1 Tuesday, 10 April 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE KWON: Good morning, everyone. Before we begin today,
7 there are a couple the matters the Chamber would like to deal with.
8 First the Chamber will issue an oral ruling on the "Prosecution
9 application regarding the report on use of time in the trial" filed on
10 4th of April, 2012.
11 In the application -- very familiar sound.
12 In the application, the Prosecution requests the Trial Chamber to
13 direct the Registry to provide a breakdown of the time calculations for
14 each witness who testified during -- between the 1st and the
15 29th of March, 2012, and requests to be allowed to file an application
16 challenging the time used by it within seven days from the receipt of the
17 breakdown of the time calculations. The Chamber hereby grants both
18 requests and orders the Registry to provide the time statistics for March
19 to the Prosecution as soon as practicable and orders the Prosecution to
20 file its challenge within seven days of the receipt of these time
22 Next, on the 23rd of March, 2012, the accused filed the "Motion
23 to modify protective measures: Witness KDZ071," requesting the
24 rescission of the protective measures granted to Witness KDZ071 in the
25 Krstic case.
1 On the 28th of March, 2012, the Prosecution filed its response
2 opposing the motion and referring to the witness's conversation of
3 27th of March, 2012, with the Prosecution's investigator during the
4 course of which he stated that he needed his protective measures to be
5 continued as he has returned to the Srebrenica area and feels unsafe.
6 The Chamber first notes that there is no Chamber currently seized
7 of the Krstic case within the meaning of Rule 75(G) and that none of the
8 Judges who granted the original protective measures to the witness in the
9 Krstic case remain at the Tribunal. On the 5th of April, 2012, the
10 Chamber was informed by the VWS pursuant to Rule 75(J) that the witness
11 does not consent to the rescission of his protective measures.
12 The Chamber also recalls that under Rule 75(J) of the Rules, it
13 may order the rescission of protective measures absent the consent of the
14 witness in exceptional circumstances and "on the basis of a compelling
15 showing of the exigent circumstances or where a miscarriage of justice
16 would otherwise result."
17 The Chamber has carefully examined the motion and its annex
18 therein and considers that exceptional circumstances that would warrant
19 the rescission of the protective measures absent the consent of the
20 witness have not been shown. The Chamber therefore dismisses the
21 accused's motion, and accordingly, Witness KDZ071 shall testify with the
22 protective measures of pseudonym and image distortion.
23 The Chamber has noted the witness's statement that he has not
24 made any public declaration since returning to the Srebrenica area.
25 However, the Chamber would like to remind the witness that any public
1 statement he makes will render his protective measures ineffective and
2 therefore warns him against doing so.
3 That said, we'll -- back to normal proceedings. If the witness
4 take the solemn declaration, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
6 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
7 JUDGE KWON: Thank you, sir. I apologise for your inconvenience,
8 and please make yourself comfortable.
9 WITNESS: AMOR MASOVIC
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
12 Examination by Ms. Sutherland:
13 Q. Please state your full name for the record.
14 JUDGE KWON: Your microphone, please.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND:
16 Q. Mr. Masovic, please state your name for the record.
17 A. Amor Masovic.
18 Q. You've testified before the Tribunal in four cases and you have
19 provided statements to representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Recently a statement was taken from you which amalgamated
23 evidence from your previous testimonies and statements, and you also
24 provided clarifications and some additional comments in relation to a
25 number of documents; is that right?
1 A. Yes.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have 65 ter number 90326 on the screen,
4 Q. Mr. Masovic, you see a statement in front of you. Is that your
5 signature at the bottom?
6 A. Yes, that is my signature at the bottom.
7 Q. And this is the statement that you -- the amalgamated statement
8 that was recently taken from you?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Prior to signing this statement you reviewed it with the
11 assistance of the interpreters. Do you confirm that it is accurate to
12 the best of your knowledge and belief?
13 A. Yes, I confirm that it is my statement and that it is accurate.
14 Q. If you were asked today about the same matters contained in the
15 statement, would you give substantially the same information to the
16 Trial Chamber?
17 A. Yes, I would.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I seek to tender the amalgamated
19 statement under seal and a public version will be available without
20 Annex B.
21 JUDGE KWON: Any objection, Mr. Robinson?
22 MR. ROBINSON: No, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE KWON: We'll admit both versions. Shall we give the
25 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the public version will become
1 Exhibit P4850, and the confidential P4851, under seal.
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: With Your Honours' leave, I will now read a
3 brief summary of the witness's evidence.
4 The witness is a member of the board of directors of the
5 Missing Persons Institute of Bosnia and Herzegovina commonly known as the
6 MPI. The MPI's responsibilities include maintaining lists of missing
7 persons and persons who have been found through the process of exhumation
8 and identification. The MPI, which began functioning in January 2008,
9 assumed the responsibilities of the commissions for missing persons that
10 had been in existence in Bosnia-Herzegovina prior to that time.
11 During 1992 to 1995, the witness was a member, acting head and
12 deputy head of the BiH State Commission for Exchange of Prisoners of War
13 Captured Persons and Bodies of People Killed and Record of People Killed,
14 Injured and Missing on the Territory of the Republic of BiH, known as the
15 State Commission.
16 In 1996, the State Commission became the State Commission for
17 Tracing Missing Persons. The witness was appointed president of this
18 commission. As of July 1997, the witness was also appointed as chairman
19 and co-chairman of the Federal Commission for Tracing Missing Persons
20 that encompassed the State Commission and a commission established by the
21 Bosnian Croat authorities.
22 The witness's evidence relates to the work of these institutions,
23 their mandate, their methodology, and their findings. The witness gives
24 details of his duties and responsibilities in these institutions
25 including his participation in the process of exhumations, autopsies and
1 identification of victims exhumed from mass graves, common graves, and
2 individual graves throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 The witness reviewed and commented upon several documents
4 relating to exchanges during the war and a number of documents relating
5 to exhumations, autopsies and identifications conducted in
7 The witness has prepared a report on exhumed and identified
8 persons relating to the incidents listed in Schedules A and B to the
9 indictment in this case from the MPI records.
10 That completes the summary.
11 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. Mr. Masovic, I have a small number of questions for you. In your
14 amalgamated statement, you discuss the process of exhumation, autopsies,
15 and identification of victims, and you say that the institute maintains
16 lists of exhumed and identified victims as well as missing persons.
17 In October 2009, did you provide a report to the OTP on exhumed
18 and identified persons based on these MPI records in relation to persons
19 listed in Schedules A and B to the indictment?
20 A. Yes, that is correct.
21 Q. And does that report contain two tables, the first table
22 containing numerical data on the number of persons exhumed and identified
23 or missing from several municipalities, and the second table contains
24 data about individual victims that have been exhumed and identified?
25 A. Yes, that is correct.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have 65 ter number 23691 on the screen,
3 Q. Is this your report that you provided in October 2009?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And attached to that report were the two tables, Table 1 and
6 Table 2 that we've just discussed?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And this report sets out the methodology and quotes a number of
9 figures that were -- that were correct as at the time of writing the
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. And did the OTP then recently ask you to update the information
13 contained in the two tables?
14 A. Correct. I was asked to update the information from 2009.
15 Q. I first want to deal with the second table.
16 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 23691B on the
17 screen, please.
18 Q. Now, we see on the left-hand side the -- is that the report, the
19 updated report that -- if we could just scroll over a little bit so we
20 can see the date in the heading of the document.
21 A. Yes, that is the updated list as of the 5th of April, 2012.
22 Q. And on the right-hand side of the screen we can see an English
23 translation of the heading row, the title of the document, the heading
24 row and also the legend which we will now go to, because I want you to
25 explain the colours that we can see in the document.
1 If we could go to the last page of the document, please.
2 A. In essence, the legend refers to two types of exhumed persons and
3 identified. The first group are persons whose names were provided to me
4 by the OTP. These are persons who are marked in red and blue text in the
5 table. The difference between those marked in red and in blue is in the
6 updating. Persons marked in red are persons who were identified at the
7 time of the drafting of the first report in 2009, and persons whose names
8 are written in blue are persons who were subsequently identified in the
9 period since 2009 until the drafting of the new report in April 2012.
10 The second part of the legend or the text that is written in
11 black refers to persons who were exhumed and identified and are not found
12 on the lists of victims that were provided to me by the OTP. However,
13 these are persons who were found in the same mass graves in which the
14 persons whose names were provided to me by the OTP were found, whose
15 names are in red and blue ink. They were included in the list based on
16 the fact that they were found, exhumed, and identified in the same mass
17 graves as those persons whose names were provided to me by the OTP. The
18 difference between the persons in black and those in black with a blue
19 star is in the updating. Again, the lists were updated. Those whose
20 names are written only in black were identified at the time the first
21 report was drafted in 2009, and those whose names are written in black
22 with a blue star next to their names are persons who were identified in
23 the period since 2009 until April 2012.
24 Q. And just looking at this last page of the document, we can see
25 five victims in relation to Foca, and if we could just zoom out so that
1 we can see all of the page. We can see four names in red provided by the
2 OTP and then one name in black coming --
3 JUDGE KWON: Why don't we collapse the English translation for
4 the moment, yes, and zoom in in B/C/S. Yes.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Mr. Masovic, we can see the six [sic] names in red and the one
7 name in black, all being exhumed from the same mass grave.
8 A. Yes, correct. All five persons were exhumed on the
9 17th of December, 2008, in Usce Cehotina, that location which is a mass
10 grave in the Foca municipality area, and the name of four of the
11 identified persons are on the OTP victim's list that was provided to me,
12 whereas the fifth person, Kemal Isanovic, marked in black, is not on the
13 OTP victim list. He was included in this list on the basis of criteria I
14 referred to before and that is the fact that he was found in the same
15 mass grave.
16 Q. Now, just looking there we can see a column "Date of
17 disappearance" and where the person was last seen; is that right? Can
18 you just explain to the Trial Chamber how the date and place missing
19 columns were determined.
20 A. The sources that were used by the entity commissions and, before
21 them, by the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War and
22 the State Commission for Missing Persons are different information. The
23 most frequent sources of information about the missing persons, the date
24 they went missing, the place of missing and the circumstances were the
25 actual families of those persons, but not necessarily so. In situations
1 of missing members of armies or missing members from the police force and
2 so on and so forth, in that case information about the missing persons
3 were provided by their commands, authorised services, their superiors,
4 and even their co-fighters who were witnesses when they went missing.
5 If you look at the dates reported as the dates the person went
6 missing, very often it can be the case that this is not the actual date
7 of death of a missing person. It's simply a date that one of our sources
8 of information acquired. For example, in certain cases a member of the
9 family who survived the war was a witness when his close relative was
10 taken away from his apartment, from their house, from their property or
11 simply from the street, and that was the last day that that person saw
12 their relative alive, and he would report that day as the day the person
13 went missing. However, in many cases, such missing persons, after being
14 taken away from their homes, were taken to camps, prisons, and in such
15 cases some other prisoners or detainees would see that person even months
16 after the person was taken away from their apartment or their house, and
17 then they would testify to a different date and a different place of --
18 the person went missing and different circumstances.
19 My conclusion, therefore, is that the date and the place the
20 person went missing does not have to indicate the actual date that a
21 person went missing. It's more of a perceived date by a member of the
22 family, and even different members of the same family could provide
23 different information about the date a person went missing depending on
24 when each of them learned that their relative had gone missing.
25 Q. Mr. Masovic --
1 JUDGE KWON: Ms. Sutherland, you referred to the column "Date of
2 disappearance" and the column where the person was last seen, but I can't
3 find those two columns in the English translation. Where do we have it?
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it's -- if we can ...
5 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Let us collapse the B/C/S version.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: It's the sixth and seventh column, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE KWON: And can we see the B/C/S now.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND:
9 Q. So, Mr. Masovic, can you --
10 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Now I can find them. Thank you,
11 Ms. Sutherland.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND:
13 Q. So, Mr. Masovic, if I understand you well, when you had different
14 dates from the family and then a subsequent date of the person being seen
15 at another location, you made the assessment to put the later date as the
16 date of disappearance; is that right?
17 A. Not necessarily. We try to check the veracity of the date -- or,
18 rather, the credibility of the resource that provided it. So based on
19 how credible the source is, we would enter such data.
20 I have to underline that for our institution, both the former
21 district commission and the institute of today, all the circumstances and
22 information surrounding the disappearance are not significant data. Our
23 task was not to find out how the people went missing and who was
24 responsible. Our major task was to try and locate the missing person,
25 and unfortunately most of them were found to be dead after the war.
1 Another task of ours was to identify those persons and to hand over their
2 remains to their families. That was our main concern.
3 As for the dates and manner of disappearance are something that
4 the Bosnian prosecutor offices and regular courts are dealing with.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we could just go to page 11 of the document
6 in e-court.
7 Q. Mr. Masovic, you can see in front of you this page relates to the
8 mass grave at Laniste 1 dealing with victims from Biljani. Very briefly,
9 the same principle as you've just discussed applies in relation to the
10 red and the black names; is that right?
11 A. Before I answer, there is a mistake in the English version, but
12 now it's been corrected.
13 Yes. The red names indicate the victims that are on the OTP
14 list. The black names are not on the OTP list. However, they were found
15 in the same mass grave which was in the area of Laniste, near Kljuc, and
16 which was 20 metres deep. So the remains of all these victims were found
17 in this one and the same grave, and its official name was Laniste 1.
18 Q. Mr. Masovic, I want to ask you about the entries that you have
19 for Bijeljina.
20 If we could go to page 1 of the document.
21 Can you explain to the Court why Bijeljina appears to be
22 different from the rest of the table? We see here that there's
23 four names in red exhumed from individual graves at one location and a
24 number of other persons whose names appear in black text again exhumed
25 from individual graves but from another location. Why did you list these
1 names in black?
2 A. The names of these individuals are written in black because their
3 names are not on the OTP list that was made available to me which
4 contains 48 names of the victims. Of the 48, only first four individuals
5 that we see in this table marked in red are in the OTP list, whereas the
6 rest are not. They were put on the Bijeljina list because this involves
7 the persons that for many years had been considered as missing, and they
8 went missing in the area of Bijeljina. Some of them disappeared until
9 the first half of April 1992, and some of them went missing towards the
10 end of 1992, with the exception of the Kisic family, six-member family --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, Isic.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- which is the family that
13 disappeared in Bijeljina in 1993. Therefore, all of them, with exception
14 of one person that was found in the same grave as the first four victims,
15 the Komsic family, were found in Serbia. Komsic family was found in a
16 cemetery in Bijeljina, whereas the others were found in Serbia.
17 I suppose that these people had been first killed, then their
18 bodies were dumped into the Drina River, and from then on their bodies
19 were taken down the Sava River to Serbia where the local authorities took
20 these bodies out and buried them in Sremska Mitrovica, Sabac and
21 Belgrade, and they were buried as unidentified persons until the date
22 when their identity was established through DNA examination.
23 The 12 people whose names are marked in black were reported as
24 missing either in the beginning or by mid-April 1992.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender that -- I seek to tender
1 the report, which was 65 ter number 23690, and the updated table, this
2 updated Table 2 which is 23691B.
3 JUDGE KWON: The original report, the number of original report
4 should be 23691.
5 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry. Yes, Your Honour. I'm sorry.
6 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Robinson.
7 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We don't have any objection
8 to 23691B, but we do object to 23690, since this is not an expert
9 witness. Any information in his report should have actually been
10 included and probably is included to some degree in the amalgamated
11 statement pursuant to the Chamber's practice.
12 Secondly, I note that the Prosecution has provided us by e-mail
13 with an updated list of the other table that was contained in the report
14 and I think that that should be admitted but not the narrative of the
15 report. Thank you.
16 JUDGE KWON: Could you expand on the reasons why the previous
17 report, part of which is already incorporated into his update, should be
19 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We believe that the tables
20 only should be admitted, so that for 619B only the table that we've been
21 discussion should be admitted, and we also request that the other table
22 be admitted which is an update to the other table that was contained in
23 23691. However, the narrative itself we don't believe should be admitted
24 because this witness is not an expert for whose report has been noticed
25 and that's normally admitted as an expert report. He's a fact witness,
1 and you've indicated that for fact witnesses their information should be
2 amalgamated into a single statement and that that single statement should
3 be admitted, which you've already admitted his statement. So we don't
4 believe that the narrative of the report should be admitted into
5 evidence. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: So it is your submission that the narrative part of
7 this report, i.e., 23691, amounts to an expert report.
8 MR. ROBINSON: Well, I'm saying that it has no business being
9 admitted because it's not an expert witness. So even if it's not an
10 expert report, whatever information that the Prosecution wanted to tender
11 outside of the oral testimony should have been included in the
12 amalgamated statement. Thank you.
13 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Can I hear from you, Ms. Sutherland.
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, as you know, this is a fact witness
15 with expertise. He may not be an expert witness, but he is a fact
16 witness who has expertise.
17 The narrative to the report simply sets out the criteria he used
18 in putting data in Table 1 and Table 2 and his methodology for doing
19 that. He does elucidate on that in paragraphs in his amalgamated
20 statement, but it's our submission that this overview would help even
21 though the figures that are contained in -- in the report may not be
22 current at the moment in the narrative.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE KWON: Both will be admitted given that Defence has no
25 objection to the admission of the table and that the witness -- witness's
1 narrative helps the Chamber understand the methodology in preparing for
2 those tables. The objection is overruled, and we admit them. We'll give
3 the numbers to both versions.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit P4852 and
5 P4853. Thank you.
6 JUDGE KWON: There's no problem in admitting publicly.
7 MS. SUTHERLAND: Table 2, no, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE KWON: Both.
9 MS. SUTHERLAND: And the report, no.
10 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND:
12 Q. Mr. Masovic, I want to turn now to the other table in the report,
13 Table 1. You were also asked to update that table, were you not?
14 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could 65 ter number 23691A on the screen,
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is correct. This is
17 Table 1 that also contains updated information about the missing persons
18 that had been located and identified in a number of municipalities in
20 MS. SUTHERLAND:
21 Q. And briefly what is the difference between this updated table and
22 the original table in 2009?
23 A. The principal difference is in that in the updated 2012 table,
24 two municipalities, i.e., Visegrad and Kotor Varos, were left out. I
25 suppose that they have also been left out from the indictment.
1 As for the other municipalities, the data have been altered in
2 term of establishing new numbers of the missing persons and identified
3 persons. Some persons were found in the period between 2009 and 2012.
4 Some of them found in that period were identified, including some that
5 were found prior to 2009 but were only identified later.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And if we could go to the second page. And the
7 last -- and then the last page.
8 I tender that updated Table 1, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Mr. Robinson, separate from the issues that
10 you raised, I forgot to ask you whether you were happy with the extent or
11 degree of English translation of those document.
12 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, it's okay, Mr. President.
13 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. We'll give the number for this table.
14 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P4854, Your Honours.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND:
16 Q. Mr. Masovic, I wish to now turn to the victim list. Were you
17 recently requested by the Office of the Prosecutor to review its
18 corrected victim list?
19 A. Do we need to have it on our screens first?
20 Q. Well, my question was simply were you asked to review a corrected
21 version of the witness list that was provided by the -- victim list which
22 was provided by the Office of the Prosecutor.
23 A. Yes. Yes, I was.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: If I could have 65 ter number 23690A on the
25 screen, please.
1 Q. And just before we deal with that, in relation to the updated
2 Table 1, that was information -- data available as of the 5th of April,
3 2012; is that correct?
4 A. I didn't understand you.
5 Q. The Table 1 that we just dealt with, the numerical data, that was
6 as of 5th of April, 2012, the data. Is that right?
7 A. Yes. That's the date on which the list was updated.
8 Q. Now, is this the updated victim list that you provided to the
10 A. Yes, that is correct. It is an updated list of victims as
11 indicated in the title of the document.
12 Q. And that is as of also the 5th of April, 2012. So -- is that
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. So on the left-hand side of the screen with the heading in blue
16 highlight, can you briefly describe what that side of the document
17 relates to.
18 A. Here --
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Sorry, if this could not be broadcast.
20 Your Honour, it was fine for what was broadcast, there's not an issue in
21 relation to that, but ...
22 JUDGE KWON: Fine. Let us proceed.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes. But if we -- if it remains not broadcast
24 from this point.
25 Q. Mr. Masovic, can you explain?
1 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Could the Chamber move into private
2 session briefly.
3 [Private session]
20 [Open session]
21 MS. SUTHERLAND:
22 Q. So very, very quickly, Mr. Masovic, can you just explain what's
23 on the right-hand -- left-hand side of the screen.
24 A. I only have one list on my screen, which is the list provided to
25 me by the OTP. So on the left-hand side is the list of the alleged
1 victims provided by the OTP for the purpose of me reviewing the list and
2 giving my comment.
3 On the right-hand side of the screen you can see which comment I
4 made with respect to each of the victims on the left-hand side or on the
5 so-called OTP victims list.
6 Q. And the -- the columns that you added are shaded in grey in the
7 heading column.
8 Now, can you just briefly explain for the Trial Chamber the
9 different categories that are represented there. If we could go to the
10 last page, we see a legend, but I would like you to very briefly explain
11 to the Chamber the different colours.
12 MS. SUTHERLAND: If we can go to the last page, please.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, this involves the
14 persons that were on the OTP victims list. When I made my comments, I
15 used light yellow to mark all those victims who were identified to date.
16 Light green indicates the names of the victims that have not yet been
17 found, or if they have been found, they haven't been identified yet,
18 which their status remains as still missing. Colour brown indicates the
19 victims from the OTP list which still have formally the status of missing
20 persons, but we do have some kind of preliminary identity for these
21 persons established on the basis of DNA identification. So it is highly
22 likely, and let me say that I estimate it to be 95 [as interpreted]
23 per cent possibility that in the course of further identification that is
24 going to be carried out with the assistance of their families, these
25 victims will be transferred to the category marked in light yellow, which
1 means those who have been definitely identified.
2 And finally, we have the category that is not coloured by any
3 colour, which is white, and that refers to the alleged victims from the
4 OTP list that had not been reported at all as missing to the institute of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina or in which cases the information we received was
6 inaccurate or insufficient and therefore unable to assist me in
7 establishing their identity. For example, if only you have the last name
8 of the victim without his or her first name or his or her father's name,
9 this is not enough, because it is well known that dozens or hundreds of
10 families or members of one and the same family were killed. But if I
11 only have the last name of the family without any other details, I really
12 find it difficult to determine which particular member of that family was
13 involved. For that reason, we left this category blank pending the final
14 determination of the status of these persons.
15 Q. Mr. Masovic, the transcript reads that you said that you
16 estimated it to be 95 per cent possibility that the preliminary
17 identifications --
18 A. No. I said 99.5 [as interpreted] per cent.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender the --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. It's wrong again.
22 99.95. Now it's correct.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I tender the marked up victim list.
24 JUDGE KWON: And you will tender a redacted version.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour. Yes. So this version will be
1 under seal and there will be a public redacted version.
2 JUDGE KWON: So we shall admit both the versions.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 23690A shall be given
4 Exhibit P4855, under seal, and the public redacted version will be P4856.
5 JUDGE KWON: Thank you.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND:
7 Q. Mr. Masovic, I wish to turn briefly to another topic. In your
8 work in the institute, have you ever come across situations of persons
9 falsely claiming military benefits and for what reason?
10 A. It is difficult to answer this question. We in the institute are
11 actually not involved in keeping these kinds of records.
12 In my report, I did mention some attempts, but it didn't have to
13 do with any particular military records, but nevertheless I said that
14 there were attempts by some members of the families to obtain some
16 Over the 20 years that I have been working with missing persons,
17 in only three instances we realised that families tried to report their
18 family members missing in order to obtain some kind of remuneration. So
19 from the date when I started working until today, there were only three
20 such attempt -- attempts.
21 As far as your question is concerned, I can say that I am aware
22 of such instances but not within the scope of work that I am involved in.
23 According to the electronic and other media, apparently there were quite
24 a few cases in which certain individuals succeeded in acquiring certain
25 statuses in spite of the fact that they were not eligible for that. For
1 example, they reported some of their family members as being killed and
2 claimed them to have been members of the military, which in fact is
3 something that they were not entitled to, and I think that this is
4 prevailing in both entities. And I think that in the Federation of
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina there are efforts which have been lasting for quite
6 some time to establish precisely who was the member of the military or
7 other formations, because as you know, Bosnia is facing an economic
8 crisis just like the rest of the world, and I think that these economic
9 difficulties have accelerated the process of reviewing the requests for
10 these remunerations.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I just make one intervention in
12 the transcript, because I don't think I'll be able to do that during
14 JUDGE KWON: Very well, yes. But please wait, because you
15 overlapped, but, yes, Mr. Karadzic.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I think at page 22, 11, 12, and 13,
17 the witness said not a small number of such cases, but here it says quite
18 a few cases. So lines 11, 12, and 13 on page 22.
19 JUDGE KWON: Very well. That will -- that's noted.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND:
21 Q. Mr. Masovic, is that correct?
22 A. I can't find that in the transcript. If you could go back a bit.
23 I don't know what it relates to. I said two things. I said there was
24 one situation which only three attempts were recorded, three attempts to
25 report that someone had allegedly gone missing, but there was no one who
1 had gone missing. And then I mentioned something that wasn't part of the
2 responsibilities of the Institute for Missing Persons, something I was
3 aware of given what I had read in the press or through the electronic
4 media. I heard that there was a review underway and that it appeared
5 that there were -- there wasn't a small number of cases in which certain
6 individuals obtained financial compensation or certain benefits although
7 they were not entitled to such benefits. To be more precise, some
8 individuals were granted the status of members of the military, of the
9 police force, whereas in fact those individuals were never members of the
10 military or of the police force. Or some individuals were granted were
11 granted a certain status as disabled individuals and as a result they had
12 financial compensation, but these people in fact weren't disabled or they
13 didn't have disability of such a percentage that would have resulted in
14 that individual obtaining financial compensation.
15 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Mr. Masovic. I have no further
17 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. Yes, Ms. Sutherland. Shall we deal
18 with the associated exhibits.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Associated exhibits.
20 JUDGE KWON: Any objections, Mr. Robinson?
21 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President. We have objections to several
22 of the associated exhibits which contain the reports of autopsies, and
23 our objection is that to admit those through this witness would --
24 JUDGE KWON: Could you let us know the number of the exhibit.
25 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
1 JUDGE KWON: Yes, number first.
2 MR. ROBINSON: 13081, 12602 [Realtime transcript read in error
3 "12601"], 13106. 12918, we actually object to that document as not
4 forming an indispensable part of the statement. Then --
5 JUDGE KWON: Just a second. 12601. Is it included in the
6 associated exhibits?
7 MR. ROBINSON: I think I said 12062.
8 JUDGE KWON: 12062. And the last one is 12 ...
9 MR. ROBINSON: And then also 13064, 13024, 13061, 13093, and
10 04786. And there were also a number of documents which didn't have
11 English translations, so we weren't able to be sure whether they included
12 autopsy reports or were simply --
13 JUDGE KWON: Very well. I will come back to the documents where
14 English translations are missing, but -- so please proceed with your
15 first issue.
16 MR. ROBINSON: Okay. Well, with respect to this issue, I think
17 that we've already encountered this when we dealt with the testimony of
18 Dean Manning, when the Prosecution sought to incorporate into its
19 exhibits the reports of -- or findings of other experts who were not
20 testifying or no notice of their expert reports were submitted to us
21 under 94 bis and you ruled that those would not be admitted, and we think
22 that this presents the same issue and ought to end in the same result,
23 which is that those exhibits dealing with expert autopsy reports ought
24 not to be admitted. Thank you.
25 JUDGE KWON: Because I didn't have time to go through each and
1 every document, I note that, for example, 4786, the last item you
2 referred to, has an English translation. So by way of an example, could
3 you give us an example why certain parts should not be admitted.
4 MR. ROBINSON: Yes.
5 JUDGE KWON: Could we upload that document.
6 MR. ROBINSON: If we look starting at page 5 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 JUDGE KWON: Microphone, please.
9 MR. ROBINSON: Yes. If we could just look starting at page 5,
10 which is -- we are objecting in this document to pages 5 through 21.
11 JUDGE KWON: So forensic medical examination and postmortem
12 examination of the bodies.
13 MR. ROBINSON: That's correct. And for each of the bodies the
14 expert gives his opinion as to the cause of death, and so we think that
15 that ought to be something that should have been the subject of expert
16 testimony and shouldn't be admitted through this witness. He himself on
17 occasion has been present. He has observed some bodies and remains and
18 has given his opinion of what he found in the comments section to the
19 annex, but with respect to actual autopsy reports and results, we don't
20 believe that they should be admitted.
21 JUDGE KWON: Yes. Ms. Sutherland.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour,
23 Mr. Tieger --
24 JUDGE KWON: I'd like to hear one at a time. Microphone, please.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Tieger is going to deal with this issue.
1 Thank you, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
3 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning,
4 Your Honours.
5 This is a misleading and false analogy both in terms of the
6 jurisprudence cited during the course of the argument with regard to the
7 Manning materials and with regard to those materials themselves extending
8 to this issue. Let me explain as briefly as I can.
9 First of all, during the course of the argument on the Manning
10 materials, Mr. Robinson relied on two things, the decision regarding
11 investigator Barney Kelly's summaries in the Milosevic case in May of
12 2002, which was finally decided by the Appeals Chamber in September of
13 2002, and he relied on 94 bis as lex specialis.
14 With respect to the Kelly decision, that decision turned on the
15 fact that the summaries were done by an OTP employee. That is not the
16 case here. In fact, contrary to Mr. Robinson's assertion, the -- both
17 the Trial Chamber in Milosevic and the Appeals Chamber in rendering its
18 decision specifically and explicitly approved of summaries and the
19 submission of such materials through other witnesses when they weren't
20 done by OTP employees, and they cited specifically the human rights --
21 the testimony of Fred Abrahams who incorporated previous statements and
22 an OSCE report and other documents by extension. By analogy, that would
23 mean that in this particular case these reports would come in.
24 Finally, the decision in the Milosevic case was grounded upon the
25 finding by the Trial Chamber that there was little or no probative value
1 in the tendered materials. That is precisely the opposite of the
2 situation here. Here the Trial Chamber, this Trial Chamber, in its
3 decision of February 21st, 2012, explicitly found that these materials
4 have probative value and are relevant but simply asked that they be
5 tendered through a witness.
6 Secondly with respect to 94 bis, Mr. Robinson attempts to make --
7 extend it beyond the practice of this jurisprudence and indeed beyond the
8 explicit provisions of 94 bis which is not a provision which embraces
9 every single document which has any specialised or expertise component,
10 it addresses specifically the testimony of expert witness, that's the
11 title of 94 bis, and it refers to the statements or reports of an expert
12 witness to be called by a party.
13 It was never intended to embrace every single document that might
14 have been produced at any time during the course of the conflict or
15 thereafter with respect to relevant issues. It was related specifically
16 to this. That is -- it has never been the practice in this institution
17 to make outside autopsy reports or exhumation reports the subject of
18 94 bis, and I've canvassed the case in other cases. That hasn't been the
19 case. Exhumation reports and autopsies have been submitted in various
20 ways but not under 94 bis. It's not the practice in this case where we
21 have seen autopsy reports and exhumations submitted through witnesses who
22 did not conduct them and not under 94 bis.
23 The Defence knows that because they tendered two autopsy reports
24 through different witnesses themselves not under 94 bis already in this
25 case. And we know it's not the case because this Trial Chamber itself
1 made a decision on February 21st, 2012, when it reviewed the tendering of
2 exhumation reports through bar table and -- and determined that, again as
3 I mentioned, that they were probative and relevant but should be tendered
4 through a witness but again made no mention whatsoever of 94 bis,
5 confirming the practice in this institution and in this particular case
6 that these are not -- reports such as these do not fall under 94 bis.
7 And finally with respect directly to the Manning analogy, that
8 decision by the Trial Chamber here involved reports that the OTP had
9 asked certain experts to produce. That's completely different from the
10 situation we have here where these were reports that were not
11 commissioned by the OTP but that were produced in the course of business
12 by outside agencies.
13 So the bottom line, Mr. President, is this: The OTP has done
14 precisely what the Trial Chamber asked it to do on February 21st, and
15 that was to tender these documents through a witness. That's not only
16 completely consistent with the jurisprudence of this institution but
17 actually goes an extra mile by the Trial Chamber in doing so. And I
18 would say this witness who oversaw much of this process and indeed in a
19 very hands-on way is the perfect witness through whom to do so. Even if
20 he wasn't the perfect witness, that would only go to weight not to
22 I could also speak for quite a long time about the policies and
23 practices underpinning the general nature of admissibility in this
24 institution, but given the specific backdrop of this issue, I don't think
25 that's necessary unless the Trial Chamber does. These documents should
1 be admitted as they have been tendered.
2 JUDGE KWON: If you could kindly remind us what the -- our
3 decision of 21st of February involved. Was it not related to exhumation
4 report, not including the forensic postmortem examination that would
5 touch upon the cause of death?
6 MR. TIEGER: No, that is true, Mr. President, but I cited it for
7 the broad principle that such matters do not involve 94 bis. I think it
8 clearly stands for that proposition. I cited it also for the proposition
9 that the trial -- that the Prosecution has acted as directed to by the --
10 by the Chamber, and I continue to note that autopsy reports have been
11 admitted in this case through witness -- through means other than 94 bis,
12 through witnesses who did not conduct the autopsies, and that that is a
13 practice that is not only followed in this Trial Chamber but based on my
14 canvassing of all the available information has been the consistent
15 practice in this institution throughout for the reasons I described.
16 JUDGE KWON: And one further reason for the Chamber to have
17 denied that -- denied to admit those exhumation report through bar table
18 motion was to give the accused an opportunity to cross-examine as to its
19 content. So how can we compromise with that ruling in this case,
20 Mr. Tieger?
21 MR. TIEGER: It is not a compromise on that ruling,
22 Mr. President, I would submit. First of all, the decision said it should
23 be tendered through a witness who can comment on the -- I should find the
24 exact language but who can speak to them and answer questions in relation
25 thereto. This witness is clearly in a position to do that.
1 JUDGE KWON: The next sentence. This would also give the accused
2 the opportunity to cross-examine such a witness and test his or her
4 MR. TIEGER: Yes. This witness can talk about the circumstances
5 that gave rise to these examinations, the nature of the process that was
6 pursued, its consistency with all the other information that was
7 available, the persons who were tasked to conduct these -- these matters.
8 The fact of the matter is that that -- it's not -- and I'm going
9 to say it again, we have admitted autopsy reports before in a matter
10 that's completely consistent with the most stringent adversarial system
11 jurisdictions. That is, where people have come in and said yes, that was
12 done, this is not an autopsy report done by some third grader, this is a
13 matter done in the normal course of business as one would expect. That's
14 part of what this witness can testify to and he can testify to much more
15 giving the Court a contextualised understanding of how these things
16 arose, the fact that they were conducted by professionals for a
17 particular reason in -- in the course of an effort that was independent
18 of an OTP commissioning akin to the Manning reports or to the Kelly
20 JUDGE KWON: Yes. I was waiting for the completion of French
22 Mr. Masovic, the Chamber does not usually hear from the witness
23 during the course of debate, so if you could wait for the moment.
24 Yes, Mr. Robinson. Would you like to say anything further?
25 MR. ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. President, just briefly in reply. I
1 think the Chamber has hit the nail on the head which is who is
2 Dr. Karadzic going to cross-examine about the cause of death if these
3 reports are admitted through this witness, and that was the basis for
4 your ruling with respect to the Dean Manning issue for which the
5 Prosecution didn't seek reconsideration, and I think that should be the
6 basis for your ruling here.
7 The last time I heard Mr. Tieger relying on the practice of this
8 institution was when he tried to justify not disclosing Rule 68 material
9 before the beginning of the trial, and you've ruled that that practice
10 was wrong, and it would be wrong to also allow the Prosecution to have
11 the benefit of expert evidence without following the procedure under
12 Rule 94 bis which provides for notice in advance of the trial, provides
13 for the opportunity for the accused to either agree or dispute the expert
14 evidence, and then where it's disputed, it gives the accused the
15 opportunity to cross-examine expert witnesses. And so we believe that
16 that practice should require that if the Prosecution wants to rely on
17 expert evidence outside of court, it should have followed that procedure
18 and given the Defence the opportunity to challenge it. Thank you.
19 JUDGE KWON: Just could confirm that -- that the part the Defence
20 is concerned about is the part related to the cause of death.
21 MR. ROBINSON: Exactly.
22 JUDGE KWON: Yes, Mr. Tieger.
23 MR. TIEGER: I can't sit while Mr. Robinson asserts that I am
24 trying to disregard the rules of the institution. 94 bis does not
25 provide for and is not intended to encompass the documents that he is
1 seeking to bar from admission, and it doesn't -- it doesn't embrace those
2 documents on its face, it hasn't embraced those documents in the course
3 of the practice of this institution, and it hasn't embraced those
4 documents in the course of the practice in this case as reflected by the
5 fact that the Defence itself tendered such documents, and those were, for
6 example, D48 and D2043 through two separate witnesses.
7 And I mentioned the other aspects of the adversarial system
8 because it would be anomalous to the point of being bizarre if this
9 institution, which has adopted an expansive admissibility policy in light
10 of the scale of the events and the scope of evidence that is admitted
11 which can be tested one against the other, to have a practice that is
12 more constrictive and restrictive than adversarial systems which would
13 allow such documents to be admitted when they are produced in -- in the
14 customary course of business of those institutions.
15 So for many reasons this is not a matter of the OTP trying to
16 circumvent the rules of the institution. This is instead a reflection of
17 Mr. Robinson's attempt to expand a rule beyond the scope of what it is
18 intended for and what it has been applied to.
19 JUDGE KWON: Thank you. The Chamber will rise for its
20 deliberation. So we'll probably resume at 11.00, but Mr. Tieger,
21 Mr. Robinson, Mr. Karadzic, due to my personal urgent matters, I will be
22 absent from the remainder of this week, and the Chamber will sit pursuant
23 to Rule 15 bis.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: The Chamber has considered the arguments put
2 forth by the parties in relation to the admission of the autopsy reports.
3 The Chamber recalls that the rationale behind its decision of the
4 21st of February, 2012, was to provide the accused with an opportunity to
5 cross-examine a witness who can answer questions as to the parts of the
6 exhumation reports that he challenges. The accused indicated today that
7 he challenged the causes of death in these reports. The Chamber
8 therefore considers that it is not appropriate to admit these parts of
9 the autopsy reports dealing with the causes of death but sees no reason
10 not to admit the rest of these documents. The Chamber therefore orders
11 that the Prosecution provide redacted versions of 65 ter 4786, 12602,
12 12918, 13024, 13061, 13064, 13081, 13093, and 13106, and will admit these
13 redacted versions into evidence.
14 The Chamber has also noted that a number of English translations
15 are missing. For those documents for which no English translations have
16 been provided, the Chamber will MFI the documents pending reception of
17 the English translation. The Chamber will admit the remainder of the
18 associated exhibits into evidence and ask the Registry to attribute the
19 appropriate exhibit number in due course.
20 Thank you.
21 Now, are there any more matters to be dealt with by the
22 Prosecution in relation to this witness?
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it.
25 Mr. Witness, the accused now has the opportunity to cross-examine
1 as to those matters that he wishes to do so.
2 Dr. Karadzic.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. Good
4 day to everyone, and I wish everyone a Happy Easter.
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Karadzic:
6 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Masovic.
7 A. Good day.
8 Q. First of all, there's something I would like to clarify for
9 myself. I'd like to clarify something that concerns your attitude
10 towards the Serbs and towards me personally so that I can view your
11 testimony in that light.
12 Do you agree that the Serbian side in Bosnia-Herzegovina was very
13 unhappy with your attitude towards the Serbian victims?
14 A. Well, my answer to your question depends on what you mean when
15 you say "the Serbian side." In the institute in which I work, there's
16 something that could be called the Serbian side according to your logic,
17 and all I can say is that I'm on excellent terms with my Serbian
18 colleagues in the Institute for Missing Persons. I have in mind the
19 board of the institute, the Serbian members, the directors' collegium,
20 the supervisory board, and the advisory board.
21 It is true that some members of certain non-governmental
22 organisations for a certain period of time, for a lengthy period of time,
23 perhaps, have been putting into dispute not only my legitimacy but also
24 the legitimacy of Serbian members of the Institute for Missing Persons.
25 They would point out that they are not happy with the number of
1 individuals of Serbian nationality who have been found or identified.
2 Q. Thank you. Do you agree that as far as the Serbian side is
3 concerned, it is the families of those who were killed or went missing
4 that are most interested in the results of the work of your institute and
5 in your own work?
6 A. Well, there are two different associations composed of Serbian
7 family members of those who were killed. One of them has an HQ in
8 Banja Luka and one of them falls in the category that you mentioned. And
9 the second association that also assembles Serbian families who have
10 missing family members, well, it has its HQ in Sarajevo and they fully
11 support the work of the Institute for Missing Persons.
12 Q. Thank you. As for the association with its HQ in Eastern
13 Sarajevo, do they support your work and your attitude towards the Serbian
14 victims in Sarajevo?
15 A. Well, I couldn't [Realtime transcript read in error "Kosevo
16 Hospital"] come to the conclusion that the members of that association
17 didn't support the work of the Institute for Missing Persons or my work.
18 Sometimes there was some dissatisfaction that would be expressed on the
19 whole through the media, but on the whole that association that is led by
20 Mr. Milan Mandic supports the institute's work and the work of us who are
21 on the board or in charge of that institute.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we see 1D5515 in
23 the e-court system, please.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Are you familiar with this criminal report submitted against you
1 by the president of the organisation of families of the captured
2 combatants and missing civilians? Have you ever seen this criminal
3 report before?
4 A. No, I haven't ever.
5 Q. Can you please look towards the bottom of the page on what
6 grounds this criminal report was filed, because it says here that you had
7 hidden ten bodies of Serb soldiers, and you covered up the whole affair
8 as a result of which they cannot be traced. It speaks about a meeting in
9 Doboj which was held on the 26th of May, 1997. There is mention of
10 Sheila Barry [phoen] as an OHCR representative of Banja Luka and some
11 other names of the people who took part in that meeting. And then in the
12 next paragraph it is said that you had found 38 bodies and another 15
13 were missing, and then you managed to find them later on, but the ten
14 bodies of the Serb soldiers had never been mentioned again nor has any
15 information required been provided.
16 Is this correct? Did you attend this meeting?
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I apologise to the parties for not
18 having time to translate this, but I'm sure that the witness can cope
19 excellently with the Cyrillic script.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, I see in the
21 transcript that in line 26 it says "Kosevo Hospital." I don't think that
22 you mentioned that at all. Although I see it in the transcript.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Which page?
25 A. 21.
1 Q. Line 21.
2 A. Well, I don't know, this left column, what it signifies, whether
3 it's the page number or what. So if you would go back a bit, this is
4 completely out of the context as far as I can see.
5 Q. No, no. Not Kosevo Hospital, but it says families of those who
6 are captured or missing or killed combatants and missing civilians.
7 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, just one moment, please.
8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I think it's just a correction that
9 will be done to the final transcript. The word "Kosevo Hospital" should
10 read "couldn't."
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, thank you.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I believe that this was
13 mentioned in the witness's answer not in my question.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. So did this meeting take place on the 26th of May, 1997, in
17 A. I cannot confirm the date precisely, but I do remember meeting in
18 Doboj and I remember what was being discussed on that occasion in Doboj,
19 and the allegations in this criminal report are absolutely baseless for a
20 simple reason which is my colleagues from the then office for tracing
21 missing persons unfortunately until the Institute for Missing Persons was
22 established in 2002 had applied, I would say, a kind of inappropriate
23 logic in that the bodies of the people who disappeared in the war should
24 be subject of exchange. In other words, they were obliged to provide a
25 certain number of bodies to another entity and to receive a number of
1 bodies from that entity in return.
2 In the then State Commission for Tracing Missing Persons we never
3 accepted that logic. We believed that the bodies of all those who were
4 found and had been considered missing, regardless of their status,
5 whether they be soldiers or civilians, should be handed over to their
6 families. This is the practice that we pursued in 1996 and that is how
7 we do it nowadays at the Institute for Missing Persons.
8 So if we are talking about this particular association, it is
9 possible that this criminal report relates, although I said I'm not
10 familiar with it, relates to a situation in which a while ago, I don't
11 know exactly when, I gave a statement to the state agency for
12 investigations and protection, and I suppose this is what this is all
13 about. Although, as I said, I've never seen this document before and I
14 clearly said what is said here, that is to say that bodies of the people
15 who were killed cannot be subject of any calculations or arrangements.
16 Q. But, Mr. Masovic, this criminal report does not refer to
17 exchanges of bodies but, rather, to the cover-up of the bodies of
18 ten Serb soldiers who were allegedly hidden. This is what you were
19 accused of, that is to say that you sabotaged the efforts of the Serbian
20 side to locate their missing people.
21 If we look at the bottom of the page and the next page, can you
22 see where it says ten Serb soldiers, where it says the -- although the
23 other side asked them -- him to do that on many occasions and the last
24 time it was done in Banja Luka on the 18th of February in the Assembly
25 building, and on this occasion he said, "Sue me." Did you say that? Did
1 you say, "Sue me"?
2 A. If we go back to the beginning of this criminal report, you will
3 see that I was right, because it says here that there was an alleged plan
4 to have Bosniak bodies exchanged for the alleged bodies -- ten bodies of
5 Serb soldiers for whom the State Commission purportedly had information
6 about their whereabouts or where they had been buried. So I ascertained
7 that this is an attempt to carry out an exchange of dead bodies.
8 As I said, during the war we had no other option but to act in
9 this way, that is to say that we had to exchange bodies of both soldiers
10 and civilians. However, after the Dayton Accords, this practice was
11 completely discontinued on our side, and the international instruments
12 and Dayton Accords make it incumbent on all the parties to assist the
13 former opponent in obtaining their respective remains of soldiers and
15 We on the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina had this attitude
16 towards that people in 1996, and we maintain the same attitude nowadays.
17 Q. When you said the State Commission that purportedly had
18 information, did you refer to the commission that you were the head of?
19 You're not referring to the Central Commission of Republika Srpska but
20 the State Commission of which you were the head and this commission had
21 information about these ten people.
22 A. No. Quite the contrary. The -- had the State Commission had any
23 information, they would have been made available just like we did before
24 for the colleagues from our -- from our counterparts from the office for
25 tracing the missing persons in Banja Luka.
1 Q. But this criminal report does not speak about the exchange of
2 38 bodies for ten bodies but, rather, to make you afford the equal
3 treatment for the Serb dead and that you provide them with the bodies of
4 the ten Serb soldiers who had gone missing on the Muslim side. So this
5 is not about the exchange but, rather, about your attitude towards the
6 Serbs and the Serbian victims, which was extremely biased and
7 prejudicial, and according to the allegations made by these organisations
8 was aimed at proving that the Serbs didn't suffer as much as the other
10 What do you have to say to this?
11 A. Now, if we actually had this attitude, you would be right. It
12 would be harmful. But I reiterate here that we never entertained this
13 kind of attitude especially after the signing the Dayton Accords, and I
14 agree with you that this kind of attitude would be damaging, that it
15 would be something that would constitute discrimination against the
16 victims and would be contrary to our laws and the international treaties
17 signed between the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and International
18 Commission for Missing Persons. So this attitude was not entertained by
19 either myself and by any of the commission ending with the federal
20 commission and, finally, I did not do this as a member of the managing
21 board. It was quite the contrary.
22 Let me just give you an example that happened a couple of years
23 ago. After the exhumation of Serbian victims in the eastern part of
24 Herzegovina that were exhumed from a natural crevasse which was about
25 100 metres deep, we knew that four members of the Serbian family Vukovic
1 were there. Members of the Special Police, they are Alpine Task Force,
2 went down into the pit. They found the skeletal remains on a plateau
3 down there, but then I went down into the pit and I noticed that this
4 plateau is not actually the very bottom of the pit but that it goes even
5 further because it was obvious that water found its way further in depth.
6 I personally asked this Alpine group to go further down, and I also
7 accompanied them there. We reached the depth of 100 metres, which we --
8 which is the place where we found the majority of bones of the Vukovic
9 family. And I am talking about this publicly for the first time.
10 If you read the newspapers in Bosnia-Herzegovina or if you follow
11 electronic broadcasts, this is something that I had never said before,
12 but I felt the need to say this today in this courtroom in order to shame
13 the people who authored this criminal report, because contrary to their
14 allegations, I am a person who is doing his best to participate in
15 tracing all missing persons regardless of their ethnicity or any other
17 JUDGE BAIRD: Mr. Masovic, a question was asked by Dr. Karadzic
18 earlier on, and it could be that you missed it. Can we hear you on this:
19 Did you, on the 18th of February, in the Assembly building, say, "Sue
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my statement that I gave to the
22 state agency for investigations and protection, I suppose with regard to
23 this criminal report, I said that I did not remember that event, and I
24 honestly cannot confirm today whether at one point in time due to the
25 repetitive allegations that were levelled against me by the people who
1 were politicised, if I at one point did say, "Sue me." I allow for a
2 possibility that at one point during a meeting in Banja Luka I may have
3 been irritated and annoyed and uttered those words, but I honestly don't
4 remember, because this is not my nature and not the way I behave. But I
5 allow for the possibility that those people who have written this
6 document are telling the truth.
7 JUDGE BAIRD: Dr. Karadzic.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency, for
9 this clarification.
10 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Let me ask you this, Mr. Masovic: Do we have the statement of
12 yours given to the state agency SIP or whoever it is that you gave it to?
13 Do we have this statement that you mentioned a minute ago?
14 A. I don't have it, and I've never received a copy of it.
15 Q. Thank you. We are going to ask the OTP or the agency to provide
16 it. Thank you.
17 Is it true, Mr. Masovic, that in your testimonies and comments
18 and documents you used to call the Serbian side rebels?
19 A. I don't think that I used that term during the war, and in line
20 with the Geneva Conventions and since my government believed that the
21 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the subject of an aggression by the
22 Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro, so in line with the
23 Geneva Conventions, the enemy side was called renegade or outlaw forces,
24 and this is the term that I used throughout the war. I didn't use the
25 term "rebels."
1 Q. Thank you. Is there a difference, legally speaking, between the
2 warring parties and the forces that you call renegade forces? You are a
3 trained lawyer, aren't you?
4 A. Yes, you're correct, I am a lawyer, an attorney by profession,
5 but I'm not sure that I understood. If you think about -- if you're
6 talking about members in this wartime period of renegade or outlaw forces
7 as I referred to them, are you thinking of them? Of course there is a
8 difference in legal status in any event, but equally as they are
9 protected by the Geneva forces, the regular forces of the government that
10 is in conflict, the members of the renegade or outlaw forces are
11 protected in the same way under the Geneva Conventions. I think that's
12 how it is if that's what you meant.
13 Q. All right. But you were aware that if -- if it was the renegade
14 forces, they are being viewed as citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina as
15 you put it, and the very participation in combat is considered a crime
16 and could be processed; is that correct?
17 A. I'm not sure that I understand the question. People, regardless
18 of their ethnicity, who are citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, who committed
19 certain crimes such as illegal possession of weapons, refusal to be
20 mobilised, assisting the enemy, killing prisoners of war, committing war
21 crimes towards the injured, the sick, crimes to go -- towards
22 negotiators, parliamentarians who go to negotiations was something that
23 was prosecuted by the authorised legal institutions of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and the government in Sarajevo did not distinguish
25 here among persons of Serbian, Bosniak, or Croatian ethnicity or any
1 other ethnicity. They were all the subject of prosecution by the
2 authorised judicial institutions.
3 Q. Thank you. My question refers to members of the Serbian armed
4 forces, the Army of Republika Srpska. If they were captured, were they
5 treated as prisoners of war or as criminals who would be prosecuted only
6 because they belonged to the Army of Republika Srpska?
7 A. Well, the answer to that question is beyond the mandate of my
8 expertise and my testimony. This is a question for the judicial
9 institutions, for those who arrested, indicted, and sentenced such
10 persons. As to the grounds of why they were arrested, prosecuted, or
11 charged, I really don't know what the status of these persons was.
12 Q. Thank you. However, in your statement of the 30th of May, 2003,
13 and the 2nd of June, 2003, in paragraph 22 you said that the members of
14 the armed forces -- of enemy armed forces who were held in B and H
15 prisons were citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina as well, and pursuant to
16 international law, they were not treated as prisoners of war, and
17 criminal proceedings could be initiated against them in accordance with
18 the local laws.
19 Is this one of the consequences of this labelling of the Serbian
20 side as a renegade, outlaw side?
21 A. There were two groups of people that were in prison. One group
22 was under the category of prisoners of war. These were people who were
23 captured in fighting, in combat, as members of the army, as member of the
24 enemy army.
25 As far as I know, a number of them was accused under Article 119,
1 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina as members of
2 the enemy army. I don't know if any of them were sentenced, but I know
3 from some documents that I had the opportunity to see during the wartime
4 period that some of them were charged under that article.
5 The second group of people that was in prison consisted of
6 persons de facto who were not captured during fighting but were charged
7 with certain criminal acts that had to do with the war. These were
8 people that I mentioned earlier. They were charged for aiding the enemy,
9 for illegal possession of weapons and explosive devices, for espionage,
10 not responding to mobilisation. So I'm talking about these two
11 categories of people in the broadest possible sense. Prisoners of war or
12 fighters who were captured at the fronts and noncombatant prisoners,
13 people who were not in uniform, who were not captured in the front but
14 were arrested in different places, and their arrest did have something to
15 do with the conflict.
16 Q. Thank you. All right. So this position of yours from your
17 statement of 2003 is something that should be changed. It should be
18 corrected. So it is not correct that members of the enemy armed forces
19 were in prison, that they did not have the status of prisoners of war.
20 You said that they did not have this status and that they could be tried
21 under the local laws.
22 A. Again, I'm saying it's my opinion, and at that moment I was not a
23 member of the military prosecutor's office or the Military Court, and I
24 really cannot tell you what their position was in these proceedings. But
25 on the basis documents that I had access to, I say that some of them were
1 charged under Article 119, which states -- or refers to participation in
2 the enemy army. I don't know whether that means that they do have the
3 right to the status of prisoners of war, for example, as a members of the
4 Serbian army who happened to be in territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina
5 would have who would undoubtedly be a prisoner of war according to
6 Bosnian law and the Geneva Conventions or does not have the right to such
7 a status because a person is a citizen of the Republic of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina. This is something that I really don't know.
9 Q. Thank you. And as a lawyer, did you establish if the
10 Geneva Conventions also applied to internal conflict?
11 A. Yes. In the sense of conduct towards members of enemy
12 formations, for members who are not foreign citizens. They enjoy equal
13 protection that members of enemy and aggressor armies that come from a
14 different state enjoy as well. I think that Geneva Additional Protocols
15 grant equal or almost equal status to members of armies that take part in
16 internal conflicts that do not spread beyond the territory of a certain
18 Q. Thank you. You probably did hear about the first trial at this
19 Tribunal, the case against Tadic. Did you notice that it was established
20 then that the conflict does have an international character and that the
21 Geneva Conventions Article 4 must be applied of the Geneva Conventions --
22 of the 3rd Geneva Conventions.
23 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But I see that Madam Sutherland is
24 on her feet.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
1 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I object to these questions in
2 relation to this witness.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes, Dr. Karadzic, this is a matter of customary
4 international law of which the Tribunal and the Judges will take notice.
5 The question of whether or not this particular witness did or did not
6 understand - and it appears that he did understand - the ramifications of
7 the law is really, certainly in my view, wasting your limited time and
8 doesn't really assist the Tribunal.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellency. I
10 think that it will become evident that this is relevant, that the
11 attitude of this side towards the Serb side was different and that the
12 Serb side was not happy with that. I don't know whether that position is
13 the result of personal animosity or the position that Serbian members of
14 the army are beyond the law is something that would need to be examined,
15 but I will move to a different topic.
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Masovic, the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they obliged
18 to join the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
19 A. I don't know how I could answer this question. I was not a
20 member of the Ministry of Defence whose duty it was to carry out the
21 mobilisation in wartime.
22 So I believe that in the situation where an attack of another
23 army of another state took place against a sovereign state, in principle
24 then all those obliged under the law to be summoned to serve in the
25 military should respond to that summons. I'm not speaking about
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina now but I'm speaking generally. If one's state is
2 attacked, all of those subject to military service duty should be
3 summoned and they should respond to this summons because according to
4 local laws, if they don't do that, they would be committing a crime of
5 not responding to the call-up. This is a valid law in the former
6 Yugoslavia, and at the moment when the war started in Bosnia and
7 Herzegovina, this was also a valid law in the Republic of Bosnia and
8 Herzegovina, which already had its own criminal penal code and also did
9 adapt -- adopt some provisions of the criminal law of the former
11 Q. In your statement of 2003, in paragraph 22, you also said that
12 people were arrested because, among other things, possession of weapons
13 not -- joining the enemy army, for armed rebellion, or refusing the call
14 for mobilisation.
15 Did the Muslims in Republika Srpska also have to respond to the
16 mobilisation then? I mean, do you agree that they did not have to do
17 this and that this was something that could be done on a purely voluntary
19 A. I don't know how to answer this question. I spent the whole war
20 in Sarajevo, and what happened outside of the territory that was under
21 the control of the government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
22 is something that I know about only to the extent that it applied to my
23 activities during the war. And my activities during the war involved my
24 duties as a member and vice-president of the State Commission for the
25 Exchange of Captured Persons, Prisoners of War. That was my area of
1 duty, work of that State Commission. That was the mandate of that
2 State Commission that I belonged to during the wartime period. Whether
3 somebody was mobilised in Republika Srpska or Srpska Republika as it was
4 called in the early stage of the war or not, whether they were obliged to
5 respond or not is something that I really don't know anything about.
6 Q. Thank you. However, would you agree? Did you notice that the
7 United Nations treated us as an equal party in negotiations before the
8 war broke out and after the war broke out as an equal party to the
9 conflict? Did the status of the Serbian side in Bosnia and Herzegovina
10 change as far as the United Nations was concerned in the same way that it
11 changed as far as your side was concerned?
12 A. Well, I never took part in these negotiations with members of the
13 United Nations, and until the 21st of August, 1992, moreover, I was
14 carrying on with my law practice and probably that is the period that you
15 mean when you refer to the period before the war. As for the time during
16 the war, I'm really not aware of how the United Nations treated, as you
17 refer to them, the parties in the conflict.
18 Q. All right. This will be the last question on this topic. Did
19 the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina or you personally decide to refer to
20 Serbs as renegades? Was this an official thing? Were you instructed by
21 the government to call or to refer to the Serbs and to treat them as
22 renegades or outlaws, or was this a matter of your own personal choice?
23 A. I really don't know what the government position was on the
24 matter of how they would refer to the enemy side, but departing from the
25 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the Geneva
1 Conventions, I believe that since this was not an external enemy but an
2 enemy from Bosnia and Herzegovina that had entered into a conflict with
3 their own government, and that was the factual state at the time when I
4 came to the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War, that
5 is how I did refer to members of the enemy as renegade or outlaw forces.
6 That was my commission in the State Commission for the Exchange of
7 Prisoners of War. Probably other members of the government or the
8 government itself referred to members of the enemy formations
10 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to look at your amalgamated
11 statement, so I would like you to take a copy of the statement.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Perhaps the Prosecution could
13 provide a copy for Mr. Masovic, because now I'm going to be going through
14 some of the paragraphs. Perhaps we can also provide the witness with a
15 copy. We have it in Serbian.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Have a look at paragraph 7, please, where reference is made to
19 the responsibility of the State Commission and three subcommissions. Did
20 the Serbian side have anything similar?
21 A. Well, yes. I could say that they had something similar. The
22 Serbian commission was called the Central Commission for the Exchange of
23 Prisoners of War and I'm not sure that they had exactly the same
24 structure. I don't know whether they had these three subcommissions, one
25 for exchanges, for records on the killed and wounded, and then a
1 subcommission to keep records on missing persons. So I don't know
2 whether they had exactly the same structure, but in principle, I do know
3 for sure that that commission did have the responsibility for getting
4 involved in the exchange of POWs, of those who had been arrested, and of
5 those who had been killed.
6 As to whether they also had a mandate to make -- to keep records
7 of those who had been killed, who had gone missing, who had been wounded,
8 I don't know. That wasn't the subject of our discussions, the
9 discussions that we had together in the course of the war.
10 Q. Thank you. In subparagraph 8 you said that the Presidency
11 amnestied -- granted an amnesty for certain prisoners. Do you agree that
12 on the Serbian side there was also this attitude according to which the
13 Presidency should grant an amnesty prior to exchange? They should grant
14 an amnesty to those who were being prosecuted. Have you seen any
15 documents drafted by myself that says that individuals were exchanged
16 because I put an end to their prosecution?
17 A. Well, first of all, it would be correct to interpret paragraph 8
18 in the following way: I said for each individual case, not for each
19 case. It's an important difference. For each individual case, if it
20 concerned individuals who were prosecuted, who had been accused or
21 perhaps even sentenced for certain crimes, well, in such cases it was
22 essential to receive something from the head of state in
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, from the Presidency. It was necessary to receive a
24 document stating that prosecutions would be halted -- or, rather, that
25 amnesty would be granted to those who had been sentenced. And the
1 Presidency did that in order to carry out exchanges of prisoners.
2 In none of the documents that I received from my Presidency --
3 well, I didn't show any of these documents from the Presidency to my
4 colleague, Dragan Bulajic, and I co-operated with him during the wartime
5 period the most. And I also never had the occasion of seeing any of the
6 documents that you yourself signed, not only a document on granting
7 amnesties but any other kind of document because this quite simply wasn't
8 an area that we were interested or involved in. For us it was important
9 to secure certain conditions so that a given individual could be released
10 from prison and handed over to the enemy side.
11 Q. Thank you. But you nevertheless said somewhere - I can find
12 that - that in your opinion Karadzic sometimes took decisions. Are you
13 aware of any decision of mine that didn't concern the granting of an
14 amnesty in accordance with the law?
15 A. I really can't remember. In my statement I mentioned the name of
16 someone who referred to you, who used your name and said that you were on
17 good terms with each other. That person wasn't officially involved in
18 the Serbian Central Commission for Exchanges, but sometimes that person
19 did attend negotiations that were conducted in a neutral area, that were
20 conducted at the Sarajevo airport during the war. The name of the person
21 is Stjepan Lazarevic, and he very often said that you were on good terms,
22 and on the basis of some Bosniaks who were released, and that was thanks
23 to him, I gained the impression that he in fact did have a certain amount
24 of influence within that body. And in some cases, my colleague Bulajic
25 from the Central Commission wasn't capable of doing certain things and
1 Mr. Lazarevic managed to do these things. How, I really don't know. But
2 yet again let me repeat what I have said: He said that he was on good
3 terms with you.
4 Q. Thank you. When he mentioned being on good terms with me, did
5 that help him to be accepted as a partner? Was that in any way
6 advantageous to him? Did it in some way demonstrate that he was
8 A. Well, he wasn't part of the structure of the commission for
9 exchanges, but nevertheless, he would appear together with members of the
10 commission for exchanges and as someone from the other side involved in
11 negotiations I took that into account. I took the fact that he was part
12 of the team for negotiations into account because I could see that
13 colleagues who were officially members of the Serbian Central Commission
14 for Exchanges respected him and accepted him. There were other
15 individuals who also attended negotiations not as frequently as
16 Mr. Lazarevic. Sometimes they were people who were interested in their
17 personal problems or, rather, they wanted to have personal contact with
18 me or other members of the commission to deal with their personal
19 problems, to establish contact with family members, or perhaps they
20 contacted us because their family members were in prison for certain
21 crimes, perhaps, and they were attempting to obtain their release from
23 Q. Thank you. In paragraph 8, you say that you were present in the
24 Presidency when exchanges all for all were discussed, and you said that
25 one session there was a discussion about Serb detainees in Tarcin. Does
1 that concern the silo in Tarcin?
2 A. Yes, that is correct. One of the items of the agenda at the
3 meeting I was present at concerned yet again an amnesty for the purpose
4 of an exchange. It concerned an amnesty for certain individuals in
5 prison and there was also a discussion about the status of Serbs in the
6 prison that was popularly called the silo and this prison was located in
7 Tarcin. So this was discussed. The status of those prisoners or
8 captives was a matter that was discussed.
9 Q. Thank you. Do you remember that at that session of the
10 Presidency, President Izetbegovic said that it seemed that civilians were
11 being kept there and that they weren't responsible for anything, they
12 hadn't done anything? Do you remember any conclusions about that matter?
13 A. I think I'd have to have a look at the transcript at sessions of
14 the Presidency. I was present only when there were items of the agenda
15 that I reported on. For example, if the Presidency had ten items on
16 their agenda and if there was an item that concerned granting amnesty and
17 it was item 7, well, then I wasn't present when the other items were
18 discussed. I would only arrive for the seventh item on the agenda. For
19 example, I can't now remember which item was in fact concerned, but when
20 my item was called out I would enter the Presidency, attend the session,
21 and as soon as the item had been dealt with, I would leave the
23 So without actually seeing the transcript I can't remember
24 whether I was present when the conclusion was adopted in relation to that
25 item. So I can't remember what else was discussed, but I do remember
1 that at the Presidency there was a discussion about the status of
2 Serbians who were being kept in detention in the silo in Tarcin.
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we see 1D5509.
4 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you remember when the Serbs who were being held in the silo in
6 Tarcin were in fact released? Do you remember?
7 A. They were gradually released from the prison in Tarcin, in
8 succession, in fact. That started in 1992 and continued right up until
9 the post-Dayton period, so to speak. In the Dayton agreement, part of
10 the item that concerns the release of POWs and that concerns missing
11 individuals, in that item it ordered all the sides to act within 90 days
12 from the time of signing the agreement and by that time all POWs had to
13 be released. If I remember this correctly, and I think I do, the last
14 group of prisoners to be released from the prison in Tarcin was released
15 on the 26th or 27th of January, or perhaps it was even on both those
16 days, on the 26th and the 27th of January, 1996. So that was before this
17 90-day dead-line expired. And this is what had been agreed by those who
18 had signed the Dayton peace agreement.
19 Q. Very well. And do you know that the vast majority of prisoners
20 in the silo spent the entire wartime period in captivity in the silo?
21 This isn't the relevant document. This document relates to
23 Are you aware of the fact that they were kept in detention in the
24 silo throughout the war? The majority of the prisoners were kept in
25 detention there.
1 A. I don't know what you mean when you say "throughout the wartime
2 period." I said that from 1992 onwards, the prisoners being held in the
3 silo were exchanged. This was done partly through exchanges organised by
4 the local authorities, and it was done in part through exchanges
5 organised by the State Commission for the Exchange of POWs, but I believe
6 that after the Dayton agreement about 100 of them were released. And if
7 I'm not mistaken, the maximum number of detainees in the silo was over
9 So as for your question that concerns whether the majority of the
10 prisoners were kept in the silo throughout the wartime period, well, my
11 answer to that question would be no, if we bear these figures in mind.
12 But, yes, some prisoners, about a hundred, I think, were still in that
13 prison at the end of the war, rather, when the Dayton agreement was
14 signed. Some of them remained in detention in the silo throughout that
15 period of time.
16 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could this criminal
17 report please be marked for identification? 1D5515 is the number.
18 JUDGE MORRISON: I don't see any difficulty with that,
19 Dr. Karadzic.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit D226 [sic].
21 Thank you.
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Excellencies.
23 Could we now see 1D5506.
24 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. I'd like to show two documents to you that show how the Serbian
1 side dealt with issues of exchange -- or, rather, with granting amnesty.
2 Do you agree that this is a decision on pardoning individuals who
3 were sentenced? This says they're being released from the need to serve
4 their sentence, and furthermore, it says that]they will no longer be
5 prosecuted. It says these individuals who are of Croatian nationality
6 will no longer be prosecuted. It says that they are being pardoned so
7 that they can be exchanged with prisoners from the Army of
8 Republika Srpska.
9 So is the procedure here the same sort of procedure that the
10 Presidency in Bosnia-Herzegovina followed?
11 A. It's really difficult for me to draw any conclusions on the basis
12 of this document. The only conclusion I can draw is that all the
13 individuals who are being released here are of the same nationality. The
14 individuals here are of Croatian nationality, and that concerns the
15 individuals who are being released on one side and the individuals on the
16 other side.
17 Q. No. They're all from the same side, but in the case of some, one
18 group of individuals don't -- they won't have to serve their sentence,
19 and in the case of another group of individuals, they won't be prosecuted
20 anymore. The first two were, in fact, sentenced. Isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's what this document states. The individuals concerned
22 were sentenced. They are of Croatian nationality, and it appears that
23 they are also individuals who are being prosecuted but who have not yet
24 been sentenced and they are individuals who are also of Croatian
1 Q. Thank you. Could you have been aware of these Croats who were to
2 be exchanged, and did you know about them? Because in May 1995, you and
3 the HVO were not enemies. You had an established federation. Should you
4 have been aware of this?
5 A. Up until the time when the conflict broke out between the ABiH
6 and the HVO in October 1992, and the situation escalated in 1993, up
7 until that time in the State Commission as a rule we were aware of these
8 exchanges, and even if the HVO organised the exchanges, we would be aware
9 of them. After the conflict broke out between the ABiH and the HVO, the
10 HVO became the enemy side. And we were then no longer aware of exchanges
11 between the HVO and the Serbian side. They would deal with those issues
12 bilaterally, and we would be unaware of these exchanges.
13 But as to whether I should have been familiar with -- as to
14 whether I should have been familiar with such documents, I've already
15 answered that. When my colleagues came to negotiate on behalf of other
16 enemy sides, it wasn't necessary for me to provide them with documents on
17 being granted amnesties, on being released from prison. What was
18 important for them was that the prisoners would appear at the site of
19 exchange and that they'd be handed over to them. They weren't interested
20 in technical issues. They weren't interested in whether they had
21 officially been granted amnesty or whether they had officially been
22 pardoned, and so on and so forth. And similarly, on the other side, I
23 wasn't interested in whether detainees who were going to be released by
24 the enemy had been granted amnesty by the enemy. I wasn't interested in
25 whether they had been prosecuted. This wasn't a matter of interest for
2 Our task in the State Commission after we had taken charge of
3 former prisoners or detainees at a confrontation line or in some neutral
4 area, we wanted to have a brief statement from them about the conditions
5 in the prison that they had been held in. We were interested in
6 obtaining certain details from them that concerned the number of
7 detainees remaining in the prison or the camp. We wanted to know whether
8 these prisoners or detainees were being maltreated. We wanted to know
9 what they thought about their status. We wanted to know who they thought
10 should be exchanged immediately when another exchange was organised.
11 They would then go to the police force and provide detailed statements
12 about everything that they were familiar with in the territory that they
13 had come from, in areas that they inhabited, about the conditions in
14 prison or camp. They would provide information on whether they had
15 witnessed cases of violations of international law.
16 Q. We have to be a little more expeditious. I didn't ask you
17 whether you were familiar with the document but whether you were familiar
18 with the fact that these people had been exchanged.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could we now see 1D5507 and then I
20 will tender both of these documents. 1D5507. And I believe that the
21 next document will -- we'll see is one that you are probably familiar
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Masovic, I'm not asking you about the document. I'm asking
25 you if you knew that they were exchanged. Can we agree that we have
1 people here who were serving a sentence but for the purpose of exchange
2 were subject to amnesty, and all of these Muslims, as you probably have
3 noticed, were exchanged; is that correct.
4 A. Unfortunately, I recognise their names, and I know that this is a
5 group of civilians from Banja Luka who worked for a Muslim humanitarian
6 organisation and who had been providing food and other necessities for
7 Bosniaks in Banja Luka, and that was the reason why they were arrested.
8 I'm talking about this on the basis of the direct knowledge, because I
9 talked to some of them. For example, I talked to Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel.
10 That's the last name on the list. And she confirmed all I'm telling you
12 Although I see this document for the first time, I can say that
13 it shows that they had been convicted and sentenced. And it is said in
14 this document signed by you that they would be exchanged for combatants
15 of the Army of Republika Srpska, but, as I said, this is a group of
16 civilians working for a humanitarian organisation in Banja Luka.
17 Q. And do you know what this humanitarian organisation was actually
18 doing, and do you know that a court passed a judgement about that?
19 A. I told you what I heard from Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel. Mr. Gojacic.
20 I think I also talked to Mr. Smail. I recognise another name, that of
21 Zijahudin Smajlovic. I think he's the man who managed to receive
22 compensation for the entire period that he spent in your prison, and this
23 compensation was awarded to him through a court judgement. I don't think
24 that I talked to him, but I think that Zijahudin Smajlovic was someone
25 who managed to get damages due to wrongful arrest, because after the war,
1 he filed a suit for pecuniary and other damages on the basis of wrongful
3 I have some reservations about this, because this is what I
4 learned from the media, and I didn't talk to him personally, but this
5 name rings a bell and I think that I read about this suit in the papers.
6 I said that I spoke with Mr. Gojacic, number 4 on the list, and
7 Mrs. Suhreta Djuzel, number 6, also Smail Djuzel, and I think that
8 Suhreta and Smail are actually spouses. And I talked to them after their
9 release. And of course, I talked to them on several occasions after the
10 end of the war. Mr. Gojacic was for a period of time the leader of the
11 association of detention prisoners.
12 Q. After the break we are going to show you documents relating to
13 the aforementioned humanitarian organisation.
14 Now, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 10 and let
15 me ask you this: Were there those so-called private exchanges that were
16 conducted below the radar that you didn't know anything about? And I
17 kindly ask you to give me as brief an answer as possible, because I am
18 pressed for time.
19 A. Well, you can see that as far as the situations that were within
20 my scope of responsibility, I know a lot. However, private exchanging
21 were beyond the scope of my responsibility. I have to say that
22 occasionally I received information that some individuals organised
23 exchanges, this sort of private exchanges either for money or for other
24 gain. However, they did not involve large numbers of people. It was
25 never ten people who were exchanged but, rather, two or three relatives
1 of somebody who managed through private channels to establish contact
2 with the other side or one-for-one exchanges, et cetera. And I dare say
3 that this number is insignificant in comparison to a total number of
4 those exchanged during the war. Therefore, I cannot give you a precise
5 answer because sometimes these private exchanges did not involve
6 prisoners at all, because private individuals did not have access to
7 detainees in prisons. This would usually involve people who were
8 actually not arrested.
9 Q. Now, if we look at paragraph 11, I wonder if everything that you
10 are telling me --
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] But before that, I'm sorry, Your
12 Excellency, could these two documents be admitted into evidence, the ones
13 that speak about the amnesty?
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, the problem arises again of
15 untranslated documents. Time and time again you've been warned that
16 there will come a stage when untranslated documents are simply not going
17 to be acceptable, and for the moment these will be admitted subject to
18 anything the Prosecution has to say.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, in relation to the first document,
20 the witness -- the only thing the witness said was he could only draw a
21 conclusion that they were all of the same nationality from just reading
22 the names on the document and the fact that they were released, and that
23 was also just reading what was contained on the document. He didn't
24 actually speak to anything other than that. And the Prosecution would
25 like to know the provenance of these two documents, please.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Well, Dr. Karadzic, you must provide
2 suitable provenance. Very limited basis upon which they can be admitted
3 as Ms. Sutherland points out. On the first document it's -- it's purely
4 to the answer that the witness gave for no other purpose. Indeed, with
5 an untranslated document it's only the answers to specific questions that
6 are going to be taken into account by the Tribunal even when the document
7 is translated. The whole of the document isn't going to fall into
8 evidence. But for the present these documents can be marked for
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter number 1D5506 is
11 Exhibit D2227, marked for identification; and 65 ter number 1D5507 is
12 Exhibit P -- sorry, D2228, marked for identification. And just to
13 correct the transcript, page 56, line 1, should read D2226. Thank you.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Excellencies.
15 These are authentic documents that I signed. They have a register number
16 and the seal of the president, and my friends who managed to get hold of
17 the copies of these documents are currently correcting [as interpreted]
18 them because the original archive has gone missing.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Now, let me ask you this, Mr. Masovic: When you say the Serbs
21 often killed captured military prisoners --
22 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, one moment. Yes, Ms. Sutherland.
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: Mr. Karadzic mentioned a moment ago that he has
24 friends who managed to get hold of the copies of these documents and
25 they're currently correcting them because the original archive has gone
1 missing. We have some problems with that.
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The interpreters said
3 "collecting them."
4 THE ACCUSED: Collected. I suppose -- it was collected, not
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: And the second point is: Mr. Karadzic, would he
7 like to share with the Court who his friends are who managed to get hold
8 of the copies of these documents.
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that's going to be all part of the
10 provenance that's going to be required in exactly the same way that the
11 Prosecution would be required to show a source.
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Masovic, I would like to know how did you arrive at the
15 conclusion that Serbs often killed captured military prisoners? And I'm
16 quoting from paragraph 11. And that concerns me a little. You told us a
17 minute ago that you can testify about certain things, but it seems that
18 you're capable of testifying about other things as well. This is a very
19 broad statement and the Defence is challenging it. Can you tell me how
20 did you establish this?
21 A. This paragraph speaks about the reasons why the Army of Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina or Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to set up special
23 departments for prisoners of war. They did this because they were
24 satisfied with the fact that the vast majority of exchanged Bosniaks and
25 earlier Croats were not members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina but
1 civilians. The BH Army thought that members of the military should be
2 involved in exchanges in as large numbers as possible, and for that
3 purpose each corps of the BH Army established their own departments for
4 that, and you can see here that on several occasions, especially in the
5 earlier stages, they organised exchanges without the participation of the
6 commission that I was a member of.
7 Now, how I arrived at the conclusion that there were only a few
8 members of the military, the reason is very simple. For example, a
9 number of members of the BH Army spoke about how their fellow combatants
10 were captured in combat at Treskavica and other places, and later on we
11 received their dead bodies in exchange. We didn't get them alive. And
12 there are other similar people -- examples, but I cannot remember right
13 now. However, it will be easy to find specific examples which testify
14 that members of the BH Army were very seldom subject of exchange of
15 living persons but very often the exchange of dead bodies.
16 Q. Does your amalgamated statement deal with this or did you just
17 insert this statement offhand?
18 A. I gave you an answer to that. I just answered your question. On
19 the basis of the fact that the majority of bodies exchanged during the
20 war were actually members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that the
21 number of living exchange -- exchange of living members of BH Army is
22 insignificant as compared to that of dead bodies led me to conclude that
23 the majority of members of the BH Army did not live to see the end of the
25 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Chamber now according to what you
1 know, how many members of the BH Army did the Serbs hold in 1992? Just
2 recall the prisons of Manjaca, Batkovici, and tell me how many combatants
3 were captured by the Serbian Army, combatants from the BH Army.
4 A. According to what was testified by exchanged detainees, it turns
5 out the majority of the captives were civilians, that only a very, very
6 limited number of members of the BH Army or TO were among them. And they
7 were captured during combat operation. The vast majority in the camps
8 and prisons, particularly in 1992, were Bosniak and Croat and Roma
9 civilians and civilians from other ethnic communities, including the
10 Serbs who did not display loyalty towards the Serbian Army.
11 Q. But how do you know that, Mr. Masovic? Based only on what you
12 heard from other people?
13 A. Based on what was reported by members of their families when they
14 reported missing persons, and based on what those who survived told us
15 after they had left camps and prisons.
16 Q. Thank you. Can we agree --
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, we'll take a break there and
18 resume again at 1.30.
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, if I may say, this
20 witness is much too important, and I have given -- I've been given a
21 little time. I'm hopeful that I'm going to get at least one more session
22 tomorrow after the videolink.
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, we'll consider that proposition depending
24 on how concise and relevant the cross-examination is from now on.
1 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.30 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 1.32 p.m.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, reviewing the witness schedule for
4 this week, it's going to actually be extremely difficult to extend this
5 witness's evidence beyond today except for a very small amount of time
6 which we will try and add to today's hearing if -- with the indulgence of
7 all the staff. So I would really endorse you to be as concise as you can
9 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, may we go briefly into private
11 JUDGE MORRISON: Certainly.
12 [Private session]
11 Page 27275 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
11 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. I'm going to do my best to such my questions in such a way that
13 you are able to answer with a yes or a no, and of course you are free to
14 add whatever you feel is necessary.
15 Do you agree that Mr. Izetbegovic was undoubtedly the leader of
16 the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to say the least?
17 A. Mr. Izetbegovic was the member of the Presidency of the Republic
18 of Bosnia and Herzegovina and later the -- a member of the Presidency of
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 Q. My question, let me be open, was more directed in the sense of
21 this: Do you believe that in a -- that the military conscripts did not
22 respond to several call-ups?
23 A. I don't know the answer to your question. And I repeat, up until
24 the 21st of August, 1992, I was still working in my legal practice. I
25 don't know anything about what was going on with the government when the
1 call-ups were issued or how many people responded to them.
2 Q. Thank you. And do you know that at least in the first year as
3 many as 85 per cent of Muslim fighters were participating in the war in
4 civilian clothing and that this is information that was issued by the
5 command of that army?
6 A. Well, no, I really don't know anything about that. That was not
7 something that I was interested in. It was not a subject that I was
9 Q. Thank you. Is it correct that the HVO let you know that all
10 able-bodied Muslims in -- it considered all able-bodied Muslims as
11 military conscripts during times of mobilisation, and that is how the
12 Croatian Army or the HVO behaved during that time?
13 A. I didn't have any contacts with the HVO, and if I did, they were
14 very, very brief. In contacts with the service for exchange of the HVO
15 which I was in contact with during the wartime period, I do not recall
16 anybody telling me that in any way. It is true, though, that Mr. Pusic,
17 who is here, Berislav Pusic, once or twice told me verbally that he
18 personally considered all Bosniaks, or as he put it, all Muslims of the
19 age of 16 up until the age of 70 as soldiers of the enemy army.
20 Q. Thank you. And he personally had that position as the president
21 of the HVO exchange commission; is that correct?
22 A. I don't know if he said that in that capacity or whether that is
23 his own personal position. It's something that I -- I don't know, but he
24 probably wanted in that way to justify the fact that HVO camps had a
25 large number of civilians who had nothing to do with combat. I assume
1 that in that way he wished to justify the fact that civilian persons were
2 being held in captivity, civilians who did not participate in combat
4 Q. Thank you. And you testified about this in the Prlic et al.
5 case, and you confirmed it also in your statement of 2004, saying that
6 the HVO, the HVO commission, stated its terms for one-on-one exchange,
7 and for the government in Sarajevo this was always a problem, because the
8 Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats in the -- in their camps had civilians.
9 How many Muslims lived in Kljuc, for example, according to your
10 information? Or let me help you so that we can have yes or no answers.
11 Do you agree that there were a bit more than 18.000 Muslims living in the
12 Kljuc municipality?
13 A. I really don't know how many Bosniaks were there, or, as you call
14 them, Muslims there.
15 Q. And do you agree that about 1.000 Muslims from Kljuc were
16 captured and taken to Manjaca?
17 A. I don't have that information. I really don't know.
18 Q. And if in your statements you say that Serbs were holding Muslims
19 captive, did you work out why it wasn't the entire 18.000 of them? Why
20 was it only a thousand? If civilians were being held in captivity, why
21 was it only 1.000 civilians and not all of them? What was the reason why
22 such and such a number out of a total number of Muslims in Kljuc were
24 A. Well, this is something that you said. I didn't confirm what you
25 say, so I cannot really comment on your questions. You said that
1 18.000 Muslim lived in Kljuc and that 1.000 of them were taken to
2 Manjaca. This is something that I really don't know and I don't dare
3 comment on something that I don't know.
4 Q. As of August on, were you dealing with the number of captured,
5 detained Muslims?
6 A. I was working with the first and last names of the people who
7 were in enemy camps and prisons. My goal was to release as many people
8 as possible from those prisons and camps. It didn't matter whether they
9 were soldiers, civilians, a man, a woman, a child. The fact is that most
10 of them were Bosniaks in the Serbian camps and that is why the Bosniaks
11 were the most numerous subjects of exchange. But it's also a fact that I
12 was also dealing with Mr. Vladimir Srebrov during the war who is not a
13 Bosniak, who is a Serb or a Montenegrin. I'm not sure how he declared
14 himself. He was in the Kula prison and who was also a topic of my
15 interest in the process of exchange, and finally we did manage to
16 exchange him after a long, long period of captivity, it's true, that he
17 spent in the Kula prison.
18 Q. Thank you. You mentioned that in your statement, and you said
19 that he was arrested because he was asking for me to be able to negotiate
20 on a cease-fire. If I were to tell you that he was arrested because he
21 had come to the front line to persuade the Serbs at the front line in
22 Ilidza to leave before they were attacked, is that something different
23 from the information that you are aware of?
24 A. Mr. Srebrov was my neighbour in Sarajevo. I did mention that in
25 my statement, and what I was saying about him going to talk to you is
1 information that dates from that time from what he stated to the media.
2 Q. Thank you. And do you know that Mr. Srebrov was the only member
3 of the SDS that we ejected? We threw him out, and we did that because he
4 was threatening that the Mlada Bosna which he was leading would become
5 the iron fist? And then he stayed to live with you and then he began to
6 serve in the cause?
7 A. I really don't know any of that information. I don't even know
8 that he was a member of the SDS as you say. I don't know any of the
9 other things you mentioned either.
10 Q. Thank you. And you are talking quite generally about how the
11 Serbs were killing prisoners of war -- or, rather, prisoners in prisons
12 and among other places you mention Manjaca. According to what you know,
13 how many prisoners were killed in Manjaca?
14 A. I don't have the exact information. Prisoners in Manjaca were
15 killed. A number of them were killed in the camp. This is testimony of
16 those who managed to leave the camp. A number of them were taken out of
17 the camp and at different locations at various distances from Manjaca
18 they were killed. There are testimonies about this, and this was also
19 established in some trials also, but I am unable to give you the precise
20 numbers of people who were killed in the camp or outside of the camp or
21 on their way to the camp or on their way out of the Manjaca camp to other
22 destinations. I don't have that information.
23 A significant number of them, I cannot give you a precise number,
24 I'm not prepared for that, but a large number of them are still
25 considered to be missing, people who according to the statements of their
1 families or other inmates were last seen in the Manjaca camp and 20 years
2 today after they were in the camps their fate is still not known.
3 They're probably dead, because if they were alive, they would have
4 returned to their families. They're probably dead, but their remains
5 have still not been found.
6 Q. Mr. Masovic, are you aware of the fact that throughout that
7 period of time Manjaca was under the control of the International
8 Red Cross? They would visit the camp at least once a week and sometimes
9 twice, and they were all released and allowed to go to foreign countries
10 on the 8th of December, 1992. Were you aware of that? And this is the
11 reason for which you do not have the bodies of any of these people.
12 A. I'm afraid that your statement doesn't correspond to the facts.
13 I know for a fact that according to information provided by the ICRC,
14 information that you are referring to, about 500 camp inmates were
15 transferred to the Batkovici camp when Manjaca was closed down or
16 allegedly closed down. I personally participated in negotiations that
17 concerned the release -- or, rather, liberation of those 500 prisoners.
18 They were mainly Bosniaks, Croats, and there was a smaller number of
19 members of the Roma community, and they were between 18 and 65 years of
20 age. Among them there was also a group of about 100 inmates from a place
21 called Grapska in the vicinity of Doboj, and they passed through the
22 Doboj prison and then they went to Manjaca, then Batkovic, Kula,
23 Sarajevo, the Rudo prison, and they were in the Kula in Sarajevo again,
24 and finally they were exchanged, if I'm not mistaken, in 1994. And I
25 know that at least 11 of them were killed during their detention in Kula.
1 Q. Could you provide the Chamber or the Prosecution, if you're not
2 willing to do so for the Defence, could you provide them with a list of
3 the individuals you are searching for, a list of the individuals who were
4 in Manjaca and whom you are searching for.
5 A. Well, that's quite possible, but there is one restriction I
6 mentioned at the beginning of my testimony when answering a question put
7 to me by the Prosecution. This information as to where and when someone
8 was present is usually information that is obtained from their family
9 members. So if that information -- if such data is reliable, well, you
10 can have such information. In the majority of cases it is the families
11 that determine the date on which someone went missing, whether that date
12 is correct or not. But in the records that we keep, the place where
13 someone went missing or the place where someone used to be present is
14 referred to as the Manjaca camp.
15 Q. Thank you. I'll now present you with my claim. First of all,
16 there were 4.004 prisoners in Manjaca, five -- there were five who died,
17 three of natural causes and two were killed as a result of being beaten
18 up. We don't know whether this was a real intention, but people were
19 sentenced. So there were two deaths, two individuals who were killed.
20 Manjaca was under the constant supervision of the ICRC, as well as
21 Batkovici. Those who had to be prosecuted were taken to Manjaca.
22 Everyone else was taken to other countries.
23 Do you have such information, and do you know who the individuals
24 who went to other countries are, in fact?
25 For the benefit of the other participants, KDZ163 is the number
1 of a witness who testified here about the five deaths that occurred
2 there, and this Prosecution witness was in a position to have such
4 A. During the war, the State Commission for Exchanges was interested
5 in those who were in Manjaca, not those who were released and went to
6 other countries. No records were kept for these individuals because they
7 weren't involved in exchanges through the State Commission.
8 In the post-war period, we investigated cases of individuals from
9 Manjaca who didn't survive the war or their detention in the camp, who
10 are still listed as missing.
11 Q. Are you bringing into question my claim, my claim that I
12 unilaterally released about 4.000 individuals from Manjaca so that they
13 could be taken to other countries?
14 A. I don't know what the answer to your question would be in a
15 certain sense. I'm surprised by a certain fact which I wasn't aware of
16 during the war. I'm surprised by the fact that there were as many as
17 4.000 people in the camp of Manjaca at one point in time. I never had
18 such information according to which there were even 4.000 inmates in the
19 Manjaca camp at one point in time, and that is what you are claiming. So
20 I know nothing about your allegations according to which these people
21 were released.
22 Q. Mr. Masovic, perhaps I wasn't precise. It wasn't at one point in
23 time but during a four-month period 4.000 individuals passed through the
24 camp. Five individuals died, three of natural causes and two died as a
25 result of beatings. We don't know whether this was intentional or not.
1 But you know -- or you do know that I released everyone in Manjaca at the
2 beginning of December and the Red Cross took them to other countries.
3 Were you aware of that?
4 A. Well, at that time, I was concerned with those who had not left
5 Manjaca. The State Commission was interested in prisoners, not in those
6 who were released. I was interested in the fate of the 500 people from
7 Manjaca. The International Committee of the Red Cross told us that these
8 people had not been released but that they had been transferred to the
9 Batkovic camp. And I believe that the International Committee of the
10 Red Cross even lodged a protest with the Serbian authorities. If I can
11 remember this correctly, this was a long time ago, they lodged some kind
12 of protest because of the fact that these 500 inmates had been
13 transferred from one camp to another camp, to the camp in Batkovici.
14 I'm not denying this fact. I'm really not aware of whether you
15 took such a decision or not of whether these people were released or not.
16 There's nothing I can comment on that.
17 Q. Thank you. Sir, it's not 500 but significantly less, and the
18 lists of individuals were handed over to the Red Cross, and they were
19 registered. They arrived in Batkovici. Are you aware of the fact that
20 they were permanently referred to on the Red Cross list or included in
21 the Red Cross's list?
22 A. Let me repeat what I have said. I knew that they were
23 transferred to Manjaca for the simple reason that I subsequently
24 personally participated in the negotiations that were conducted with the
25 Serbian commission, negotiations that concerned the release of those
1 500 people. The largest group was from Doboj, if I remember this
2 correctly. There were about a hundred of them. There were also people
3 from Jajce and from some other towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I
4 personally participated in the negotiations. I participated in the
5 procedure for their release. Some of them were released in Sarajevo,
6 because in the end, after Batkovici, they ended up in prison in the
7 correctional facility Kula. I cannot really say whether they were
8 included on the list, whether records were kept about them or on the
9 Red Cross's lists because this is confidential information and the ICRC
10 doesn't share such information with third parties.
11 Q. Thank you. Since you were involved in investigations into the
12 missing after the war, do you know anything about who is in -- is now
13 present in third countries? I'm referring to citizens from Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, or at least to the Muslims? Did you in fact find out that
15 some of those who were on your list were, in fact, now living in third
17 A. No. I don't know who is now living abroad, which citizens of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina regardless of the nationality are now living abroad,
19 but we do have contact with the families of those who have gone missing.
20 We have contact with the International Committee of the Red Cross. We
21 also have contact with the International Commission for Missing Persons,
22 and we have contact with the local branch of the Red Cross in Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina. They have their own records on those who have gone missing.
24 We've included these lists in our commission, and on that basis - and you
25 can see that in my report - we compiled a single database on those who
1 who are missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 What I could additionally say in response to your question is
3 this: Since you say that there are people who are still alive and who
4 are on the lists, yes, I can confirm those allegations. To date about
5 236 such individuals of all nationalities have been found, and at one
6 point in time, usually in the early summer or autumn of 1992, their
7 families reported them as missing and although they returned to their
8 families or moved out of the country, this was never reported. So they
9 were still included on the list of those missing because their families
10 didn't report the fact that they weren't, in fact, missing anymore.
11 Q. Did you draw the conclusion that there were no more survivors but
12 that they were on your list?
13 A. I can't say that we might have certain people recorded as missing
14 on our list, but they are in fact living somewhere else in the world.
15 Recently we discovered that there was a girl, a young girl who had been
16 transferred from the northern part of Bosnia-Herzegovina to Serbia. She
17 was two years old at the time and she was adopted by a family there.
18 That child wasn't aware of its origins, of who its parents were. It
19 recently came of age, and it -- the child has discovered its identity and
20 about two years ago she returned to Bosnia and Herzegovina having
21 discovered what her real identity was. Her name is Senada Becirevic. In
22 Serbia her name was Mila Becirevic. That was in fact the surname of the
23 parents who adopted her.
24 So I can't say that tomorrow or in one year's time there won't be
25 a similar case. I can't claim that someone might be found who is, in
1 fact, alive but is nevertheless still included on the list of those who
2 are missing.
3 Q. Thank you. Do you know that there were all these adults who
4 lived in Novi Sad throughout the war and then they returned, and when
5 they returned, they found that their names were inscribed on tombstones?
6 Or there was the third son of a man from Bratunac, and according to the
7 records, this son was missing, but he had in fact returned. Were you
8 aware of these cases? There are at least two such cases that concern
9 adults. They were both in Serbia. They lived their lives there, got
10 married, and so on and so forth.
11 A. If you go back to my statement, I said that I was aware of three
12 attempts to falsely report certain individuals as missing. One of the
13 cases is in fact the case that you are mentioning. It concerns a man who
14 spent the war in Novi Sad or in the vicinity of Novi Sad. He was married
15 to a Serbian woman, and his father reported him as missing as well as two
16 other sons who really went missing, but this individual was never
17 missing, and we believe that his father was also aware of his fate, that
18 is to say, he was aware of the fact that he was alive and living in
19 Serbia or, rather, in Vojvodina, but probably for certain pragmatic
20 reasons of his own he also reported that as son as missing. So that is
21 one of the three attempts to make a false report about someone who went
23 Q. Thank you. In what way could he have benefitted from that?
24 A. Well, prior to 2004, he couldn't have gained any advantage from
25 the fact, because in 2004, a Law on Missing Persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 was adopted, a law which granted the families of such missing people
2 certain rights. For example, free education for their children, free
3 social security, the right to learn about the fate of their family
4 members who went missing. And Bosnia-Herzegovina established, in fact, a
5 commission for missing persons. According to the law, there's also some
6 sort of remuneration for the families of those who were missing, and the
7 fund for missing persons is supposed to pay such benefits.
8 Unfortunately, my state has been criticised for many years now,
9 by the United Nations and other groups, because that law on financial
10 compensation for families of missing persons was never implemented. None
11 of the families of those missing in Bosnia-Herzegovina, regardless of
12 their nationality, managed to receive a single euro from the state of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina, although according to the Law on Missing Persons,
14 the families of missing persons do have such a right.
15 Q. Thank you. Does Bosnia and Herzegovina have any lists on people
16 who are refugees in other countries, and have you compared these lists to
17 see whether these individuals are, in fact, alive?
18 A. I don't know whether the state has any such lists. I don't
19 believe that's the case. The Institute for Missing Persons, in any
20 event, doesn't have such lists. They are of no importance for us,
21 because the contact we have is contact with family members who are
22 searching for other missing family members. So above all, we have
23 contact with such people and there are over 9.000 such people in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They provided a drop of blood so that a DNA analysis
25 could be used to see whether any of the victims in mass graves, in
1 individual graves, are in fact family members of theirs. We have
2 information from the ICRC on over 22.000 citizens from Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 whose families are in Bosnia-Herzegovina and throughout the world.
4 Wherever the ICRC is present, and the ICRC is mostly present in all the
5 countries throughout the world through local Red Cross branches, we in
6 fact submitted requests to these ICRC branches to locate these
7 individuals. We are also in direct contact with families who are looking
8 for their relatives who have gone missing.
9 Q. It seems that I am putting rather extensive questions to you.
10 Now I'm going to try and put short questions to you and elicit a yes or
11 no answer from you if possible.
12 So you confirmed that a large number of people changed the status
13 of their family members in their various statements, sometimes claiming
14 that they were dead and sometimes claiming the contrary, but it seems
15 that according to what you think about this matter, the number of the
16 civilians who got killed is exaggerated. Is that correct?
17 A. Actually, the people who reported people missing didn't change
18 their statement. When they originally filed reports about missing
19 persons, they defined them as either being a soldier or a civilian. We
20 as an institution consider this to be completely irrelevant. We don't
21 care whether those people were civilians or soldiers. That was
22 absolutely beyond the scope of our interest. We see them solely as
23 missing persons, as missing citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and our
24 mandate is to identify them and to hand over them to their families.
25 Now, whether some of the families, but I don't know how many of
1 them because we don't have a database specifying who was a soldier and
2 who wasn't, and I said that was totally irrelevant, that was not our
3 remit, we didn't care whether anyone went missing during combat
4 operations or as a civilian. Our objective was to locate those persons
5 and hand them over to their families. And, yes, you are right when you
6 say that there are such reports that you have mentioned, but I cannot
7 tell you at the moment how many of those people changed the status of the
8 missing persons.
9 I know that when I communicated with people during the war, I
10 know that people reported their missing soldiers specifically to the ICRC
11 as civilians, because they believed that would be an easier way to
12 release them from captivity, but I'm sure that many more people actually
13 reported their family members as soldiers but that they were actually
14 civilians, but I cannot give you any figure, whether there were hundreds
15 of them or many more than that, because that was not the subject of our
17 Q. Thank you. Well, that would help me to abandon finally this line
18 of questioning, because there's a lot being said in your statements about
19 civilians. So can I then conclude that your statements did not focus on
20 the fact whether someone was a civilian or a soldier, and can we then, in
21 view of that, move to the number of those who were exhumed.
22 A. All I can do is to repeat what I said. We who are tracing and
23 trying to track what happened with someone is completely irrelevant
24 whether that person was a soldier or a civilian.
25 Q. Now, tell me this: The authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
1 including the State Commission, when did they receive initial accurate
2 information about the people who perished in Srebrenica in July 1995?
3 A. I think that about two weeks after July 1995 -- actually, that
4 was the time when women and children left Srebrenica and arrived in
5 Tuzla, and that is the time when they started reporting male members of
6 their family who remained in Srebrenica. Therefore, the number of the
7 people who went missing in July 1995 coincide actually with the arrival
8 dates of the people who were expelled from Srebrenica. They were the
9 first ones who provided information about their fathers, their brothers,
10 and other male members of their families failed to cross over to the free
11 territory, and that initiated an investigation about their fate.
12 Q. Can you tell us very briefly: In your opinion, how many people
13 died in Srebrenica?
14 A. I will give you a few pieces of information. On the memorial
15 plaque in Potocari, there are 8.372 names of the people whose death is
16 connected with the events in Srebrenica and later with the events in
17 Zepa. Of course, those who perished in Zepa is significantly lower. So
18 the total number is 8.372. In the Institute for Missing Persons, we have
19 information about 8.262 individuals whose fate and whose death is
20 connected with Srebrenica in 1995. The International Commission for
21 Missing Persons who is in charge pursuant to an international agreement
22 that it signed with the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina of identifying
23 all the exhumed victims, their estimate is that the number of the missing
24 or those killed was 1 -- 8.100, and they reached this figure on the basis
25 of blood samples that they had received from families. I don't know if
1 anyone produced this figure before. I did because I'm aware of that
2 information, being a member of the managing board. The ICRC collected
3 mother than 22.000 blood samples from family members of the people from
4 Srebrenica. These 22.000 blood samples relate to a total of 7.800 people
5 who went missing in Srebrenica, and I think that the exact number is
7 However, nowadays in the ICP, there's more than 160 DNA reports
8 that do not match with a single blood sample out of the 22.000. What
9 does that mean? That means that there are families in Srebrenica who
10 either didn't provide blood samples, or that there is not a single
11 survivor from this family who could provide a blood sample, which means
12 that either all of them were killed during the events in Srebrenica or
13 that quite simply this family has no survivors left.
14 If you take the figure of 7.787 and if you add, I think, 166 of
15 those who were exhumed from mass graves where the Srebrenica victims were
16 found but for whom no matches were found, a total number is about 8.000.
17 And as I said, the estimate of ICP is that 8.100 people disappeared
18 during the events in Srebrenica in 1995. And in my view, I think that
19 this estimate is the closest to figure of 8.262 which is the number that
20 our institute operates with.
21 Q. According to what you know, how many inhabitants were there in
22 Srebrenica in July 1995 before these events took place?
23 A. [No interpretation]
24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the witness please
25 repeat the answer. The mike didn't switch on.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Yes. Can you repeat that, please. There's no
2 interpretation because the microphone was not on.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know, and I don't think if
4 it is appropriate for me to speak about this as a witness, but I know
5 that there were figures mentioned in the media of 30.000 to 40.000 people
6 living in Srebrenica. Whether they were the natives of Srebrenica,
7 whether they were the people who in 1992 came to Srebrenica from other
8 municipalities such as Bratunac, Zvornik, Rogatica, Vlasenica, and other
9 municipalities, that in 1992 the Bosniaks were either persecuted or
10 killed or et cetera.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Thank you. Please let's stick to the briefest possible answers.
13 Shall I infer from your previous answer that the ICRC has matches for
14 7.800 people according to the samples?
15 A. No. The ICMP has somewhat more than 6.600 matches, plus the 166
16 in which they obtained DNA profiles but did not find any matches. So we
17 can say that these 166 individuals have no names because their unique DNA
18 profiles are different from everybody else. And I said that on the basis
19 of the blood sample provided by the family.
20 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. This is interesting but we
21 don't have time for that. Is it correct that you established that at
22 least 500 people were buried in Potocari and that they are unrelated to
23 the events in Srebrenica in 1995? I said 500, yes? 500, that's right.
24 A. No, that is not correct, and nobody credible or relevant stated
25 that 500 people were buried in Potocari and that they had nothing to do
1 with what happened in Srebrenica in 1995.
2 Q. Is it correct that either you or someone from your profession
3 stated that there were several hundred people who were alive but that
4 their severed limbs were identified based on the DNA? This is something
5 that somebody said about a month ago?
6 A. That's what I said, but it doesn't relate to Srebrenica. It
7 pertains to a cemetery in Sarajevo. My colleagues from the Banja Luka
8 office wanted an examination of severed limbs and stillborn babies to be
9 conducted that were buried there. I'm sure that they exhumed severed
10 parts of the bodies and stillborn people by mistake, not intentionally.
11 Those were the amputated limbs and stillborn children had been brought
12 from a hospital, and unfortunately they have been kept in a morgue in
13 Sarajevo for years.
14 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Please give me short answer.
15 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can I have now 1D5516, and we don't
16 have much time. I apologise. It hasn't been translated because I didn't
17 expect this witness to confirm this.
18 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Can you please look these red boxes. It says:
20 "Amor Masovic, the director of the Institute for Missing Persons,
21 also confirmed that at the memorial centre there are victims who are next
22 of kin of those already buried and identified as the victims of the
23 Srebrenica crime. We fulfil the requests of the families and the mothers
24 who for sentimental and emotional reasons asked for permission to have
25 their sons who was killed in 1993 be buried next to the son who was
1 killed in the genocide in Srebrenica. He said that because of that
2 practice, they soon faced the possibility that there wouldn't be enough
3 space for the burials of the Srebrenica victims."
4 Did you state this?
5 A. Yes, it is true that in the memorial complex in Potocari, in
6 addition to the victims from Srebrenica July 1995, a number of their next
7 of kin such as brothers and fathers are also buried there, and they were
8 buried there on the basis of being related to the victims of Srebrenica,
9 and thanks to the efforts of the foundation and the Council of Ministers
10 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, permission was granted for two brothers, one of
11 whom died in 1992, the other one who died in 1995, that they both could
12 be buried in the same memorial complex.
13 What is important is to say that those killed in 1992 are not
14 reckoned as the victims who died in 1995. They don't belong to the same
15 group. When I mentioned the figures 8.362 and 8.372, I was speaking only
16 about those who were victims from July 1995. I'm not talking about these
17 people who died in 1992 or 1993.
18 Now, the foundation of the memorial complex is facing a
19 possibility that based on the kinship, hundreds of thousands of those who
20 were killed in 1995 cannot be buried there any longer because there is
21 not enough space for that. And they said that those 70 that had been
22 buried here will remain there, but in future no such burials will be
23 allowed irrespective of the fact that are brothers and sons, grandfathers
24 and fathers, et cetera. So what I said here is completely accurate.
25 Q. Thank you.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now have 1D5024, please.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. While we're waiting, Mr. Masovic, do you know how many people
4 were killed in that area from 1992 until 1995?
5 A. People who were killed in that area, I assume you mean
6 Srebrenica, the Srebrenica enclave, were most probably buried by their
7 families, and they were never the topic of interest of the previous
8 State Commission, nor are they now subject of interest of the institute,
9 because they do not have the status of a missing person. So I don't know
10 how many people were killed in and around Srebrenica or in any other
11 municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is not part of our mandate.
12 These are not missing persons so that I would be interested in finding
13 out their fate or their number.
14 Q. Thank you. And are you saying that when a Serb is killed in
15 Muslim territory or a Muslim in Serb territory that they would be handed
16 over to their family for burial, or would they be buried by the opposing
17 side while they would be recorded in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 records or in the records of the Army of Republika Srpska even though
19 they were buried by someone else, by the other side?
20 A. I don't know how you mean buried by the other side. If they were
21 killed, conditionally speaking, in their own territory, then they would
22 be buried by their family, and they would not be reported as a missing
23 person. If they were killed in enemy, conditionally speaking, territory,
24 then the family would report that person as a missing person, because
25 they don't know what their fate was. They don't know if he's dead,
1 alive, in captivity. Then they would report that person as a missing
2 person. That's the principle.
3 Perhaps some families found out about the fact of death occurring
4 in enemy territory so they did not report the person as missing, because
5 through certain contacts with people from the other side they learned
6 that their relative, family member was killed, died, is buried in such
7 and such a place, and therefore there was no need for them to report that
8 person as a missing person.
9 Q. Thank you. Do you know that after the liberation or the capture,
10 however you want to put it, of Podrinje, they found in 1993 about 50 mass
11 graves numbering from 50 -- from 5 to 50 bodies. This was found by the
12 Serbs, which was actually in the territory which was controlled by the
13 Muslims before? Do you know or do you not know?
14 A. Well, I'm just waiting for the transcript. Actually, I don't
15 know. This is the first time that I'm hearing about this, from you.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Sutherland.
18 MS. SUTHERLAND: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MS. SUTHERLAND: I'm sorry for interrupting but there's a
21 document on the screen and I don't know if it's 1D5024, but if it is, it
22 wasn't on the list of documents for cross-examination and I don't know
23 whether there's a translation that's available.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: Can you assist, Dr. Karadzic?
25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I was expect Mr. Masovic to confirm
1 the numbers, so I was not planning to tender it, but now I am forced to
2 show it. Can we look at page 6, please, in that case, and I kindly ask
3 for the understanding of the other side in the same way that I show
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, it doesn't actually answer
6 Ms. Sutherland's query.
7 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, I wasn't intending to put it
8 on the list, Your Excellency, because I believed that the witness would
9 confirm the numbers. That's why I did not announce this document. So I
10 wasn't planning to show the list if the witness confirmed the numbers.
11 I would now kindly like to ask the witness if -- can we scroll up
12 a little bit please. Whether it's correct that President Izetbegovic was
13 confirming that there were 4.500 people there, soldiers there without the
14 Zepa Brigade. There was a review of the 28th Division, and 3.500 people
15 gathered in Tuzla. However, a little bit lower down, Silajdzic says,
16 well, here this is what it's about. First in Srebrenica they were giving
17 another number for UNPROFOR and we knew a different one, and the
18 president says 42.000 for UNPROFOR and 35.000 realistically. So there
19 were 35.000 people in Srebrenica realistically speaking.
20 Can we look at the next page. This is on the 11th of August, a
21 month after the fall of Srebrenica.
22 And can you look to see how many people went to Tuzla?
23 Thirty-one thousand, 31.000, while 1.000 -- it says 600 to 650, well, we
24 know that 1.000 went to Serbia via Zepa, meaning that 32.000 people are
25 in question, and 3 to 4 people are missing. And look at what the
1 president says at the bottom: The figure of those killed is probably
2 around 3.000 people. This is the number that has been referred to from
3 the very first days there, namely, we intercepted a very clear Chetnik
4 telephone conversation where you can see that it's authentic, and it
5 says: There was a massacre here yesterday. It was a real
6 slaughterhouse. Hey, how many, 300? No. Add one more 0, and so on and
7 so forth.
8 And can we look at the next page -- I'm sorry. Pardon me. Just
9 a moment. I'm talking about the total number. Silajdzic says, I'm
10 talking about total number. I'm afraid that this number of 5.000, the
11 fact is that when we were in Kalesija I heard that there was a massacre.
12 There's no doubt about that. You probably know that mass graves can be
13 discovered by satellite and so on and so forth.
14 And then he says something about Karadzic, and he says, If we
15 quarrel with them, we will have no chance, so we're playing a little game
16 here. So according to these estimates, it would be 5.000 whose fate is
17 uncertain, out of them 2.000 casualties. For 3.000 there's still
18 probably some hope that some of them are in camps, that some are still
19 trying to break through. Some of them went towards Zepa. Probably the
20 number of casualties is around 3.000, and this is according to a Chetnik
21 report which in this case could be the most authoritative one.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Therefore, Mr. Masovic, the country's Presidency one month after
24 the fall of Srebrenica knows that 3 -- 31.000 people reached Tuzla, that
25 670 went via Zepa, and that 2.000 more were still wandering around in the
1 woods, and we do have evidence about that, that groups remained there for
2 a long time. How can you then talk about 7- to 8.000 casualties in July?
3 A. What you are saying that the Presidency knows is something that I
4 don't know. I know something else. So far in more than 450 locations
5 connected to July 1995, at least 6.800 complete or incomplete skeletal
6 remains of victims of Srebrenica were found. These were people reported
7 as missing by their families. So far 8.262 people were reported missing
8 by their families. These are Srebrenica victims. I know this today,
9 15 or 16 years after July 1995, because this is exact data and it's
10 derived directly from mass graves. Unfortunately, at least a half of
11 those graves are secondary graves.
12 And I have to say an astonishing fact as well, a man from
13 Srebrenica or remains of him were found in four different mass graves.
14 His head and his arms were found in the Zeleni Jadar 4 grave. His right
15 leg or thigh were found in Glogova 01 grave, the right tibia belonging to
16 this man was found in the Bljeceva 03 grave, and his left complete leg,
17 the femur, the tibia and the fibula were found in Budak 02 grave. These
18 four graves are in the territory of two different municipalities, in the
19 Srebrenica municipality, and the Bratunac municipality area, and what is
20 the worst, the body of that victim is still not complete.
21 Q. Thank you. All right. Can you please answer with a yes or no.
22 Now, do you know that before July 1995 the 28th Division had more than
23 2.000 casualties, dead, about 2.000 dead? Yes or no?
24 A. No. That is not the subject of my interest. It wasn't something
25 that I was looking at then or something that I'm looking at now.
1 Q. Thank you. If I were to tell you that the vast majority, up to
2 90 per cent, of Muslims were fighters, were killed in Serbian territory
3 and buried in Serbian territory, would this be something that would be
4 understandable in your opinion?
5 A. I don't know what you consider Serbian territory.
6 Q. Under Serbian control.
7 A. All right. Well, that's a little different. So they were killed
8 in the towns and villages where they lived, I assume. Unfortunately,
9 they were buried in places other than their places of residency in
10 primary graves, then they were relocated to secondary and tertiary
12 Q. Sir, I'm talking about the 28th Division which was going out to
13 Serbian areas, out of the protected area, out of the safe area, and it
14 lost over 2.000 people. None of those people was killed in the territory
15 under the control of the Muslims but in territory under the control of
16 the Serbs. Do you know where these soldiers, these people, were buried?
17 A. Which time period are you thinking of in your question throughout
18 the whole war?
19 Q. Yes, throughout the whole war, especially from 1993 when the safe
20 area was declared. These people were killed outside of the enclave, not
21 within the enclave. Where were they buried?
22 A. But this simply cannot be true. This means that their families
23 did not want to report that they were missing to the then
24 State Commission. None of those 2.000 -- well, I'm not going to say
25 none, but you're talking about a thousand -- thousands of people. I'm
1 saying that people who were either civilians or soldiers who were killed
2 in the territory under the control of the Serbs were not reported as
3 missing, and that's not plausible. If they were killed in areas under
4 the control of the Serbian people, it would be logical for their command
5 if not their families to report them as missing to the command in
6 Sarajevo. So what you're saying, in my opinion, cannot be true because
7 that would mean that the families did not wish to report the
8 disappearance of their husbands, brothers, sons, fathers. This is
9 impossible. This is something that did not occur in Bosnia-Herzegovina
10 to any great degree.
11 Q. If the army recorded its daily losses and they know then that a
12 certain person was killed, why would that person then be reported as
13 missing? Why would you be looking for him if it is known where the
14 person was? They were in action and they were killed, would that be
15 reported in such a case?
16 A. Well, of course it would be reported. The State Commission for
17 the Exchange of Prisoners of War, Captured Persons, and Bodies of People
18 Killed and Record of People Killed, Injured, and Missing. That is the
19 name of the commission, and the commission's task was to take bodily
20 remains from the enemy of all members of the army, of all civilians, and
21 so on and so forth. So the fact that possibly the military knew about
22 somebody's death would not prevent the commission from seeking the
23 remains of that person to be handed over. So I'm saying that this, what
24 you're saying, cannot be true because that would mean that the persons
25 were not interested in the fate of their loved ones, which is impossible.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Excellencies, I would like to
3 tender these three pages of the minutes of the B and H Presidency meeting
4 for identification until we get a translation of those pages.
5 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Sutherland.
6 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, the witness said that he wasn't
7 aware of what was going on in the Presidency, and what -- Mr. Karadzic
8 has read into the record the relevant portions of it.
9 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, that was my view, Dr. Karadzic. The
10 relevant parts of the documents, which are the only parts that we would
11 take notice of and want to ask questions about, are actually in the
12 transcript and are identifiable from the questions and answers. So I
13 don't think you need to have this exhibited.
14 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we have 1D5518 now,
16 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. And were you at the meeting -- earlier you said that you did not
18 attend the meeting at which it was determined that civilians were
19 detained in Tarcin, who should not have been there. In the minutes it
20 states that you were present at this meeting.
21 A. I was at the meeting of the Presidency that dealt with a certain
22 item on the agenda. I didn't attend the entire meeting. The meeting
23 would cover a number of items. I would be present only for one
24 particular item of the agenda as a kind of rapporteur. So I do confirm
25 that I did attend the Presidency session when the status of detainees in
1 the Silos prison in Tarcin was discussed.
2 Q. Well, would you agree that this is a table representing
3 exhumations for the Srebrenica regions, ten municipalities where
4 exhumations were carried out from 1995 to 1996.
5 Can we look at the last page now, please, and can you look at
6 this mass grave, common grave, and individual grave. Mass, common, and
7 individual. Are you -- are you familiar with this table?
8 Throughout the war, Mr. Masovic, a total of 8.831 bodies were
9 exhumed, and you can look at the dates, the time when they were killed
10 covering an area of ten municipalities, the entire region of Podrinje
11 throughout the three and a half years of the war, 43 or 44 months long,
12 meant that 1.313 bodies were exhumed from individual graves and
13 7.503 bodies from exhumed from mass graves.
14 What do you say now?
15 A. This document refers - if the title is correct - to the period
16 from 1995 to 2006. There is no information for the last six or seven
17 years. I don't know where this information comes from. Perhaps it comes
18 from us at the institute since it's 2006. Most probably then this was
19 the Federal Commission for Missing Persons, but I cannot decide --
20 conclude what this is about based only on the heading. Is it a list of
21 graves? Is it a number of victims? What is this table showing?
22 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we scroll up so that we can see
23 the bottom of the page, please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can see the bottom of the page,
25 and you can see that this is data from the Federal Commission for Missing
1 Persons from May 2007. I assume that it was from the federal commission.
2 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Thank you. So at that time it was claimed that in Srebrenica
4 alone, in July 1995, 8.000 Muslims were killed, and you can see that it
5 was known that in the entire region and throughout the wartime period --
6 can we scroll down a bit to have a look at the dates of death. Could we
7 scroll down. No, we don't have the dates of death here, but we will show
8 you a different document that refers to those dates.
9 So does this concern ten municipalities and regions? We can have
10 a look at them. Zvornik, Vlasenica, Bratunac, Srebrenica. I don't know
11 whether you included Milici or treated Milici as a separate municipality.
12 So there are ten municipalities.
13 A. If it's not a problem, could you go back to the first page so
14 that we can see what this list represents? Does it only concern the
15 victims in Srebrenica in July 1995, or does it relate to something else?
16 Q. It concerns the victims throughout the wartime period. We'll
17 show you another document about that, but this concerns exhumations that
18 were conducted at the time.
19 When was there that funeral in Tombak Mahali? From Bijeljina.
20 It was towards the end of March, the 31st of March, 1992, and it was on
21 the 1st of April, isn't that correct?
22 A. I don't know when that funeral took place but the disappearances
23 in Bijeljina started around the 1st of April, 1992. And I assume, though
24 this can't be seen in the table, I assume that the victims who were
25 exhumed in Tombak Mahala were buried in 1992 or 1993.
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could this document be
2 admitted and then I'll move on to another one.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Sutherland.
4 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, I'm not sure what the witness has
5 actually said about the document.
6 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, the -- there's some reference to it, and
7 it would assist, actually, the Chamber to have it to put the transcript
8 into context, so we'll admit it for that purpose.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit D2229, Your Honours.
10 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Is it your position -- or in fact with regard to all the
13 exhumations and mass graves, how would you say that these people died?
14 I'm talking about mass graves in particular but also about individual
16 A. I wasn't an eyewitness, but on the basis of the fact that the
17 majority were buried in mass graves, and also given that the vast
18 majority or the majority from those mass graves were transferred to
19 secondary and tertiary graves, on that basis I believe that there are
20 grounds that could lead to the conclusion that they were killed. Why
21 would someone bury victims in mass graves? Why would bulldozers then
22 tamper with those graves and break the bodies up, and why would these
23 remains then be transported to other locations and buried there? Why
24 would all this be done if these victims were not illegally killed? Why
25 would this have been done if these things hadn't been illegal?
1 Q. So that is the basis on which you made that claim. Isn't that
3 A. Well, as you know, there are eyewitnesses who survived the
4 executions so that they witnessed, they were often present when certain
5 victims were buried, and this is something that you know from other trial
6 cases. There were insiders who referred to executions of tens, hundreds,
7 or thousands of people in Kravica, Branjevo, Pilica, et cetera, and there
8 are also satellite images that are available. So this is just some of
9 the evidence I am aware of, and this is evidence that indicates that
10 people -- or, rather, the remains of the people found in mass graves are
11 the remains of people who were illegally killed.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we now please see 1D5517.
14 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Have a look at it. These are cases in which the dates of death
16 from the Prosecution in 2005 don't correspond to the time or date of
17 death in lists provided by the ABiH. Are you aware of the fact that
18 these discrepancies exist? For example, in the ABiH lists the date of
19 death is the 10th of January, 1994, and then, for example, it was
20 changed. Have a look at number 5, for example.
21 This doesn't need to be broadcast. It's not necessary.
22 So it was disputed, or, rather, a correction was made and the
23 date mentioned was the 12th of July, 1995. The place of death was said
24 to be Buljim, and these remains were found in Glogova 2. And then we
25 have the first two, four, five cases that aren't disputed. He was killed
1 on the 26th of April, 1992. And then we have another one on the
2 26th of April, and then a third one on the 10th of January, 1994, found
3 in Kozluk, and we go on. The six one is disputed and there was a
4 correction made and then we have the other names.
5 Have a look at all of this. I'll read this out. Well, no, I
6 won't read it out.
7 I don't know if these names should be confidential. It shouldn't
8 be broadcast perhaps.
9 Have a look at this. Every fifth name has been corrected.
10 Towards the bottom there are more corrections, somewhat more corrections
11 but the Armija has information according to which on the 15th of May,
12 it's in the middle of the document, on the 15th of May, 1992, there was
13 someone killed who was buried in Cancari. It was on the 17th of July,
14 1992, in fact, and this person was found in Cancari. And now the army
15 has information that someone was killed on the 22nd of April, 1994, and
16 someone made a correction and said it was on the 12th of July, 1995.
17 How could the army expect someone who died in 1994 to be killed
18 in 1995? And they were all found in mass graves, aren't they -- weren't
20 A. This is the first time I've seen the document, and I really can't
21 comment on it. I didn't create the document. I've never seen it before.
22 But I'll tell you something else, in Srebrenica there are eight
23 individuals who have the same name and surname, and they all went
24 missing. There are two such cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina. You have
25 eight individuals with the same first and last name. All eight of them
1 went missing. There are four individuals -- or, rather, four cases of
2 people who have the same name. That concerns seven individuals. There
3 are 16 cases of people who have the same first and last name, and that
4 concerns a group of five. 179 cases of two individuals with the same
5 first and last name and they all disappeared. So if you want to make any
6 comparisons - this is what I'm trying to tell you - you have to have
7 complete information about all victims to see whether you are dealing
8 with two different individuals or whether the person concerned is just
9 one person.
10 Q. And information such as the name of the father and date of birth,
11 does such information assist one? You have the date of birth according
12 to Armija and the date of birth according to the OTP list.
13 Can we see the following page.
14 Can you see these cases where corrections were not made and we
15 also ask on what basis were corrections made when they were made. Have a
16 look at this. You see the name, the name of the father, the date of
17 birth, and, well, these four items can't be identical for more than two
18 individuals. Isn't that correct? These are all grave sites found by the
19 ICMP. Do you doubt or do you accept that they found people in those mass
20 graves who were killed at an earlier date? And this is something that is
21 not disputed. Liplje, Bljeceva, Cancari 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vlasenica,
22 Zeleni Jadar 5. In all these graves people who had been killed earlier
23 were found. In your opinion, was this possible? According to the
24 information you have, in fact. Let's leave opinions aside. Opinions are
1 JUDGE MORRISON: Sorry, Dr. Karadzic, there are at least
2 six questions embedded in what was, in fact, mostly a statement and you
3 have but 15 minutes left, so what is the essence of the information that
4 you really want from this witness?
5 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, what I want to
6 find out is whether it is possible that these 260-odd, and there were
7 those many cases in which information didn't tally, is it possible that
8 with regard to those people that they were buried in mass graves but, in
9 fact, it can be seen that they were killed earlier and then corrections
10 were subsequently made, although the Armija had information on the fact
11 that they were previously killed? So were these graves filled in with
12 the remains of individuals who were killed at some prior time, and this
13 is clearly illustrated by this list. The witness was a participant in a
14 group that was involved in performing exhumations.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me repeat this. I can't
16 comment on a document that I have never seen before, a document that I
17 did not produce myself. This document doesn't contain sufficient
18 information to draw conclusions of any case, and this is because of what
19 I've already said. For example, in the case of eight individuals, these
20 individuals have fathers whose name is the same. I can provide you with
21 this information which I have in the hotel. Their father's name is
22 actually identical. Some of them were even born in the same year. They
23 don't share the same dates of birth, but in certain cases you have two
24 individuals for whom four important criteria are identical.
25 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Let's have a look at -- let's have a look at Omerovic, Tahir, son
2 of Zahir. Where is he recorded? Where was this person killed and in
3 what manner? Found in Hodzici Road 5. Where was he killed? How was he
5 A. The Hodzici 5 grave was one that The Hague Tribunal exhumed. It
6 wasn't the State Commission or the institute. Investigators from
7 The Hague Tribunal were involved in the exhumation. All the victims in
8 Hodzici 5 grave were victims. They went missing in Srebrenica in
9 July 1995. In the very same grave victims from 1992 and 1995 were found,
10 and you can find that in my table, table number 2 that has been
11 adopted -- that has been admitted here by the Chamber, and you can see
12 that in the grave dug in 1992 it contains the bodies of Bosniaks. You
13 can see that in that very same grave bodies of victims from 1995 were
14 buried. But you will see in Table 2 that we made a clear distinction
15 between those who were victims in 1992 and those who were victims in
16 1995. So the victims from 1992 from Bljecevo weren't represented as
17 victims from the year 1995. This distinction was clearly made. There
18 were 30 remains from the Bljecevo grave, whereas there were 120 from
19 Srebrenica in 1995. So there were 30 victims from 1992, and there were
20 120 victims from 1995, and that is clearly indicated.
21 Q. Thank you. What sort of information do you have about clearing
22 the battle-field? When this is done, are remains buried individually or
23 in mass graves? Are the bodies buried in individual graves or mass
25 A. I personally have no experience with clearing the terrain. In
1 the course of the war it was impossible to go over to the enemy side. In
2 the post-war period it was possible to do that, but this probably depends
3 on a lot of circumstances, the time, the terrain, the identity of the
4 victims. The manner in which taking sanitation and hygiene measures on
5 the battle-field depends on many things. Does it concern victims of a
6 war, of natural catastrophes, and so on and so forth? I have no
7 information about that matter though.
8 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Could this list please be admitted
9 into evidence, Your Excellencies.
10 JUDGE MORRISON: Ms. Sutherland.
11 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, at the moment I can't see a reason
12 to oppose its admission. I mean, the witness has said that the -- I
13 mean, he's talked about the document because Mr. Karadzic has taken him
14 to certain entries, but he's said that he didn't produce it. He really
15 can't talk to the document, but it was --
16 JUDGE MORRISON: That was my view. It seems to be another case
17 where because of the very limited amount of information that the witness
18 could give they -- that's contained within the transcript in any event.
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: That was my initial reaction, Your Honour, as I
20 said to the last document.
21 JUDGE MORRISON: I think that is correct.
22 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I agree.
23 JUDGE MORRISON: And I should have asked you before,
24 Ms. Sutherland, do you have any re-examination in respect of this --
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour, very briefly.
1 JUDGE MORRISON: A minute or two?
2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, not very long.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it. Thank you.
4 Dr. Karadzic, again, the essential information is contained
5 within the transcript, so there's no need to readmit it. And while I
6 think about it, the last document that we admitted, which was given the
7 reference ID of 5518 should have been marked for identification because
8 it wasn't translated. Thank you.
9 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Excellencies, in this
10 statement I have 118 paragraphs whereby the witness kindly said that some
11 statements were not the topic of his interest and perhaps that will make
12 things easier, however, I have more questions. Is Mr. Masovic able to
13 stay for one more session tomorrow, because we will finish 084 early most
14 probably. Well, really, it's vast material.
15 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, I understand from the witness's earlier
16 observations that he has to be on a -- be leaving The Hague at 9.00, so
17 the chances of finishing the other witness before then and having any
18 meaningful time seems to me to be nil.
19 Dr. Karadzic, the Court has done its best to accommodate you in
20 light of the circumstances.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. Can we look at 1D5520,
22 then, please.
23 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Mr. Masovic, how many Serbs disappeared in Sarajevo? You
25 confirmed, isn't that right, that Serbs did not report their missing dear
1 ones to you until after the war, and after the war it was only a number
2 of cases; is that correct?
3 A. I did not confirm that. Some Serbian families did report their
4 missing relatives to the State Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners
5 of War, later the War Commission, but I agree with you that the majority
6 of Serbs would report their missing ones during the war to colleagues in
7 the Central Commission for the Exchange of Prisoners of War and
8 Prisoners. According to information that I have through my work in
9 earlier commissions and today in my work in the Institute for Missing
10 Persons, this number, and I'm going to be precise, the precise number of
11 missing persons of Serb ethnicity in the area of ten municipalities
12 including --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that number is between 350 and
16 380. This is not the total number of victims of Serb ethnicity in
17 Sarajevo. This number is significantly greater. For the most part,
18 shelling is responsible and sniper fire of the town of Sarajevo for their
19 deaths, but there were cases when Serbs were killed in the city of
20 Sarajevo and they were not the victims of shelling or sniper fire.
21 A known case of that is the Ristovic family. Six members of that
22 family were killed in Sarajevo. Their names are not on the list of the
23 missing, because their bodies were handed over to their family and buried
24 in the Lav cemetery. But we can say that the number of killed Serbs in
25 Sarajevo is larger than 350 to 380, which is the figure of those reported
1 as missing. The number perhaps according to some NGO estimates can be
2 450 of those who were killed and for whose death are responsible people
3 who lived in Sarajevo, including members of some military formations.
4 You know that there were trials organised to some of them who were
5 accessible and who were responsible for the death of the family Ristovic.
6 Q. Thank you very much. If we had time it would have been very good
7 for us to hear what you have to say, but can we look at the next page,
8 please. What I am showing to you, Mr. Masovic, is an outdated list of
9 Serb persons who went missing or were killed only in the part of Sarajevo
10 that was under the control of the Bosnia and Herzegovina Army -- or,
11 rather, the Muslims, and that list states that there were over 3.200 of
12 such persons. The latest lists with the first and last name, the place,
13 and the most precise data amount to 5.500 Serbs killed in Sarajevo under
14 Muslim control. Do you have these people on your lists that we see here?
15 We have 180 pages like this one. And you can ask for them to
16 scroll through these pages for you.
17 Number 2, taken to the restaurant Amerikanac in July 1992 where
18 the command of some paramilitary formation was located. Third, missing
19 in Sarajevo on the 1st of July 1992. Fourth, taken from her apartment at
20 Civljane. First and last name, name of father, date of birth, year of
21 birth. There was an old lady who was born in 1905 who was taken from her
22 apartment. She's on this list.
23 What would you say, Mr. Masovic, when we prove here that more
24 than 5.500 Serbs were killed in that small part of the town which was
25 under Muslim control?
1 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Can we look at the second page, the
2 third page, so that the witness can look at that.
3 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, allow the witness to respond
4 before moving on to anything else.
5 First of all, Mr. Masovic, have you ever seen this document or
6 have any knowledge of the contents of this document?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am seeing this document today for
8 the first time. I have no knowledge of the document. I cannot see who
9 drafted it. If I were to embark on any kind of analysis, I do know a lot
10 of things, we could go through the entire document, and I could give my
11 comments possibly, but I don't really see any need for that because I am
12 seeing it for the first time. The names that I'm reading, that we're
13 scrolling through right now, do not mean anything to me.
14 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, Dr. Karadzic, there you have it. There's
15 no point in going through this document with this witness, certainly not
16 to this juncture. It would be better if you brought it into effect
17 through a bar table motion in due course.
18 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Masovic, you talked about the exchange of civilians and that
21 only later you agreed to civilian exchanges. So you are saying that the
22 Serbs were offering you Muslim civilians in exchange for Serb civilians;
23 is that correct?
24 A. Well, we must differentiate between two groups of civilians,
25 civilians who were not in prisons and civilians who were in prisons.
1 When we're speaking generally about civilians, there are two such groups.
2 One group is of those who are in prison and the others who are not. My
3 report dealt with both of these groups, and there was an attempt for
4 people who were not in prisons to be included in the process of
5 population exchange or, to put it more correctly, the ethnic cleansing of
7 Q. All right. Let's narrow it down a little bit. Is it true that
8 on the Bratstvo i Jedinstvo bridge there were exchanges not only of
9 prisoners of war but also exchanges of people who were on the lists
10 drafted by their relatives on the other side, that they would cross the
11 line of separation for this exchange in Sarajevo, for example.
12 A. Well, if this did take place, this was outside of the mandate of
13 the State Commission and it did not participate in that, if these things
14 did happen.
15 Q. All right. Thank you.
16 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, this is absolutely your last
17 question, because regardless of anything else, we would have to rise for
18 staff purposes. So last question to allow for some two minutes of
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you. I would really --
21 perhaps we're going to have to recall this witness.
22 MR. KARADZIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. But let me ask you this: Would the Serbs have been angry had you
24 released 3.000 Serbs from Sarajevo, which is what Bulajic requested,
25 without them in turn releasing Muslims? Would you have agreed to a
1 release of the Serbs without them in turn releasing Muslims?
2 A. You saw from my report that I absolutely refused even any thought
3 of discussing ethnic cleansing with Mr. Bulajic.
4 Q. Well, you're talking about exchanges. I'm talking about the
5 request to release people. Bulajic gave you a request -- a list of
6 3.000 people that he wanted released from Sarajevo. Would you have let
7 these people go without that being part of an exchange?
8 A. Well, this is a very hypothetical question. How could I know who
9 would think what? I did not want to take part in such dishonourable
10 actions. I did not wish to participate in any action taking people from
11 their houses and apartments for the purposes of relocation regardless of
12 whether they wanted that or not. I really don't know what those people
13 thought. I recognise one first and last name on that list of names of
14 3.000. Actually it wasn't me. It was my colleague Slavko Asceric,
15 lawyer, who was at the time the head of the exchange commission and
16 deputy police minister of Republika Srpska. When he saw his name and the
17 name of his wife as persons who were being sought by the other side, by
18 Serbs who were asking for him to be allowed to leave Sarajevo, he
19 laughed. He pointed out his name and the name of his wife, and then
20 after that I gave the list to Mr. Bulajic and I spoke those words:
21 Colleague Bulajic, I do not need a telephone directory of the Serbs in
23 JUDGE MORRISON: Dr. Karadzic, I'm afraid we have run out --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Well, he didn't answer my question.
25 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, I think he did in his own way and we must
1 leave it at that.
2 Ms. Sutherland.
3 Re-examination by Ms. Sutherland:
4 Q. Mr. Masovic, just in the last couple of answers that you gave to
5 Mr. Karadzic and you talked about, you know, this was referred to "in my
6 report" about the exchanging of civilians and the reference to -- that
7 you made about ethnic cleansing, you were in fact referring to your
8 amalgamated witness statement, were you not? When you were talking about
9 in your report, you actually meant your amalgamated witness statement
10 where you discuss in some detail about the exchanging and the pressure
11 you were put under by the Bosnian Serbs to exchange civilians; is that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Earlier on today Mr. Karadzic, this is at page 75 --
15 JUDGE MORRISON: We have maximum of two minutes before the tape
16 runs out.
17 MS. SUTHERLAND: Yes, Your Honour.
18 Q. He said that he unilaterally released about 4.000 individuals
19 from Manjaca so that they could be taken to other countries and then you
20 said that you were surprised by that because you -- you know that a
21 number went to Manjaca, and that then, in fact, on page 76 he said
22 that -- you said that you thought that the ICRC even launched a protest
23 with the Serbian authorities if you remember correctly.
24 MS. SUTHERLAND: Could I have 65 ter number 13031 on the screen,
1 Q. Mr. Masovic, this is 11031. I don't think it's the correct
2 document and I'm sorry if I misspoke. It's a communication to the press
3 number 92 of 36, dated the 16th of December, 1992, from ICRC, and you see
4 in the second paragraph it there says it's been suggested -- talking
5 about the release of the prisoners from Manjaca and then the ICRC has
6 actually requested information about 529 detainees transferred from
7 Manjaca camp without its delegates' knowledge and whose whereabouts
8 remain unknown. Is that what you were referring to in your answer?
9 JUDGE MORRISON: The witness is nodding, for the transcript.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes. That is the public ICRC
11 protest, because of the concealment of 529 -- I did say 500 detainees.
12 It's not a protest, it's a request.
13 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you, Your Honour, and if I can just refer
14 Your Honours, as I don't have time to take the witness to the document,
15 to Exhibit P03727 which is an official note filed at the Batkovic camp
16 receiving 532 prisoners from Manjaca camp on the --
17 JUDGE MORRISON: Well, the witness couldn't speak to that
18 document anyway --
19 MS. SUTHERLAND: -- 13th of December.
20 JUDGE MORRISON: -- unless he was aware of it.
21 MS. SUTHERLAND: Thank you.
22 JUDGE MORRISON: We have now really run --
23 MS. SUTHERLAND: No further questions.
24 JUDGE MORRISON: -- completely out of time.
25 MS. SUTHERLAND: And I tender that document I just showed the
2 JUDGE MORRISON: So be it.
3 Mr. Masovic, thank you very much for attending the Tribunal.
4 Your evidence is now concluded. Have a safe journey back home.
5 We will all rise together, and we'll meet again tomorrow morning
6 at 8.00.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honour.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.28 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day
10 of April, 2012, at 8.00 a.m.