S, who are going to report or testify on the
10 attitude of the accused in a period subsequent to the
11 relevant date, I mean, the crucial date, '91; namely,
12 the period '93-'94 or '94-'95, whether this evidence
13 is relevant in the view of the Prosecution again for
14 sentencing purposes, because otherwise it would not be
16 MR. NIEMANN: Of course, Your Honours. Is
17 Your Honour directing your question to the fact of it
18 being subsequent or is Your Honour --
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
20 MR. NIEMANN: I see. Yes. Your Honours, in
21 our submission, evidence of attitudes and views on
22 certain events is relevant subsequently if it's the
23 views held by a person and, in our submission, is
24 admissible. So it's not, when talking of general
25 character evidence and on questions of sentencing, it's
1 not excluded merely because it's subsequent. There are
2 bases upon which subsequent conduct are admissible.
3 It's not always admissible, but it can be depending
4 upon the character of the evidence itself, such as
5 views held, if a person holds a particular political
6 belief or a particular religious belief or whatever, an
7 attitude to a certain thing. Those are views that can
8 be held for a lifetime, and someone can come along at a
9 point and give evidence of that.
10 This evidence won't be evidence in a vacuum
11 because there will be other evidence from another
12 witness about similar views held prior to the event, so
13 it will, in effect, show a link, continuity between the
15 JUDGE CASSESE: All right.
16 MR. NIEMANN: So that is how it will become
18 JUDGE CASSESE: It's not only relevant for
19 sentencing purposes but to cover the whole period. I
20 mean, the attitude both before '91, or in '91 and after
22 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, I will say that it was a
23 continuation of that.
24 JUDGE MAY: It shows presumably, you would
25 say, a consistency --
1 MR. NIEMANN: Yes.
2 JUDGE MAY: -- Mr. Niemann, in attitude.
3 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Thank you. So we
5 will then later on issue these two requests to the two
6 offices I mentioned before, and we may now start with
7 the witnesses Mr. Fila is calling today.
8 I wonder whether the registry --
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: I'm sorry, Your Honour.
10 When you indicated that you had put in the request, you
11 were referring to Mr. McFadden and the doctor?
12 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
13 MR. WILLIAMSON: I apologise. I thought you
14 were talking about requesting for these witnesses
15 authorisation from New York to testify, and we have
16 already done that. I apologise.
17 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. So I wonder
18 whether the registry -- may I have the first witness
19 brought in?
20 (The witness entered court)
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning.
22 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you please make the
24 solemn declaration?
25 THE WITNESS: I hereby solemnly declare that
1 I shall speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing
2 but the truth.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 WITNESS: MILAN KNEZEVIC
7 Examined by Mr. Fila:
8 Q. Mr. Knezevic, I hope you feel comfortable.
9 This is your second time here.
10 A. I'm not a debutante, thanks.
11 Q. Did you, on the 10th of June, '98, give a
12 statement to my investigator, Mr. Vasic?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Will you see if this is the statement?
15 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D149;
16 English translation, D149A.
17 MR. FILA: If no one has anything against it,
18 I hope that you will accept this as Exhibit number
20 JUDGE CASSESE: What was it?
21 MR. FILA:
22 Q. Mr. Knezevic --
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Was it signed?
24 MR. FILA:
25 Q. Will you repeat, have you recognised this
1 signature? Is that your statement?
2 A. I declare that I have recognised my own
3 signature, and the text is based on the statement I
4 gave to Mr. Vasic.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: So you would tender this
6 document into evidence?
7 MR. FILA: Yes.
8 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether the
9 Prosecution has any objection?
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we have not
11 seen this previously, so this is the first time we were
12 looking at it. If we could have a moment just to go
13 through it?
14 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Meanwhile, you may
16 MR. FILA:
17 Q. Mr. Knezevic, you have known Slavko
18 Dokmanovic since when and how well?
19 A. I have known Slavko Dokmanovic since mid
20 80's. I believe I know him rather well because our
21 acquaintance has been growing firmer until a few years
22 ago over the whole period.
23 Q. In one period since 1991, you have together
24 been ministers in the government of, what's his name,
25 the Serbian district?
1 A. Yes. In '91, we have been together in the
2 cabinet of the Serbian government of Baranja, and
3 Western Srem. I was Minister of Education and
4 Dokmanovic was Minister of Agriculture.
5 Q. What was he like to cooperate with?
6 A. Mr. Dokmanovic, as Minister of Agriculture,
7 worked for better conditions of living in the
8 circumstances he was in. We did not behave as
9 ministers. We behaved as public persons. We worked
10 for harvesting. We worked for the well-being of the
12 Q. How was he elected to the government? How
13 did he come about -- how did it come about that he was
14 a minister? How was he elected to the Serbian
15 district? Please always wait ten seconds before your
17 How did it come that Slavko Dokmanovic was
18 elected minister in that government?
19 A. All of us were elected ministers. All of us
20 were elected ministers, I was saying, based on the
21 proposal of people from our local communities, that is,
22 municipalities, on a higher level, speaking in terms of
23 the hierarchy of the former Republic of Croatia.
24 Q. What kind of man was Slavko Dokmanovic and
25 why was he proposed to that post?
1 A. Slavko Dokmanovic was a very well-renowned
2 man in his area on the territory of the municipality of
3 Vukovar, on the entire territory of the Vukovar Bosnian
4 Baranja region, Osijek region. He has, for many years,
5 been active in sports organisations, more specifically,
6 soccer organisations, and that's where I know him from
7 because I took part in the same activities in the
8 sports organisations and the soccer club.
9 He was known as a generous man in his
10 environment. He cared very much for sports ethics and
11 morals. I visited with him frequently, and I know this
12 well, and you should be aware of the fact that a
13 countryside like Trpinja is getting more urbanised, and
14 construction is going on widely. He was head of
15 department, head of many -- Mayor and, as such,
16 overlooked construction activities.
17 Slavko Dokmanovic was generous, sincere,
18 honourable, free man, a courageous man who, in those
19 difficult times when we saw our state fall about, found
20 himself in the service of people who maintained that it
21 was best to keep things as they were.
22 Q. What was he in the municipality of Vukovar?
23 A. He was president of the assembly, of the
24 municipal assembly of Vukovar, but the mass media
25 sometimes called him Mayor.
1 Q. Then on the 19th of November, '91, there was
2 a session of government in Erdut. On the following
3 day, was a decision made that you should meet in
5 A. Yes. Mr. Goran Hadzic, who then acted as
6 president of the government of the Serbian region of
7 Vukovar, Slavonia, Baranja, Western Srem invited all of
8 us present to meet in Vukovar on the 19th of October.
9 Q. Did you go?
10 A. No, I didn't go because those were still
11 difficult times, and one took a great risk travelling
12 in all directions because from Baranja, I had to cross
13 the territory of then SFRY, passing barricades, et
14 cetera, so I only followed those summons which I
15 couldn't avoid. I considered that particular
16 invitation to be formal and I didn't go.
17 Q. Later, that government that you served on
18 ceased to exist, and a new government of the republic
19 of Srpska Krajina was established. Were you a minister
20 in that government too?
21 A. Yes, I was. I was Minister of Education.
22 Q. Was Slavko Dokmanovic on that government too?
23 A. Slavko Dokmanovic was not on the government
24 of the Republic of Srpska Krajina because at that time,
25 I don't know very well myself, I don't know why he
1 wasn't, but I later, making inquiries, found out that
2 Mr. Dokmanovic did not have the quality to meet the
3 basic criteria that had to be met for appointments to
4 the government of Srpska Krajina; and that criterion
5 was nationalism. While Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic had
6 beliefs which were met with a certain protest in wider
7 masses of the people, because he did not act, in their
8 view, as an honourable, courageous Serb, that he must,
9 in their view, have held other beliefs. And he was, as
10 such, not qualified to act as a minister of that
12 Q. Does that mean that he was left out because
13 he was a bad minister, but because somebody thought he
14 was a bad Serb?
15 A. I couldn't -- I'm sorry. I have to agree
16 with your opinion. I must say that Mr. Dokmanovic, in
17 the belief of many, really many, and they were 282, he
18 was not a good Serb and he did not meet their
19 requirements of that environment, because he was a
20 compromising man. He was not convenient at that time.
21 He did not meet their interests.
22 Q. How did it come about that he became
23 president of the municipal assembly in 1994?
24 A. In 1992, we saw certain political changes on
25 the territory of the Republic of Srpska Krajina,
1 because somewhere in March or April, UNPROFOR arrived
2 to Yugoslavia. In 1994 and '95, UNPROFOR has already
3 played its role and then UNTAES arrives. Mr. Slavko
4 Dokmanovic was, by then, used up and rejected.
5 And then with another change in the political
6 current, things that Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic had believed
7 in throughout come to the forefront, and Mr. Slavko
8 Dokmanovic was, at that time, politically dead and
9 resigned. But at that time, with the change of the
10 political current, he was simply, again, proposed,
11 elected, and forced to take part in the political life,
12 at one point, as a deputy to the assembly.
13 Q. Did he take part in negotiations in Vukovar?
14 A. He was forever a loser. He did all the hard
15 work, and whenever it was award-winning time,
16 Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic tended to be forgotten.
17 Q. At the negotiations in Erdut, was he reputed
18 as an uncompromising, hardline Serb?
19 A. No, Mr. Dokmanovic was known at negotiations
20 in Erdut as a moderate, a very moderated man, indeed.
21 I can maintain this with every conviction because I
22 called him in a friendly manner many times at home.
23 Q. So why was he removed from the post of Mayor
24 in '96?
25 A. Why? Well, listen, I should say that
1 radicals awoke again, and because he was not a radical,
2 he was removed.
3 Q. Was he criticised in Borovo newspapers for
4 his participation in the peace making process?
5 A. Oh, yes, he was. He was criticised not only
6 in the newspapers, but also on the local radio,
7 television. He was reviled in personal attacks of
8 individual people.
9 Q. Because you say he was a bad Serb?
10 A. Yes, he was criticised as a bad Serb and
11 because his reactions and his opinions seemed to
12 indicate that he would like to see Serbia again in the
13 hands of Croatia.
14 Q. You were interrogated before on account of
15 Mr. Dokmanovic. But I would like to ask now, why did
16 he invite you to come with him and what was the purpose
17 of his trip?
18 A. Well, you know, there is inside us something
19 that can be seen in the eyes, and I was on rather good
20 terms with Mr. Dokmanovic for over 15 years, and our
21 eyes said that we are facing a moment of truth. And
22 the truth was that Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic believed those
23 who said that we were going to Vukovar for the purpose
24 of selling Serbian property in the region. He invited
25 me and served me those same untruths, to the effect
1 that we were going to serve Serbian interests in
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because we have the same mindset. I do what
5 I say I will do. I keep my word.
6 Q. What I wanted to say is, did Mr. Dokmanovic
7 invite you to save your own property or to save
8 everybody's property?
9 A. Everybody's property, of course.
10 Q. And one last question, over 1991, including
11 that session of the government in Erdut and later, do
12 you recollect what he was wearing?
13 A. Mr. Dokmanovic appeared, as all of us, in
14 various combinations of clothing. Most of all, he
15 appeared in a multi-coloured hunting jacket with
16 trousers, but he also wore civilian clothing, because
17 you must understand, you must remember, that we were
18 poor at that time. Hardly anyone wore suits and ties.
19 It was a matter of our customs and ethics. We acted as
20 everybody did. People wore soldiers' uniforms,
21 whatever they could lay their hands on, and we dressed
22 as our financial -- as we could afford.
23 Q. I mean to say, did he dress as a reserve
25 A. No, I know that for certain. He was a simple
1 soldier. He did not belong to any army unit, not even
2 in peace making, not even in piece time.
3 MR. FILA: I beg to tender this as evidence.
4 I have no other comments.
5 MR. NIEMANN: No objections, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
7 Cross-examined by Mr. Niemann:
8 Q. Mr. Knezevic, did you ever see Mr. Dokmanovic
9 in a JNA reservist uniform?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you ever know of him to travel around
12 with uniformed people who were guarding him or working
13 with him?
14 A. I was not aware of that, nor had I seen it,
15 because Mr. Dokmanovic travelled alone. He did not
16 have any escort or bodyguards.
17 Q. I'm really speaking of the period after the
18 conclusion of the war in Vukovar, so after November of
19 1991. You didn't see anything then?
20 A. I'm trying to concentrate, but I fail to
21 understand your question. I saw Mr. Dokmanovic but he
22 was not surrounded with armed and uniformed people.
23 Q. Fair enough, not that you saw, at least?
24 A. I used to see him but not surrounded under
25 armed escort. We saw each other at sessions, at least
1 a couple of times each month, of course.
2 Q. Fair enough. Again, in the period following
3 the fall of Vukovar, did you ever know of
4 Mr. Dokmanovic to visit JNA prison facilities in
5 Serbia, in the Republic of Serbia?
6 A. No, I did not know about that, nor had we
7 ever discussed it.
8 Q. Now, you say that he certainly didn't have
9 the view of an uncompromising, hardline Serb. Just so
10 that we can get that clear, what would you consider to
11 be an uncompromising, hardline Serb? Can you tell us
12 what a person would be, the sort of views a person
13 would hold if he could be fitted with that description,
14 so far as you're concerned?
15 A. Well, if we analyse such a person, I could
16 give you certain characteristics of persons who could
17 fit into that category, and I have met a couple of
18 them. First of all, it's the category of people who
19 were in favour of a genocide against the Croatian
20 population in the Serbian region and of their
21 expulsion. Secondly, these are the people who looted,
22 burned the property, and so on. Thirdly, these are the
23 people who refused to obey the dictates of the ethics
24 and who refused to obey the dictates of the government
25 that was being set up in this area; and also, fourth,
1 those people who tried to reject all the efforts of the
2 international community designed to reduce the tensions
3 and to introduce law and order and civilisation in the
4 area; fifth, all those people who simply tried to act
5 violently, who never shave, who look slovenly, people
6 who drink a lot of alcohol, who are unreasonable.
7 I can give you some other criteria, but these
8 are the basic criteria -- these are the people who talk
9 about the greater Serbia, and Serbia can only be as big
10 as it is; those people who refuse any kind of
11 discussion, negotiations; those people who act
12 arbitrarily. And Mr. Dokmanovic did not meet those
13 criteria. These were not the criteria that he used in
14 assessing the situation in the field.
15 Q. Are you saying, by that, that Mr. Dokmanovic
16 would be the sort of person who would welcome the
17 intervention of the United Nations in this very
18 troubled region of the world?
19 A. All of us welcomed the intervention of the
20 United Nations, but I don't know what you mean, the
21 intervention. When we're talking about the military
22 intervention, that is not something that we welcomed,
23 but the political intervention, the pressures and the
24 negotiations, this is something that we all welcomed.
25 And Mr. Dokmanovic was one of the leaders of this kind
1 of political attitudes.
2 Q. Did he always have this view or was this
3 something that he subsequently developed?
4 A. Well, there's a proverb which says that only
5 a stupid man never changes his opinion. In the 90's
6 when the euphoria of one nationalism began, it caused
7 the second euphoria of another nation, and we really
8 had it good in Yugoslavia.
9 In 1990 and 1991, I was also exposed to
10 pressures and to threats, and I was simply put in a
11 very specific situation. For instance, a Croatian
12 policeman killed my dog in my own house. It was a
13 well-trained Rottweiler. I don't have to tell you what
14 it means.
15 Q. I'm not sure that I understand what you mean
16 by that, but I think that you said in your evidence
17 that Mr. Dokmanovic was, more or less, considered a bad
18 Serb because he didn't hold strong views and, in fact,
19 he favoured living together with the Croatian people;
20 is that true?
21 A. Yes, Mr. Dokmanovic did not have anything
22 against the Croatian people. In his own home,
23 Mr. Dokmanovic even had a Croat veterinarian. He died
24 of a heart attack after the arrest of Mr. Dokmanovic.
25 He lived in his house, in Mr. Dokmanovic's house, quite
1 normally. He associated with Croats. We all did. We
2 were -- we used to be best men at each other's
3 weddings, at birthdays, and so on, a lot of
4 celebrations. He was a member of the group who was sad
5 because of this breakup. There were Croats who shared
6 our views. Unfortunately, we were in the minority.
7 Q. Was he advocating that the Croats and the
8 Serbs should live together prior to the war in Vukovar,
9 that is, prior to August, September, October, November
10 of 1991? Was Mr. Dokmanovic advocating that then?
11 A. Absolutely he advocated this idea. This idea
12 was something that was not in favour of the Croat
13 nationalists who threatened him physically. That was
14 the reason why he was disqualified because he was
15 advocating this option of unity, co-existence.
16 Mr. Mercep and his cohort wanted to physically
17 eliminate him, I think, since May, since the events in
19 As far as I can remember, Mr. Dokmanovic did
20 not go to Vukovar at all because he did not dare,
21 afraid of his physical safety.
22 Q. And the medium by which he conveyed his
23 moderate views, I take it that included the radio,
24 television, and the newspapers; is that right?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did he often appear on the radio and
2 television, from what you can remember, at that time?
3 I'm talking about mid 1991, July of 1991; did you ever
4 speak him on radio or television at that time?
5 A. Well, to tell you the truth, I could not give
6 you a specific answer. It was a long time ago and
7 conditions were very bad at that time. And power cuts
8 often happened, and local TV and radio stations were
9 not in existence at that time in July. They appeared
10 later. We had only some hand radio systems, and some
11 people were able to receive that and some weren't.
12 Later on, with the aid of UNPROFOR and the
13 international community, the local media developed.
14 Q. Would it surprise you if I said to you that
15 there is a record being taken down of a radio broadcast
16 from Belgrade through the Belgrade Tanjug agency where
17 Mr. Dokmanovic spoke of the arrival of the Blue Helmets
18 which, I think you'll agree with me, means the United
19 Nations, in Yugoslavia as being unacceptable; do you
20 remember that?
21 A. I can't remember that. I can't remember that
22 radio programme.
23 MR. FILA: Your Honours, please, I would like
24 to be able to see what is being discussed. This piece
25 of evidence has not been tendered. If it exists, let
1 him show it here. I don't know what you're talking
2 about. If you have a copy, please provide me with a
3 copy, and then you can talk about it.
4 MR. NIEMANN: I have a copy for Your Honours
5 and a copy for Mr. Dokmanovic. The information I have
6 is in the English language, though, Your Honours.
7 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked 213.
8 MR. NIEMANN:
9 Q. I don't know whether that will help you very
10 much, Mr. Knezevic. It's in the English language, but
11 it's a report that's written of a radio broadcast in
12 30th July, 1991. It doesn't matter, though, if you
13 can't, because I will just take you through what is
14 said here and see whether or not you say that's
15 consistent with what --
16 MR. FILA: Objection, Your Honour. You do
17 not allow newspaper articles to be tendered. I don't
18 know who said that, when this was written. I would
19 like Mr. Niemann to bring the tape of the broadcast so
20 that we can hear it. When I tendered newspaper
21 articles about Mr. Berkovic's statements after the
22 trial, that's not okay, but now I have some kind of
23 report. I don't know who made this.
24 A. In July, UNPROFOR was not discussed at all.
25 UNPROFOR began to be discussed in December and January.
1 MR. FILA: And please have a look at the
2 title. It says that the Belgrade Mayor rejects the
3 proposal of the U.N. Blue Helmets' arrival. I don't
4 know if Mr. Dokmanovic has become the Mayor of
5 Belgrade, whether Mr. Niemann upgraded him to that
6 title. I can't accept this.
7 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Niemann, can you please
8 clarify the whole situation?
9 MR. NIEMANN: Yes, I'm questioning the
10 witness on the document, Your Honour. The evidence
11 that has been led in chief relates to a number of
12 articles -- the witness said that he recalls
13 Mr. Dokmanovic espousing moderate views on the medium
14 of radio and television, if I recall his evidence in
15 chief correctly, and that he obviously also spoke to
16 him himself.
17 This is a document which purports to be a
18 record of a radio broadcast from Belgrade. I'm merely
19 putting it to the witness to ask him whether or not
20 it's consistent with his understanding of what
21 Mr. Dokmanovic was doing at the relevant time, Your
22 Honours. I haven't sought to tender it as yet.
23 MR. FILA: Your Honours --
24 MR. NIEMANN: Mr. Fila called for it, and I
25 gave it to him, but at no stage have I sought to tender
1 it, Your Honour. I'm merely questioning the witness
2 about it.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: You're simply making
4 reference to --
5 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I don't ask for this
6 to be shown to the witness. The question was whether
7 he heard about a programme. I don't know if that
8 programme exists at all. This is completely
9 irrelevant. This document is irrelevant.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, it's not
11 irrelevant. I mean, I understand the Prosecution is
12 asking the witness whether --
13 MR. FILA: The question is okay, but this is
14 not okay. The document is not okay.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: I mean, you asked for this
16 document. Mr. Niemann was going, I think, to summarise
17 the news reported in this foreign broadcast information
18 service report to see whether the witness was aware
19 that allegedly Tanjug, the agency, the news agency
20 Tanjug from Belgrade, issued such a report. So don't
21 overemphasise the importance of this report.
22 MR. FILA: The question that Mr. Niemann
23 posed contained a statement whether the witness would
24 be surprised if he heard whether this statement was
25 given on the radio. You cannot tell this from this
1 piece of paper. Let the tape be brought into court,
2 and then I will allow this. The question was not
3 whether the witness has heard a broadcast. This is an
4 admissible question, that's a legitimate question. But
5 Mr. Niemann claims, states that this broadcast existed,
6 that the Belgrade mayor was against the arrival of the
7 blue helmets.
8 MR. NIEMANN: I made no such claim at all,
9 Your Honour, and I resent being misrepresented by
10 Mr. Fila in this way. I am merely asking the witness
11 whether he's aware of it and I am merely asking the
12 witness to comment on it. Now, he's free to do and say
13 what he likes, and at no stage have I sought to
14 continue it as yet, and I would further add that I am
15 somewhat surprised that Mr. Fila is talking about what
16 he will allow into evidence and what he won't. It's
17 not a matter for Mr. Fila as to what goes into
19 JUDGE CASSESE: Of course. Yes, Mr. Niemann,
20 you may proceed.
21 MR. NIEMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, Mr. Knezevic, did you ever hear a radio
23 broadcast where Mr. Dokmanovic was interviewed and he
24 expressed a view that in their final decision -- it's
25 their final decision not to live any longer either in
1 the Republic of Croatia or together with Croats? Did
2 you ever hear him express a view like that over the
4 A. No, I never heard such views being expressed
5 either in the media or in our private conversations,
6 and let me continue in the answer to your question
7 regarding this broadcast.
8 In July 1991, in the territory of Serbian
9 district of Slovonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, we did
10 not know about UNPROFOR and the blue helmets. So this
11 is impossible. Only in November, December, and January
12 we started to discuss officially the arrival of the
13 blue helmets and the Vance Plan. This is too early.
14 The United Nations still treat the whole situation
15 rather indifferently at that time.
16 Q. So your answer to my question is you didn't
17 hear this.
18 You're not in a position, however, to deny
19 that this actually took place, this broadcast, or that
20 Mr. Dokmanovic said these matters?
21 A. I already said I haven't heard any such
22 thing, and I don't believe it's possible, because at
23 that time, such a term, "blue helmets," did not even
24 exist. We never knew at that time that blue helmets
25 were going to be associated with the UNPROFOR and the
1 United Nations. Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic never spoke
2 about that, not even in our closed circle of friends.
3 Q. And you never heard of any proposal by the
4 European -- the EC monitors, that a peacekeeping force
5 should be deployed in the area? You never heard
6 anything about that as early as July?
7 A. No. Later, yes.
8 Q. Are you saying that the EC never proposed
9 that a peacekeeping force should be operational in the
10 area in July, or is it just that you didn't hear it?
11 A. I simply didn't hear that. Perhaps as a
12 result of power cuts which I referred to earlier. I
13 was constantly travelling cross-country, listening to
14 the radio in small transistors, but in July, I had
15 never heard of that, because in July, in our Baranja,
16 there was no war. The SFRY still existed as a State.
17 MR. NIEMANN: I have no further questions,
18 Your Honour. Might the document be marked for
19 identification, Your Honour?
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Only for identification
21 purposes, P213.
22 THE REGISTRAR: That's correct.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: It is only for identification
24 purposes. We can keep it, but not as evidence, as an
1 Mr. Fila, any re-examination?
2 MR. FILA: No. Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. May I ask two
4 minor questions? You may clarify, first of all, a
5 question put by Mr. Fila to you and, actually, your
6 answer more than -- the question, according to the
7 transcript, Mr. Fila put to you was: "Did
8 Mr. Dokmanovic dress as a reserve officer?" And I see
9 that you replied: "Dokmanovic was a simple soldier."
10 Now, could you please clarify what you mean
11 by saying that Dokmanovic was a simple soldier?
12 A. Slavko Dokmanovic, as all citizens of the
13 SFRY, in view of his duties, was compelled to serve in
14 the army. All psychologically and physically sane and
15 healthy men served in the army. Everybody in different
16 units. He was not a reservist officer and he never had
17 a rank. I, for instance, graduated from a reservist
18 officer school, and I have the rank of JNA officer.
19 Mr. Dokmanovic was a simple soldier. I don't
20 know whether in the infantry or the navy or elsewhere.
21 I don't know.
22 But as for uniforms, I say again, there is a
23 difference in the uniform of a soldier from that of an
24 officer, the quality of material, et cetera; and as for
25 Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic's dress, we even joked about his
1 hunting uniform because he was then -- we teased him
2 then, "You are a President and you have the better
3 dress," et cetera.
4 JUDGE CASSESE: I'm sorry to keep insisting
5 on my question, but when you say he was a simple
6 soldier, did you mean to say that he was a simple
7 soldier in the Territorial Defence or as a reservist?
8 You were a JNA officer, as a reservist, I think, did
9 you say?
10 A. Yes.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Whereas Mr. Dokmanovic,
12 unlike you, was a simple soldier, not an officer, but
13 again as a reservist. This is what you said?
14 A. I'm trying to explain that we all belonged,
15 in a way, to the army, but in the post of Minister of
16 Agriculture, Education, you cannot be an army man at
17 the same time. Mr. Dokmanovic could not have belonged
18 to any army unit of the JNA. On the territory,
19 everything was under JNA control, even the organisation
20 of civilian life.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, but we have been told by
22 quite a few witnesses that in addition to the army, the
23 JNA, there was a Territorial Defence and there were
24 reservists --
25 A. Yes, yes.
1 JUDGE CASSESE: So what, therefore, did
2 Mr. Dokmanovic belong? To the reservists or to the --
3 A. As a healthy man, he belonged, as we all did,
4 to one of three army formations: the navy -- JNA,
5 police, and the Territorial Defence. In that sense, we
6 all belonged to the Territorial Defence. We were on
7 the records as such.
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. And then this is
9 a different question. I understand that you were
10 Minister of Education serving on the same government as
11 Mr. Dokmanovic. Now, in this capacity, what clothes
12 did you used to wear in that particular period,
13 between, say, September '91 and January or February
14 '92? Did you used to wear civilian clothes or,
15 instead, military clothes?
16 A. That depended on the purpose and tasks to be
17 achieved on the specific day. For instance, if I was
18 on the territory of Baranja, I dressed simply so as not
19 to stand out in the masses. I never wore a suit and
20 tie. But if I went in the direction of Vukovar or
21 further, towards the municipality of Erdut, which came
22 next along the way, I wore a so-called camouflage
23 uniform. I believe we all know that they could be
24 bought in shops. I mean, the overalls, because they
25 were very comfortable, you could sleep in them, and
1 then they eased passage through the checkpoints held by
2 the army; we were more easily identified and
3 recognised. We passed more easily and reached our
4 destination more quickly.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: If I understood you
6 correctly, therefore, depending upon the area, the
7 territory where you were going and/or where you found
8 yourself or depending upon the tasks you were
9 performing, you used to wear either civilian clothes or
10 military uniform; and in the area of Vukovar and Erdut,
11 you tended to put on a military uniform?
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: For which particular
14 purposes? Just so that you could go through
15 checkpoints more easily?
16 A. Yes. Well, the first purpose was to overcome
17 the obstacles more quickly, and then we had to go for
18 two or three days with power cuts. We had to sleep in
19 the car very often.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I wonder whether
21 there are any questions arising out of my own
22 questions? No? Is there any objection to the witness
23 being released?
24 MR. NIEMANN: No.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Thank you so much
1 for coming and giving evidence in court. You may now
2 be released. Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 (The witness withdrew)
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, as you know,
6 normally we take a break around 11.00. Do you think it
7 is better for us to rise now and reconvene in 20
8 minutes so that we don't interrupt their evidence?
9 MR. FILA: As you please, Your Honour. Just
10 an apology to you and the Prosecutor. I did not pick
11 up the statements from the following three witnesses.
12 I thought it made no sense. It was a family
13 relationship. I apologise.
14 JUDGE CASSESE: You don't need to apologise.
15 It's quite obvious that there was no point in
16 submitting a statement because they are going to report
17 about his character, personality, and so on.
18 But again, do you think it is better, because
19 I think it is better for us to stop now, and so we
20 reconvene in 20 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 10.51 a.m.
22 --- On resuming at 11.17 a.m.
23 (The witness entered court)
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. May I ask you
25 to stand and read the solemn declaration?
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I shall
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
4 WITNESS: DANILKA DOKMANOVIC
5 Examined by Mr. Fila:
6 Q. Mrs. Dokmanovic, Mr. Dokmanovic is your
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You have two children?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And two grandchildren?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And another grandchild on the way?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It's not easy for me also to be asking you
16 these questions, but this is necessary. Could you
17 please describe how you two met, how you got married?
18 A. Well, we practically know each other since we
19 were seven. Slavko and I are of the same age and we
20 were born in the same village where we lived. We went
21 together to the first grade of primary school, since we
22 were seven, and we were throughout, the eighth year
23 primary school.
24 After that, we went on to Vukovar, to high
25 school. I went to the higher economic school and he
1 went to the Lise (phoen). Then we went on to Osijek
2 for university studies, I of economy and he of
4 In the second year of high school, we started
5 dating, and we married in '69.
6 Q. What do your children do?
7 A. Our children are adults. They have their own
8 families and their own children. Our son and daughter
9 graduated from high school and work in the customs
10 [translation interrupted] --
11 Q. You all live together?
12 A. Yes, we do. We now live in Sombor in a
13 rented house since 1996.
14 Q. You and Mr. Dokmanovic, you are refugees?
15 You have the status of refugees?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you please describe, what is he like as a
18 husband? Did you have any problems with him during
19 your long life together?
20 A. We have been married for 29 years, we married
21 young, and I can say that I have had a very good
22 marriage, a wonderful husband, a good father, a true
23 family man for whom the family was always first and
24 foremost, above everything else. He always tried to
25 spend as much time as he could with us. We are always
1 together with our grandchildren, with our friends,
2 either in our own house or in the friends' house. He
3 has always had a big heart. He has always liked to
4 help people whenever he could.
5 For instance, he always lent a hand to people
6 in the same profession. I am an economist and my
7 husband is in agriculture, and people often ask him to
8 lend a hand. Trpinja is an area where people are
9 mostly engaged in agriculture. He has always been
10 willing to help. Whenever people started harvesting
11 or sowing, he lent them assistance with ...
12 [translation interrupted]
13 Q. Your friends, were they exclusively Serbs, or
14 did you also have friends among other ethnic
16 A. No, the lists of them were Serbs.
17 Q. Can you please tell us, during this trial, it
18 has cropped up, your relationship with the family
20 A. Yes, gladly, although it is very difficult
21 for me to speak about it.
22 Q. Please try to collect yourself. This is not
23 easy for any of us here.
24 A. I apologise. Well, we have known one another
25 since the '70s. I met Jovanka in '72, on the second
1 birthday of our daughter, because she then married
2 Zlatko and came from Sarajevo to Trpinja. Both of them
3 are veterinarian doctors. They got jobs in Trpinja.
4 Zlatko is a Croatian and Jovanka is a Serbian from
5 Herzegovina. Zlatko, since he was on a fellowship of
6 the veterinarian station in Vukovar, after graduating
7 from the university and his army service, his first job
8 was in Trpinja.
9 Q. To avoid any problems, please tell me,
10 Mr. Vodicka was a Croat but his mother was a German and
11 his mother a Czech (sic). How was he a Croat then?
12 What did you want to say by saying that he was a
13 Croat? Did he claim that he was a Croat? Was he a
15 A. He was a Catholic.
16 Q. He declared himself as a Croat. Please
18 A. Yes, he did. And as I said, his first job
19 was in Trpinja as a veterinarian, and his duty was to
20 go to call on houses and treat cattle, and that's how
21 he came to our house. Zlatko and my husband made
22 friends. At that time, Zlatko was still not married.
23 He often came to us for supper, for lunch, and we made
24 friends. I believe it was in '71 when he first came,
25 and since '72, he has been with Jovanka. We were good
1 friends and our children were inseparable. Our
2 children are of the same age. The went to the same
3 school. Later they moved to Vukovar, and we remained
4 in Trpinja, in our house, but we kept regularly seeing
5 each other almost every day.
6 Q. So these events that we are discussing here
7 came -- did Zlatko Vodicka come and where did he come
8 from in October?
9 A. He came in the month of October and one -- it
10 was one evening. He came with Slavko. He said he had
11 come out of Ilok, looked for Slavko, and together with
12 him he came to our house, and he remained with us for
13 three weeks until the liberation of Vukovar.
14 Q. That's when he left?
15 A. Yes. He, until recently, worked in Trpinja
16 before the war for about 20 years, and somewhere in the
17 village, he heard on the radio that Mitnica was
18 liberated and that people from Mitnica would be
19 evacuated, I don't know where, some to Zagreb, some to
20 other parts, and since his wife remained at home, he
21 went to look for her.
22 Q. Mitnica was a part of Vukovar?
23 A. Yes, in the direction of the veterinarian
24 station and the graveyard.
25 He went to look for her. He did indeed find
1 her. They came to our place together and stayed for
2 four or five nights, and then they moved to our
3 neighbours' because we were overcrowded. Our daughter
4 with her baby was with us. There were a lot of people
5 coming and going. As I said, we were overcrowded, and
6 to keep us comfortable, they moved to our neighbours'
7 where they spent some time until they redid their own
8 apartment in the spring.
9 Q. Mr. Vodicka has died in the meantime?
10 A. Yes. He died on the 15th of September, 1997.
11 Q. It was after the arrest?
12 A. Yes, it was after the arrest.
13 Q. Did you have friends of other nationalities?
14 A. Yes, we did, a lot of them, actually. In
15 fact, none of us were really interested in
16 nationalities. Vukovar has always been a
17 multi-national, multi-ethnic environment, and nobody
18 really cared for other people's nationalities. We were
19 friends and acquaintances.
20 Q. Was it important for your husband,
22 A. No, it didn't matter at all to Slavko, and
23 Zlatko would not have otherwise dared to look for him
24 and stay with him.
25 Q. Mrs. Dokmanovic, throughout all those years
1 you spent together, since you started dating --
2 A. Twenty-nine years of marriage plus.
3 Q. -- has your husband ever been convicted of
4 anything? Was he fighting? Involved in any fights?
5 Was he expressing national hatred?
6 A. "No" to all those questions.
7 Q. We will repeat because we do not have your
9 In Trpinja, was there water and electricity
10 in Trpinja?
11 A. No, no, because -- I can't tell you the exact
12 date but sometime since August 1991 to the spring of
13 '92, because networks were broken, cables were down,
14 and works couldn't be executed at that time. Not
15 everyone in the area got electricity back.
16 Q. The army in this period managed to provide a
17 power generator, so from time to time you did have
19 A. Trpinja is a village which is not plugged
20 onto the network of Vukovar. We had our own water
21 supply and our own water well and we had a pump
22 supplying that water. It was an electrical pump, so
23 during the power cuts, we were deprived of water as
24 well, and people needed water to wash, to feed the
25 cattle. As I said, we are an agricultural area. There
1 were households which at that time had over a hundred
2 pigs, for instance, and we couldn't carry water from
3 God knows where. So we had our own water supply in
4 cattle sheds.
5 From time to time, we got supplied with water
6 in the morning and filled the reservoirs, buckets,
7 whatever. Sometimes it lasted for an hour, a half an
9 Q. How was Slavko dressed in this period,
11 A. In November, you say? Slavko was usually
12 dressed in hunting clothes because civilian clothing
13 was difficult to launder and iron, especially suits,
14 whereas hunting dress was easy to launder. We just
15 hung it out to dry.
16 Q. I would like you now to have a look at
17 Defence Exhibit 48. Is that the clothes that you're
18 talking about? D48. Is that something that you
19 submitted to me as clothes that he was wearing?
20 A. Yes, that is it. That is the jacket -- the
21 vest, sorry. Yes, this is the shirt and the trousers.
22 Q. What is this?
23 A. This is -- what shall I call it? -- a jacket
24 or -- a warm jacket. He had this as an agronomer.
25 This is actually working clothes he received to work in
1 in the field, during the harvest, during the sowing
2 season, and in cold weather, they used to wear these
3 fur-lined jackets.
4 Q. So these are the clothes which he was wearing
5 during the incriminated times?
6 A. Yes. He wore this in cold weather.
7 Q. This is what you gave to me?
8 A. Yes.
9 MR. FILA: This concludes my examination. I
10 have no further questions.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Well, I assume
14 there is no objection to the witness being released.
15 Mrs. Dokmanovic, thank you so much for coming here to
16 give evidence. You may now be released.
17 (The witness withdrew)
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Fila, are you going to
19 call your next witness?
20 MR. FILA: Yes, of course. I have two more
21 witnesses, and I should conclude with them. We work
22 until 1.00; is that correct, Your Honours?
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Until 12.30, and then we
24 resume at 2.00.
25 MR. FILA: Yes. All right.
1 (The witness entered)
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Could you
3 please read the solemn declaration?
4 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
5 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
7 WITNESS: VLADIMIR DOKMANOVIC
8 Examined by Mr. Fila:
9 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, what is your relationship to
10 Slavko Dokmanovic?
11 A. He is my father.
12 Q. What's the year of your birth?
13 A. The 7th December '73.
14 Q. (No translation)
15 A. Higher agricultural school in Vukovar.
16 Q. When I ask you a question, please make a ten
17 minutes' (sic) break before you answer?
18 A. I finished high school for agriculture in
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Ten seconds, not ten minutes.
21 MR. FILA: Ten seconds, I'm sorry. I said
22 minutes, didn't I? Ten seconds.
23 Q. So then, will you tell us, when did you serve
24 in the army? When did you go to school?
25 A. I graduated from high school in 1991. I
1 spent my schooling in Vukovar, and I served the army in
2 Raska. On the 18th of December, I started my national
3 service, in 1991.
4 Q. Raska, that's in the territory of Yugoslavia?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. When did you go back from the army?
7 A. On the 19th of May, 1991.
8 Q. You mean 1992?
9 A. '92, I'm sorry.
10 Q. Why did you go back on that date?
11 A. Well, in our unit, as with any other unit in
12 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, came an order that
13 all the soldiers from the former Yugoslav republics
14 should finish doing their national service in the place
15 of their residence.
16 Q. And Vukovar was your place of residence?
17 A. That's right. Trpinja, in fact.
18 Q. What happened then? You went back to
20 A. Yes. I finished serving the national service
21 in Vukovar. Then in 1996, I got married. That was in
22 March. I have a son, eight months old. Unfortunately,
23 my father hasn't seen his grandchild. Right now, I
24 live in Sombor, in a rented house.
25 Q. When you were in Vukovar in 1996, where did
1 you work?
2 A. I worked in the transitional customs
3 service. That was an UNTAES body. And when I went to
4 Sombor, I continued to work in the customs.
5 Q. Was your father opposed to you working for
7 A. Never.
8 Q. In the course of his tenure as the president
9 of the municipal assembly in Vukovar, did he have
10 anything against the presence of the United Nations?
11 A. No, never.
12 Q. Do you know whether he took part in the
13 negotiations concerning the Erdut agreement?
14 A. Yes. Yes, he did.
15 Q. Did he have any problems because of that
16 caused by extremist Serbs?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What kind of problems?
19 A. Well, he was threatened, intimidated. They
20 said that he was not good enough as a Serb, and he was
21 attacked because of that.
22 Q. What does it mean, "a good Serb" ?
23 A. My father was never a nationalist and that's
24 why he had problems. He was a moderate man.
25 Q. In the circle of your acquaintances, your
1 family, your father's friends and your friends, were
2 there people of other nationalities?
3 A. Yes, certainly. Our best friend was a Croat;
4 unfortunately, he's dead. I think it says enough about
5 what kind of a man my father was.
6 Q. In conclusion, please tell us: As a father,
7 was he a real parent to you or whether he tortured you,
8 whether he was a drunkard, a violent man, and all the
9 worst things you can say about a father?
10 A. My father is an honourable and an honest
11 man. He is a good parent. He always advised us how to
12 deal with problems facing us in our lives. He never
13 beat us. All the problems that we encountered, we
14 solved by talking to each other.
15 Q. You live together; you all live together with
16 the exception of your father, unfortunately?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So that's your sister, your brother-in-law --
19 A. My wife, my son, my mother.
20 Q. Your sister is about to give birth?
21 A. Yes, in mid July. That's why she's not here.
22 Q. That's right, that's why she's not here?
23 MR. FILA: Thank you very much. I have no
24 further questions.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Fila.
1 Mr. Williamson?
2 MR. WILLIAMSON: No questions, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. The witness, I
4 imagine there's no objection to his being released.
5 Thank you so much for coming to give evidence,
6 Mr. Dokmanovic. You may now be released.
7 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
8 (The witness withdrew)
9 (The witness entered court)
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning. Could you
11 please read the solemn declaration?
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I shall
13 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
17 Mr. Fila?
18 MR. FILA: Thank you.
19 WITNESS: JOVAN DOKMANOVIC
20 Examined by Mr. Fila:
21 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, what is your relationship to
22 Slavko Dokmanovic?
23 A. Slavko is my brother.
24 Q. Where do you live and what do you do for a
1 A. I live in the village of Trpinja, the
2 municipality of Vukovar. I work in agriculture. I'm
4 Q. Have you spent all your life in Trpinja?
5 A. Yes. I was born there; I went to school
6 there; I married there; and I live in our old family
8 Q. How far is that house from the house where
9 Slavko Dokmanovic lived?
10 A. Up to 500 metres.
11 Q. So it's practically one in the same farm?
12 A. No, it's not the same farm. It's the same
13 street. The houses are 500 metres apart.
14 Q. Is that your common property?
15 A. No. His house is his property, and the
16 family house is both of our property.
17 Q. Is it a deserted house?
18 A. No, I live in my own house. Slavko's house
19 is deserted. I house-sit for him.
20 Q. How much is it worth, according to today's
22 A. Well, about 100.000 Deutschemark, I believe.
23 Q. And how do Serbs sell their property now?
24 A. He wouldn't receive more than 50, according
25 to the real estate agencies.
1 Q. What kind of man has your brother been?
2 A. We spent a lot of time together in the same
3 house because I was -- I have been motherless since a
4 very small age. His wife and he took care of me. My
5 brother saw me through school until I got married and
6 started to work myself, until I was 25 or 26.
7 Q. You mean your brother Slavko?
8 A. Yes, Slavko took care of me. He went to
9 parents meetings for me when I was in school. He saw
10 me through school.
11 Q. Was he a popular man in Trpinja and how
12 popular was he?
13 A. He has always been popular since a young man,
14 a soccer player, then as a good agronomer. People
15 often came to our house while we still lived together
16 to solicit advice.
17 Q. Was he popular only with Serbs or other
18 ethnicities as well?
19 A. People of other nationalities lived in the
20 village too. He had very good friends among them. And
21 his best friend was a Croat; he was almost a member of
22 the family. His name was Zlatko Vodicka, the late
23 Zlatko Vodicka.
24 Q. How did you react when hearing that Slavko
25 Dokmanovic was arrested for such a crime?
1 A. At first, I was shocked, and then I felt some
2 sort of revolt. People were taken aback, asked
3 themselves why; how on earth? They were mostly taken
5 Q. Will you look at these documents, please, and
6 tell us what you gave us when you came here?
7 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D150.
8 MR. FILA:
9 Q. Will you tell us what this is all about?
10 A. This is a petition written by the population
11 of the village of Trpinja. There are other people
12 signed here as well from the surrounding villages, some
13 sort of protest or solidarity with their ex-citizen, to
14 the effect that they disagree with his arrest because
15 he has not deserved this by any of his actions; a
16 statement to the effect that they want to justify his
17 role in the village as an honourable man, an honourable
18 citizen, hard-working man who has helped a great deal
19 the entire village in its main activity and also in
20 sports activities, et cetera; and to help prove his
22 MR. FILA: Your Honour, in our system, this
23 is accepted as evidence. If your system does not
24 accept this as evidence, please admit this as an
25 exhibit -- please have it marked for identification, I
1 mean, what his wider community thinks of him. If you
2 can, if you possibly can, admit it as evidence.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we might have a moment.
4 Your Honour, the only objection we would have
5 in regard to this is just that there's no verification
6 of reliability. I mean, there appears to be a number
7 of signatures on here, but there's no way of knowing
8 the authenticity of signatures or names or anything at
9 this point. And that would be our objection to its
11 JUDGE CASSESE: I see your point. On the
12 other hand, this is evidence relating to the character
13 of Mr. Dokmanovic. And, in addition, as you know, the
14 court has the power to decide upon the probative value
15 of each document. So although it is true that there's
16 no authentication of the signatures, I don't see why we
17 should not admit it into evidence.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour.
19 That's our --
20 MR. FILA: Counsel, I'm sorry,
21 Mr. Williamson, for interrupting you, I have an
22 original which I will hand to you. These are original
23 signatures here.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: The question is not -- of
25 course you will admit into evidence the original. The
1 question is not that we were not given the original,
2 but the question is that there is no authentication of
3 the various signatures. However, in spite of that, if
4 the Prosecution has no major objection --
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's our only objection,
6 Your Honour. If Your Honours are prepared to admit it
7 then --
8 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, it will be admitted into
9 evidence. Thank you.
10 MR. FILA: Counsel, please take this
12 THE REGISTRAR: D150.
13 JUDGE CASSESE: 150, thank you.
14 MR. FILA:
15 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, another thing, throughout
16 this period, you said you spent your entire life in
17 Trpinja. Will you describe war events in 1991? Were
18 any bombs thrown on Trpinja?
19 A. During the war which began in '91, sometime
20 in June, July, there were exchanges of fire over
21 barricades. There were bombs falling on Trpinja and
22 surrounding villages, shells also, grenades, mortar
23 fire. There have been casualties. And shelling came
24 from Vukovar.
25 Q. Was the Territorial Defence involved in the
1 village of Trpinja?
2 A. I, as every other man who served in the
3 former JNA, and I was issued a uniform as some sort of
4 reservist. All other men did the same. All healthy
5 men under the age of 60 had to belong to some sort of
6 reservist formation or the Territorial Defence,
7 according to the constitution of the SFRY. Thus, all
8 of us men in the village had to do the same thing
9 during the war. It was not even in the village. It
10 was duty on the street, some sort of outlook posts,
11 lookouts. We kept duty service.
12 Q. Did you do any fighting outside the village?
13 A. No, we remained in the village. My duties
14 were on my own street, on the crossroads, and on the
15 entrance from the side, from the direction of the
16 village of Dalj. That's where we spent all this time.
17 Q. Do you remember the situation with
18 electricity and water supply during wartime, November,
20 A. I believe power cuts began at the end of
21 July. We had more problems being deprived of water
22 than being deprived of electricity. We suffered from
23 lack of water until we got a water pump, an electrical
24 water pump, which worked for about an hour or two every
25 day. The village suffered, although many houses have
1 their own wells.
2 Q. How did you dress at that time?
3 Specifically, how did Slavko Dokmanovic dress?
4 A. We had to dress according to the situation.
5 We had to wear clothes which were easy to launder,
6 clothes which could do without laundering for several
7 days running.
8 Q. Your brother served in the army as everyone
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. When he served, what was he; an officer, a
13 A. He was a simple soldier. His national
14 service was in Krusevac. It was an ABH service. He
15 did not receive any rank, then or afterwards.
16 Q. Did he wear a uniform ever, an officer's
17 uniform, active or reservist officer?
18 A. No, never. Except, perhaps, during military
19 actions, we soldiers put on those uniforms we were
20 issued, but that was rare.
21 Q. That was only in the village?
22 A. Yes, that was only inside the village. Those
23 were old and hardly usable uniforms.
24 Q. So if I understood you well, you yourself put
25 on the uniform sometimes?
1 A. Yes, as we were ordered, according --
2 following military orders.
3 Q. Meaning that Slavko, too, sometimes put on
4 that uniform in the village?
5 A. Yes, that is so.
6 Q. It would be good for you to describe that
8 A. We called that the drab, olive colour, thick
9 cloth, especially in cold weather. We wore overcoats,
10 mostly to protect ourselves from the cold.
11 MR. FILA: Thank you. That would be all.
12 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Williamson?
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Williamson:
14 Q. Mr. Dokmanovic, you indicated that in
15 Trpinja, there was some shelling and exchanges of fire
16 over barricades in June and July of 1991. There was
17 very little damage, though, in Trpinja; was there not?
18 A. I did not say when the shelling took place.
19 There was some damage in Trpinja, but since the village
20 itself -- that's the life in the village. When a shell
21 fell on a house, then the same day or the next day, we
22 would fix that house immediately.
23 Q. But in comparison to what happened to the
24 Croatian areas in Vukovar municipality, Trpinja came
25 out pretty light, didn't it?
1 A. Well, yes, yes, if you look at it that way,
2 that's correct.
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I have no further
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I assume there's
6 no objection to the witness being released?
7 Thank you for coming to give evidence in
8 court. You may now be released, Mr. Dokmanovic. Thank
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
11 (The witness withdrew)
12 MR. FILA: Your Honours, my next witness is
13 due to appear at two. That's the expert witness, and
14 that's my last witness.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: So this afternoon, first of
16 all, we will hear your witness, Professor Aleksic. And
17 then I understand the investigator, Dzuro for the
18 Prosecution afterwards?
19 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE CASSESE: Only two witnesses this
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct. And then we
23 would have our two additional witnesses ready tomorrow.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Tomorrow morning. So
25 tomorrow, again, only two witnesses?
1 MR. WILLIAMSON: That's correct.
2 JUDGE CASSESE: So that means that probably
3 tomorrow we can finish by lunch time.
4 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I concluded.
5 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think they will be -- I
6 think it's foreseeable that we could finish by lunch
8 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. Yes, I was
9 rightly reminded that tomorrow morning at 9.30, we have
10 the initial appearance of a new indictee, of an
11 indictee who has recently been arrested and brought
12 here. This will be held at 9.30. I propose,
13 therefore, that we reconvene at 10.15. And then, of
14 course, if we need some time, we could continue in the
16 MR. FILA: If that's the last one, somebody
17 asked me to stand in for him tomorrow morning. So I
18 will be here tomorrow morning if that's the one. I
19 don't know if that's the one. So it won't take long
20 because I won't be defending him.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: It's just an initial
22 appearance, but I will be happy to see you already at
23 9.30. Good, thank you.
24 MR. FILA: Thank you.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: We will rise now and we will
1 resume at two sharp.
2 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.01 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.03 p.m.
2 (The accused entered court)
3 (The witness entered court)
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon. May I ask
5 the witness to be so kind as to make the solemn
7 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
8 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
12 Mr. Fila?
13 WITNESS: ZIVOJIN ALEKSIC
14 Examined by Mr. Fila:
15 MR. FILA: I apologise because the Prosecutor
16 has received only a draft of this document, but I
17 wanted to provide as long an expert opinion as possible
18 so that I can ask as few questions as possible.
19 Q. Mr. Aleksic, are you a professor? Were you
20 born in 1931 in Belgrade?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you graduate from the Belgrade law
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You were an assistant lecturer and then a
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. Did you lecture abroad, in the U.S., in Japan
4 China, U.S.S.R.?
5 A. I was a visiting professor in several
7 Q. You published, as far as I can see, lots of
9 A. Yes. Yes, I'm also quite old.
10 Q. Did you publish more books or do you have
11 more years?
12 A. Unfortunately, I have more years than I have
13 published books. It would be good if it were the other
14 way around.
15 Q. I can see that you were the President of the
16 Yugoslav Society for Criminal Sociological Research?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Of the Association of Lawyers in Belgrade?
19 A. Yes, that's right.
20 Q. You were the editor of the Law Review?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Archive for the Legal and Social Studies?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. You trained police forces in international
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In Zambia, Sweden, Germany?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. You were also an associate -- you also
5 cooperated with the United Nations with regard to drug
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And you spent several years as a President of
9 the Association of Teachers of Law as part of the
10 Association of International Law for Peace?
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. Now you are also a member of this council of
13 that organisation?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. And you are a representative of Yugoslavia in
16 the Association for International Law?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. Can you please check whether this is your CV,
19 and if it is, I would like this to be admitted?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D151
22 and the English translation D151A.
23 MR. FILA: Thank you. I hope that there are
24 no objections for this document to be admitted as a
25 Defence Exhibit.
1 Q. Please have a look at those documents and
2 tell us whether this is your expert opinion.
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The document is marked D152
5 and the draft English translation D152A.
6 MR. FILA: A part of the penal code of SFRY
7 was translated later due to lack of time, and I would
8 like this to be appended to the previous document. So
9 this is not to be admitted as a separate Defence
10 Exhibit, this is just a translation of a legal text.
11 If there are no objections, I would like to
12 tender the expert opinion as a Defence Exhibit.
13 THE REGISTRAR: This document will be marked
14 D --
15 JUDGE CASSESE: There is no objection, I
17 MR. NIEMANN: No, no.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
19 THE REGISTRAR: This last document will be
20 marked D152A/1.
21 MR. FILA:
22 Q. Mr. Aleksic, it is usual before this Trial
23 Chamber, when an expert is -- it is usual for an expert
24 of your profile to be questioned when the sentencing is
25 about to begin?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. This is what happened in the Tadic case --
3 well, we have changed the rules somewhat -- and you are
4 being questioned before the Trial Chamber brings its
5 decision whether the accused is guilty or not. It is
6 therefore important to note now, what did you use as a
7 basis for your expert opinion? What did I give you?
8 A. I received from you the amended indictment,
9 and I used it as a basis for the consideration and
10 comparison with the former penal code in SFRY.
11 Q. Can you please tell us which law was in force
12 from the 28th of September of 1976 onwards and, please,
13 just continue?
14 A. I express my respect to the Trial Chamber and
15 all the others who will be listening to me. I want to
16 say that the penal code of SFRY was passed in 1976, but
17 it came into force only in July 1977. It was in force
18 for the entire territory of SFRY.
19 There were several amendments to the law, but
20 those amendments did not apply to Chapter 16, which is
21 the topic of our discussion here. The amendments were
23 The situation lasted until 1990. In 1990,
24 the Official Gazette of the SFRY, on the 6th of July,
25 1990, published the amendments of this very chapter,
1 Chapter 16; and in the articles contained in the
2 amendments, it introduced several new elements, and
3 also the punishment of the confiscation of property was
4 repealed. These amendments were provided to you, were
5 published in the Official Gazette in 1990, and they
6 mostly refer to a certain expansion of the criminal
7 offences, and there are some new articles; for
8 instance, you will see in the law, there are some
9 articles designated A and B. For instance, Article
10 150A, 150B, it concerns repatriation and so forth. You
11 have to understand this because most criminal offences
12 in the SFRY were punished very strictly after the war.
13 That's the period from 1945 until 1950, right at the
14 beginning in the fervour of deliberation and the fight
15 against fascism. Of course, there were many executions
16 that were not strictly legal and decisions which are
17 not legal and which we copied the U.S.S.R. practice.
18 By 1950, things calmed down a bit, and from
19 that time onwards, we had the usual situation. A
20 number of perpetrators of criminal acts died, simply
21 died, those who were not discovered, and this act was
22 not something that happened very often.
23 I would now like you to go to the end of my
24 expert opinion. For your purposes, I studied the
25 information, the data, from 1980 until 1990. Of
1 course, I was surprised myself because that period,
2 from 1980 until 1990, had very few cases, and, in fact,
3 the same situation applied from 1977 when this law came
4 into force. We had about two or three convictions a
5 year. You can see that there are some death sentences
6 but you also have sentences of three to five, five to
7 ten, ten to fifteen years' imprisonment which obviously
8 indicate that this is a case of aiding and abetting.
9 According to the report published by the
10 Yugoslav Statistics Office, I even found a suspended
11 sentence. I did not have enough time to study that
12 particular sentence, but it is absolutely true that
13 since 1987 until 1990, there were no convictions for
14 criminal offences described in Chapter 16. It's like
15 some kind of a calm before the tempest that struck my
16 country, what was then my country and what is my
17 country now.
18 Q. After 1990, the First Amendment was passed in
19 1993. That's in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
20 What changed?
21 A. The first Official Gazette of the FRY, the
22 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, that's issue 35/92,
23 after that there were certain amendments, and then
24 there was the 16th of July, 1993, where it was
25 published that death penalty, the capital sentence, is
1 abolished in the penal code of the Federal Republic of
2 Yugoslavia, and it was furthermore added that the
3 sentence of 20 years' imprisonment was prescribed for
4 the most serious offences. So in 1993, 20 years of
5 imprisonment was the prescribed sentence. Up until
6 that time, 15 years of imprisonment was a maximum
7 penalty or the death penalty which could then be
8 reversed or commuted to 20 years.
9 So it was considered that 15 years'
10 imprisonment was the most severe sentence unless the
11 death penalty was commuted to 20 years.
12 After 1993, the death penalty was no more,
13 only 20 years' imprisonment, and confiscation was also
14 abolished as a sentence.
15 Q. Professor, if you look at the indictment, you
16 know what you have to say. Can you please tell us,
17 what about the forms of aiding and abetting or being an
19 A. The issue of being an accomplice in the penal
20 code -- I know that you're all experts in law, so you
21 know that it's a very serious question. It's a
22 difficult question for students when they have their
23 exams and later on in courts, the judges have many
24 problems when they try to determine the truth.
25 The penal code of SFRY recognises different
1 forms of being an accomplice. The most serious one is
2 when a person is a co-perpetrator. I don't know
3 whether I should define what does it mean if one is a
4 co-perpetrator. I will just tell you that in
5 Yugoslavia, both in theory and practice, that the
6 theory of distribution of roles was accepted so that
7 the co-perpetrator is a person who acts together with
8 other persons to perpetrate the criminal offence and
9 the commission of the act is their joint objective.
10 So this is the theory with which you are all
11 very familiar. I have to say that Yugoslavia, and
12 Serbia in particular, had a penal code as early as in
13 the 14th century, but later on, when Yugoslavia came
14 into being after the First World War, we were under the
15 strong influence of the Roman law, I mean Italian and
16 French law, and later on German and Austrian law, so
17 this is what we had to build on.
18 At any rate, any perpetrator is responsible
19 within the limits of his mens rea, so if you have two
20 persons who perpetrated the criminal offence, if one
21 person expands his intention, so if they attack a woman
22 wanting to rob her and then one of them rapes her, the
23 person who raped her is responsible singly because that
24 was not their joint intention, that was not what they
1 Incitement is also very strictly punished in
2 our country because we deem that a person who incites
3 another person to commit a criminal offence has to be
4 punished as if he had committed the crime himself. I
5 think this is a general fundament which is present in
6 most of the penal codes today. So incitement is when
7 you incite the person who has not formed the intent to
8 commit the criminal act, and by inciting him, you
9 actually aid him to commit a certain criminal offence.
10 Of course, you can also incite a person who
11 has already planned the commission of the act but has
12 not made the decision to actually execute the plan. So
13 if the person who incites another person, who has
14 already formed the plan, the intention to commit the
15 crime, then this is not incitement but so-called failed
17 As for aiding, which is also a form of being
18 an accomplice, I would like to pay some more attention
19 to that since I can see that this is charged in the
21 First of all, I have to say that I am not
22 familiar with this element. If I'm not mistaken, it
23 says there that a person -- that he aided and abetted.
24 We do not have this in the Yugoslav penal code. We
25 have the aiding element, but this other element, I have
1 to say, with all due respect, that it's very dangerous
2 to introduce those elements into the penal code which
3 allow the judges a lot of leeway in interpretation.
4 It is punishable in our penal code if
5 somebody, with intent, aids another person. Such a
6 person will be punished as if he had committed the act,
7 and the sentence can be commuted.
8 As regards aiding, the spectrum is very
9 broad. It contains advice and all forms of
10 encouragement to the perpetrator. However, in the old
11 Yugoslav penal code, we insisted on the intent to aid
12 the perpetrator, and the act had to be perpetrated.
13 What does it mean, the intent? It means that
14 the decision is made and that that person is mentally
16 Q. So you can't be aiding somebody by chance?
17 A. No. There has to be an intent. It may be,
18 for instance, guarding in front of the door or it can
19 also be, for instance, you take somebody for a walk
20 knowing that the burglar will commit a burglary during
21 that time and so on.
22 Aiding presupposes that a person has already
23 made the decision to commit the criminal act, and that
24 corresponds to the nature of the relationship between
25 the perpetrator and the aider, the abettor. The
1 abettor has to have the intent. It is impossible to
2 have the aiding and abetting without the intent. So
3 you have to have the awareness.
4 It is possible to punish, with a less severe
5 sentence, the abettor, especially in relationship to
6 the co-perpetrator and the person who incited somebody
7 to commit the crime because this is a less severe form
8 of being an accomplice, and also it makes it possible
9 for the abettor to change his mind and to make it
10 easier for that person to be arrested.
11 Q. What is the practice of Yugoslavia? Were
12 abettors punished as severely as perpetrators?
13 A. They were punished much less severely, and in
14 Chapter 16, which is under consideration by the
15 esteemed court, as you have seen in this list -- it is
16 a brief list but I can't invent more cases than there
17 actually were -- you can see a difference every year
18 between severe punishments of perpetrators and more
19 lenient sentences to aiders, aiders and abettors,
20 because an abettor can be a political -- can be a
21 person who has the same political views or espouse,
22 et cetera. Anyway, the court does not punish them with
23 equal harshness.
24 Also, the limits of criminal culpability are
25 clearly defined, and if you look at Chapter 25, I am
1 prepared to give the court our penal code from that
2 time, and I also have a doctoral thesis of a current
3 professor from Kragujevac entitled "Aiding as a Form of
5 We also have a very serious form, and that is
6 the forming of criminal associations deserving very
7 harsh sentences under our code, but this concept
8 presupposes the existence of a plan, and every action
9 outside that plan is something of individual
11 One of the other things which I noticed in
12 this indictment and which would have been treated
13 differently in Yugoslavia, better or worse it is not
14 upon me to say, but following European traditions, we
15 treat the acquiring of criminal acts as they are
16 treated in Europe. In this law of 1770 -- 77, it says
17 that if the perpetrator committed several acts for
18 which the perpetrator is being tried simultaneously, he
19 will be given a joint sentence for all of them. The
20 joint sentence --
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry to interrupt. Just to
22 correct the transcript. Here your words were
23 translated as follows: "... we treat the acquiring of
24 criminal acts as they are treated in Europe." Probably
25 you meant -- of course, I'm sure that your language was
1 quite accurate -- probably it should be "concurrence."
2 MR. FILA: Concurrence. "Concurrence," not
3 "the acquiring."
4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I apologise.
5 A. You all know that very frequently -- thank
6 you for this intervention -- you know that very
7 frequently in life, we have before the courts
8 perpetrators and delinquents who do their crimes in
9 various manners, and the court treats them
10 differently. I will say more about that later.
11 But according to the indictment, the Yugoslav
12 penal code, and I believe European penal codes, we
13 don't have this characteristic that one act can involve
14 four or five different criminal acts.
15 If I stab somebody and then break his rib and
16 then stab him through the heart, it is one murder. I
17 cannot answer for it by being charged on four or five
18 counts. And as you know, we were under Turkish
19 occupation for very long, and one of our public figures
20 Vaso Peligic (phoen), was sentenced to 101 years, and
21 all for writing one book because this book did have
22 this effect and then it had this effect.
23 Q. I'm sorry, Professor, for interrupting you,
24 but what matters is Chapter 16, which we are discussing
25 here. Chapter 16 envisages certain criminal acts which
1 you omitted to mention but they also contain other
2 crimes, murder, et cetera. Are they treated in the
3 same way in Yugoslavia?
4 A. Criminal acts from Chapter 16 exist in
5 accordance with Chapter 141 in accordance with the
6 capital crime of genocide.
7 I must say one thing about the entire Chapter
8 16. Yugoslavia, the SFRY, as most countries, both in
9 Europe and America, Asia and so on, has signed
10 conventions which obligate our country to execute these
11 conventions in their own legislations, and the
12 provisions of these conventions are translated into the
13 provisions of our law, and these laws repeat word for
14 word what is said in the conventions.
15 However, there are certain conventions which
16 deal with particular subjects, like the conventions
17 we've had since 1990. For instance, postponing the
18 repatriation of captives. If somebody killed this
19 prisoner, he cannot answer for both murder and for
20 postponement of repatriation.
21 Q. Let's talk about, for instance, genocide.
22 Genocide is murder. According to the practice of our
23 courts, would the person guilty of genocide be also
24 answerable for murder, heavy bodily injuries,
25 et cetera? What is the essence?
1 A. We widely practice the method of
2 consummation, which means that if a person commits a
3 crime, in order to reach the highest point of the
4 criminal ledger, he commits a number of crimes along
5 the way. We, in punishing him, take into account the
6 last, the most serious, the gravest crime.
7 Our theory boils down to the belief that
8 adding up various charges would make no sense, so we
9 use consummation. I could point out a number of
10 examples from various conferences because anything up
11 over a certain number of years looks more like
12 revenge. A person is heavily punished, even with 40
13 days of gaol, not to speak of years and decades. We
14 tried to lengthen our sentences, prison sentences, but
15 there was a wide protest.
16 Those are eternal discussions of criminal
17 law, and if we turned to the past, we would find many
18 examples of the same.
19 If someone, in committing a crime, deserved a
20 prison sentence, his sentences may be put together, but
21 not over 15 years. I hope I was clear. So we have,
22 for instance, a number of crimes, and we add up the
23 sentences, but the sum turns out to be over 30 years.
24 In this case, we have to take a maximum of 15 years.
25 That is the main point of our law. This is sometimes
1 misunderstood by the public.
2 The law also contains an instruction. If,
3 for instance, our clause 4 of article 48 prescribes
4 prison sentences of four years, then the joint sentence
5 cannot exceed eight years. If we take fines, we have
6 the same principle working. We envisage only one fine
7 for multiple violations.
8 So this is an ideal example of concurrence.
9 We stand firmly in our law on the standpoint that there
10 is an ideal concurrence of crimes, not of criminal
11 laws. If this principle is based, as it is in our
12 case, on a realistic view which is based on the real
13 circumstances of the real world, then one act can have
14 implications in several criminal acts.
15 Q. The translation is not very good because the
16 matter is complicated, so you must try to be slower.
17 A. Sorry. I'm used to be listened to by
18 students and I don't often take care of this.
19 You see, there is also the apparent
20 concurrence when an act corresponds to several
21 descriptions of a criminal act but only one, in fact,
22 is applicable. Then this apparent concurrence may be
23 ideal or real.
24 I have to apologise to the Trial Chamber. I
25 know that you are very well familiar with this, but I'm
1 now in a situation where I have to tell you what the
2 solutions were in the former law. From the extended
3 criminal act, there is -- it boils down to one criminal
5 Let me tell you just one more thing: In the
6 theory of criminal law, there are several cases of
7 apparent concurrence. There are three groups. The
8 first group is made up of cases where apparent
9 concurrence arises from the relationship of persons
10 involved. And the second group contains cases which
11 relate to the subsummation of one criminal act into
12 another on the basis of the specific instance. The
13 third group is the legal unity of various criminal
15 I will now tell you something about the
16 extended, protracted criminal offence. As far back as
17 in 1965 in December, there was a convention of the
18 Supreme Court of Yugoslavia. And although this is not
19 the law and we do not have the proceedings, the opinion
20 brought at that convention is still valid in the
21 practice before our courts. For the extended or
22 protected criminal offence to be in existence, it is
23 necessary for one person to commit two or more offences
24 of the same kind but of separate nature, each of which
25 contains all the legal elements required for that very
1 same criminal offence, either the more serious or the
2 mitigated form. There has to be a certain continuum in
3 time linking all those offences. All the charged
4 offences, from the standpoint of a reasonable view, can
5 be viewed as a unified whole.
6 The construct of the protracted criminal
7 offence is used very often in Europe, and it is not in
8 contravention with the requests of the criminal policy
9 that are valid right now. For the conditions of this
10 offence to be met, it is not important that a person is
11 a perpetrator, a person who insights or aids or abets
12 the criminal offences that are a part of the protracted
13 criminal offence, may be committed by acts, omissions,
14 or may also be attempted criminal offences.
15 What is interesting for this Trial Chamber is
16 that in combined cases, the legal qualification for
17 these kinds of offences is always done in accordance
18 with the most serious legal qualification.
19 Q. What does it mean that if somebody is an
20 instigator or an abettor, he is always treated as a
22 A. No, no, no. Also the identity is taken into
23 account, the nature of the culpability and also the
24 manner in which the criminal offence was committed.
25 Q. Professor, just one clarification --
1 A. I just have the sentencing.
2 Q. We have enough time. Let me just clarify one
3 thing. With the criminal offence of murder, we have
4 homicide, murder, cruel murder, murder out of a
5 vendetta, and so forth. If somebody commits one of
6 those crimes, is he tried for only one aspect of the
7 crime or is he charged with all the aspects?
8 A. Well, murder is a horrible event in the life
9 of any man or the society as a whole, but there are
10 different kinds of homicide. First of all, for
11 instance, you have the mitigated form when a child is
12 killed during the birth or you have the violent and
13 cruel murder.
14 Q. But if somebody commits a cruel murder -- so
15 first it is a murder, and then it is a violent or cruel
16 one -- in SFRY, did we try somebody for murder and for
17 cruel murder or just for one of them?
18 A. Well, just for one of them and the more
19 serious one. There is a special kind of homicide in
20 the penal code of the SFRY. That's grievous bodily
21 harm which is compounded with death. So we now look at
22 the intent of the person who committed the murder. If
23 it's a manslaughter, then it's a manslaughter. If
24 there's intent present, then it's homicide with
25 intent. But if somebody hit somebody else, and that
1 other person fell down and died right at the spot or
2 later in the hospital, then we go to the intent and we
3 use the qualified form of the grievous bodily harm. So
4 that's grievous bodily harm qualified by death.
5 Q. So death was not something for which intent
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. To conclude, I tried to make it as fast as
9 possible. That's the issue of the fundamentals. You
10 gave us the schedule of sentences until 1990. And let
11 us repeat chapter 16, these are criminal offences
12 against humanity and international law?
13 A. Yes, that's chapter 16.
14 Q. It was valid in 1990 throughout the territory
15 of SFRY?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In 1991, it was amended?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. In 1990, it was amended, in fact. So in the
20 provisions of the penal code of SFRY, it contains
21 provisions how the sentencing is to be carried out.
22 Can you please explain to the court: When the court
23 gave out the sentence, what factors did it take into
24 account, taking into account, of course, whether a
25 person was a perpetrator, an instigator, an aider, an
1 abettor. What else in addition to that was taken as
2 mitigating circumstances?
3 A. The penal code envisages certain sentences,
4 certain forms of punishment, but these are never given
5 as categorical. There are always alternatives. There
6 is always the range between this sentence and another
7 sentence because that's life. And all the judges in
8 the world want to individualise the sanction, the
9 penalty, what is the right measure for that man. After
10 all, even when you take medication, the dosage is not
11 the same for each man. You have to take into account
12 specific circumstances.
13 Q. So let's go on to the provisions of article
14 42; what are the mitigating circumstances?
15 A. I think that Mr. Fila is actually taking his
16 revenge. He used to be my student and now I have to
17 listen to him. There was a congress in Argentina and
18 then in Paris in '71. All these elements were taken
19 into account. And today, in fact, the extreme cases
20 are no longer applicable; although, for instance, in
21 Greenland, they have some very strange sentences.
22 Our penal code uses the criminal
23 responsibility as the basis for the sentence, for the
24 punishment. Secondly, we apply the principle of
25 individualisation. Thirdly, there is the unity of
1 objective and subjective circumstances, and none is
2 given priority. It is up to the court to decide. And,
3 finally, the criminal law in our country deems that
4 sentencing is up to the judges. It is a judicial
5 function. And judges use the results of the scientific
6 research and of expert opinions of other people,
7 knowledge of sociology, psychology, criminology, and so
8 forth, but they have to stick to these provisions.
9 Article 48 sanctions the sentencing; and in
10 articles 42 and 43, it provides for mitigating
11 circumstances. The general rules for sentencing are as
12 follows: Degree of criminal responsibility; the
13 motives of the criminal act; the seriousness of threats
14 or injury to the protected property; circumstances in
15 which the crime was committed; previous life history of
16 the perpetrator, taking into account the fact that some
17 people may get derailed from their goals.
18 Q. Yes, so that's the previous life of the
19 person who committed the crime?
20 A. That's right. Then personal circumstances.
21 And one thing we pay a lot of attention to, and that's
22 the conduct after the commission of the act, of the
23 criminal act; and other things that speak to the
24 personality of the perpetrator. So these are the
25 circumstances which I can now elaborate, if you want us
1 to. But I will thank you for your attention, and I
2 want to save myself from my former student.
3 Q. I just wanted to ask one more thing. The
4 passage of time from the commission of the act until
5 the trial, is that taken into account as well?
6 A. Well, I referred to it as the conduct of the
7 perpetrator after the commission of the criminal act.
8 Q. If a long time has passed, so if the
9 perpetrator was not caught in the act, if a long time
10 has passed, in accordance with our law, was the conduct
11 of the perpetrator taken into account in the sense of
12 whether he continued committing criminal offences or
13 whether he acted within the law, whether he kept
14 himself within the law?
15 A. Our law, the penal law of SFRY, also has the
16 statute of limitations. There are people who are not
17 tried if the statute of limitations expires. But if
18 the law gives him that possibility, it obviously
19 envisages that such a person has not committed any
20 other criminal acts in the meantime. And, of course,
21 the conduct is looked into very carefully. There are
22 some people who are at liberty because there wasn't
23 enough evidence to convict them. You can take that
24 into account.
25 Q. Is the health state of the person also one of
1 the elements taken into account?
2 A. Yes, the health state, also at the time of
3 the commission and later on, is taken into account. In
4 our penal code, like in other penal codes, we have
5 provisions indicating that if a person, after
6 conviction in sentencing, is diagnosed with a certain
7 illness, we can have a review of the case to see
8 whether the decision was right.
9 Q. I'm not referring now only to mental
10 illnesses but also to physical illnesses. Is it also a
11 mitigating circumstance?
12 A. Of course, there are cases where the
13 responsibility is excluded due to those cases. In
14 Yugoslavia, physical conditions are taken into account
15 more than mental, but I'm of a view that certain mental
16 conditions can affect the development of a person, and
17 the sentence should strive to bring him back into
18 the fold.
19 And if we're dealing with a younger person,
20 the sentence should not put him in a situation where he
21 will just be remembering his criminal offence and where
22 he will think of it as a bad dream and where he can
23 continue to live normally. It would be, indeed,
24 horrible if everybody who came under the influence of
25 the legal machinery, if those people were marked. Just
1 like in the former times, people were branded with the
2 letter "L" or "T" or thief.
3 Q. In conclusion, the purpose of punishment in
4 Yugoslavia was rehabilitation and not revenge?
5 A. Well, this should be so in any civilised
6 country. I have to tell you, you are young, my
7 colleague, Fila.
8 Q. I would not say so.
9 A. You are younger than I am. There are people
10 who are even younger than that. I, unfortunately,
11 lived in the era which was under the strong influence
12 of Oshinski (phoen). In the Yugoslav criminal law, the
13 Prosecutor's office was deemed to be the right hand of
14 the court, and the Defence counsel should cooperate
15 with the court and should tell the court what the
16 perpetrator has told him in confidence. Those were the
17 trials where a person walked in and then was executed
18 right away. I was horrified by that. In my country,
19 the situation was better than in Russia, but it was
20 horrible all the same.
21 From that time on, with the permission of
22 Mr. Prosecutor, I always tell my students that in the
23 21st century, they should succeed in achieving that the
24 Prosecutor's office should not be in the same building
25 as the court is. The Prosecutor's office has to have
1 the strong apparatus that would be used to help him,
2 but when they appear before the court, they should be
3 just one of the parties.
4 Q. Well, we're now referring to our domestic
5 courts, not the Tribunal, but we have been through
6 something that you are lucky you haven't been through,
7 so we always have to take that into account. I think
8 that Winston Churchill said that "Communism was good
9 for us but not for the Englishmen." Thank you very
10 much. I have no further questions.
11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Thank you,
12 Mr. Fila. Prosecution?
13 Cross-examined by Mr. Niemann:
14 Q. We meet again, Professor.
15 A. Yes, I hope with pleasure.
16 Q. Professor, you were saying in your evidence,
17 a moment ago, about what we call cumulative charging,
18 that is, where one person is charged with a number of
19 offences rising out of a set series of conduct, and you
20 were discussing the instance of murder and cruel
21 murder. What would happen in the former Yugoslavia in
22 a situation where a person was charged only with cruel
23 murder, that being the most serious offence, and the
24 court came to the conclusion that the accused was not
25 guilty of the cruel murder but had, in fact, committed
1 murder? Would the person be acquitted?
2 A. Mr. Prosecutor, you are opening a subject
3 which is very complex, that is, the identity of
4 indictment and the verdict. In our country, it looks
5 usually like this: If the Prosecutor does not react in
6 good time and if he doesn't change the qualification,
7 he risks losing all together. But in such matters when
8 charges are similar, the judge is entitled to change
9 the qualification during the trial and Prosecutors
10 usually look upon it as their own credit.
11 Q. What would happen in a situation? What do
12 you consider the situation would be if there was no
13 power for the court to change it, if the court had no
14 authority to change it from, say, cruel murder to
15 murder once it had seen the facts?
16 A. Theoretically speaking, if that provision did
17 not exist, then the court would refuse the indictment,
18 and that would be in bad taste, unusual,
19 irresponsible. But if we were to support the theory of
20 absolute identity of charges, then all such people, due
21 to the fault of the Prosecutor, would remain
22 unpunished, because the court would then not have the
23 right to be flexible.
24 Q. And I take it, Professor, that if you had a
25 situation where neither the court could change the
1 indictment to reflect the actual crime itself, and it
2 did find that a murder had been committed, and the
3 person was acquitted because it couldn't change the
4 indictment, that there could be no subsequent trial for
5 murder because the person would have been through a
6 trial and would have been acquitted. So the acquittal
7 would stand against any further Prosecution?
8 A. I don't know exactly what you mean, but I
9 believe it would be unrealistic to think about a
10 situation where it would be permitted, that due to
11 differences between indictment and verdict, something
12 like this could happen. But still I'm under the
13 impression that you agree with me.
14 Sometimes I surprise my students by stating
15 that the truth is not the main principle in trial
16 proceedings. I certainly won't surprise you. However,
17 if we take non bis in idem, we can't try one person for
18 the same thing twice, and if the judge does not object,
19 one cannot be sentenced to a harsher sentence than
20 asked for. And there are a number of things which
21 support the rights of the defendant.
22 However, I believe the court has a certain
23 authority to be flexible, to be flexible and, on the
24 other hand, the Prosecutor's office lives in the same
25 house as the court. I believe in your system, in
1 Rotterdam, for instance, there is subordination. The
2 Appeal Court can issue orders to a lower level court.
3 Q. Yes. Well, Professor, I think in your
4 extensive studies overseas, you would agree with me
5 that in some jurisdictions, this problem is resolved by
6 the Prosecution filing an indictment which contains
7 cumulative charges, and the court can then deal with
8 the issue on sentencing in terms of what is the
9 appropriate penalty to be applied. So the emphasis is
10 not -- the critical point is not the conviction stage,
11 but the sentencing stage. Do you agree with me, that
12 you're aware of that?
13 A. Well, you know, with all due respect for you
14 and my pleasure at knowing you, don't mind my saying
15 that in a lawyer's jargon, it is called shooting with a
16 shotgun. If we take it that there are enemies 1, 2, 3,
17 and under item 7, we write all others for whom there is
18 grounds for suspicion, I don't think your formulation
19 is very happy (sic). If a doctor, for instance,
20 examines a patient, he carries out cumulative
21 laboratory and other analysis but he treats one
23 Q. I really wasn't asking you whether it was a
24 process or system with which you agreed. I merely was
25 asking you whether it was one with which you were
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I think that you would tell me that in
4 Europe, in the civil systems, the approach is not to
5 charge cumulatively, but to give the judge the power to
6 impose or find the appropriate crime to fit the facts,
7 should that arise; if not in your jurisdiction,
8 certainly in other jurisdictions on the European
10 A. Did I -- was it the translation? You said
11 "civilian proceedings."
12 Q. I called it "civil proceedings," and I really
13 am referring to proceedings other than those known as
14 the common law.
15 A. We, in Europe, differentiate between
16 principles working for the civil proceedings and the
17 criminal proceedings.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry to interrupt. I think
19 the Prosecutor was referring to civil law systems, what
20 you called before criminal systems of Roman-Germanic
21 origin, say Yugoslavia, Germany, France, Italy, and so
22 on, as opposed to common law systems. So it has
23 nothing to do with civilian proceedings.
24 A. We call that continental law. Mr. President,
25 I do not know of a single criminal proceedings in
1 Europe where it would be allowed to use a shotgun.
2 MR. NIEMANN:
3 Q. And I wasn't asking that, but I'm not going
4 to go into the virtues of duck hunting.
5 A. Well, that is an area widely lied in.
6 Q. Professor, in your paper that you have kindly
7 provided us with, you deal with the law of the SFRY and
8 then its amendments under the code of the Federal
9 Republic in 1993. I think you will agree with me, the
10 law of the FRY, SFRY, certainly would apply to what is
11 now the Independent Sovereign State of Croatia but the
12 law of the FRY, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, has
13 no application to that country.
14 A. Certainly, but as far as I know -- you know,
15 I've been a law professor in Croatia for a long time,
16 an honorary professor, and I have very nice memories
17 of that.
18 They took over the SFRY law for the first
19 period, and since 1992, they've had their own
20 provisions of their own making. You may correct me if
21 I'm wrong. But at the time of the event you are
22 discussing, practically nolens volens, the same
23 provisions applied.
24 Q. Yes, I think that's probably quite right.
25 The question that I'm asking you, though, is really,
1 when you make reference to the FRY amendments in 1993,
2 am I right in saying that they only apply to the member
3 states of that federation and not to Croatia? And my
4 next question is: Do you know what amendments were
5 made to the law of Croatia after 1991? Do you know
6 whether that was amended and in what respect, or was it
7 similar to the amendments that were made in the Federal
8 Republic of Yugoslavia?
9 A. I must say that amendments to the Croatian
10 law followed the conventions signed by the SFRY because
11 they were common to all countries; and as for the SFRY,
12 their own amendments abolished the death sentence
13 earlier than we did. We abolished it in 1993 and they
14 abolished it in 1992, I think.
15 Q. So if we are looking for guidance as to
16 sentencing practices for an offence that was committed
17 on the territory of Croatia, it's true, isn't it, that
18 we would look to the law initially of the Socialist
19 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and then, ultimately, to
20 any amendments that were made to the criminal law of
22 A. Yes, with a proviso that I would ask you to
23 look at amendments from 1990 made in the SFRY because
24 they were specially dedicated to Article 16 and they
25 added to the criminal acts, expanded on them. You have
1 postponement of repatriation among these changes and
2 other charges which were not earlier written in Article
3 16, Chapter 16.
4 I suppose that that coincided with what
5 happened in 1990 in Croatia, it was a renaissance of
6 provisions or a modernisation of provisions originating
7 in 1990 -- 1992 because provisions from 1977 followed
8 the convention signed by Yugoslavia and which
9 Yugoslavia had to incorporate in Chapter 16.
10 Q. Yes, quite so, Professor, and I think we're
11 all grateful to be provided with Chapter 16. The point
12 I am making, though, is relevant to the question of
13 sentencing, and the law of the SFRY is not very helpful
14 to us, I think you would agree, because it deals with
15 the minimum sentence of five years and then the death
16 penalty which, of course, has no application in this
18 A. I would not be that categorical. For
19 instance, Chapter 16 begins with Article 141 envisaging
20 a sentence for genocide, five years or death sentence
21 or, 142, war crimes against civilian population, five
22 years or death sentence. You delete the death sentence
23 because it was later substituted by 20 years.
24 War crimes against casualties or prisoners,
25 five-year sentence or death sentence. Crimes against
1 war prisoners, it says: Will be punished by at least
2 one year. Then organising a group, ten years. Illegal
3 murder of prisoners of the other side, ten years. Use
4 of illegal unlawful means of fighting, at least one
5 year, maximum 15 years --
6 Q. I can see entirely, Professor, that there are
7 penalties, but the point I was trying to make was
8 that --
9 A. I just wanted to help you with your earlier
11 Q. And I'm grateful, Professor. Professor, you
12 touched on momentarily the issue of intent under the
13 law of the former Yugoslavia, and if I understood what
14 you said previously, that under the criminal code of
15 the former Yugoslavia, you didn't have premeditation as
16 such. You had two levels of intent, one was intent and
17 the other was possible criminal intent, which was a
18 species of negligence.
19 A. I must correct myself if I was imprecise.
20 For a criminal act in the SFRY and now, premeditation
21 and guilt have to be components, and culpability has
22 two components: intent and negligence, whereas sanity
23 has always to be present, complete or reduced or moral
24 insanity, whichever.
25 So there is always intent and negligence when
1 we speak about a criminal act. I don't think it is
2 different in any other country. A whole series of
3 Italian criminal law experts supported the theory that
4 intent has to exist.
5 We, in the SFRY, did not have the concept of
6 premeditation. Some other countries have it. I don't
7 know whether it is good or bad, but we do not have
8 premeditation as a concept. Perhaps it is a useful
9 gradation of intent, but we don't have it. We just
10 have intent and negligence.
11 There are, however, qualifications, such as
12 possible intent. For instance, a person driving a car
13 without brakes and with shaven tyres, and the person
14 drives slowly thinking he can manage to drive his aunt
15 to the railway station without any accident; however,
16 the accident happens. But that is the possible intent.
17 So even intent and negligence have their
18 gradation. You have conscious and unconscious intent
19 or negligence. You have a woman working in the lab and
20 handling, without enough care, explosive gas which
21 causes an accident. If an unqualified person, such as
22 a char lady, handles things in the lab and causes the
23 same thing, her guilty, her culpability would be
24 different. She is unqualified.
25 Q. Would you be surprised if I said to you,
1 Professor, that in some jurisdictions, negligence
2 cannot be the basis of criminal liability?
3 A. I would like to live in such a jurisdiction.
4 But, you know, we have murder out of negligence. You
5 have a person sitting in a train. A heavy suitcase
6 from the opposite side falls on the head of a child
7 sitting underneath and the child dies. I don't think
8 that the person would be saved from criminal charges
9 even under such a jurisdiction.
10 For instance, you answer for murder for
11 injuring peace of Queen.
12 THE INTERPRETER: The Queen's peace, I
13 believe the doctor wanted to say.
14 A. Or, as somebody said, it doesn't matter --
15 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, we lost the
16 Professor. I am honestly sorry.
17 MR. NIEMANN:
18 Q. Professor, you provided us with some
19 statistical information in your report relating from
20 the period 1980 to 1990, and I think these were
21 offences under Chapter 16, prosecutions for offences
22 under Chapter 16. Do you know what gave rise to these
23 cases? Were these World War II cases, or what was the
24 background to them?
25 A. For some of the cases I know, especially
1 since Mr. Fila and his office dealt with some of those
2 cases, there are very complex matters involved and
3 there are also foolish cases.
4 I know of a case where a person came to
5 Bosnia and asked the municipality to issue him with a
6 certificate that he was in an SS division during the
7 war so that he could obtain a pension in Germany. Of
8 course, he was detained in Belgrade and convicted to
9 10, 15 years. So that even judges asked him, "How on
10 earth did you think of such a stupid thing to do?"
11 However, there were also cases where people
12 thought that the Statute of Limitations expired and
13 there were comparisons of photographs involved. In one
14 case, I was asked as a forensic expert to define by an
15 ear whether this man was the one who cut people's
17 For instance, also the Sakic person who is
18 being delivered to Croatia, some people simply wanted
19 to go back and die in their own homeland. Then there
20 were also cases when criminals were caught when they
21 came to their parents' funerals or to sell their
22 houses; anecdotal cases, in fact, where the less
23 serious sentences concerned cases with families,
24 lovers, et cetera.
25 I wanted to take cases from 1977 to 1990, but
1 there were no such cases until '88. In '78, there were
2 only two cases of this kind. From '87 to '90, I did
3 not find a single case that would fit the description.
4 Q. So it would be fair if I was to say that most
5 of the cases that would have been the subject of your
6 cumulative table here, from 1980 to 1987, were cases
7 which arose out of the events of World War II? It
8 doesn't matter where, but during the course of World
9 War II?
10 A. Certainly.
11 Q. Did you have an opportunity --
12 A. They were very old. Take that into account.
13 Forty plus years since the war.
14 Q. Did you have an opportunity to do any study
15 or carry out any analysis of any cases that may have
16 arisen as a consequence of this most recent conflict
17 from 1991 onwards? Have you seen any prosecutions for
18 war crimes or genocide in relation to those events?
19 A. There have been a few cases of prosecution,
20 and I had the pleasure of leading a project titled
21 "Women in the War." It is a very moving book.
22 You must understand, Mr. Prosecutor, that
23 Serbs are studying those cases which were against them,
24 as the other side studied crimes against that side.
25 The project I am talking about involves 80 women raped
1 by mostly Muslims but also Croats. Women's names are
2 not mentioned, only code names are used. At the
3 promotion of the book, the women spoke of very moving
4 details, stories about rape being used as a ticket out,
5 and all the 80 women attended the promotion. A couple
6 of them reconciled themselves to all the consequences,
7 they told us their real names, and they stood up and
8 said, "Yes, I was raped. I would have done anything to
9 save my child which slept nearby. I stood up and
10 kissed their hands."
11 Q. Professor, yes, what I was mainly interested
12 in was cases which had gone through the process and
13 there had been a conviction and the penalty had been
14 imposed. Do you know of any cases like that since
16 A. Yes, we have some of those cases. We have a
17 very strange case in Croatia -- I didn't manage to get
18 the file. I hope it will be sent to me by my
19 ex-students from Croatia once things calm down. It
20 involves the murder of ten to twelve soldiers on the
21 bridge in Korana near Karlovac. The perpetrator was
22 arrested and tried, but it was established that he was
23 not guilty by reason of insanity. Things were very bad
24 for some time but are beginning to improve.
25 If you know the configuration of Bosnia where
1 a lot of those things happened, there are places very
2 high up in the mountains with holes, deep holes, and in
3 cases of murder, victims were often thrown into those
4 holes. Later on, heaps of bones were extracted from
5 those holes. Victims of Croat forces were found,
6 victims of various other divisions, victims of crimes
7 of passion. I personally believe it is not okay that
8 these holes were cemented in former Yugoslavia. It is
9 almost as if the former regime was afraid that its own
10 executions would be later discovered. I don't know if
11 I have answered your question.
12 But if you wish, I can try to find in Serbia
13 what you looked for --
14 Q. Professor, I was merely asking you about
15 recent cases. We'll move on.
16 Now, you talked about this concept of
17 co-perpetrators, aiding and abetting and so forth. I
18 think you're probably aware that the Tribunal's Statute
19 and Rules of Procedure has its own regime to deal with
20 that as well. It doesn't need to depend upon the law
21 of Yugoslavia. Were you aware of that?
22 A. I'm aware from the Statute of your court,
23 which I esteem very highly and wish it success. You
24 said in one place in the Statute that the court has to
25 familiarise itself with the law of the country from
1 which the Defendant originates, and I said I believe
2 that was right. If you agreed to borrow our concept of
3 cumulative sentence, I don't know, but we do not have
4 any other concept and I don't believe anything else is
5 applied in Europe either.
6 Q. I just wanted to ask you a question about
7 that. I want to posit to you a situation and ask you
8 if you could tell me how a court in the former
9 Yugoslavia would deal in its sentence with a situation
10 such as what I'm about to give you. It's an example.
11 Say you have an offence committed by a large
12 corporation, a company, and the managing director and
13 members of the board --
14 A. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt. A company in
15 Yugoslavia cannot commit a criminal act. We do not
16 provide for criminal responsibility of legal persons.
17 Q. Please bear with me, Professor. We'll get
18 there. The managing director and the members of the
19 board agree that they wanted to commit a fraud, and
20 they use the lowly company accountant to actually carry
21 out the mechanics of the commission of the fraud.
22 If it came to sentencing, who would receive
23 the greater sentence: the managing director and
24 members of the board, or would it be the accountant?
25 A. First of all, during the trial, we would have
1 to establish the identity of the perpetrator and his
2 intent, and then we would have to establish who he was
3 instigated by, who he was enabled by, and who aided and
4 abetted him. We often meet situations in our practice
5 where the director enters a liaison with a deputy chief
6 accountant. He provides her with the papers, she uses
7 those papers to actually get disbursements of money,
8 and he is often -- in such cases, it is often difficult
9 to differentiate between the perpetrator and the
10 abettor. The director cannot be responsible for
12 Q. I see. So would it be fair to say that --
13 assuming you can prove the board and managing director
14 actually agreed that this crime would be committed and
15 then directed the accountant to commit it, you would
16 agree with me that the board and managing director
17 would be the most culpable criminally, wouldn't you?
18 That would be the normal position?
19 A. The one who allows him to act in this way and
20 whose knowledge is involved would be the most guilty,
21 but a whole number of people would be guilty. This
22 category of economic crimes, white collar crimes, are
23 very widespread now. In such cases, perpetrators, the
24 real perpetrators, protect themselves very well, and it
25 is usually the small fry who gets sentenced.
1 Q. Finally, one last question: Does the Statute
2 of Limitations apply to Chapter 16 offences?
3 A. No.
4 MR. NIEMANN: No further questions.
5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Fila?
6 MR. FILA: Your Honour, I just wish to assist
7 so I don't have any questions. If it would be of
8 interest to the court to establish the forms of
9 culpability, intent, premeditation, and so forth, the
10 Professor has it right here in the introduction to the
11 penal code and he can read it, and it says quite
12 clearly there what is negligence, what is
13 premeditation, what is intent. He can read it. It's
14 very short.
15 If, of course, the court is interested in
16 it. That would be the answer to a number of the
17 questions posed by my esteemed colleague, Mr. Niemann.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Actually, I don't
19 think it's particularly relevant to the court, more so
20 because we, under our own Statute and the customary
21 international law and international criminal law, we
22 have to proceed on the basis of international law
23 notions. In addition, I have realised that Professor
24 Aleksic is as familiar as I am with a masterpiece,
25 Jescheck, what I consider a masterpiece in criminal
1 law, and I'm sure also Mr. Waespi is familiar with
2 that, in addition to Mr. Fila who actually mentioned
3 Jescheck in one of his briefs, so we know all the basic
4 notions prevailing in the best legal literature in
5 continental Europe.
6 We should now take a break, but I have three
7 questions. I wonder whether you would like -- if I can
8 ask you these three questions?
9 A. Do you want me to answer today or tomorrow?
10 JUDGE CASSESE: No, no, no, no. The question
11 was not tomorrow. Right away or after the break in 20
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, you seem to be an
14 ally of my wife. You want to have me back home as soon
15 as possible.
16 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. In any case, probably
17 it's better to rise now for 20 minutes and then we go
18 on with our questions.
19 MR. NIEMANN: I'm sorry, Your Honours. May I
20 be excused after the break? I have another matter in
21 another court. Thank you.
22 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.
24 JUDGE CASSESE: Professor Aleksic, I have,
25 actually, three questions. First of all, I understand
1 that previously, prior to 1993, most crimes provided
2 for in Chapter 16 carried a sentence which could go
3 from five years in prison to 20 years or death
4 penalty. So I want to understand the rationale behind
5 this choice, maximum of 20 years or, as an alternative,
6 the death penalty. So no provision was made for, say,
7 an imprisonment of 25 years or 30 years or life
8 imprisonment and so on. What was the rationale behind
9 this lack of -- and provisioned this particular point?
10 A. Well, the system of criminal sanctions in the
11 law of the SFRY ranged from very low, very light
12 sentences for, I think, six months in prison up to 15
13 years. I think that was the law in SFRY. In
14 exceptional circumstances with very serious criminal
15 offences, in addition to the 15 years imprisonment,
16 there was the death penalty which was equal to 15 years
17 imprisonment. But since our legislator's never
18 directed the judges to issue sentences but allowed them
19 to apply mitigating and aggravating circumstances, even
20 in this most serious sentence, the legislators provided
21 the alternative, death penalty or 20 years. So the
22 sentence of 20 years imprisonment does not exist,
23 according to that law. We are now talking about the
24 period from 1993 forward.
25 In 1993, the death penalty was abolished and
1 the 20 years imprisonment sentence remained. But I
2 have to tell you once again, Mr. Fila has more practice
3 than myself, so he probably knows more about it than
4 me, but the sentence was never 16, 17 or 18 years. It
5 was either 15 or 20 years. So 15 and 20 years, there
6 was a vacuum in between those two sentences. So the
7 maximum sentence was 15 years imprisonment, and the
8 minimum would be three months and maybe even less.
9 And when the death penalty was given, it
10 could be commuted so the 20 years imprisonment was the
11 commuted sentence, because there was some ray of hope
12 that the convict could be rehabilitated. In 1993, the
13 death penalty was abolished and the 20 years
14 imprisonment remained automatically, but it was not the
15 range up to 20 years. It was up to 15 years and then
16 there was this 20 years imprisonment. I don't know if
17 I made myself clear.
18 JUDGE CASSESE: No, probably I didn't make
19 myself clear, because I was wondering why the maximum
20 imprisonment is 20 years and why there's no -- is there
21 any reason why or a particular reason why before '93,
22 as I say, for the most horrendous crimes, say, somebody
23 killing 50 people, an uncommon crime, without any
24 relation with war or armed conflict; so for this set of
25 crimes, a multiple crime, a murder, you would get
1 either 20 years or a death sentence, whereas in most
2 European countries on continental Europe, you have,
3 say, a maximum life imprisonment or, say, 30 years, 35
4 years. So why, therefore, is there this gap between --
5 nothing beyond 20 years or life imprisonment?
6 Actually, I read in the English translation
7 two judgements delivered by a military tribunal in
8 Belgrade in early '93, I think, for war crimes
9 committed by Croats, and there some of them were
10 sentenced to 20 years, some to 15, and one or two to a
11 death sentence, and they were executed. So, again, I'm
12 lost to understand the rationale behind this particular
13 way of providing for sentence, for penalties.
14 A. I have to defend my Professor Srzentic. He
15 was the legislator involved in creating this law. In
16 the long discussion, private discussions that we held,
17 he told me certain things, and I think they will serve
18 to clarify this point.
19 First of all, we thought that today it is
20 very hard to defend the existence of the death
21 penalty. But due to certain specific factors, we
22 allowed it. I have to tell you that the death penalty
23 was given very rarely. There is a statistical report
24 of the statistical office of Yugoslavia regarding the
25 death penalty. I can provide you with a copy of it. I
1 have it here. They showed very clearly that nolens
2 volens we did not have the death penalty, although
3 there were some cases. In Slovenia, there hadn't been
4 a case of the death penalty for over 40 years; and even
5 in Montenegro, there weren't that many death penalties
6 given. So the legislators took the following stand:
7 The death penalty is something horrible, but at this
8 stage of our development of the criminal system, we
9 have to keep it because our population still has this
10 system of an eye for an eye.
11 Second thing, when the death penalty was to
12 be replaced by the life imprisonment, the associations
13 of penologists in Yugoslavia felt that this was even
14 worse than murder, than killing a person, because it
15 was dying by inches. In particular, the provisions in
16 some other jurisdictions which stated that a person
17 could not apply for parole before 20 years of his life
18 sentence, and even in some cases, there was life
19 sentence without parole. We thought it was horrible so
20 we said that the death penalty should exist, and if it
21 is too harsh a sentence, it should be replaced by 20
23 This is something that makes other people
24 confused because they think that we have the sentence
25 of 20 years imprisonment. We do not have this
1 sentence, in effect. Even those people who examined
2 students in criminal law, when they are in a bad mood,
3 they ask the students, "What's the maximum prison
4 sentence in Yugoslavia?" And if the person says "20
5 years," he fails the exam.
6 I hope that now you understand what the
7 situation is. But I can give you an explanation for
8 1993. The death penalty was abolished and 20 years
9 remained. And the new penal code, which is being
10 drafted, there are certain tendencies for 30 years
11 imprisonment and so forth. In Croatia, it is the case
13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. My second
14 question relates to what you said about aiding and
15 abetting. I know, of course, that you don't have this
16 notion, which is typical of common law countries. In
17 continental European countries, of course, we have the
18 notion of complicity which is, to some extent,
20 However, talking of aiding, you said that in
21 Yugoslav law intent is required for the aiding to be
22 regarded as a crime. I don't know whether this is a
23 question of translation, whether you really require
24 that the aider should have the intent to commit a crime
25 or a simple knowledge is sufficient.
1 Let me give you an example which is taken
2 from the case law of war crimes tribunals relating to
3 the Second World War. The case of some people, some
4 military officers go into a place with intent of
5 actually arresting or even killing three POW's,
6 prisoners of war. Now, the question arose whether the
7 driver who drove them to that particular place where
8 they shot the three enemy officers, whether the driver
9 was aiding and abetting the crime. And the court said
10 that what was crucial was whether they had the
11 knowledge, whether the driver was aware that he was
12 driving those people to go there and to arrest and
13 possibly shoot them. And if he was not aware, then he
14 was not, in a way, an accomplis. And, actually, one of
15 them was not found guilty because he was not aware at
16 all. In this case, therefore, knowledge is crucial,
17 not criminal intent. The driver had no intention
18 because he was simply unaware of the purpose of that
19 trip to a particular place.
20 I wonder whether, therefore, when you, on
21 purpose, referred to aiding for criminal intent or
22 intention or whether, under Yugoslav law, knowledge is
24 A. In this expert opinion, which I had the
25 liberty to provide to you, I wrote down that when it
1 comes to aiding, it can defined as the intentional
2 provision of assistance to the perpetrator in the
3 commission of the act that was actually committed. In
4 elaborating this premise, I wrote that the act of the
5 aider must be the contribution to the commission of the
6 act, they must have an effect on the commission of the
7 act committed by the perpetrator and have an effect on
8 the commission. This does not mean, I'm quoting from
9 my own report, that in addition to the acts of aiding,
10 which had a causal relationship to the commission of
11 the crime, in accordance with the formula condictio
12 sine qua non, that it means that the act would not be
13 realised or committed.
14 It is too much to require of an aider to
15 increase the chances. We are looking for the efficient
16 support of the perpetrator and the creation of
17 favourable conditions. I gave you an example where I
18 go to see my friend. I take him out for a walk, and I
19 allow my other friend to burgle his place. I don't
20 know if that's enough.
21 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I think we are
22 short on time, so I will refrain from asking you a
23 third question which, in any case, was rather minor. I
24 wonder whether there are any other questions? There's
25 no objection to our witness being released.
1 Thank you, Professor, for coming here to give
2 evidence in court. You may now be released. Thank you
3 so much.
4 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
5 (The witness withdrew)
6 JUDGE CASSESE: We will now move to the
7 Prosecution witness.
8 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, Your Honour, at this
9 time, we would call Vladimir Dzuro.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. And we were given
11 his witness statement.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we provided the
13 report that he completed. It's not actually in the
14 form of a statement but it is a signed report.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.
16 MR. FILA: While we're waiting, Your Honours,
17 would it be possible for the Prosecutor to give me
18 photographs which at least allow us to see something
19 and not just black marks? Do you have photographs in
20 colour, by any chance?
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, yes, we will be
22 providing photographs during the course of his
23 testimony. If you would like them in advance, we can
24 provide that.
25 MR. FILA: Yes, if possible. I apologise,
1 but it is really impossible for me to follow. The
2 quality is really horrible.
3 JUDGE CASSESE: I agree with you, Mr. Fila.
4 I also had the same problem, but probably if the
5 Prosecutor could be so kind as to provide us with
6 colour photographs.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour.
8 Would you, as well, like coloured photographs now or do
9 you want it to be done as we go through the testimony?
10 JUDGE CASSESE: As we go through the
11 testimony, all right, if it is fine with Mr. Fila.
12 MR. FILA: No, it would be better for me to
13 receive them right now so that I am able to follow. It
14 really would be better.
15 JUDGE CASSESE: At least for Mr. Fila, it is
16 important, yes.
17 MR. WILLIAMSON: Very well, Your Honour. We
18 were just trying to do it in a manner where we could
19 keep them straight and so that they would be organised,
20 because the photographs are very, very similar. But we
21 will certainly provide copies to Mr. Fila.
22 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
23 MR. FILA: Your Honours, these are the
24 photographs that you gave to me. So I would just like
25 to have coloured photographs of those same
1 photographs. I think that Mr. Dzuro took those
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, we will provide
4 him copies of everything that will be submitted during
5 the course of Mr. Dzuro's testimony.
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: This may take us just a
8 moment to go through and organise this but we will.
9 (The witness entered court)
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Good afternoon.
11 Could you please make the solemn declaration?
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
13 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
15 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. You may be
17 These photographs, I mean, they also relate
18 to the report of expert witness Tabbush, the same
19 photographs, I think?
20 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honour, there are --
21 some of the photographs were used by Mr. Tabbush as
22 well. Most of them will come in through Mr. Dzuro and
23 will already have a reference number by the time
24 Mr. Tabbush testifies. But there may possibly be some
25 additional photographs at that time that we would
2 JUDGE CASSESE: Tabbush will be tomorrow?
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, that's correct, Your
4 Honour. We have almost completed this process with the
6 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
7 WITNESS: VLADIMIR DZURO
8 Examined by Mr. Williamson:
9 Q. Mr. Dzuro, where are you currently employed?
10 A. I work for the Office of the Prosecutor of
11 the International War Crimes Tribunal.
12 Q. What is your job assignment within the Office
13 of the Prosecutor?
14 A. I work as an investigator.
15 Q. How long have you been affiliated with the
16 Office of the Prosecutor?
17 A. I started to work for the Office of the
18 Prosecutor in April 1995.
19 Q. Prior to coming to the Tribunal, where were
20 you employed?
21 A. Since 1993, I worked for the Czech Police
22 Force as a policeman, then as an investigator. And
23 then further I was assigned as a senior special agent
24 at INTERPOL, National Central Bureau of INTERPOL,
1 Q. Did you also have opportunity to work in the
2 former Yugoslavia for some period when you were still
3 affiliated with the Czech Police?
4 A. That's correct. Since February 1994 until
5 March 1995, I worked as a senior secretary officer as
6 the chief of the field secretary office in Sarajevo in
8 Q. Mr. Dzuro, at this time I'm going to show you
9 a document which I'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit 214,
10 I believe, and I would like for you to look at this.
11 THE INTERPRETER: If a pause could please be
12 made between question and answer?
13 MR. WILLIAMSON:
14 Q. Did you hear that, Mr. Dzuro?
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Is this a report that you prepared in
17 connection with an investigation that you've conducted
18 in relation to the alibi videotape which is marked as
19 Defence Exhibit 2?
20 A. That's correct, I did.
21 MR. WILLIAMSON: I would tender this report
22 now as Prosecutor's Exhibit 214.
23 JUDGE CASSESE: Any objection, Mr. Fila?
24 MR. FILA: No.
25 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.
1 MR. WILLIAMSON:
2 Q. Mr. Dzuro, since coming to the Tribunal, have
3 you been involved in the investigation of war crimes
4 which occurred in the Vukovar region of Croatia?
5 A. That's correct. Since the first time I
6 arrived to the Tribunal and was assigned as an
7 investigator, I worked almost exclusively on the crimes
8 committed in the Vukovar area.
9 Q. In that capacity, did you participate in an
10 interview of Mr. Dokmanovic which took place at
11 Scheveningen prison on the 26th and 27th of November of
12 last year?
13 A. That's right. I did, yes.
14 Q. At this interview, did you become aware in
15 general terms of the alibi defence that Mr. Dokmanovic
16 was going to present?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. During the course of that interview, did you
19 also become aware of a videotape which the Defence
20 intended to use in support of its alibi?
21 A. Yes, I think it was on the 26th when, for the
22 first time, I heard about the tape, and Mr. Dokmanovic
23 and Mr. Fila were saying that it would be possible to
24 view it at some stage. And we agreed that on the 27th,
25 the next day, we would bring the VCR and television,
1 because there was no TV in the prison that was
2 available for us. So we brought the television there.
3 But in the end, we didn't have a chance to view the
4 tape because Mr. Dokmanovic and Mr. Fila decided
6 Q. Did you subsequently have an opportunity to
7 view the videotape?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Will you please make an
10 actual pause before the answer, please?
11 THE WITNESS: Sorry.
12 MR. WILLIAMSON: We have the converse this
14 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry for that.
15 MR. WILLIAMSON: My apologies to Mr. Fila.
16 We know how it feels on the other side. Sorry about
18 Q. When you did have an opportunity to view this
19 videotape, did you recognise the locations which were
20 depicted in it?
21 A. Yes, in general terms, yes. Sorry, in
22 general terms, yes, I did.
23 Q. In the three years that you've been
24 affiliated with the Office of the Prosecutor, have you
25 had occasion to familiarise yourself with the Vukovar
2 A. Yes, since August 1996, I was travelling to
3 Vukovar on a regular basis. Since 1996 in August, I
4 arrived for the first time in Vukovar, and the reason
5 why I travelled there was that I participated in
6 exhumations of the mass grave at Ovcara. And then
7 since that time on, I was travelling to Vukovar, as I
8 say, on a regular basis to interview the witnesses
10 Q. Mr. Dzuro, the court reporter has also asked
11 if you can slow down a little bit.
12 A. I'll try.
13 Q. So would it be fair to say that you know the
14 Vukovar area quite well?
15 A. Yeah, that's correct.
16 Q. Now, after the videotape was received by the
17 Prosecution and initially viewed, were you assigned to
18 further investigate what was depicted on the tape?
19 A. Yes, I was asked by the Prosecutor to make
20 further examination to the tape.
21 Q. What exactly did you set out to do in this
23 A. First, I studied the map of the Vukovar
24 region and the city plan of Vukovar and tried to locate
25 the route that Mr. Dokmanovic and the group with him
1 took on the 20th of November. Then I went to this TV
2 unit at the ICTY and, together with my colleague, I
3 printed a number of stills off of this video.
4 Q. I assume, Mr. Dzuro, that the stills were
5 printed at the time before the video unit ran out of
6 copying paper to do this?
7 A. Yes, I have to admit that I actually caused
8 the problem with that because there was a large number
9 of the prints we made, and they didn't have a supply of
10 the paper. So I probably have to apologise to the
12 Q. At this time, I would like to show you a
13 photograph and, if you can, please identify this.
14 MR. WILLIAMSON: I will mark this first
15 photograph as Prosecutor's Exhibit 215.
16 Q. Mr. Dzuro, do you recognise this photograph?
17 A. Yes, that's one of the video stills, the
18 stills I took from the Defence video, and it actually
19 shows the scene at 15.36 when the car is leaving
20 Vukovar. You can see the tree which is very -- is
21 important on the picture, because as a hole, in the top
22 part of the tree, you can see also the electric post on
23 the right side of the road. And then it's almost
24 invisible, but there are two white posts which I will
25 refer to in my future testimony. That's why I took
1 this still because it shows the end of Vukovar.
2 Q. I would like you to take a look at the next
3 photograph which is marked as Prosecutor's Exhibit
5 MR. FILA: Your Honours, I obviously received
6 all those photographs, but it would be nice if
7 Mr. Williamson could just lift the relevant photograph
8 up so that we can see which photograph we are talking
9 about, or to use the ELMO.
10 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think it would be -- I
11 understand Mr. Fila's suggestion. I think perhaps it
12 would be better to display them on the ELMO and then
13 it's clear what we're talking about.
14 Q. Perhaps, Mr. Dzuro, if we can go back for
15 just a moment to the first photograph, 215, and if you
16 can point out on here the characteristics that you just
18 A. I was talking about a tree which is on the
19 right side of the road if you head from Vukovar south
20 towards Negoslavci, and in particular, about the top
21 part of the tree with the hole in the middle, and also
22 the electric post here in the field and you can see
23 here the two white posts (indicated).
24 Q. Now, if you would, look at the next
25 photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit
1 216, and if you could indicate what this is?
2 A. This photograph is a little bit further down
3 the road. We passed all of the trees on the right
4 side, but here you can see more clearly these two white
6 Q. Very well --
7 A. And these pole lines -- I mean, the electric
8 posts on the right side and on the left side.
9 Q. At this time, I would like for you to view
10 the next photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's
11 Exhibit 217, and again, if you can display this on the
12 ELMO, please, and explain what is depicted in this
14 A. This is an image that was depicted at 15.42
15 on the Defence video. You can see the roof of the
16 building with a big gable facing the road. There is a
17 window on the upper part and then you've got a bus
18 which is in between the gentleman who made the film and
19 the building. You can also see the trees which are
20 directly in front of the house, with the branches.
21 Q. At this time, I would like for you to look at
22 the next photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's
23 Exhibit 218.
24 In relation to this photograph, Mr. Dzuro, I
25 have provided you also with a copy of this, as has been
1 provided to everyone else. Do you know where the
2 original of this is?
3 A. The original of the still I gave to
4 Mr. Tabbush because he used it for his analysis, for
5 his expertise, and I believe it is still in his
7 Q. Can you explain to the court what is depicted
8 in this photograph at 218?
9 A. This photograph is very similar to the
10 previous one, again with a roof, the window, and the
11 bus travelling from in between the cameraman and the
12 building. Again, the tree, different angle, slightly
13 different angle with the branches.
14 Q. I would like for you to look at the next
15 photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit
16 219, and if you can explain what is depicted in this
18 A. The photograph, as you can see, it is almost
19 the same as the previous one, but importantly it is in
20 black and white because we were asked by Mr. Tabbush to
21 produce the photograph in black and white because it
22 shows better the branches of the tree.
23 Q. I would like for you now to look at the next
24 photograph which we'll mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit
1 A. This is one of the first stills I took from
2 -- the first set of stills I took from the video. You
3 can see that it's very hazy, and it shows the building
4 which, on a previous photograph, we just saw the roof
5 of that. Here we can see more of that building with
6 the boarded windows on the upper part and then the
7 tree, the branches, and again the bus passing in
8 between the cameraman and the building.
9 Q. Again, in relation to photographs 219 and
10 220, just as 218, I have only provided copies to you,
11 so is the situation the same with these two exhibits
12 that Mr. Tabbush also has the originals?
13 A. That's correct, Mr. Tabbush has the original
14 of this still.
15 Q. At this time, I would show you the next
16 photograph which we will mark as Prosecutor's Exhibit
17 221. Can you explain what is depicted in this
18 photograph, please?
19 A. Again, this is the house, what I was
20 referring to before, with the mid-roof gable facing the
21 road with the windows, the tree -- with the window and
22 tree branches and the bus. The difference between the
23 previous one and this one is that we tried to enhance
24 the quality of that.
25 Q. Where was the enhancement for this done?
1 A. It was at the FBI laboratories in Quantico,
2 Virginia, in the United States of America.
3 Q. Finally, I would like for you to look at the
4 last photograph of the video stills which we will mark
5 as Prosecutor's Exhibit 222, and again this is a
6 situation where there is no original with this, these
7 are just copies. Is the original of this one also with
8 Mr. Tabbush?
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. Mr. Dzuro, can you explain what is depicted
11 in this photograph, please?
12 A. This is probably one of the last scenes which
13 you can see at 15.42. You can see the road here with
14 the buses. What is important, if you can focus on this
15 area on the right-hand side of the road, we have a
16 traffic sign here, there's an electrical or telephone
17 post here, and then in this area, you can see very
18 distinctive top part of the tree right behind the buses
20 Q. Is there also a small shed which is depicted
21 in this photograph?
22 A. That's correct. It's just next to the
23 traffic sign on the right. You can see a little bit
25 Q. Does there appear to be something in front of
1 the shed?
2 A. It appears to be a truck or the trolley of
3 the truck. You can see the wheels here.
4 Q. And, Mr. Dzuro, were all of these video
5 stills that we have just viewed, numbers 216 to 222,
6 were all of these made from the videotape which has
7 been marked as Defence Exhibit 2?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 MR. WILLIAMSON: At this time, I would tender
10 these video stills as Prosecutor's Exhibits 215 through
12 Q. Now, Mr. Dzuro, at some point in time, did
13 you travel back to Vukovar in order to assist in your
14 determination of what locations and objects were
15 depicted on the videotape?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. When was this?
18 A. It was the beginning of February 1998.
19 Q. At that time, did you take the video stills
20 with you when you went to Vukovar?
21 A. Yes, I did, and also I took the map.
22 Q. What did you do when you arrived in Vukovar
23 to try to locate some of these locations?
24 A. First I travelled to the centre of Vukovar,
25 and from there, I travelled south towards Negoslavci on
1 the road, and I inspected the buildings on the right
2 side, on the left side of the road.
3 Q. During the course of travelling from the
4 centre of Vukovar to Negoslavci, were you able to --
5 before I ask that, let me rephrase this.
6 Did you only go as far as Negoslavci, or did
7 you continue to other locations as well?
8 A. Yes, I travelled first to Negoslavci and then
9 I continued to Orolik and Sidski Banovci on the same
11 Q. During this travel between the centre of
12 Vukovar and Sidski Banovci, were you able to find the
13 various locations which are shown on the videotape?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Have you had an opportunity to match up the
16 times and locations depicted on the videotape with the
17 actual locations on a map?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Could you please now look at the map of the
20 Vukovar-Negoslavci area, which we will mark as
21 Prosecutor's Exhibit 223?
22 Again, Mr. Dzuro, I would ask, when you
23 receive this, if you can display this on the ELMO as
25 Mr. Dzuro, have you seen this map before?
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. Have you already identified certain locations
3 on this map and indicated what those locations are?
4 A. Yes, I have. Actually, this is just a part
5 of the map which I used because it shows all the
6 locations which were important for my investigation,
7 and I photocopied that map and marked various locations
8 on this map.
9 Q. Now, what I would like to do is show you
10 portions of the videotape which is marked as Defence
11 Exhibit 2, and if you would be able perhaps to indicate
12 on the ELMO what is being depicted? I understand that
13 it's impossible to view the videotape and the map at
14 the same time, so what we will do is we will show you a
15 portion of the videotape, and then if you can just take
16 the marker and trace on the map where we have seen, and
17 perhaps if this can be shifted down just a little bit
18 where you are covering -- well, I think that's about as
19 far as -- that's good. Where it goes up to right at
20 the centre of Vukovar.
21 At this time, then, I would ask that the
22 videotape, Defence Exhibit 2, be displayed starting at
23 15.17, please?
24 Your Honours, I apologise for the delay, but
25 I'm afraid it's necessary to make his testimony clear
1 to go through in order so ...
2 (Videotape played)
3 MR. WILLIAMSON: I think if we can go back a
4 little bit to 15.17, please?
5 (Videotape played)
6 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I don't have a
7 signal on the monitor. Fine.
8 Freeze the tape now, please.
9 Q. I think we have to go through the segment
10 perhaps because it requires a switch over to the ELMO,
11 if that's correct, which takes a moment of time. Very
12 well. We can do that.
13 All right. If you can explain where we have
14 seen up until this point?
15 A. The vehicle left VELEPROMET, which is located
16 here, and drove north toward the centre of Vukovar, and
17 I left -- I asked for freezing of the tape somewhere in
18 this area (indicated). The road actually goes
19 downhill. This is the top, this crossing, and it goes
20 downhill toward the centre of Vukovar. So now we are
21 in that curve here.
22 Q. If you can move the map down just a little
23 bit? I think that's fine there now. At that point,
24 where the vehicle is travelling, it is travelling in a
25 northerly direction; is that correct?
1 A. That's correct. It travels in a north
2 direction towards the centre of Vukovar.
3 Q. Now if we can continue with the videotape,
5 (Videotape played)
6 A. Freeze it now, please. A bit backward?
7 Stop. Stop it.
8 Q. And, again, if you can refer on the map to
9 where this is located, please?
10 A. This is the Orthodox church which is marked
11 on the map here.
12 Q. This is the point where it is stopped, is
13 right before the Orthodox church; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct. Orthodox church will be on
15 the right side, which will be on the corner of the
17 Q. If we can continue the video now? On the
18 map, just for clarity purposes, the Orthodox church is
19 marked by the red dot, is that correct, right at the
20 very top before the map is discontinued?
21 A. That is correct.
22 MR. WILLIAMSON: If you can continue the
23 video now, please?
24 (Videotape played)
25 MR. WILLIAMSON: At this time, I would ask
1 that the video be moved ahead to 15.30, please.
2 Q. Mr. Dzuro, is it fair to say that in the
3 period between 15.20 and 15.30 that the group is in the
4 centre of Vukovar, which is just right off of the area
5 that is depicted on this map?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And then if we can start again at 15.30 as
8 the vehicle is leaving the centre of Vukovar, and at
9 that point, if you can trace the route as it returns
10 back south?
11 (Videotape played)
12 A. Freeze it, please.
13 Q. If we can go back to the map?
14 A. Again, the Orthodox church, now it's on the
15 left side of the road because the car is travelling in
16 the south direction towards Negoslavci, so, yes, by the
17 same church, the red spot on the map.
18 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we can continue the tape,
20 (Videotape played)
21 A. Freeze it now, please? A little bit back?
22 That's it. Stop.
23 Q. If we can go to the map, please?
24 A. The car is moving on that road south, and the
25 chapel you can see on the left side is right here by
1 the crossing. You see the crossing is here and the
2 chapel is right here.
3 Q. The chapel is depicted on the map again by a
4 small red dot; is that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 MR. WILLIAMSON: If we can continue the video
7 now, please?
8 (Videotape played)
9 A. Freeze it, please. May I continue?
10 Q. Yes, please, if you would?
11 A. The camera is looking actually in this
12 direction towards the street, and the car, the Red
13 Cross car, is parked on the corner of this
15 Q. If we can continue the video now, please?
16 (Videotape played)
17 A. Freeze it now, please.
18 Q. Mr. Dzuro, if you can indicate where that is
19 on the map, please?
20 A. This is the tree I showed previously on the
21 still. This tree is right here.
22 Q. The mulberry tree, being the tree with what
23 appears to be the hole in it; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Okay. Again, if you can refer to the map,
1 and then -- or perhaps I guess the video can start back
2 again at this point, please.
3 (Videotape played)
4 A. Freeze it. Backward, please. This is the
5 roof of the house I was referring previously on the
6 still I took from the video.
7 Q. Before we get to that, Mr. Dzuro, if we can,
8 perhaps if we can go back right to the point where it
9 ends at 15.36 and freeze it there, the video? A little
10 further on forward, please? I think it goes past the
11 tree there. At that point, perhaps if we can just
12 freeze it there?
13 Now, this is very similar to one of the video
14 stills that has already been presented to the court; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, that's correct.
17 Q. In this place which is depicted at 15.36, can
18 you point that out exactly where it is on the map,
19 where we're seeing the video segment end at 15.36?
20 A. I marked it on the map and it is here
22 Q. After we see the scene which has a time
23 indication of 15.36, at that point, are there any
24 houses between that location and Negoslavci?
25 A. No, there are no houses on the road, on the
1 right or left side of the road, there are no houses.
2 Q. So Negoslavci is the next village that one
3 comes to after leaving Vukovar; is that correct?
4 A. If you continue on the same road, that's
6 Q. Which direction is Negoslavci from Vukovar?
7 A. They're almost directly south.
8 Q. Now, the next segment, after the one with the
9 time indication of 15.36, I believe shows a time of
10 15.42; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Now, if we can show the clip, 15.42, please?
13 (Videotape played)
14 A. Freeze it, please? A little bit back. More
15 than that. More. A little bit more. Okay. That's
17 Q. What is shown happening in this clip from
18 15.42? What do we see occurring?
19 A. As you can see, the buses coming from Vukovar
20 south on the road, between Vukovar and Negoslavci --
21 Q. Just to make that absolutely clear. They're
22 coming from the direction of Vukovar travelling south?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Were you able to determine the location where
25 this was filmed?
1 A. Yes, I was.
2 Q. Would you please indicate on the map exactly
3 where you determined the segment from 15.42 to have
4 been filmed?
5 A. It's here on the map (indicated). I marked
6 it on the map. I put a label toward that location
7 depicted as 15.42.
8 Q. How did you make this determination? Perhaps
9 if we can go back to the video, it might be helpful.
10 A. Please. There is a --
11 Q. You're not going to be able to point to it,
12 you're just going to have to describe it, I'm afraid,
13 or perhaps if it would be helpful for you to use the
14 video still at this point and maybe to point out
15 certain things.
16 A. If I may, Your Honours?
17 Q. I believe the appropriate video still which
18 matches the photograph, or the part of the video we're
19 seeing, is Prosecutor's Exhibit 222.
20 Again, Mr. Dzuro, my question to you is:
21 What characteristics did you look at which helped you
22 to determine that the location that we see in the video
23 at 15.42 is, in fact, the spot that you have marked on
24 the map?
25 A. First I will refer to the previous stills.
1 The building which is on the right side of the road
2 travelling from Vukovar to Negoslavci, which is the
3 brick building with the gable facing the road and the
4 trees in front of it, and then also here, the electric
5 post, the tree above the buses, the traffic sign in
6 that location, and the white building, the building is
7 like a shed (indicated).
8 Q. Again, perhaps if we can look at Prosecutor's
9 Exhibit 217, and you just made reference to the house
10 with the gable facing the front. If you can perhaps
11 show this on the ELMO and explain what you are talking
12 about there with the pointer?
13 Again, if you can point to this, please, and
14 talk about the characteristics here that helped you to
15 identify the location?
16 A. That's the roof of the building with the
17 gable facing the road and the tree is very close to the
19 Q. In trying to locate this spot, did you go to
20 any other locations other than just in Vukovar?
21 A. Yes, I continued driving to Negoslavci,
22 Orolik, and Sidski Banovci, and the same thing as I did
23 in Vukovar, inspected both right and left side of the
24 road and trying to locate some other building and --
25 not only the building but the trees, the telephone,
1 electric posts, which will show me that the location
2 could be there.
3 Q. In doing this, in going to Negoslavci and
4 Orolik and up and down this road between Vukovar, did
5 you find any other location where all of these
6 combination of factors were present?
7 A. No, I didn't find any. There is none.
8 Q. In fact, as you went through Negoslavci, what
9 did you find to be different or distinctive to
10 Negoslavci that we do not see in this film segment?
11 A. It will be possible to see it on the video
12 that I made, but in general terms, in the area on the
13 right and left side of the road, there is a distinctive
14 ditch with reinforced bridges for the driveways. Also,
15 the buildings are much further down, set much further
16 down from the road, and then there were trees in a big
17 part of Negoslavci, evergreen trees mixed with the leaf
18 trees, which also doesn't appear on this picture,
19 electric lines which are connected to the roofs of the
20 buildings which again, on this building, you can't see
22 Q. Mr. Dzuro, let me ask you: If one is
23 travelling south from Vukovar in the direction of
24 Negoslavci at the location depicted at 15.36, is it
25 possible to get to the location depicted at 15.42
1 without making any stops, turns, or changes in
3 A. No, it's impossible.
4 Q. In fact, it requires a complete reversal of
5 direction, a 180-degree turn, does it not?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 MR. WILLIAMSON: Your Honours, it's 5.00
8 now. We do have a fair amount of testimony still left,
9 so perhaps this would be a good breaking point.
10 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. All right. So we
11 adjourn now and reconvene tomorrow at 10.15.
12 --- Whereupon proceedings adjourned at
13 5.00 p.m., to the reconvened on
14 Thursday, the 18th day of June,
15 1998, at 10.15 a.m.