1 Thursday, 1 August 2002
2 [Closed session]
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are in open session now again. Before we
1 resume --
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps it is good that since we are now in
4 open session, that we call the case again, Madam Registrar, although we
5 did that already in closed session.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Case Number IT-98-29-T, the Prosecutor versus
7 Stanislav Galic.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Before we resume the testimony of the witness, I would first like
10 to inform the Defence that upon their request to reargue the admission
11 of the report of Mr. Higgs, that five minutes will be granted to that
12 just before the next break. And we still have to decide upon the
13 admission of the documents in respect of witness Arifagic. We already
14 have listed all the documents.
15 Madam Registrar, if you would please closely follow the order. I
16 am trying to keep the order as used yesterday, that would mean that
17 perhaps we do it just by putting together similar documents, that would
18 mean, 3738 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, are the first documents we
19 will have to decide upon. These are all death certificates.
20 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, would you like
22 us to make our objections now or at the very end.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I would rather do it by type of documents. So we
24 have now all the death certificates as I just mentioned. If there are
25 any objections, please submit them to the Court.
1 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Gladly, thank you very much.
2 Mr. Chairman the Defence wishes that document to be rejected and as a
3 consequence we can't accept it for a whole range of reasons. The first
4 being that in most of these documents, that we have classified
5 differently, there are no signatures from no authority whatsoever, either
6 of medical nature or something indicating municipality or an official
7 from the municipality, somebody in charge of the official registers of
8 both the living and the dead.
9 The other thing is that in the case of some documents bearing a
10 signature, I don't believe that that signature had been certified or
11 authenticated by anyone, either from the -- either a Registrar or a
12 doctor authorised to do so. Nothing at all. And something else, very
13 often these documents, or rather the copies of the documents, are of such
14 quality that they are hardly legible and as far as we are concerned,
15 completely useless. And so due to the first two points which are points
16 of substance and the other one which is point of form, we would like for
17 these documents to be rejected. I am just going to consult with my
18 colleague to make sure that I haven't forgotten anything.
19 [Defence counsel confer]
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. It is being pointed out
21 to me that the R and S certificates are not mentioned on your list, so we
22 will come to those later on.
23 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... of the death
24 certificates I just mentioned are totally illegible.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No, I didn't say that the
1 certificates as such were totally illegible, I just said that some parts
2 are totally illegible.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so if you said, "en partie" that means
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, quite.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then the next Exhibit would be 3738L from London.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will just consult for a
9 [Defence counsel confer]
10 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Once again, Mr. President,
11 the same problem here. In other words, we have got a documents which are
12 extremely difficult to read. Sometimes partially illegible and apparently
13 there was -- there is no certified signature.
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... M, which is a
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Once again, we have got a
17 list. It doesn't bear any sort of certified signature at all. And due
18 to this reason, we oppose it being tendered. Apart from that, I would
19 just like to draw your attention to something else, a rather important
20 fact. This list includes some purely subjective and biased elements and
21 you will understand in a second. Let me just quote by way of example
22 this one point. In the second line which is just below the name Dobrinja
23 if you can read it, there is a reference of the cause of death and it
24 says "sniper fire, 4294." Sniper bullet means in French a bullet coming
25 from a sniper. But, as a matter of fact, and it will be proven in a
1 minute, no doubt and bullet and to repeat it in English, the bullet, as
2 we call it in English, I can't tell you whether it is a sniper who had
3 fired it or a soldier or whoever else. So this list includes elements of
4 biased judgment which are actually confusing the real state of affairs.
5 Because a bullet as such, can't tell you whether it comes from a sniper or
6 anyone else. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... 3738N, Nicholas.
8 Next document would be P3738 -- yes.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Now on 38M, we will come
10 back to that later. The Defence tried to do their best in order to
11 understand this. Well, we don't really know, Mr. Chairman, how we can
12 understand. I don't know what you've got here. I have got this copy.
13 This is what I have. And if you manage to translate this, well, I will
14 pay my respects to the translator, because that would mean they have an
15 excellent eyesight. Because these documents are totally illegible.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Next document 3738P.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could you just repeat the
19 JUDGE ORIE: I am following the order that was used yesterday.
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] We will come back -- no, we
21 have got a "P" here in fact. I do apologise. The same as for the
22 previous document.
23 JUDGE ORIE: 3738R from Rotterdam.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] On document "R" Mr. President,
25 we have documents there which bear no official seal and no certified
1 signature, that is to say, no signature by a doctor as such who would be
2 competent to make these statements or a public official. As a
3 consequence, this should be rejected and that applies to document "S" and
4 that will gain us some time.
5 JUDGE ORIE: S as in Simon, the next one is 3738T, I think it is,
6 yes, which is a list, last two digit ERN 78 and following.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone for the speaker,
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am going to check it out.
10 Mr. President, we are raising objections here with reference to the poor
11 quality of the copies we were given. As far as the Defence is concerned,
12 it is therefore impossible for us to check whether these people actually
13 do exist because quite often their addresses or any other type of
14 identification is illegible. For example, on page two or page three, you
15 can't actually read the cause of death. And apart from that, as in the
16 case of the other documents of this sort we consider that the information
17 provided is clearly biased which makes these documents highly suspect.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Next document would be 3748.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] The same comment there on the
20 lack of certification with reference to the document itself in terms of
21 the competence that should be displayed.
22 JUDGE ORIE: I will see with the Registrar. Is there a
23 translation of this document? No translation tendered.
24 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, yesterday I sought permission
25 of the Court to show the document to the witness and question --
1 JUDGE ORIE: You are not tendering?
2 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I was not planning to tender it as an exhibit,
3 but -- we could provide the translations during the course of the day, if
4 I am permitted.
5 JUDGE ORIE: We will then not give a decision yet on this document
6 and we will wait for a translation. And then an indication of whether you
7 want to -- I do understand that you want to tender that document, but then
8 we need a translation.
9 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes.
10 JUDGE ORIE: The next one would be 3369A.
11 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Here, too, the copies are
12 lacking in clarity, but what we are unable to read are certain words, for
13 example in the second line -- oh, no the fourth line referring to the
14 diagnosis, and the second line, for example, in the next paragraph.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but I see that the Defence does not object
16 apart from that it notes that there are certain parts that are less
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Right.
19 JUDGE ORIE: P3747, may I take it that the Defence objects on the
20 basis of illegibility?
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Not just that, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... would you give
23 them, please.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. President, we have
25 got certain things which are inadmissible. You were told yesterday at
1 some length that the last -- the latest version of the document 3747.1
2 was also the same in its form as the one enclosed to the document itself,
3 that is to say, the previous translation.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... present
5 translation of the translation tendered is the last version.
6 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] I am aware of that,
7 Mr. President. What I am trying to say is -- refers to the reading of
8 both documents and this is an important point, in fact. If you take a
9 look at the first document, that is to say the enclosed one, you can see
10 that the fourth name --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the first translation we are talking about?
12 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. I am referring to the
13 first translation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The first translation is not tendered and has been
15 removed and is replaced by the second version.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes Mr. President. I have
17 grasped that. What I am trying to say is that if we compare these two
18 documents which we have at least received --
19 JUDGE ORIE: The only issue is whether the translation tendered
20 is an acceptable translation.
21 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. President. I
22 am going to rephrase this. According to the second translation, well,
23 since the names there are not the same as the names indicated in the
24 first translation, we cannot help wondering about this. Why? Why aren't
25 the names the same? If you wish me to quote an example I will be glad to
1 provide them, if not, it doesn't matter. Not just the names, but I have
2 seen that in the first translation, there are things which could have
3 been translated so there is a clear text somewhere.
4 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... that a
5 comparison between the first and the second translation is not to be
6 discussed at this moment.
7 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Apart from that, that document
8 is totally illegible, for the most part. And my third point, this is a
9 document which seems to be an artificial construction. And this is
10 something that we have pointed out to in the past and the Judges have
11 seen it, the dates, for example for as long as -- for as much as we can
12 read them are fabricated. For example, there is a reference to this
13 gentleman called Malicbegovic and we simply don't understand how come all
14 of a sudden, there was a date of the 28th of July 1992 and all of a sudden
15 is inserted into a list which refers to the date of the 1st of June 1993.
16 And from that point of view it appears to us to be particularly striking
17 that apparently this list should be referring to the events of the 1st of
18 June and then all of a sudden, there is this different date which comes up
19 to. So to us, this is an indication that this list had been interfered
20 with and therefore we object to it.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that where I mentioned these documents,
22 that the translations were discussed as well since you made objection
23 against one or more of the translations. I take it that has been dealt
24 with as well.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, quite.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Mahindaratne, would you like to respond to the
3 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Yes, Mr. President.
4 Mr. President, with regard to the objection based on illegibility,
5 if each and every document is taken, most of it is legible. It is that I
6 can say with regard to Exhibit number P3747 is certainly illegible in
7 certain areas of the document. The whole purpose of tendering this as an
8 exhibit was not to go into contents, Mr. President, but to establish that
9 on the 1st of June 1993, so many patients were admitted to the hospital
10 which can be quite clearly seen by the document itself.
11 And in addition to which, the fact that some areas of the
12 document is illegible, does not invalidate those legible areas, the
13 contents that can be deciphered in the legible areas. I say that the
14 objection is without merit on that basis. And the Defence counsel made a
15 sweeping objections to all the documents tendered through this witness,
16 but if each and every document is gone into separately, Mr. President,
17 Your Honours, will see that all are not as illegible as the Defence
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
20 MS. MAHINDARATNE: With regard to the absence of signatures of
21 the doctor or a person in certain documents, there are only I think five
22 documents that were pointed out to the witness. The witness clearly
23 stated that she compared these documents with the original documents and
24 that she was satisfied with the authenticity of these copies. And she,
25 the witness has signed these documents certifying the authenticity of
1 these documents. And one must consider these documents in the backdrop
2 of the circumstances in which these documents were created and therefore
3 I move that these documents be admitted in evidence. Thank you.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Mahindaratne.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission
7 I would just like to point out in response to my colleague, that the
8 witness in the opinion of the Defence, and we had carefully listened to
9 what has been said she never said that she had compared this document
10 with the original document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I had in mind that we would decide upon the
12 objection and the response, but if there is any specific response to this
13 observation, Ms. Mahindaratne, please tell us.
14 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Mr. President, as I recall the witness
15 repeated that she did compare the documents and that she was satisfied
16 with the authenticity of the documents, that is how I recall. But I do
17 not want to waste the time of the Court.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE ORIE: I will give a decision on most of the documents
20 right away. As I mentioned before, we are waiting for a translation of
21 P3748. We will not give a decision yet on P3738O, Oslo.
22 Document P3747 will not be admitted as it -- on the basis of its
23 illegibility, but the Prosecution will have an opportunity to file or to
24 submit a -- this document but then better legible and we will then
25 decide on whether that copy could be admitted into evidence. But as it
1 is now, in this present form, it is not admitted. All the --
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Submission should not be later than the 26th of
5 MS. MAHINDARATNE: I beg Your Honour's pardon?
6 JUDGE ORIE: The submission of a better copy or -- of this
7 document P3747 should not be later than the 26th of August.
8 MS. MAHINDARATNE: Very well, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: All the other documents are admitted into evidence.
10 Then is the Prosecution ready to resume the --
11 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President. The witness is AK.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, AK. And we first have to turn into private
13 session, face distortion and we are using the pseudonym.
14 [Private session]
13 Pages 12797-12860 – redacted – private session
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we are in open session again. Mr. Stamp.
6 MR. STAMP: If it please you, Mr. President, may I enquire if
7 before we move on to the discussions in respect to the expert report, if
8 perhaps we could tender P3748.1 with the translation --
9 JUDGE ORIE: But perhaps we first given an opportunity, as I
10 indicated, to Mr. Piletta-Zanin to reargue the -- oh, is it about this
12 MR. STAMP: No, it is not.
13 JUDGE ORIE: No. Then I would first like to give the opportunity
14 to the Defence to argue on the Higgs report. Mr. Piletta-Zanin or
15 Ms. Pilipovic.
16 Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes. We are talking about
18 the expert right? Thank you. First of all, thank you very much for
19 granting us the opportunity to reopen this matter. We would simply like
20 to mention with reference to expert Higgs, we would just like to say that
21 in the case of this expertise, we would have to apply the case history of
22 the case law and very often you've expressed wish to see documents here
23 where there is no contamination or interference. In the course of the
24 cross-examination of expert witness Higgs, Mr. Ierace asked him about the
25 first two events, I believe, and he asked him not to take account of the
1 witness accounts which had been submitted to him at the time. That is to
2 say, witnesses A, B, C on the one hand and B, C, on the other hand I
3 believe. As a consequence what we would like to ask quite simply is for
4 this expertise, every time we see it in writing that there is a reference
5 to these witness accounts with reference to which the Prosecution wanted
6 them to be excluded, for them to be automatically deleted from the text
7 of the expertise. In much the same way as we have done in other similar
8 situations for example, bombs, that is to say bombs dropped from planes,
9 which were excluded from the shelling of Sarajevo. We have done the same
10 thing and Prosecution should present us with a streamlined document in
11 this way. And thank you for granting me the opportunity refer to this.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, this in fact not a new argument. This
13 is an argument which Mr. Piletta-Zanin advanced two days ago. He has
14 added nothing. The report, of course, is prepared on the basis of
15 material which may not ultimately reflect the evidence in the trial for a
16 number of reasons. It would be a nonsense to suggest that expert reports
17 which, according to the rules, must be filed in some cases, months before
18 the witness gives evidence can take into account the vagaries of the trial
19 timetable and of course work on the report must begin months before then
20 and, therefore, cannot be comprised entirely, if at all, of the trial
22 Secondly, Mr. President, this is offered as a reason to not
23 tender the report. The report expresses itself to be based on certain
24 material. In relation to the first shelling incident it is now apparent
25 that the Prosecution will not be calling two of its witnesses which were
1 relied upon in the form of witness statements. I have clearly drawn from
2 the expert witness his opinion in the absence of those two witness
3 statements. Therefore the Trial Chamber is now aware of what his relevant
4 evidence is and is still assisted by his original report in relation to
5 the first schedule where that is still relevant.
6 In relation to the second shelling incident, just a matter of a
7 few minutes ago, certain evidence which was relevant came before the
8 Trial Chamber, I will say no more, and we still await a decision from the
9 Trial Chamber in relation to the second questionable material. Therefore,
10 it may well be that by the time the Prosecution closes its case references
11 A, B, and C, are admitted and therefore that part of the report stands
13 If it transpires that one of those three sources is not, then the
14 Trial Chamber is properly equipped to make the necessary adjustment to
15 the conclusions of the witness. Thank you, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. May I ask you one thing: In respect of
17 shelling incident one, do you say that the oral testimony more or less
18 replaces what is in the report or?
19 MR. IERACE: There are some aspects of the written report which
20 are still relevant. There's a simple example, the first sentence. And it
21 is a very simple matter for the Defence, the Trial Chamber to deduce what
22 sentences are still are relevant and what are not, on the basis that
23 certain sentences clearly do not depend on references B and C. It is not
24 a complex exercise, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. IERACE: To give a second example, the second sentence also
2 stands unaffected and so on. And in any event, in a summary form, the
3 witness gave his opinion based just on the forensic report. His evidence
4 was clearly to the effect that he understood he was limited to the
5 examination by Mr. Houdet, and his own examination of what remained of
6 the craters when he went to Sarajevo. So there is no problem in a common
7 sense way in deducing what his opinion, putting to one side sources B and
8 C was.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I understand your position. As you will
10 understand, we will not immediately give a decision on that and look to
11 the matter in more detail.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, whilst I am here, might I briefly
13 raise a timetable issue. The next witness will be Mr. Cekic, pursuant --
14 who will give his evidence pursuant to the 92 bis decision. In other
15 words, he will be made available for cross-examination by the stipulated
16 period of time followed by the last witnesses in the Prosecution case,
17 the sniping experts, Jonathan Hinchliffe. There are some other matters
18 which we need to attend to before the Prosecution closes its case. Two
19 matters that immediately come to mind are firstly the tender from the bar
20 table by the Prosecution of I think it is around 17 documents and one
21 videotape. I don't know whether the Defence proposes to object to any of
22 that material. If so, we will need to allocate some time for legal
23 argument. And secondly, depending upon the decision of the Trial Chamber
24 in respect of the statement of Zoran Lesic there are some annexures to
25 be provided consequent to that statement. I think that's the 92 bis
1 statement. Thank you, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ierace.
3 Yes. Of course, we will have to find time for that. These are
4 issues still outstanding. We will find the proper time for it. It would
5 not be now. I think we would rather now proceed to give you the
6 opportunity to -- at least to give the Defence the opportunity to
7 cross-examine Mr. Cekic.
8 MR. IERACE: Mr. President could I respectfully suggest and I
9 appreciate the time the Trial Chamber has made available today, that if
10 by the end of the day we clearly have a problem for tomorrow, then
11 perhaps we could sit a little early tomorrow morning, perhaps 8.30. Just
12 a suggestion.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but sitting earlier would engage a lot of
14 practical things such as transportation of the accused, availability of
15 interpreters, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know whether this could be
16 done but at least your suggestion is clear and we will see whether the
17 Chamber is willing to follow the suggestion and whether the Chamber is
18 able to follow your suggestion.
19 Then, Mr. Usher, could you escort Mr. Cekic into the courtroom.
20 Time set for cross-examination was not more than one hour and a half in
21 our 92 bis decision.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 WITNESS: SMAIL CEKIC
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 MR. STAMP: Although the 92 bis papers have been filed, there are
1 discreet parcels just relevant to his 92 bis proper. These are those
2 copies of the papers that were filed --
3 JUDGE ORIE: What -- that is the statement and the annexes?
4 MR. STAMP: Indeed, this is a complete 92 bis package in one --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, they have been filed. I have got hopefully the
6 same in front of me. If you could please provide them to the Registrar
7 so that it could assist us.
8 Mr. Cekic, I take it. Can you hear me in a language you
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court, the Rules of
12 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that you
13 will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May I
14 invite you to make that declaration.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
16 speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much Mr. Cekic, please be seated.
18 Mr. Cekic the Prosecution has presented to the Chamber a copy of
19 your written statement and some annexes, and the Defence has expressed
20 its wish to cross-examine you on that statement. And the Chamber granted
21 the request of the Defence. So, therefore, you will be cross-examined on
22 this statement by the Defence. But perhaps first we distribute the
24 Ms. Pilipovic, is it you or is it Mr. Piletta-Zanin who will
25 cross-examine the witness?
1 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will start the
2 cross-examination and with your permission, my colleague might add a
3 couple of questions.
4 Cross-examined by Ms. Pilipovic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Cekic.
6 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. Mr. Cekic, can you tell us where you live and where you work at
8 the moment?
9 A. I live in Sarajevo and I work at the University of Sarajevo at
10 the faculty of political science in Sarajevo. I am a lecturer in two
11 subjects, and I am also the director of the institute for the study of
12 the crimes against humanity and international law and I have been there
13 from the very setting up of that institute in 1992, until today. That
14 means at this very moment.
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic.
16 Mr. Cekic, since you have told us that you are the director of
17 this institute for the investigation of crimes against humanity and
18 international law which was set up in 1992, can you tell us during what
19 period of time, in what month of the year 1992 it was set up?
20 A. The institute was set up on the 4th of September 1992 and on the
21 23rd of October of that same year at the meeting of the government of the
22 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina presided over by the deputy head of
23 government Professor Dr. Zlatko Lagumdzija, I was appointed the director
24 of that institute and a couple of days later, I got a letter of
25 appointment in written form confirming my appointment as the director of
1 that newly founded scientific institution.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic.
3 Given that you have told us in October 1992 the deputy prime
4 minister appointed you as director, could you tell us how this institute
5 was formed and on whose initiative it was formed?
6 A. It was formed on the initiative of a suggestion that was made by
7 a certain number of scientific and professional workers at the time in
8 Sarajevo this was above all the case because at the time in Sarajevo
9 which was under siege, the civilian population in particular suffered and
10 it was decided that a scientific institute should be formed, a scientific
11 and research institute, which would be involved in the research, the
12 analysis, the processing of all forms of crime, all forms of crime that
13 had been perpetrated or had been perpetrated at the time in
15 Q. Mr. Cekic, would you agree with me that up until the time when
16 the conflict broke out, Sarajevo was a multi-ethnic city? And when I say
17 "multi-ethnic" what I said was a multi-ethnic town, I mean that various
18 peoples lived in that town and peoples whose religion was different?
19 A. Yes, I am aware of that. I didn't understand your question very
20 well. Are you asking me whether I am aware of that fact?
21 Q. Do you agree with me?
22 A. Yes, of course. We can also talk about the ethnic composition of
23 the population in approximate terms et cetera.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic. Was your principle formed on this basis
25 too? We are talking about the multi-ethnic principle.
1 A. Yes, it really was formed on the basis of that principle. And
2 that this is the case if you so wish, I can mention a few facts.
3 Q. Mr. Cekic, could you tell us on what scientific principle was
4 your institute supposed to work, what you have referred to as scientific
5 truth, in your opinion how did it --
6 A. As I said, the institute was formed as a scientific institute,
7 which means that it was involved in and is involved in research into
8 crimes and to carry out this research it applies scientific methodology
9 which can be found in sciences. This methodology can be found in sciences
10 because this institute was a place where a wide groups of scientists were
11 based, lawyers, demographers, psychologists, various professionals, this
12 also includes a certain number of doctors, gynecologists given -- taken
13 into account certain crimes that were perpetrated. So it was based on the
14 scientific methodology above all because the institute later on and it
15 still is today, it is a scientific institute which is a member of the
16 university in Sarajevo. So like all other faculties, and a certain number
17 of other institutes, such as the institute for history, for languages, for
18 genetics, et cetera, et cetera.
19 Q. Mr. Cekic, since you have told us that you are appointed as
20 director of that institute, could you tell us whether you directed that
21 institute, or was a body formed at the level of an institute and if so
22 what was the nature of this body which took decisions and supervised the
23 work of that institute?
24 A. At the time of the institute's establishment and later on, today
25 too, there are management bodies within the institute, leadership bodies,
1 and there are supervisory bodies. If we are talking about management or
2 administrative bodies, it is necessary to bear in mind the following
3 fact: This in fact concerns an administrative committee which was also
4 appointed the first administrative committee was appointed by the
5 government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the 23rd of January
6 1993. And the chairman of that committee was the well known and well
7 respected sociologist Professor Ivan Cvitkovic. If you want me to tell
8 you his nationality is he was a Croat.
9 Q. Yes, Mr. Cekic, that is why I asked you that question. If there
10 was an administrative body which administered the institute, do you want
11 to tell us that that administrative body was formed and based on a
12 multi-ethnic principle?
13 A. Yes. By all means. In addition to the respected chairman, the
14 members of that administrative committee were the following: His deputy
15 was Professor Atif Purivatra among the members was the well known --
16 certainly you have certainly heard about this name, his is a well known
17 scientist and a well known politician, Mirko Pejanovic and then Professor
18 Nijaz Durakovic, Professor Ivan Lovrenovic and another two members,
19 Dr. Becir Macic and Dr. Munib Maglajlic so if we are talking about the
20 administrative bodies, it is necessary to say that it administered the
21 scientific institute and its competence was very wide. And the
22 administrative committee replaced and could -- it could replace the
23 director. So the director was held accountable for his work by the
24 administrative body, by the administrative committee.
25 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic, now that you have given us the names of the
1 people who were members of the administrative committee and institute, I
2 understand that there were Croats and Serbs and Muslims in this body so
3 that Mr. Mirko Pejanovic as you said was a Serb, he was a member of that
4 institute. Mr. Cekic you told us that you could tell us what the ethnic
5 composition of the population of Sarajevo was, we will be referring to the
6 year 1992. So could you tell us what it was like at the beginning of the
7 year 1992.
8 A. To answer your question, I will make use of approximate
9 information from the last population census which was carried out in
11 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic. Before you answer my question concerning
12 the national composition, the ethnic composition of the population,
13 according to the census from 1991, I would like you to tell me whether
14 you are aware of the fact that according to the census of 1991, was it
15 necessary for that population census to be verified by certain institutes,
16 be that at a republic or a federal level? Do you have any knowledge about
18 A. As far as I know the results of that census were subsequently
19 made public and those results were published by the statistics institute
20 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. Do you know whether at that time, and I am referring to 1991, and
22 at that time Yugoslavia still existed, the relevant federal institute for
23 statistics, did that body verify the census apart from the fact that you
24 said that you knew that it was the republican institute of statistics for
1 A. No, I don't know, but I don't think that that was done, but I am
2 not sure.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic.
4 Sir, let me return to my question before we start talking about
5 the census. And this regards the national -- the ethnic composition of
6 the population in Sarajevo in 1991 and at the beginning of 1992.
7 A. Well, let's be clear. According to the results that we have
8 discussed --
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Well, as I said, I shall provide you with approximate information.
11 I can't provide you with exact figures. With regard to the number of
12 inhabitants in Sarajevo, that is an area which made up the town of
13 Sarajevo, 10 municipalities. There were 527.000 and a bit, whether it
14 was a bit more or not, I am not quite sure right now. If we are talking
15 about the ethnic composition of a 250.000 or 259.000 and something and a
16 bit, were Muslims. And in that would be 49.3 or .6 per cent.
17 I really can't tell you the exact number of Serbs. It was a
18 little less and the percentage of Croats was even less. And then there
19 was citizens who had declared themselves to be Yugoslavs and there were
20 also -- there was also a category which included others.
21 Q. Mr. Cekic, on the basis of your answer, we can conclude that in
22 the area of the town of Sarajevo, the Muslims were in the majority and
23 the Serbs?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Mr. Cekic at a certain time in 1992, so we are also talking
1 about the beginning of 1992, did the ethnic composition of the population
2 in Sarajevo change in these 10 municipalities? And when I say, did a
3 change occur, as far as you know, did any parts of the population move
4 from one municipality into other municipalities? Did this factor, moving
5 from one municipality to another, change the ethnic composition of
7 A. Well, look, if we are going to discuss these facts, yes, I think
8 there were such cases. However, in my opinion, and up to now, no one has
9 carried out a scientific or any other kind of analysis in order to be
10 able to provide a complete answer to this question of yours. But what I
11 can claim, what I can say, what I am aware of is the following: Towards
12 the end of 1991 and especially at the beginning of 1992, a certain number
13 of Serbs from the town of Sarajevo from certain parts, from the Vogosca
14 settlement, were I was -- where I lived in 1991 and until May 1992 a
15 certain number of Serbs left their houses left their flats without this
16 being noticed. And this was particularly evident in the evening hours
17 and at night. We noticed this on the basis of the behaviour of our Serb
18 neighbours with whom we were on very good terms. We lived together with
19 them on very good terms. And this is something that we noticed.
20 But, as I said, no one carried out any kind of research into this
21 matter so that it is not possible to provide a serious answer.
22 Q. So your institute didn't answer?
23 A. No my institute hasn't researched this -- hasn't researched this
24 up until now. That is an important subject.
25 Q. When you said that Muslims noticed that the Serbian population
1 was leaving certain parts of the city do you connect these movements,
2 this moving out, would you agree that this is the result of the multiparty
3 elections and the referendum which was held in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
4 March, that is to say in February?
5 A. No, I wouldn't agree with that. Because that phenomenon appeared
6 even before the referendum. But you must bear in mind the fact that in
7 November in Bosnia-Herzegovina a plebiscite was held, a plebiscite of the
8 Serbian people which had been organised by the Serbian Democratic Party
9 in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And what happened in the Assembly, if you
10 remember, it is what Mr. Karadzic said in the Assembly, he made those
11 threats so there was tension --
12 Q. I apologise. But was that tension related to the formation of
13 the Muslim and Croat coalition?
14 A. I couldn't provide you with a full answer to that question.
15 According to the results of my research, that coalition really didn't
16 exist and I say it didn't exist because the HDZ in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as
17 soon as November 1991, on the 18th of November, 1991, to be precise,
18 formed a collaborationist entity which is called Croatia community of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was formed by the regime in Zagreb.
20 Q. Very well, Mr. Cekic, you say that is the result of your
21 research. But let me ask you the following: Were you a member of the
22 Serbian -- of the Party of Democratic Action?
23 A. For a certain period of time I was formally a member of that
24 party and I say "formally" and that was at a time when at the town level
25 that party was led by the well known professor Sefer Halilovic. He is
1 now the president of the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Cekic.
3 When you were asked whether you were a member of the SDA -- well,
4 could you tell us whether you are aware of the fact that at the time the
5 SDA in the 1990s formed the Patriotic League, which was a sort of military
6 structure and functioned within the framework of the SDA?
7 A. That fact is something I am aware of. But I learned about it a
8 lot later. I say a lot later and in far greater detail, especially in
9 the last few years or to be more precise, this year because at my
10 university a certain number of scientific reports are being defended and
11 they deal with political and military situations in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
12 The military and political conditions in Bosnia-Herzegovina. And one of
13 those reports was recently published at my university where I work and I
14 was a president of the committee which listened to this work, this
15 master's thesis being defended.
16 Q. Mr. Cekic, we spoke about the appearance of parties in the area
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1990 and 1991. We were referring to national
18 parties. Could you tell us in what sense did the ethnic composition of
19 the population change in 1990 and 1991 in the municipalities of the town
20 of Sarajevo in these 10 municipalities we have mentioned, in your opinion.
21 So my specific question is: In your opinion, was there a division of
22 municipalities that was carried out on the basis of the national, the
23 ethnic composition of the population?
24 A. The results of the research carried out on the part of our
25 institute revealed that at the time, no division had been carried out on
1 the basis of the ethnic composition of the population, but that in fact,
2 up until -- but in fact there was a division of individual municipalities
3 and this was because of the pressure exerted by military force and to be
4 more specific, by the JNA.
5 Q. Mr. Cekic we spoke about changes in the population, in the
6 ethnic composition of the population in the 10 municipalities of the town
7 of Sarajevo and you agreed with me that at a certain period of time in
8 1991 and 1992, some Serbs, Serbs moved out from one part of the town of
9 Sarajevo. At that time, did any Muslims move into certain parts of the
10 town of Sarajevo?
11 A. As far as I know and I think that this is something that I am
12 really familiar with, nothing like this happened until -- well, could you
13 clarify the question, please. If we are talking about the Vogosca and I
14 know the situation there the best, my very good friends and neighbours
15 who left their houses, no one moved into those areas. No one moved in.
16 No one moved into their houses or flats or to the places where they had
17 lived up until that point in time.
18 Q. Did you leave Vogosca?
19 A. I left Vogosca on the 5th of May 1992, in exceptionally difficult
21 Q. Mr. Cekic, perhaps we shall return to that question later. You
22 as a scientist, could you tell us, given that you told us that you could
23 tell us what the ethnic composition of the population of the town of
24 Sarajevo was, can you tell us with regard to the municipality of Vogosca,
25 what the ethnic composition of the population was there?
1 A. I think that over 50 per cent of the population was Muslim.
2 Q. At a certain point in time in 1992 and I am referring to March and
3 April, were barricades set up in the area of the municipality of Vogosca?
4 A. Yes. That was in the area of the municipality of Vogosca and it
5 was particularly noticeable there. And let me tell you, I was a witness
6 of these barricades being erected. I saw them especially the barricades
7 that had been set up at the exit from the municipality of Vogosca, when
8 you leave the town, go down the river of Bosna or towards Zenica or
9 Tuzla, when you go towards crossroads - allow me please to finish this
10 sentence - and from the end of 1991, there were JNA units in that area.
11 And the JNA had really organised those barricades and apart from the fact
12 that I personally saw this, the original documents that can prove this is
13 really correct, very reliable documents from certain units and commands in
14 the JNA.
15 Q. Mr. Cekic, since you have answered my question and told me what --
16 who, in your opinion, set these barricades up, do you know whether certain
17 paramilitary formations which were in the municipality of Vogosca, do you
18 know whether they were also -- whether they also put up barricades, so
19 such units which consisted of Muslims and was there a division in the
20 municipality of Vogosca?
21 A. I am really not aware of the existence of such paramilitary
22 formations, but I do know that the most serious problems emerged in the
23 police station in the area of the municipality of Vogosca.
24 Q. Mr. Cekic, can you tell us what the ethnic composition of the
25 population in the municipality of Vogosca is right now? You said that at
1 the time in 1992 the Muslims were in the majority. So the ethnic
2 composition of the population in the municipality of Vogosca consisted of
3 Serbs. They were also in the majority there. Can you tell us what the
4 ethnic composition of the population is now?
5 A. Yes, but I can't give you exact figures, exact information
6 because from 1991 up until today, population census has not been made.
7 But what is correct is the following: Even today in the area of the
8 municipality of Vogosca, the Bosniaks represented a greater percentage
9 than the percentage they represented in the census in 1991. And if you
10 like, I can explain the reasons for this.
11 Q. Mr. Cekic, thank you.
12 But if I tell you that according to the census of 1991, 51 per
13 cent of the population was Muslim and 36 per cent was Serb, in this
14 situation, can you provide us with a percentages and tell us what the
15 relationship was, what the ethnic composition of the population in the
16 municipality of Vogosca is?
17 A. Maybe over 80 per cent is Bosniak. So the Bosniaks are in the
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cekic, may I ask you to make a pause between the
20 question and the answer. If you would look at your screen and you see
21 that at a certain moment the cursor stops moving. You are speaking the
22 same language, therefore, it is a bit too quick for the interpreters.
23 And Ms. Pilipovic, may I ask you to do the same. And of course, between
24 answer and question.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise as well.
2 Q. Mr. Cekic, when we were discussing your institute and the setting
3 up of your institute which, as you say, was set up in order to find out
4 the scientific truth and an objective unbiased truth and in order to
5 research crimes against humanity and international law, well, can you
6 tell us with reference to the area of the city of Sarajevo, and I am
7 referring to the period of time 1992, 1993, and 1994, so far what have
8 you established when it comes to these crimes in case there were any?
9 A. Within the institute we are currently involved in a number of
10 scientific research projects. Amongst other projects is one entitled
11 "the suffering of Sarajevo in the course of aggression against the
12 Republic of Bosnia in 1992 and 1995."
13 Q. Mr. Cekic, I am simply going to tell you that the term
14 "aggression" is a word which is not normally used before the Court and
15 this Chamber, considering that we do know who is -- who has the ability
16 to --
17 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Your Honour. I should
18 have asked you to intervene.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, I think we are in a different
20 situation here. Because the witness tells us the name and the subject of
21 his research. And of course you could put whatever questions about the
22 words used, but that is different from a general reference to an armed
23 conflict. So, therefore, here, I would not direct the witness to use more
24 neutral terms.
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I understand.
1 Q. Mr. Cekic, considering that you have told us that at a certain
2 point your institute, you said, established that there was an aggression.
3 Well, can you tell us, on the basis of what facts did you arrive at that
5 A. We arrived at that conclusion on the basis of various sources of
6 information, information of various origin and different nature. First
7 and foremost on the basis of the original materials, documents, papers,
8 referring to the command of the second military area in Sarajevo, and
9 then on the basis of -- or the second military district. And on the
10 basis of the documents referring to the Serb democratic party of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, well, our institute is in the position of all the
12 original documents referring to that party ever since it was set up until
13 the 28th of March.
14 Furthermore --
15 Q. Mr. Cekic, I am just going to ask you one question. Do you know
16 what body is -- has the capacity to determine the use of the term
18 A. In replying to this question allow me to remind you that this is
19 a scientific institute. We are talking about scientists here, and
20 scientists and research scientists have never sought or and they are never
21 going to seek any opinions from any other bodies or organisations. What
22 you probably have in mind is this court. But I would also like to remind
23 you, if I may --
24 Q. Mr. Cekic, I simply asked you to answer my question as to whether
25 you were aware of what body or institution would have the capacity to do
1 that. If you don't wish to answer me or if you don't know the answer, just
2 simply say no. As to your own personal opinions --
3 A. Well, you see it is not a matter of my own personal opinion. It
4 is a matter of quite a few research scientists who both in Bosnia itself
5 and in the world has reached its conclusion. And let me remind you of the
6 general resolution of the UN, dated the 18th of December 1992, whereby in
7 several instances the term used is "aggression" and not only that but
8 even the term genocide.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to intervene. If we are talking about
10 the authority who could determine what is aggression and what is not
11 aggression, I would like not to have a debate between the witness and
12 between counsel. But may I perhaps give you some guidance,
13 Ms. Pilipovic. In terms of criminal law, international criminal law, and
14 the establishment on whether a person is responsible for certain acts, it
15 certainly is a court who establishes that. On the other hand, in
16 scientific research, usually terms are defined by the scientists and they
17 can make research. And, of course, there are -- its possible that there
18 is criticism on their definition of certain words. But let's not engage
19 in a debate between the witness and counsel.
20 I am not saying that you are not allowed to ask questions on the
21 subject, but this is not a place where debate where examination of a
22 witness should occur. Please proceed.
23 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you Your Honour.
24 Q. Mr. Cekic, your institute at a certain point in time drew up a
25 questionnaire. Do you have a copy of that questionnaire next to you?
1 First of all, is it correct that you had such a questionnaire?
2 A. It is correct. I don't have a copy of that questionnaire here.
3 MR. STAMP: Perhaps you could --
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that the
5 witness does have this questionnaire.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is me you mean? I don't have
7 it. I don't have it. Oh, you mean this one. Okay, I do apologise.
8 Could you just refer me to the page you want.
9 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. Yes, I found it, the document.
12 Q. It is page 15. The Prosecution document is 02156166.
13 A. Yes, it is.
14 Q. Could you tell us who participated in the drawing up of the
16 A. Yes, by all means.
17 Q. Sir, we are under time pressure. I can see you are writing
18 things down. But could you tell me who participated in drawing up this
20 A. It was the research team, the scientific research team and the
21 members of the team were the following -- would you like me to give you
22 the names? But it was a scientific research team of the institute within
23 the team we had a number of people who were experts in methodology,
24 sociology, law, history, et cetera.
25 Q. Could you explain to us with reference to this questionnaire
1 which had to be filled out what facts had to be entered -- just a
2 moment -- with reference to the date of death?
3 A. The integral part of this questionnaire were the instructions for
4 use and so there, there was an explanation as to the way in which it had
5 to be filled out and that went for all questions, including the ones you
6 just referred to.
7 Q. Can you tell us what was the makeup of the people that had to
8 process this?
9 A. The makeup of the team was a multi-ethnic one. In order to prove
10 that that indeed was the case, I can mention a couple of facts for the
11 sake of example. When we talk about the municipality Marin Dvor, the
12 coordinators who worked on this survey and we had four coordinators there,
13 well, all of them were either Serbs or Croats.
14 Q. You said you distributed 120.000 questionnaires. Can you tell us
15 how many people you had to employ in order to process all of that?
16 A. In order to carry out such a complex and large-scale survey, the
17 institute employed approximately 2000 operators, 2000 people.
18 Q. Did they go on a special course?
19 A. All of them had previously received training, that is to say, they
20 attended seminars that we organised.
21 Q. Can you tell us who funded the project?
22 A. You will be surprised not just you yourself, but probably
23 everybody else present, when I tell you that for such a massive and
24 large-scale survey, nobody provided any funding at all and we did not
25 actually spend any money on this. If you allow me, I could perhaps
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 elaborate this point.
2 Q. Thank you Mr. Cekic.
3 My next question would be the following: Did the operators fill
4 out the forms, the questionnaires?
5 A. The questionnaire for the most part would have been filled out by
6 the operators themselves and it can be seen on the basis of these
7 instructions for use. But we did have certain instances whereby it was
8 the people's survey themselves who filled out the forms and there were
9 reasons for that.
10 Q. In the course of your work and in the course of the work of the
11 operators did you have any instances whereby the operators would leave
12 the questionnaires in people's mailboxes in case there was nobody home
13 when they witnessed their home? Do you know anything about that?
14 A. It did in fact happen in a couple of cases. But I did say that
15 the questionnaires for the most part would have been filled out by the
16 operator themselves and also in those cases in which it was the head of
17 the family who was filling out the form, the questionnaire, at the end
18 there was the operator's signature as well. So in case you wish to
19 analyse these questionnaires, you can tell exactly who and in what way was
20 involved in the filling out of these forms.
21 Q. Can you tell us, out of this overall number of 120.000
22 questionnaires that you have managed to distribute, how many did you get
23 back and process at the institute out of this total?
24 A. The institute received approximately 80.000 questionnaires. But
25 let me just clarify this is bit. All 120.000 were not actually
1 distributed to the population. They were simply printed. I mean, the
2 printing press actually gave us as many as 120.000 because we calculated
3 that it would be the approximate number that we might need.
4 Q. Can you tell us how many questionnaires you did distribute?
5 A. We distributed out of this overall number of 120.000, we managed
6 to distribute slightly more than 100.000, perhaps 105.000.
7 Q. You said that 80.000 came back?
8 A. Just to avoid any misunderstandings, 80.000 questionnaires which
9 were filled out were sent back, but we were sent back the forms which had
10 not been filled out. In some cases, questionnaires which were filled out
11 incorrectly, there were people -- things crossed out, and therefore they
12 were not considered valid and so on and so forth.
13 Q. So basically you are telling us that at your institute you don't
14 process the questionnaires?
15 A. I am just going to speak a bit more slowly because of the
16 interpretation. At the institute, unfortunately, and I would like to
17 stress, unfortunately, to my great regret, we never processed or analysed
18 this data, first of all, due to the lack of funding because,
19 unfortunately, once again, in politics this sort of scientific research
20 is not taken account of to a sufficient extent.
21 Q. Could you tell us on the basis of what data since you were not
22 involved in the processing of the data have you reached the conclusion
23 that some of them were filled out incorrectly, that were blank spaces
24 and things were being crossed out and that 80.000 were sent back to you?
25 A. After the time when certain local communities did process these
1 questionnaires, we got a written reports from the local communities and
2 those reports referred to the following data: First of all, they
3 mentioned we got that many questionnaires from the institute, for example,
4 for the municipality of Vogosca, I can tell you, roughly, 1.700
5 questionnaires. Then they went on to say as many as 609 were actually
6 filled out or 690. Such-and-such a number were not filled out.
7 Such-and-such a number were filled in incorrectly, and in certain
8 reports, there was also the reference to the fact that a certain number
9 of questionnaires was considered null and void, and such forms were sent
10 back to us. So and their serial numbers were indicated as well.
11 JUDGE ORIE: May I intervene. I get the feeling, but I don't
12 know whether this is true or not, that processing, as it reads in the
13 transcript in English, is used in different ways by you questioning and
14 by the witness answering the questions. It is my understanding that
15 processing could mean the processing of the data in the form, well, let's
16 say, in computers, without analysing them; and another understanding of
17 the word processing might be to analyse them and to draw conclusions out
18 of that.
19 I get the feeling, but just tell me if I am wrong, that when the
20 witness said that they unfortunately have not been in a position to
21 process the data, that he mentioned analysing and drawing conclusions,
22 while the other parties selecting those forms filled in well, perhaps
23 putting the data into computers, but not yet analysing, just processing
24 in a rather technical way and not in an analytical way, it seems that
25 there might be some confusion about what in English is said to be
2 May I ask the attention both of the witness and of you,
3 Ms. Pilipovic, for my feelings. And if I am wrong, please indicate so.
4 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I suppose your
5 comment is to the point, but let me put this question again to Mr. Cekic.
6 Q. Mr. Cekic, did you at any point in time carry out the analysis of
7 the questionnaires that you circulated in 1994?
8 A. If you mean the analysis that the Presiding Judge was referring
9 to, that is to say, an analytical analysis this is something which has
10 never been done at the institute so far. Never, I said, unfortunately
12 Q. Thank you.
13 Mr. Cekic, you quoted an example of the municipality of Vogosca.
14 When you mentioned Vogosca, well, could you specify what you meant by the
15 area or the territory of the municipality of Vogosca at the time?
16 A. The municipality of Vogosca, according to the census of 1991, had
17 between seven and eight local communities. I am not quite certain. And
18 our research was carried out or to put it in another way, referred only
19 to the area of two such local communities, called Kobilja Glava and
20 Hotonj, two local communities, that is, that were under siege or rather
21 under the control of the legal authorities of the Republic of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, whereas the rest of the municipality were occupied.
23 And this is the terminology we use in our research and obviously we could
24 not carry out any research in that part of the municipality.
25 Q. So your research referred to two local communities only?
1 A. If we are referring to the territory of the municipality of
2 Vogosca, yes.
3 Q. Mr. Cekic, could I ask you a couple of questions about the work
4 of your institute, since you did say that it was multi-ethnic and
5 multinational institute which is based on scientific truth.
6 In the course of your work at the institute, have you established
7 whether in the part of the city of Sarajevo under the control of the BH
8 army there were any crimes committed against the other ethnic groups?
9 What I mean, specifically, is the Serb population.
10 A. The goal of this research, both in this case and with reference
11 to the overall project, the project as a whole, well, the goal was to
12 establish the number of Serb victims, either the people being killed or
13 the ones who disappeared since we have a whole range of different terms,
14 killed, missing, or whatever. So that was our goal in the past and it is
15 still our goal at the moment. This is an ongoing effort and we are still
16 doing research with reference to a whole range of municipalities in
17 Sarajevo. So our aim is to establish the names and surnames of every
18 individual victim. From our point of view, from a purely scientific
19 point of view, every single victim has a name and a surname and that is
20 the most significant point.
21 Q. In the course of your research at the institute, did you find any
22 data, according to which in 1992, 1993, 1994, and the part of Sarajevo
23 which we said was under the control of the BH army, there were any
24 concentration camps or an prisons?
25 A. According to the results of our research so far, I can tell you
1 for certain that in that area, in that part of Sarajevo, there had been
2 no concentration camps. There had been prisons since we have a legal
3 prison institutions which were in existence before the hostilities in
4 much the same way as they tend to exist in every normal country. When
5 you talk about concentration camps, this is something that we haven't
6 heard of so far. But once the project is completed I am sure we will get
7 the final answers to your question considering the fact that in the media
8 some ideas of this sort are being banded about.
9 Q. Can you tell us how many Serbs there are in Sarajevo at the
11 A. I can't really tell you how many there are at this present
12 moment. But what I can tell you for certain is the number of Serbs in
13 Sarajevo, and when I say in "Sarajevo" what I have in mind is all the
14 municipalities, that is to say, 10 municipalities of the city of Sarajevo
15 and I can tell you that the number of Serbs is on the increase on a daily
16 basis and this is something which should be welcomed and this is a price
17 worthy fact and we are doing all we can in Sarajevo, that is to say, the
18 current authorities in Sarajevo are doing their best in order to encourage
19 the Serbs who might have left the city for whatever reason to come back.
20 Q. Once again --
21 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] I am just going to ask one more
22 questions and my colleague will have a couple of questions as well.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Pilipovic, let's have a break. If this would be
24 your final question we will --
25 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Just a single question, please.
1 Q. Mr. Cekic, how much does your institute do in order to research
2 the crimes against Serbs in Kazani?
3 A. Madam, I can tell you, and this is a public and responsible
4 statement that our institute will find an answer to this question and,
5 yes, we are involved in research in that matter.
6 MS. PILIPOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Cekic.
7 JUDGE ORIE: We will adjourn for 20 minutes and resume at 10
8 minutes to 4.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Before we resume the examination of the witness, I
12 would like to inform the parties, first about a decision, an oral
13 decision, a written decision will follow, that is that the 92 bis
14 statement of Mr. Lesic will not be admitted in evidence. And as far as
15 tomorrow concerns, until now, there are no practical objections against
16 starting at 8.30. So the Chamber asks the parties to prepare for a start
17 of 8.30 tomorrow morning.
18 Then, Mr. Piletta-Zanin, please proceed.
19 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes Mr. President. We are
20 going to profit in order to raise a question at 8.30, in case your Trial
21 Chamber can decide in the course of the day, that it might be useful.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You would like to put a question at 8.30 tomorrow
23 morning? I didn't follow it exactly.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] No. Mr. President, I just
25 said it could be 8.32 or 33, but I would like to inform the Trial Chamber
1 that when we commence tomorrow, we would like to talk about a question
2 that will be at 8.30, with your permission.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If no other matters that keep the Chamber away
4 from this courtroom, always in respect of the case itself, sometimes we
5 need the few time we have to discuss and sometimes that even continues
6 until the very last minute. If it would then be 8.32, you would have to
7 wait until 8.32.
8 Please proceed.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you. We will try to be
11 Cross-examined by Mr. Piletta-Zanin:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, good afternoon. I would like to
13 question you about your questionnaire, about the form of your
14 questionnaire. And when I say, "your questionnaire" we are referring to
15 the questionnaire that we have called the questionnaire for the census of
16 1994. 94. Do you have this document in front of you?
17 A. As far as I have understood you, are you referring to the
18 document on the census of the population in 1994? I don't have this
19 document here. Or could you be a little clearer, please. I apologise.
20 Q. I just said the census relating to 1994. 94.
21 A. Yes, of family households.
22 Q. Would you like to turn to it?
23 A. Allow me to find the page.
24 Q. Very well.
25 Witness my first question: Do you speak English?
1 A. No I don't speak English. I can understand quite a lot, but I
2 don't speak the language.
3 Q. Very well.
4 Who translated the English commentary, could you please tell us
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Very well, thank you.
8 Was your department involved in this? Did your department
9 translate this or were other persons charged with this task?
10 A. No one from the institute's team translated this questionnaire
11 into English.
12 Q. Very well.
13 Could you tell us what the point of the report is, which is in
14 relation with the members -- with family members who were wounded or,
15 what is worse, were on the site where this happened?
16 Could you please tell me what these two points are.
17 A. Just a minute. Let me find this. That is question number six,
18 is that correct?
19 Q. I said five and six, relating to the wounded and people who are
20 deceased. Thank you, witness.
21 In the 4th column or rather the 5th column relating to these two
22 points there is the word "mesto [phoen]" which means place, or if you
23 write it differently, "measto [phoen]" this is for the wounded and for
24 those who were killed. Is that correct?
25 A. From the point of view of scientific research, this is of
1 exceptional importance.
2 Q. Yes. From the point of view of the Defence too, you can well
3 imagine that.
4 Is it true to say that we can say -- that we can read on each
5 occasion, "the site of the incident" is that correct or not? The place
6 of the incident.
7 A. It doesn't say the place of the incident or event, but it quite
8 clearly says the place where a certain person was killed or rather the
9 place where a certain person in the second case, was wounded.
10 Q. Very well. Thank you.
11 This column was, for the most part, filled in, not by the heads
12 of households, but on each occasion by one of the 2000 assistants
13 responsible for carrying out this investigation. Is that correct?
14 Responsible for carrying out this questionnaire.
15 A. I have already answered this question. A similar question was
16 put to me by your colleague before you and on the whole this part was
17 also filled in by the investigators in the field, people who lived in the
18 area of a certain local commune.
19 Q. Very well.
20 Could you answer yes or no, we would appreciate that, were any
21 specific instructions given to these investigators; yes or no?
22 A. No specific or special instructions were given to them, apart
23 from the instructions which formed an integral part of this questionnaire.
24 Q. Very well.
25 Witness, how is it that, as a general rule, there is no more
1 precise indication, for example with regard to municipalities or streets
2 or the street number or the place where such-and-such an incident
3 occurred? First of all, have you understood my question correctly?
4 A. Sir this part was sufficient, it was sufficiently clear for
5 someone to be able to mention precisely where a certain person was killed
6 or was wounded.
7 Q. Very well.
8 Witness, don't you think that this -- that this would have been a
9 lot clearer if one had indicated the street and perhaps the number and
10 maybe even the neighbourhood?
11 A. That's correct. And that should have been done in this situation.
12 It would be necessary to see one or more questionnaires that had been
13 filled in and try and check what you are talking about.
14 Q. Very well.
15 Witness, where are all the 105.000 copies, approximately, of this
16 form that were returned to you? Where is their physical location?
17 A. Well, what do you mean, "where are they"?
18 Q. I am going to listen to the Serbian translation. Where are they
19 located? Where are they located?
20 A. All these questionnaires are being stored in the institute, in
21 the premises of our institute in Sarajevo and you too can have access if
22 you want to see them.
23 Q. Willingly, you know these documents and my question is as follows:
24 Under the part, under the column, "the place of the incident where people
25 were wounded or where they were killed" do you often see the name of a
1 street and a number under this heading? Do you know anything about this?
2 A. No I don't because the institute didn't carry out an
3 analytic -- analytic processing of that information at the time.
4 Q. Very well. Sir, did you take these documents somewhere to hand
5 them over to a representative of the Prosecution?
6 A. What do you mean, did we take them --
7 Q. I mean to say, did you yourself, did your department hand over
8 copies of these forms, copies that had been filled in, to the Prosecution?
9 A. At their request, we made these -- this research of ours
10 accessible to them.
11 Q. You said that you let them take note of the research, but did you
12 or did you not provide them with the 105.000 documents that we are talking
14 A. That number of documents, we never handed over that number --
15 that quantity of documents to them. But we did provide them with a lesser
17 Q. So what is the number of documents that you provided them with?
18 A. At the moment, I can't tell you what the exact figure is because
19 that was a task that was carried out by the secretary of my institute on
20 behalf of the institute.
21 Q. But could you give me an approximate figure, please.
22 A. I really can't be precise. I think that this concerns
23 questionnaires which refer to the situation in two or three
24 municipalities. But I really can't answer you with precision at the
1 Q. But who was responsible for informing the Prosecution about, it
2 appears, only two or three municipalities?
3 A. That was the -- it was the secretary in the institute.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 And this information only referred to two or three municipalities,
6 that is what you are saying, is it not?
7 A. Yes but at the moment I can't remember. I may have signed a
8 record, if a record was made, but I can't tell you for sure.
9 Q. Very well.
10 Witness, have you yourself seen a certain number of these forms
11 that had been filled in and that were returned to your department; yes or
13 A. You mean returned by the Tribunal?
14 Q. No, no. Returned from the persons who were questioned or by the
16 A. And you are asking me whether I saw those documents?
17 Q. Yes, exactly.
18 A. Yes. On a daily basis I would see these documents on a daily
19 basis because I have access to the documents.
20 Q. So could you confirm to this Trial Chamber that with regard to
21 these two headings that we are talking about, wounds and people killed,
22 could you say that -- could you say that in general the street and the
23 number of the street where the incident occurred is not mentioned?
24 A. I can't answer that question with certainty.
25 Q. Why not?
1 A. Because the analytic processing of this information has not yet
2 been completed and this is a task that we must still complete.
3 Q. Very well.
4 Witness, I realise that there was a committee that decided on the
5 elaboration of this questionnaire. With regard to the wounded and dead,
6 during the period of what you just called "aggression" did someone within
7 this community ever think of including a heading which would allow one to
8 know and I think that this is something that is necessary, whether the
9 incident occurred near the front line or near a military target; yes or
10 no, if you can answer that question.
11 A. Sir, this questionnaire which was compiled at the time when a
12 scientific team existed, all of your comments which relate to the contents
13 of this questionnaire, right now at this moment, they can't be a subject
14 of discussion because the questionnaire such as it is was compiled at the
15 time. Do you understand?
16 Q. Yes, I understand you very well. But do you know, yes or no,
17 whether this question was elaborated? If you don't know, just say that
18 you don't know.
19 A. No, I am not aware of this.
20 Q. Very well.
21 Witness, as director of the institute, do you know whether one
22 thought of including a heading for these two parts regarding the
23 existence at the time of the incident, of fighting that might have been
24 ongoing in or -- in Sarajevo or in the surroundings of Sarajevo?
25 A. Military questions -- this questionnaire didn't deal with
1 military questions to the extent that you are insisting on. But as part
2 of this entire project, there are studies which are being carried out.
3 And in those studies this is -- will be addressed too, but that research
4 has not yet been completed.
5 Q. Very well.
6 Witness, I see that you are taking notes is this to make a report
7 to someone or is this because you need them in order to answer questions.
8 A. To tell you the truth, this is how I usually work. I can
9 concentrate far better if I do this.
10 Q. Very well.
11 So take the following note, please --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin, there is no way of you telling
13 what notes the witness should take. You can ask --
14 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very
15 much. Thank you, Mr. President.
16 Q. Do the following names, are they familiar to you: Silos, Sunce,
17 Viktor Bubanj, Borcelino, Pazaric, and Hrasnica?
18 A. Could you please repeat that if it's not too difficult. Could you
19 please repeat the names?
20 Q. It hasn't been noted, this is why I wanted you to take notes --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Cekic, I think Mr. Piletta-Zanin would like to
22 know whether the names he uses -- he mentions do ring a bell to you.
23 Would you please, one by one, give the names, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
24 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Willingly.
25 Q. Silos, Sunce --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps, Mr. Witness, if they do ring a bell if not,
2 just say no.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first name is particular to me.
4 Sunce isn't. Carry on.
5 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Sir, what is Silos, please?
7 A. Up until the current state of investigation, within the project
8 of victims in Sarajevo, within this project, one will also address the
9 issue of Serbian casualties in the area of the municipality which is
10 called Hrasnica we dispose of certain information at this stage, according
11 to which in the area of that municipality, certain crimes against Serbs
12 were perpetrated. As to the extent of those crimes, this is a subject we
13 can't discuss at the moment, but on the basis of this project, and 30 to
14 50 studies are planned as parts of this project, this issue is one that is
15 going to be investigated too.
16 Q. Very well.
17 But, Witness, my question was, what is Silos?
18 A. As far as I know, Silos is a location in the area of that
19 municipality. It is a feature where as I said, according to the
20 information we have at the moment, Serbs were victims there.
21 Q. Very well. Is that -- is it a camp?
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I remind you that you have five minutes left.
23 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 Q. Is it a camp?
25 A. I apologise. Could you repeat that? Given that it is a
1 scientific investigation, since this hasn't been investigated at the
2 moment, I cannot tell you whether it is a camp or a prison. But I would
3 like to remind you of the following fact: In some studies carried out
4 today, with regards to camps, prisons, there is a lot of information and
5 many authors often confuse those terms. They confuse prisons and camps,
6 et cetera, et cetera.
7 Q. I apologise for interrupting you but we are short of time.
8 Another name Viktor Bubanj, does this mean anything to you?
9 A. Viktor Bubanj is the name of the -- of a JNA barracks.
10 Q. Very well.
11 Do you know whether it is a prison or not?
12 A. Once again, let me say that according to the information that we
13 have at the moment --
14 Q. If you don't know, say no, we are short of time.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I would ask you to slow down, Mr. Piletta-Zanin,
16 because not only the interpreters but the court reporters have some
17 difficulties. Please proceed.
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
19 Q. Another name, Borsalino, does this mean anything to you?
20 A. Borsalino, no, that doesn't mean anything to me.
21 Q. Thank you. Pazaric?
22 A. Pazaric I know there is a place called like that in the
23 surroundings of Sarajevo.
24 Q. Is it a name that corresponds to something in your investigation?
25 A. Our investigation, the one that we carried out in 1994, doesn't
1 cover that area.
2 Q. Very well. Thank you. What about Hrasnica? Was there a prison
4 A. Hrasnica is a local commune which belonged to the municipality
5 called Ilidza.
6 Q. Very well. But was there a prison there or not?
7 A. I can't answer that question, I really can't.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] With the assistance of Madam
10 Registrar and with your permission, Mr. President, I have one document
11 that I would like to present, P3681, I would like the witness to be shown
12 this exhibit and with your permission, I will ask a question about this
14 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... having this
15 document, please proceed.
16 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Yes, of course.
17 Q. Witness, how many Serb victims were there in Kazani, as far as
18 you know?
19 A. The investigating team of the institute is aware of the fact that
20 at that spot a certain number of Serbs were the victims and that the
21 authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is to say, the state Prosecutor
22 in Sarajevo started proceedings, organised a trial, and that certain
23 individuals were punished, the individuals who participated in those
24 crimes. However, as to the number, I was getting there --
25 JUDGE ORIE: I will allow you, since the document is now there,
1 to put one question to that, but time is over.
2 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 Q. Witness, could you please reply to me if you do know this, how
4 many victims were there at Kazani? If you don't know, just simply say
5 no, but if you do know, give us a figure.
6 A. What I know, both as a scientist and as a person, as a human
7 being, is that crimes were perpetrated there. However, I really and
8 truly can't give you an answer as to the exact number of the Serbs killed
9 there. This really large-scale project of ours will have to, and I
10 stress, will have to provide an answer to that question by establishing
11 names and surnames of all the victims.
12 JUDGE ORIE: That was your last question. And I explained that
13 it is entirely up to the Defence whether they want to use that time to
14 put questions on barricades or whatever, but one hour and a half is one
15 hour and a half.
16 Mr. Stamp is there -- no questions. Yes.
17 Re-examined by Mr. Stamp:
18 MR. STAMP:
19 Q. You were asked some questions about the vagueness of the
20 questionnaire in respect to the place of event, place of event where the
21 person was killed or injured. In the statement before the Court, you
22 have said that the researchers of various backgrounds and balanced
23 ethnicities from the civil protection staff completed these questionnaires
24 by interviewing the various households in accordance with guidelines which
25 were handed out. And I would like to show you one of the guidelines which
1 is attached to your statement, if you would care to look at it?
2 It is a document entitled, and you would have to forgive my
3 pronunciation --
4 A. What is the date that you are referring to? Perhaps it might
5 speed things up
6 JUDGE ORIE: Page 14, I take it, Mr. Stamp, on the bottom.
7 MR. STAMP:
8 Q. Yes, page 14.
9 A. 14. Just a second. I would find it easier if you were to tell
10 me -- no, no, no. Page 14.
11 MR. STAMP: [Previous translation continues] ... perhaps if the
12 usher could assist --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at the bottom of the pages.
14 MR. STAMP:
15 Q. Yes, does paragraph 5 in those guidelines give instructions in
16 respect to obtaining information in respect to the place of events, that
17 is the place where persons are killed, are killed or injured?
18 A. Yes, you are right. In those cases in which we did have the
19 information we should have stated the street and the address, well, this
20 is indicated correctly. Thank you very much. You have noticed this and
21 I thank you.
22 MR. STAMP: That will be all, Mr. President, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 Mr. Cekic, since the Chamber has no further questions to you,
25 this concludes your examination in this court. I would like to thank you
1 very much for having come to The Hague. We all are aware that it is
2 quite a journey and that you have answered the questions of the Defence
3 and also one question of the Prosecution. Thank you very much. And I
4 hope that you have a safe trip home again.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you and I wish all the best
6 in your work to all of you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that.
8 Mr. Usher, could you please escort Mr. Cekic out of the
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, perhaps first I give you another decision
12 that is that the -- no, perhaps first I will ask you, you have filed the
13 statement of the witness Cekic, and he has been cross-examined and I now
14 see that we have a P-Exhibit which I take it contains exactly the same as
15 was filed before?
16 MR. STAMP: Yes, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, perhaps I -- I think we could admit
18 it into evidence as a document in order to, but it is all the same, as
19 far as I could see.
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stamp, taking that it is exactly the same it has
22 been filed, and there is the decision of the Chamber that this statement
23 is admitted into evidence under Rule 92 bis. So if it's the same
24 material, there's no use of tendering it anymore as a P Exhibit.
25 MR. STAMP: These documents had been given to the court just out
1 of convenience because it was five binders.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I've got two copies now. Thank you very much.
3 Yes, please.
4 MR. STAMP: There was a matter I wanted the Court to find it
5 convenient to deal with it now. The Court had ordered earlier today that
6 a document of received evidence provided an official translation was made
7 available and we would profit to the court, that translation
8 P3748.1 and ask that it be received in evidence.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It says draft translation. But may I take it,
10 that whether the word gives excellent opportunity to -- if I show it to
11 you, you could even read it from that distance.
12 MR. STAMP: Yes, it does, but I did ask that it be checked and
13 this was the quickest way we could get it before the Court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but maybe we receive a confirmation from you by
15 tomorrow that this is the translation and not a draft translation.
16 Mr. STAMP: Very well.
17 JUDGE ORIE: So that we are very sure about that. Then I give you
18 another decision. All the documents tendered in relation to Witness AK
19 are admitted into evidence, all of them under seal.
20 Then, may I ask one question to the Prosecution: It was
21 indicated that legal material -- no, we should not deal with that in open
22 court. But some legal material was announced to be submitted which the
23 Chamber did not receive until now. It is a matter that has been dealt
24 with in closed session. If you do not understand what I mean,
25 Mr. Ierace, we have to turn in closed session.
1 MR. IERACE: I understand, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and it is correct that we did not receive any
3 material yet? You announced that you would submit legal materials, and
4 until now, I haven't seen anything.
5 MR. IERACE: Perhaps I don't understand, Mr. President. Perhaps
6 we can go into private session just for a moment.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will do that just for a moment.
8 [Private session]
9 [Open session]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, we gave a decision in your absence,
11 Mr. Ierace on 92 bis statement of Mr. Lesic which was not admitted into
12 evidence. At this very moment, is the Prosecution ready to call its next
13 witness, expert witness?
14 MR. IERACE: Yes, Mr. President. Before I do that, two matters.
15 Do you envisage that the reasons for the decision will be published
17 JUDGE ORIE: I hope so. The written decision is in preparation
18 at this moment and we had a lot of decisions to take to.
19 MR. IERACE: Yes, I appreciate that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- the last couple of days. So we do whatever we
21 can and even if not the final written decision would be ready, we might
22 already give you a part of the reason.
23 MR. IERACE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
25 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Could you please authorise me
1 to leave and I will come back as soon as possible, together with our
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And is then the Prosecution ready to call its
4 next expert witness. Would you then, please, Mr. Usher, escort the
5 witness into the courtroom. That would be Mr. Hinchliffe, as far as I
6 understand. Yes.
7 MR. IERACE: Yes.
8 [The witness entered court]
9 WITNESS: JONATHAN PAUL HINCHLIFF
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon. I apologise for letting you wait
11 for a second. Mr. Hinchliffe I presume --
12 THE WITNESS: Sir, I can't hear you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, my first question is whether you can hear me in
14 a language you understand?
15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Before giving testimony in this court -- yes,
17 please. Before giving testimony in this court, Mr. Hinchliffe, the Rules
18 of Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that
19 you will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. May
20 I invite you to make that declaration of which the text will now be
21 handed out to you by the usher.
22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
23 whole truth and nothing but the truth.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Hinchliffe. Please be seated.
25 Mr. Ierace, as the Chamber indicated before, that after a first
1 short introduction, it might be that we would have some specific questions
2 already for the expert witness. I would suggest that you examine the
3 witness in perhaps in rather general terms and then we will see how we
4 start tomorrow. Because there is 17 minutes left. Perhaps that might do
5 for this first part of your examination.
6 MR. IERACE: Certainly, Mr. President.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: We have half an hour. We can go on until 5.15.
10 Please proceed.
11 Examined by Mr. Ierace:
12 Q. Your full name is Jonathan Paul Hinchliffe is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You are a Captain in the British Army?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And indeed you are the officer commanding the sniper division of
17 the British army is that so?
18 A. Yes
19 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, I would like the witness to site a
20 copy of this report which is P3740. I have some copies here if Madam
21 Registrar does not have some.
22 JUDGE ORIE: For those who have left them on their desk we have
23 at least -- does the witness have the report? Or not yet?
24 THE WITNESS: This is my report, yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Is that your own copy is that the copy that was just
1 given to you? Would you please look at the document now being presented
2 to you.
3 Please proceed.
4 MR. IERACE:
5 Q. Mr. Hinchliffe, do you have before you a photocopy of your report
6 dated the 4th of May 2002, and signed on the last page?
7 A. Yes, I do.
8 Q. I understand that you want to make two corrections to the contents
9 of that report. Is the first correction in relation to the type of
10 weaponry which you say was used during the conflict?
11 A. It is.
12 Q. Would you please indicate what page and paragraph the first
13 reference to that weapon appears.
14 A. I believe it is page 3, paragraph 12, under the heading of
16 Q. And is that five lines down? Three lines down, I should say?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you please read out the reference that you wish to change.
19 A. Where it is stated the sniper rifle use M 79, this should be
20 deleted and insert M-76.
21 Q. And does the second --
22 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask one additional question. On the third
23 line it says M-79 but it also on the 5th line, should it be changed there
24 as well?
25 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, perhaps I could assist.
1 Q. Does every reference to M-79 in the report should each such
2 reference now read M-76
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
4 MR. IERACE:
5 Q. Now, does the second change relate to the last sentence on that
6 page which presently reads: "The Dragonov is a 6 times magnified sniper
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What should that read?
10 A. Times 4.
11 Q. Times 4, all right.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
13 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] A semi-objection. Since you
14 were moving rather swiftly and replies came rather fast, I couldn't
15 follow. Thank you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then please proceed in a proper base, Mr. Ierace.
17 MR. IERACE: I will, Mr. President.
18 Q. Could you please tell us what information you used in the
19 preparation of your report?
20 A. I used information from my own experience and taken from infantry,
21 from our weaponry books, which are on general release.
22 Q. All right, you told us in the report that you travelled twice to
23 Sarajevo as part of the preparation of it and that you were accompanied
24 by various investigators from the Tribunal. In particular, to each site
25 that you visited, did they provide you any information in terms of the
1 evidence as they understood it?
2 A. Yes they did. They explained quite clearly what the witnesses
3 had stated.
4 Q. When you visited each site did you locate a yellow marker in the
5 form of a cross or a yellow post or similar object or marking?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Now, apart from the explanations given to you by the
8 investigators on site, were you given any other material?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What were you given?
11 A. A brief description and the witness report of each incident.
12 Q. When you say a "brief description" you understand that to be
13 the contents of the first schedule to the indictment?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And indeed do you have a copy of that with you?
16 A. I do indeed.
17 Q. You also said that you were given a witness --
18 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I will never
19 be able to make my comments about the translation in writing as I am used
20 to doing if you move this swiftly. If you don't want me to do it, I
22 JUDGE ORIE: I understand that you were asked to slow down. Would
23 you please take that into consideration, Mr. Ierace. May I also ask you,
24 to wait to answer the question until the cursor stops moving on your
25 screen. Yes, please.
1 Q. You said that you were also given a witness report of each
2 incident. Did you use any of that information in the preparation of your
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What did you use from the witness report or witness reports?
6 A. I used the witness reports just to familiarise myself with the
7 incidents and as well the direction of where they heard the shot and of
8 specific matters, for example, the amount of bullets which were used.
9 Q. When you say witness -- I withdraw that.
10 Were you given any witness statements?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. All right.
13 And did you use the contents of any witness statements in the
14 preparation of your report?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You said that you used the witness reports in order to
17 familiarise the direction of where they heard the shot. Who do you mean
18 by "they"?
19 A. I mean the --
20 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President, since my
21 learned colleague has made a distinction -- I do apologise. Since my
22 learned colleague has made a distinction between a certain report and the
23 statements, I would have liked him to specify just so as to make
24 everything quite clear, whether he was referring to the statements or
25 perhaps a possible other report.
1 JUDGE ORIE: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Ierace, you
2 used both statements and witness reports. Would you please clarify or
3 rephrase your question.
4 MR. IERACE: I would be happy to clarify it, Mr. President.
5 Q. Do you mean two different types of documents when you referred to
6 a witness report and a witness statement, or do you mean the same type of
8 A. It was on one document.
9 Q. Were you given any documents which appeared to be an account by a
10 witness of what they saw and what they heard, perhaps a page or two or
11 three pages written in the first person or expressed in the first person
12 and with their signature at the bottom of -- at the end of the document?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right.
15 And when I use the term "witness statement" please understand
16 that is what I am referring to.
17 Now, separate from that type of document, were you given other
18 documents of a different type?
19 A. I was given that document and the first schedule of the
20 indictments, which I based my information around.
21 Q. When you say "that document" you mean witness statements?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, were you shown any other types of documents apart from
24 statements by witnesses?
25 A. No.
1 Q. In the form of reports and tables and that sort of thing?
2 A. Yes, I received an incident -- a document on each incident.
3 Q. All right. Let's call them "incident reports."
4 Did you receive a number of those?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And did you use any of the information in the incident reports in
7 your report to the Tribunal or not?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Now, over the last few days, have you been shown a video of each
10 of the scheduled incidents, that is the incidents scheduled to the
11 indictment except for scheduled incidents numbers 9 and 26?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Have you also been shown over that period of time 360 degree
14 computerised photographs for each of those incidents, that is the
15 scheduled incidents except for scheduled incident number 26?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Piletta-Zanin.
17 MR. PILETTA-ZANIN: [Interpretation] Mr. President I would like to
18 raise an objection here which is of a technical nature, in relation to
19 this question for the simple reason that the Prosecution has indicated to
20 us that these photos I believe, were not correct in terms of the way in
21 which the data were calculated by the GPS device and asking a question
22 about a piece of equipment with reference to which we were given to
23 understand that it was imperfect, well it doesn't seem appropriate.
24 JUDGE ORIE: When looking at the videos, did you pay specific
25 attention to the GPS positions indicated on these videos?
1 THE WITNESS: No.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think under these circumstances, Mr. Ierace could
4 Q. Indeed, when you travelled to each of the sites and as you told
5 us, located the yellow markers, did you do that with the assistance of
6 GPS readings or the investigators or what?
7 A. Investigator took me to each site and positioned me.
8 Q. Now, in your report you expressed some opinions in relation to
9 the strategy which you applied to the Serb forces. Have you any
10 experience or other expertise in relation to determining the strategic
11 use of snipers?
12 A. Yes. I wrote the tactical doctrine and instituted plan for the
13 British Army on how to use snipers. And I command the only course which
14 teaches the employment of snipers around the battlefield and all phases of
16 Q. When you say that the course you run teaches the use of snipers
17 in the battlefield who are the students of that course? What position
18 do they told in relation to the snipers themselves?
19 A. The students who attend the course are commanders of all levels
20 from a section commander which is a corporal to captains and majors in
21 the class.
22 Q. Now you also refer in your report to distances between where the
23 alleged victims were shot and what we might call suspected sources of
24 fire. In that regard, you tell us that you used a piece of equipment of
25 a lighter brand I think it was laser, that appears on page 3 of your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 report, at paragraph 13, you describe it as a leica vector, 1507 times 42
2 laser range finder. Can you give us some idea of the accuracy that
3 that machine operates to?
4 A. The leica vector 1500 will give you a range indication, a
5 distance, plus or minus 3 metres up to 1.500 metres.
6 Q. And perhaps you could briefly explain to us in just a few
7 sentences, if it can be done, how you operate such a piece of machinery
8 or equipment in order to get a distance?
9 A. The laser range finder is a hand held device, styled around a
10 binocular instrument, you look through the laser range finder, position
11 whatever target you are looking at, press a button which then fires a
12 laser on to that target which is indicated by a red square, a small red
13 square, and then after you release the button, the range is given in the
14 bottom right-hand corner.
15 Q. When you recorded the -- I am sorry. When you operated the
16 equipment and obtained the distances, did you record them in some fashion
17 on site?
18 A. I did. I recorded them in my notebook.
19 Q. When you prepared your report, did you have access to your
20 notebook in order to ensure that the distances in the report were those
21 that you recorded?
22 A. I did.
23 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, they -- that concludes the questions
24 that go to the qualifying of the witness. If the Bench has any enduring
25 concerns, remaining concerns, would that be a convenient time for
1 questions to be put to the witness from the Bench.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I will just consult with my colleagues.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 Questioned by the Court:
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hinchliffe, I would like to ask you a few
6 questions on your report. May I first draw your attention to serial 26.
7 You write down in your report, "the firer observed a tiny light source."
8 What makes you believe that the firer observed such a light source?
9 A. When I was taken to this site and explained verbally, I was told
10 the actual victim witness, one or the two, had indicated that a light
11 source had been seen. Also, the incident happened during dark hours and
12 the lights could be seen through the apartment windows.
13 JUDGE ORIE: What makes you draw such a conclusion. Let's just
14 assume that the sniper would like to hit the next door apartment but
15 missed it. What makes you believe that it was specifically this tiny
16 light source that guided him?
17 A. At a distance of 352 metres, estimated distance, a sniper would
18 hit the target without missing.
19 JUDGE ORIE: If you would say if he is a good sniper, and if he
20 targeted this flat, he should not have missed it.
21 A. At that distance, he would not have missed
22 JUDGE ORIE: If he was a bit drunk --
23 A. He still would not have missed it. It is far too close.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So you say, even drunk, you would not miss your
1 A. I would say so.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me ask you another question. Let me take you to
3 serial 5. Where you conclude that it was a deliberate sniper shot, but
4 you say "the firer was not particularly skilled. He underestimated the
5 distance to his target from the fire position, which led to the bullet
6 bouncing under the barricades and hitting the victim by pure chance."
7 What is the basis for this conclusion?
8 A. I assessed the situation, the incident, the firer to be at the
9 top or near to the top of a building.
10 JUDGE ORIE: What makes you believe that?
11 A. That was pointed out to me by the investigator.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So you say the investigator told me where the sniper
13 was --
14 A. Where the sound was heard from and upon inspecting the building
15 that he pointed to and at the top or near to the top, there was firing
16 loop holes, several of them. A firing loop hole is where a single brick
17 is removed and overlooking a certain area. You fire on to -- you fire
18 through that hole.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So you are telling us that it is very likely that
20 the sniper shot from that position because that was an excellent
21 position-- was an excellent opportunity to do that through this brick
22 taken out.
23 A. Yes
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could he have fired from another place well let's
25 say from a brick that was later placed back.
1 A. He could have. However, the situation that the investigator
2 indicated to me is that it was from that position.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If -- let me just assume that the sniper was using
4 his weapon just because he wanted to hit something and not a specific
5 person just to use it, what makes you draw the conclusion that the --
6 no, let me just first ask another question to you. You said the firer
7 removed a brick and fired through the loop hole. What makes you believe
8 that it was the firer that removed the brick? Could it have been one of
9 his colleagues? Could it have been the previous owners of that apartment?
10 A. That is possible. I know it is a common sniper practice to use
11 that technique.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But your report says that the firer removed a
14 A. Yes, I made that assessment.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then you say in serial 5 "when the bullet was
16 released from the firer, it was aimed precisely at the target."
17 What makes you conclude that the bullet was released from the
18 firer with aimed precision?
19 A. From where the bullet was released and bounced to hit the
20 individual, this suggested to me that the individual had been in the
21 optical site picture of the sniper, however, the sniper had not
22 understood the range from him to the individual properly. And therefore
23 had got shot because -- bounced forward.
24 JUDGE ORIE: What is the methodology in which you used in order to
25 reach these conclusions?
1 A. The firer was shooting from a building, and as I assessed, a
2 quite high up building, therefore it was an angled shot. This angled shot
3 is a rather difficult shot because the weapon system believes that the
4 system is on the ground, and therefore, the trajectory of the bullet
5 would be incorrect if you are high up in a building. Therefore, you have
6 to -- you can't just estimate from your position to the actual intended
7 objective target. You have to use calculations to understand to reduce
8 the actual angle and range.
9 JUDGE ORIE: May I take you to serial 7. You say "the bullet
10 fired entered the victim in the head. The shot was taken from a
11 telescopic site."
12 On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
13 A. That assessment is made with from basically a bullet entering a
14 person's head at such distance, as I estimated, would have to be an aimed
15 shot in all probability. Therefore, I understood it to be an aimed shot.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But on what -- on the basis -- I mean, if just
17 a stray bullet would hit someone in his head --
18 A. That is possible. That is possible.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Even without a telescopic site?
20 A. Yes. Celebrative fire or of some other means, however, I did
21 assess this to be an aimed shot.
22 JUDGE ORIE: On serial 23 you write the following: "The firer
23 engaged the victim at a minimum range of 560 metres. The fire position
24 is unclear, however the front lines were situated so that the nearest
25 building was 560 metres away."
1 On the basis of what did you conclude that, although the fire
2 position was unclear, that it was made from a building?
3 A. In my experience, a sniper would not want to expose himself in an
4 open ground, be it from air, helicopters, airplane, or even artillery
5 shells. A sniper is usually counter-sniped by indirect fire, artillery or
6 mortar shelling. Therefore, if he is in a building, he has some defence
7 above him.
8 JUDGE ORIE: You say, "a single bullet at short distance engaged
9 the victim therefore the fire was not well trained and probably in
10 position of a hunting rifle with a poor sighting system." It is assessed
11 the fire failed to kill the victim because he was inexperienced. If I
12 would assume that this person using a hunting rifle or whatever other kind
13 of weapon, had the intention to injure his victim rather than to kill him,
14 what could you tell us about your conclusion that he failed to kill the
15 victim because he was inexperienced.
16 A. This incident where the couple were walking away with their backs
17 to the front lines, I assessed this incident that you would not release a
18 bullet -- you intended to kill.
19 JUDGE ORIE: What if you want to injure someone.
20 A. I would assess the situation that there is no point injuring
21 somebody, if you truly wanted to shoot, then you could shoot to kill.
22 JUDGE ORIE: On the basis of what do you assume that.
23 A. Basic training, our military training suggests that we don't aim
24 to injure people, we aim to kill people.
25 JUDGE ORIE: This was inexperience.
1 A. I suggest it was an inexperienced firer due to the short range and
2 the failure to hit the person directly.
3 JUDGE ORIE: What you expect from a trained sniper and on the
4 other hand, you say that he was inexperienced --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please pause after the
6 question, for the sake of the interpreters.
7 A. Yes, I expect a sniper to be able to engage his or her target and
8 at that range and produce a kill. It is a medium shot range.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It is a quarter past 5.00 so we have to stop at
10 this moment. Mr. Ierace, we will consider whether there are any further
11 questions from the Bench tomorrow morning.
12 MR. IERACE: Mr. President, before you make a decision, I would be
13 grateful for the opportunity to ask some further questions in chief in
14 relation just to those incidents and just in relation to those aspects of
15 those incidents, which I think will assist you.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we will consider whether we come to that and
17 certainly we will not just give a decision at this very moment. We will
18 adjourn until 8.30 tomorrow morning same courtroom. May I ask you not to
19 speak with anyone about the testimony until now given in this court.
20 THE WITNESS: Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. I finally, I would like to specifically
22 express -- General Galic, I would specifically like to express the
23 appreciation of the Chamber that you were willing to see how far we came
24 and that you gave the opportunity to sit for such a long time today. We
25 will adjourn until tomorrow 8.30.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
2 5.15 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,
3 the 2nd day of August, 2002, at 8.30 a.m.