1 Thursday, 24
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
7 Case number IT-95-14/2-T. The Prosecutor versus Dario
8 Kordic and Mario Cerkez.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
10 MR. KOVACIC: Good morning. Thank you, sir.
11 WITNESS: JON ELFORD [Resumed]
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:
13 Q. [In English] Good morning, Mr. Elford.
14 A. Good morning.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, in your
16 testimony, and even before that, in documents that you
17 used, that is, documents of the BritBat and other
18 UNPROFOR units, ECMM documents and others, the terms
19 "Vitez pocket," "the Lasva Valley," "the area of
20 Vitez" are very frequent terms, and you used these
21 terms in your testimony.
22 Could you please tell us, what does this term
23 cover, what area?
24 A. Sorry. I couldn't hear the translation, so
25 I'm looking at the transcript.
1 JUDGE MAY: The witness should have the
3 THE WITNESS: I can hear the translation now,
4 Your Honour.
5 MR. KOVACIC: Should I repeat the question?
6 A. I think when you're talking about the Vitez
7 pocket, the Lasva Valley, and the area of Vitez, the
8 Vitez pocket was the area that was shown on the map,
9 the area controlled by the HVO, whereas the Lasva
10 Valley is more of a geographical term for the area.
11 And I think sometimes when the term "the area of Vitez"
12 is used, it's more the area around the town of Vitez.
13 Q. [Interpretation] In other words, that is not
14 a particularly precise time. When you say "Vitez," we
15 don't know whether you're referring to the town of
16 Vitez or the territory of the municipality of Vitez, do
18 A. I think the term "area of Vitez" is more the
19 area of the town, but it also can be sometimes used for
20 areas within the municipality.
21 Q. Thank you very much. My final question about
22 this is D52/2 has been introduced already, and this
23 exhibit refers to the boundaries of the Vitez
24 municipality, as a witness described them. You did see
25 that exhibit, didn't you?
1 A. Yes, I've seen the boundaries of the
3 Q. Could we then see on the ELMO the map with
4 the Vitez pocket, and on which we see the boundaries of
5 the municipality?
6 MR. KOVACIC: And I will ask the witness to
7 assist the usher with the map.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, the boundaries,
9 as you see them on this map, were they then copied to
10 one of the overlays which you showed us the day before
12 A. The overlays do not show the boundaries of
13 the municipality, because a front line was shown on
14 that one and which did not exactly match up with the
15 municipality boundaries.
16 Q. Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes here,
17 but that is my fault.
18 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,
19 what do you recall municipal boundaries? What do you
20 mean by this? We are getting "frontiers" in the French
21 translation. Do you mean administrative boundaries of
22 the Vitez municipality, is that it?
23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your
24 Honour, administrative boundaries of the municipality.
25 As they were under the then regulations, these
1 subdivisions were all clearly delineated.
2 Q. Witness, perhaps this is my fault, perhaps I
3 was not precise enough. Municipal boundaries, these
4 lines that we see here in D52, you identified -- of
5 course, you cannot know the details -- but in rough
6 terms, those would be the boundaries of the
7 municipality of Vitez? I've already shown you this map
8 before. Now, are those the boundaries that you also
9 copied to one of your overlays here?
10 A. The boundaries of the municipality are not
11 shown on the overlays. They only show the division of
12 the front line between the HVO and the ABiH, which is
13 different from the municipality boundary.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you.
15 When looking at the Vitez Brigade documents,
16 and you did say so the day before yesterday, we agree,
17 I suppose, that the area of responsibility of the Vitez
18 Brigade, in 1993, underwent certain changes. But I
19 believe that you will also agree with me that it was
20 always within the boundaries, within the municipal
21 boundaries of Vitez; can we agree on that?
22 A. The actual boundaries shown on the map, on
23 the overlays, do appear within the municipal boundaries
24 of the Vitez pocket, but that's not to say that members
25 of the brigade did not operate outside of the
1 municipality area.
2 Q. Mr. Elford, could you please give me one
3 example -- looking at this map, could you give us any
4 source which could tell us that the Vitez Brigade was
5 beyond this boundary?
6 A. I haven't used these sources in the -- shown
7 on the maps here. It's something that in previous
8 documents I've seen, Viteska members being wounded or
9 killed in the Busovaca area. But that information
10 wasn't -- doesn't need to be shown on the map showing
11 the area of responsibility of the brigade.
12 Q. Have you ever seen a document showing that
13 the Vitez Brigade, on the basis of any orders, as a
14 unit, as a whole, or any of its companies, had ever
15 been sent to the front outside the municipal
16 boundaries, except the front at Vares?
17 A. When you state for this -- I haven't seen
18 orders that refer to areas outside the municipality
19 boundaries, or outside of the Vitez area.
20 Q. Have you ever seen an order bearing on the
21 departure and deployment of units outside Vitez, on the
22 front line facing the VRS, that is, the Serbs, the JNA?
23 A. No. When compiling these maps, I didn't see
24 orders -- I'm not sure what time period you're talking
25 about, but not when I was compiling the front line in
1 the Vitez area.
2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Excuse me,
3 Mr. Kovacic. The witness tells us that there were
4 members of the Vitez Brigade who were deployed and
5 killed in the area of Busovaca. That is what he said
6 in answer to one of your previous questions. I should
7 like to ask the witness on what is the statement
9 A. It's not evidence -- documents I've used for
10 this report, but I believe I've seen other documents
11 within the OTP.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. I suppose that what you are talking about is
14 a part of a different testimony and that it was an
15 individual or individuals but not a unit. Is that
17 A. Yeah, I think it would refer to an
19 Q. So we can agree that the unit, any one unit
20 of the Vitez Brigade, that there is no document that it
21 operated outside the municipality, outside the Vitez
22 municipal territory, except on the front line with the
23 Serbs, but not one of them operated ever beyond those
24 boundaries. We do agree on that, don't we?
25 A. I can't say I've seen documents referring to
1 the orders to move outside of the area for the unit as
2 a whole.
3 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please, do you know when
4 the Vitez Brigade was formed? When you went through
5 the documents, did you come across that information?
6 A. I've seen information on the formation of the
7 brigade, but it hasn't been included in this report.
8 But the documents seem related to March of 1993.
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher
10 please now distribute this batch of documents?
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, if you're going to
12 ask questions about the Vitez Brigade, I think I'm
13 right in saying that the Prosecution are going to call
14 a witness dealing specifically with the membership of
15 that brigade. Is that right?
16 MR. NICE: The next witness.
17 JUDGE MAY: The next witness is going to deal
18 with the membership of the brigade. Now, it may be
19 you're moving on to something else.
20 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I surely will not
21 go in the persons -- I will strictly stick to the
22 matter of disposition and borders; no names, no
23 individuals, exactly for the reasons just stated.
24 I have prepared a couple -- 12 or 13
25 documents which might be used during the testimony, so
1 just in order to save some time, I'm distributing that
2 in advance.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Elford, will you please
4 have a look at the first document?
5 Could the document be placed on the ELMO for
6 the interpreters, please?
7 Do you agree that one can conclude that Mario
8 Cerkez was given the order by his superior, Tihomir
9 Blaskic, and that he was appointed the commander of the
10 Vitez Brigade?
11 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment. This witness has
12 come here to produce maps about the front line, and
13 you, Mr. Kovacic, are asking him questions about
14 appointments and that sort of thing. Now, this doesn't
15 arise from his evidence. You can ask questions about
16 the maps, there is another witness to whom you can ask
17 questions, or indeed the most sensible thing might be
18 to produce this evidence in your own case, if you want
19 to produce evidence as to appointments and that sort of
21 This witness really only dealt with matters
22 of the map and force strengths. You can ask about the
23 force strengths, the figures which he gave, or about
24 the maps. But as far as these questions are concerned,
25 in my view, they are not relevant to his evidence.
1 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I entirely agree
2 with what you said, but it was not my intention here to
3 go on the person. It is the date when the brigade is
4 established. The witness was talking about it and
5 mentioned it in the report, that the brigade was
6 established in March. I think having in mind that we
7 have -- a conflict started in the middle of April, it
8 is not irrelevant whether the brigade was established
9 on the 1st March or 24th March. So it's not the person
10 here, it's just the day of establishment.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, can you assist with
12 this? I mean can the next witness deal with this
13 rather than this witness?
14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The next
15 witness will only be speaking about soldiers about whom
16 we managed to obtain information and who seemed to have
17 belonged to the brigade, and we do not intend to ask
18 the next witness to tell us about the history of the
20 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
21 Mr. Elford, to what extent can you help as to
22 the history of the brigade?
23 A. I've come across information relating to the
24 formation in the brigade in the preparation of the
25 maps, but the maps are the main area of study for --
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes. This is not the witness to
2 ask about the formation of the brigade. You can ask
3 him about the maps, you can ask him about the figures
4 which he gave for the numbers. That's what he gave
5 evidence about and what he has made a study of. But
6 beyond that, you must find another witness, or indeed
7 you can call your own evidence, which is by far the
8 most appropriate way to deal with these things.
9 MR. KOVACIC: Of course, I certainly will,
10 Your Honour. But remind me just to state that the
11 witness said the day before yesterday in his testimony
12 that the brigade was founded in March. I'm just now
13 trying to establish when in March; nothing else.
14 JUDGE MAY: Can you help, Mr. Elford, as to
15 when in March the brigade was founded?
16 A. I've seen this document before, and perhaps
17 the date is consistent. I just know it was in March
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. That's as far as the
20 witness can take it. Now let's move on.
21 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you. I will kindly ask
22 the registrar to give us a number for this document.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The number will be D56/2.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. When you went through these documents or as
1 you went through these documents, did you find any
2 information about the Vitez Brigade, that is, about its
3 having some barracks, some bases of its own?
4 A. Information relating to the areas where
5 headquarters of the sub-units of the brigade were
6 based, but not information relating to actual barracks,
7 as such.
8 Q. Did you come across any information to tell
9 you that the brigade used a motel in Kruscica to train
10 its forces for the front with the Serbs?
11 A. No, not in preparation of the maps.
12 Q. When addressing the Vitez Brigade, you said
13 that according to some of the sources that you used,
14 and I believe you mentioned McLeod's testimony, that
15 when the conflict broke out, the Vitez Brigade numbered
16 about 300 men and that it could be reinforced very
17 rapidly through further call-ups. Could you give us
18 some more accurate estimates as to the number of men,
19 as to its strength in a week, in a month, in a year,
20 how quickly? What does that mean, at least roughly?
21 A. I said it is difficult to give a figure for
22 any one period of time because the brigade started with
23 these active elements and the planning was therefore
24 mobilization, and the mobilization would have started
25 sometime in the April period. So we can look at
1 figures that we have for the April period and then for
2 the subsequent periods to show how the mobilization
3 would have carried on, which if I was given some
4 figures for the April period and then also figures for
5 August and later on in '93.
6 Q. Could you please look at the next document in
7 the batch that I gave you? That is a document of the
8 Defence Department, and this is a report on the
9 mobilization. So the war has broken out, and the
10 Defence office is beginning to mobilize. This is the
11 document of the 29th of April, and I should like to
12 draw your attention to paragraph 3 of the document, the
13 first page, which in fact recapitulates, and that is
14 the last paragraph at the bottom of the page in the
15 English version, which seems to suggest that between
16 the 15th of April and the 28th of April, that is, until
17 the day when this report was signed, all told, about
18 500, that is, 498 military conscripts had been
19 mobilized and that they had been included in units and
20 so forth. So this document is referring to the
21 mobilization; is that right?
22 A. The first mobilization for that period, yes.
23 I'm not sure what information it gives about -- if
24 there was any mobilization before that period.
25 Q. True, one of them is basically such. Could
1 you tell us something about the mobilization procedure
2 because you were militarily trained and I believe you
3 could also glean that from the documents?
4 JUDGE MAY: No. Let's move on to something
5 else about which he did give evidence.
6 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Sir, you cannot be more precise about the
8 term that you used, that it could mobilize very
9 quickly, that is, within a day, a week, or a month, or
10 something like that. We agreed about that, didn't we?
11 A. Not the time period, but I have documents in
12 the binder which show there was a plan for mobilization
13 to be made, and that's the way the brigade planned to
15 Q. True. Thank you.
16 Could we have the number for this document of
17 the Defence Department of the 29th of April?
18 THE REGISTRAR: D57/2.
19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. I believe you just mentioned and you also
21 spoke about that in your testimony, Blaskic's document,
22 the assessment of the situation. I believe it was
23 Z4321. That is the next document in that batch.
24 I should like to draw your attention once
25 again to the page with an overview of the artillery.
1 When we look at that overview, that is, the six items,
2 can we then agree that the mortars were deployed in
3 brigades? Page 24.
4 A. The mortars in the brigades referring to the
5 MB-120s? MBH-2?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. And there is also MB-120s and MBH-2s in the
8 mixed artillery division.
9 Q. Yes. Everything that is MB, because in our
10 language, "MB" means mortar, and we understand that
11 indication of mortars. So mortars are in the brigades,
12 aren't they? And the brigades also have some other
13 light artillery pieces.
14 Then under item 6, we have a unit called
15 "Mixed Artillery Division." That is page 24.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And that unit has all the heavy artillery,
18 doesn't it?
19 A. Yes. It was a brigade group of the
20 artilleries that had some heavier pieces.
21 Q. No, I don't think we are being precise
22 enough. Item 6, the title is "Mixed Artillery
23 Division." That is not a brigade. This is a document
24 of the Operative Zone, and the commander describes the
25 situation in the brigades; that is, items 1 to 5, and
1 then 6, the mixed artillery unit. Can we agree on
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. What is your assessment as to the time when
5 this document was composed?
6 A. Looking from the fax in the document, we're
7 assessing for a period at least after August 1993, and
8 probably later in the year, perhaps October of 1993.
9 In the first paragraph, it mentions the 6th Corps of
10 the ABiH, which we know was formed in August of 1993,
11 and uses the terminology "ZP" on the top for "military
12 district," which we've seen from other documents, and
13 was from about October of 1993.
14 Q. The fact remains that this document does not
15 have a number, date, or signature; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Therefore, we cannot be 100 percent sure
18 whether this is an official document or maybe if it was
19 only a draft document of Mr. Blaskic. The informative
20 value of this document is somewhat disputable. We
21 cannot be 100 percent sure of it. Is that correct?
22 A. It still provides material that can be used
23 and correlated with other sources.
24 Q. Yes. I agree with that.
25 Looking at the same page, page 24, after an
1 overview of artillery -- in the English text, it's on
2 page 25, second paragraph on the page, at the end --
3 the document states that the basic problem of the
4 artillery is the very low reserve of artillery and the
5 impossibility of replenishment. Can we agree with this
7 A. Yes. It refers to low reserves of ammunition
8 and impossibility of replenishing them.
9 Q. The document does have a number. It has been
10 tendered into evidence; it is 432.1.
11 Amongst other units deployed in the area of
12 Vitez, on the basis of available information, you also
13 mentioned the Vitezovi unit. You said that the unit
14 was relatively weak, and bearing that in mind, the unit
15 was not so important, according to your opinion.
16 However, a little further down, you do mention that the
17 unit was very well-organised, that it was very
18 well-motivated and trained.
19 Did you ever have an opportunity, through the
20 documents and materials that you read, to see that that
21 unit was active in the area, for example, of Kolonija,
22 Rijeka, Kratine, Dubravica, Sumarija, including a
23 centre for detention in some parts of the area of
24 Vitez, that is, on the front line of Vitez itself; in
25 Donja Veceriska, in the SPS factory, the explosives
1 factory, that the unit throughout -- one police unit
2 from its premises in 1992, and that it had some
3 conflicts with the Territorial Defence of the BH army.
4 Have you seen this type of information? Did
5 you notice that this unit was mentioned on a couple of
6 occasions in the documents that you analyzed?
7 A. If I go back to the start of the question,
8 you mentioned that I thought the unit was relatively
9 weak. I think I was just referring to the fact that
10 it's numerically small in size, rather than -- I think
11 it's wrong to describe it as a weak unit, to start
12 with, because we know it was a special forces unit. So
13 we're not expecting it to be a large unit, but we're
14 expecting it to perhaps have a higher morale, better
15 training and perhaps even better equipped than the
16 other units.
17 As for the areas you mentioned, they weren't
18 included in the front-line maps themselves, but I have
19 seen documents describing the areas of activity of the
20 Vitezovi, and it's from documents like that where we
21 gathered the information on the size of them as well.
22 Q. You're a professional soldier, you're a
23 military expert. You mentioned certain elements, such
24 as level of organisation, training. These elements
25 significantly affect the strength of a certain unit; is
1 that correct?
2 A. Those are the factors that we take into
3 account when assessing the effectiveness of a unit,
5 Q. You also spoke about various reasons for --
6 that is, various elements, thanks to which the
7 HVO managed to prevail in the pocket. You mentioned at
8 one point that the HVO was capable of surviving in that
9 area. This can be seen from certain UNPROFOR elements
10 belonging to the British Battalion. Probably thanks to
11 the fact that they had a lot of supplies. However, you
12 also mentioned that the HVO was able to get supplies.
13 This is somehow contradictory to me.
14 Do you know how long the axis -- the supply
15 routes were usable in the area of the Vitez pocket? Do
16 you have any information as to that?
17 A. We're talking about a fairly large time
18 period, which explains why the difference in the
19 ability to supply. In the binder, the PWO reports
20 refer to the severing of the admitted HVO supply route
21 in approximately July 1993. It was just up until that
22 time, there was an over-land supply route into the
23 Vitez pocket. And then subsequent reports then talk
24 about the aerial resupply, or the helicopter resupply.
25 Q. Over-land supply route, perhaps we can use
1 the document Z1140, paragraph 2. Do you have that
2 document in front of you?.
3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
4 Mr. President, excuse me. There is a slight problem
5 with the interpretation. Here we are talking about a
6 report about war prisoners. However, the witness is
7 speaking about a report coming from the Prince of Wales
8 own Regiment, because in French, we are talking about
9 this particular document, and not the document
10 referring to the war prisoners.
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation].
12 Q. I wanted you to have a look at the document
13 Z1140. I'm interested in paragraph 2, the last
14 sentence of paragraph 2. According to this document --
15 JUDGE MAY: Has the witness got the
17 MR. KOVACIC: This is in the binder that we
18 just gave on the beginning?
19 A. Would it be possible for you to tell me the
20 footnote for the one because --
21 JUDGE MAY: Did you give the witness the
22 documents we have?
23 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. Everybody got it.
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
25 MR. KOVACIC:
1 Q. So item 2, last sentence in that item. It is
2 Z1140, I think.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. [Interpretation] It's a milinfosum, dated 6th
5 of July 1993. The last sentence states as follows:
6 "The last supply route passing via Sebesic was cut off
7 by the BH army in the night of the 2nd of July, 1993."
8 Could you please be so kind and show us
9 Sebesic on the map.
10 A. ... covered on this map because it's the area
11 to the south of Vitez between the Route Diamond and
13 Q. [In English] It might be too far to the
14 south. Anyway, that's a point from the south; correct?
15 A. That's correct. It's to the south of Vitez.
16 Q. [Interpretation] So that was the last supply
17 route which the HVO could use in the pocket; is that
19 A. Last over-land supply route, yes.
20 Q. Thank you. The document has already been
21 marked Z1140, but I do not know whether it has been
22 admitted or not. So I would tender it into evidence.
23 JUDGE MAY: Admit it, please.
24 THE REGISTRAR: D58/2.
25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Let me move on to another subject. You spoke
2 at some length about the ratio of forces in the area
3 between the BH army and the HVO throughout the year of
4 1993. Is it correct that we are only speaking about
5 the year of 1993? Can we agree on that? We have
6 limited ourselves to the year of 1993.
7 A. Considering the actual figures that were used
8 yesterday, they were from 1993.
9 Q. Witness, you said that the BH army was
10 present at the moment the April conflict broke out,
11 that it was still present at the front lines against
12 the Serbs, and that that was the reason why the ratio
13 of forces between the HVO and the BH army was no longer
14 so clearly, so plainly in favour of the BH army,
15 because part of its forces had to go to the front lines
16 with Serbs.
17 Could you present us with any source
18 indicating the exact number of troops that were
19 deployed from the BH army to the front lines against
20 Serbs? For example, in the area of Novi Travnik, the
21 area to the north-west of Vitez.
22 A. I haven't compiled figures for the actual
23 numbers. I just looked at reports showing which
24 elements of which units were deployed along the front
25 line and some of the actions which they took part in
1 and areas they reconquered.
2 Q. So as to the exact figure concerning the
3 troops of the BH army, you cannot tell us exactly how
4 many of its troops were deployed at the front line. We
5 do not have any reliable information about that. Is
6 that correct?
7 A. Well, the study hasn't shown the exact
8 numbers. There is, in the BritBat reports, they do
9 give information on units that they saw at various
10 points, but no, I haven't carried out a further study
11 on that.
12 Q. You indicated that the information you
13 compiled was compiled on the basis of certain documents
14 concerning the presence of the HVO on the front line
15 against the VRS, until June 1993, but you don't have
16 any exact figures for that either. Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. While describing this map, with the
19 deployment of forces in the area of the Lasva River
20 Valley, did you, while examining these documents, did
21 you obtain any picture, did you form any idea as to who
22 actually started the conflict in April 1993?
23 A. That wasn't the area of my study, no.
24 JUDGE MAY: No, that's one of the issues we
25 are going to have to determine.
1 Now, Mr. Kovacic, I must insist that you
2 restrict your cross-examination to the matters that the
3 witness dealt with in evidence. It's not a license for
4 a roaming cross-examination across the whole case. I'm
5 looking at some of the documents which apparently you
6 want to put to the witness, and I doubt very much
7 whether they are admissible as far as he's concerned.
8 MR. KOVACIC: I appreciate that, Your Honour,
9 really, but I'm just following -- I'm quitting on that
10 issue, of course, but I'm just following the line of
11 the Prosecution.
12 We raised the issue yesterday before the
13 testimony, whether we will talk about force ratio,
14 because inevitably we are then entering other areas, or
15 we should talk only about fronts. That is a relatively
16 grey area, how far we may or may not, but I --
17 JUDGE MAY: You can cross-examine the witness
18 about what he said about the force ratio. You can
19 question him about his knowledge, but there's little
20 point putting to him documents which he has not seen
21 and may know nothing about. In due course, you can
22 comment on his evidence, of course, as you wish, but
23 there's little point going through with him things
24 which he knows nothing about.
25 MR. KOVACIC: Certainly, Your Honour, I will
2 May I then just ask the witness to look at
3 the document, the next one on my pile, which is marked
4 in the Blaskic case with D194.
5 My question is the following: Have you seen
6 this document, as part of your study?
7 A. Yeah, I believe I've seen this document and
8 several other ABiH combat orders.
9 Q. That document clearly deals with the ratio of
10 forces in some of its parts. That's why it would be
11 interesting for you. Can we agree on that?
12 A. Yeah.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I would tender
14 this document into evidence, but I have to draw your
15 attention to a very serious mistake in translation.
16 In items 3 and 4 on page 1 of the English
17 text, a previous order of the 3rd Corps is mentioned.
18 The number of the order is there, and it was issued on
19 the 4th of April. Another prior order was also
20 referred to in the previous paragraph. However, in the
21 Croatian text, one can see that the orders in question
22 are the orders of the 16th of April in item 3 and the
23 order of the 15th of April in item 4. This is a
24 significant mistake, and I would kindly ask the
25 Prosecution to request a correction of the translation,
1 because we will be using this document later on in the
2 case, and I would kindly ask the document to be marked
3 as an exhibit.
4 JUDGE MAY: Let us deal with that matter,
5 first of all. You see the document and the point
6 that's made. Do you accept that it says "16" in
7 paragraph 3 in the original?
8 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your
9 Honour, the document mentioned by Mr. Kovacic is indeed
10 a document that can be found in the binder presented by
11 a witness, and the document is marked Z674 and it's a
12 document mentioned in the footnote number 6. I think
13 that Mr. Kovacic has a slightly different version. It
14 is the same order which was issued by Mr. Suad
15 Hasanovic on the 16th of April, but this document is
16 also in our binder.
17 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but the question is, is the
18 point that he makes about the correction a right one or
19 not? Mr. Kovacic says in paragraph 3 the order date is
20 dated the 16th, and if one looks at the original, that
21 appears to be right. But if you don't accept it, we'll
22 have to have the matter examined.
23 MR. NICE: As far as I can see in our own
24 version, the translation actually says the 16th, so I
25 think under that document rather than the other
1 version, I think the proper --
2 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The
3 original has the same date, the 16th.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have a
5 document here. In item 3 of the original, the date is
6 the 16th, and in item 4 --
7 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, it's not your fault,
8 it is the fault of the amount of documentation that we
9 have in this case.
10 Now, it appears that there are two different
11 translations. We're not going to waste any time about
12 it now. We need to straighten this out.
13 MR. NICE: Your Honour, the document
14 Mr. Kovacic has produced is a Defence exhibit from
15 another case. I don't know who did the translation.
16 The document that we've produced in our bundle has an
17 official translation from the Translation Department of
18 this Tribunal, and as far as I can see, both dates are
19 properly recorded as the 16th of April, and it would
20 probably be safer to proceed on the basis of our
21 document and not bother with producing this one.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, while we're dealing
23 with the documents, we received today an objection on
24 behalf of Dario Kordic to what are described as the
25 exhibits appended to the report. Now, I had not
1 understood that this witness was producing documents.
2 I thought he was merely referring to them for the
3 purposes of his report.
4 MR. NICE: Well, they would be
5 comprehensively produced for reference by the witness.
6 That was our understanding, and we understood that any
7 objections -- class objections made yesterday were
8 rejected by the Chamber in ruling the evidence to be
9 generally -- not yesterday, the day before -- in ruling
10 the evidence to be generally admissible.
11 We have only had this itemized objection this
12 morning, and we haven't had a chance to review it, but
13 it seems to me that the probabilities are that most of
14 the objections are of no substance, in the sense that
15 they don't meet the permissive decision of the Chamber
16 two days ago to allow this evidence in notwithstanding
17 the objection --
18 JUDGE MAY: No, it was the report -- it was
19 the witness's evidence that we allowed, not all these
20 exhibits. This is a totally different matter. There
21 was no mention made of introducing an entire bundle of
22 exhibits. And some of the objections are of substance,
23 because if right, they say that some of the documents
24 are inadmissible under the Tulica ruling.
25 What I had, and I speak entirely for myself,
1 what I had in mind was to admit the witness's evidence
2 about the maps and the troop strengths and not to
3 exclude it, because it was said some of the evidence to
4 which -- some of the material to which he had referred
5 was ruled inadmissible. I did not have in mind ruling
6 that all the material to which he referred then became
7 admissible. Indeed, it isn't. So there is a totally
8 different issue, as far as admissibility is concerned.
9 MR. NICE: That may have to be resolved
10 later. In any event, we'll have to spend some time
11 looking at the document. In any event, the witness is
12 able to give the evidence that he is giving.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes, he's able to give the
14 evidence and he's able to say where he got the matter
15 from, but it doesn't mean to say that that makes the
16 evidence -- the material admissible.
17 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Nice, I
18 fully agree with what has just been said. We have
19 admitted this witness whom you called, your office, on
20 the basis of the fact that he was going to provide some
21 information concerning maps because he studied them.
22 But it has never been a question -- I mean he can rely
23 on any information he has, but we never thought that he
24 would be producing a number of exhibits that would be
25 tendered into evidence, and this is not how I
1 understood the whole thing.
2 MR. NICE: Well, typically I think experts,
3 when they rely on material, will append the material
4 upon which they rely.
5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: It's not an expert.
6 JUDGE MAY: Well, even so.
7 MR. NICE: If he's not an expert, he's a
8 witness collating material, and typically he will
9 produce and append that material.
10 JUDGE MAY: Yes, and that's what I thought he
11 was doing, and I thought out of courtesy we were
12 provided with a copy of the documents to which he was
13 referring so that, if necessary, we could refer to it
14 during cross-examination.
15 MR. NICE: Yes.
16 JUDGE MAY: There was no question of
17 admitting those exhibits.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: But, Mr. Nice, you will be
19 seeking to have these documents admitted --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: I'm asking you whether you
22 will be seeking to rely on these documents.
23 MR. NICE: Probably, yes, and probably in
24 relation to all or nearly all.
25 You may, I think, remember that I said right
1 at the beginning, when I gave a general introduction to
2 this witness, that there was a range of material
3 that -- I may have used the words "he was going to
4 produce," because that was my understanding, in general
5 terms, and I said, "subject to one possible exception
6 or qualification." And I think I had one particular
7 qualification in mind relating to the ruling recently
8 given by the Chamber about Blaskic's trial testimony,
9 to which the witness has referred, as well as to the
10 documents to be produced, and I think that was the only
11 exception I had in mind. But we then didn't explore
12 the matter further. But, yes, in principle, we would
13 want the material available.
14 Material is let in by this Chamber,
15 understandably on a very -- I was going to say
16 "generous basis", but generous basis, documents are
17 let in without their being item-by-item challenged as
18 to whether the witness is really being able to say
19 anything about it and so on. The material then is
20 available perhaps for later comment or for later use
21 with other witnesses, and I have to say that my
22 understanding was that this material would go in on the
23 same basis.
24 JUDGE MAY: Clearly, looking at the carefully
25 drafted Defence document, much of it can go in, it
1 appears, without objection. But there are matters
2 where there are substantial objections; for instance,
3 no English translation, a document missing, or, indeed,
4 bits from Blaskic or from this trial itself.
5 The sensible course, if I may say, is for the
6 Prosecution to review the Defence objections and then,
7 at some stage, to apply for admission of such documents
8 as they want. It can be dealt as a separate issue,
9 rather than detaining the witness while we go through
10 it all.
11 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] If I may
12 add to clarify something, the Defence today produced
13 some of the documents which come from this binder and
14 tendered them as Defence documents. Don't you find
15 it paradoxical, slightly?
16 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter whether I find
17 it paradoxical. The fact is that they are entitled to
18 cross-examine on documents, and, of course, that makes
19 them exhibits.
20 As for the other exhibits, the sensible
21 course is for the Prosecution and Defence to agree on
22 what can go in without objection, and then if there is
23 anything left over, we will rule on it. Yes.
24 And as for the document that we were
25 discussing here, we'll make sure that we have a proper
1 translation of it, if there's one which is mistaken.
2 Perhaps, Mr. Kovacic, you would look into this and make
3 sure we get the right one. Yes.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] May I merely
5 remind Your Honours that in the version of the
6 translation which is in the binder, it is correct, that
7 translation is correct. But I rely on my own
8 documents. I do not think I'm bound to show documents
9 that I have been given. I have my database, my
10 sources, and this is the best document that I could
11 find. But I found a mistake in it, and yet this
12 document was received from the Prosecutor's office.
13 True, not in this case.
14 But since we are talking about documents, I
15 assume the documents Z432.1 and Z1140 of the BritBat
16 have not been tendered, and I should like to tender
17 them now and ask for numbers, because we touched upon
18 both of them and the witness confirmed that he had seen
19 them both.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Number Z1140 has already been
21 given a number, D58/2. Document 432.1 will be D59/2.
22 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you. [Interpretation] Let
23 us then move on to the last subject, that is, of my
25 Q. You analysed Blaskic's orders, that is, the
1 orders of the commander of the Operative Zone, which
2 also covered the unit of my client. You explained the
3 orders of the 17th of April, '93. You told us the
4 conflict in the Vitez area or the Vitez pocket broke
5 out on the 16th of April, '93. Do we agree on that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, if we do agree on that, then I should
8 like to ask you to look at the next order in this batch
9 of documents. But, true, it is marked D269 and has a
10 number in a circle, "145", handwritten. Yes, this
11 document. I took this document from the Blaskic case,
12 and this is the order of the 16th of April, 1993, at
13 1.30 in the morning, so that was the night between the
14 15th and the 16th. It is addressed to the commander of
15 the Vitez Brigade, Mr. Cerkez, and the unit called
16 Tvrtko, which you mentioned.
17 Have you seen this document before, or while
18 you made the analysis, did you see it then?
19 A. I've seen this document, yes.
20 Q. Could you show us on the map then, where was
21 the Vitez Brigade to be deployed, pursuant to that
22 order? Where was it, on the 16th of April, at sometime
23 on that particular day; that is, after 1.30, when it
24 was issued that order?
25 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Elford, before you answer
1 that, have you made a close study of where the Vitez
2 Brigade was, and I mean a close study of where the
3 Vitez Brigade was at various times on the 16th of
4 April, or is your evidence limited to an overall study
5 of the force ratio?
6 A. The evidence is limited to the overall study
7 because I couldn't -- the question was where was the
8 Vitez Brigade deployed, but this is talking about
9 elements of the brigade. So I can say where elements
10 were, but not where the whole brigade was at the time.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I have made the
12 point before, and I make it again, this is not the
13 appropriate witness to deal with details about that
14 day, or about these orders from Colonel Blaskic.
15 Merely because the witness has seen them does not mean
16 that he can assist the Trial Chamber in answering
17 questions which are of crucial importance; namely,
18 where precisely the brigade was at a certain time. The
19 only people who can realistically deal with that are
20 the people who were there. And merely looking at these
21 orders is not going to assist us.
22 So unless you've got any further
23 cross-examination, we'll move on. And I mean by that,
24 cross-examination on a different topic.
25 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, with all due
1 respect, we have been given by this witness the maps,
2 many maps, and, for example, just one, and I'm basing
3 it on this one, which clearly shows the development of
4 the 17th, with the positions of the units in which --
5 JUDGE MAY: Which map are you referring to?
6 MR. KOVACIC: What I don't know is whether
7 the Prosecution will, at the end of the day, say, "This
8 is the evidence."
9 JUDGE MAY: No. Which map are you referring
11 MR. KOVACIC: I am referring to one of the
12 maps we have received from the Prosecution. It is
13 entitled "HVO Intended Front Lines in Vitez," and then
14 it has the three positions on that day. The first one
15 is by Blaskic's order, 4.00 in the morning of the 17th;
16 the next one, 1815; the next one, 2210 hours.
17 JUDGE MAY: Right. You can ask about that.
18 You can ask the witness how he got that information,
19 where he got the information from, and on what it is
21 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, there is no
22 dispute on that. Those orders are here.
23 JUDGE MAY: Do stop arguing, Mr. Kovacic.
24 You can put to the witness where he got the information
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You heard the question. Could you tell us on
3 the basis of which information did you then plot the
4 deployment of forces, as you did on this map?
5 A. Yes. The three documents that were shown on
6 the map were exhibits in the Blaskic trial. They don't
7 actually show the deployment or say which elements of
8 the Viteska Brigade were deployed in these places, they
9 show the intended defence lines, and that's what the
10 order gave. I'm not clear what elements of the Viteska
11 Brigade were actually sent to those positions.
12 Q. In an analysis of this nature, on the basis
13 of individual documents, wasn't it important for you
14 where a particular unit was the day before or the day
15 after. Is that correct?
16 A. In this area, I was shown the front lines
17 that developed, I wasn't able or wasn't trying to show
18 which elements of the brigade were at a set place at a
19 set time. It's when you move on to the July map that
20 it shows an overall area of responsibility for
21 battalions, but that's the limit of it. It was really
22 showing how the front line developed.
23 Q. But did you say "battalions," or was that a
24 mistake in translation? Did you say "battalions,"
1 A. When we're looking at the last map, it's
2 showing the areas of responsibility of battalions --
3 Q. [In English] Excuse me, sir. You were just
4 talking about the 17th, and you mentioned battalions.
5 That was my point.
6 A. No. I said on the July map, on the 17th, I'm
7 just showing intended lines of defence. It doesn't
8 show which units were to be deployed there, or what
9 size of units.
10 Q. [Interpretation] That was later, yes, true.
11 But do you know where the elements of all the Vitez
12 Brigade were on the 16th of April, again, as intended
13 -- according to the order? Which was its area of
14 responsibility on that particular day?
15 A. I haven't made a study of where the elements
16 were on the 16th.
17 Q. So you did not analyze Blaskic's order of the
18 16th of April, that is, the one issued at half past
19 one; you did not consider that, did you?
20 A. It was an order to the commander of the HVO
21 Brigade Vitez to deploy forces, but it doesn't say
22 which forces to deploy. And it also is covered again
23 by the orders of the 17th, which refer to the area of
24 Kruscica, Vranjska, and Donja Veceriska, and that those
25 orders are included on that first map to show the
1 development of the front lines. You can see that the
2 lines shown in those orders match up to the lines shown
3 on the final map.
4 Q. Could you then show us, please, on this map,
5 on this overlay, how did that particular line which you
6 just mentioned develop? Where did it start, during the
7 first three days of the conflict, and where did it
9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the usher
10 please help the witness with the overlays.
11 Q. So when the conflict broke out on the 16th of
12 April, you show here how the forces were deployed,
13 according to Blaskic's orders, which you mentioned, the
14 three orders of the 17th. But you are not taking into
15 consideration the order of the 16th, which would yet be
16 closer to the beginning of the story. Where then,
17 according to you, were the various elements of the
18 Vitez Brigade?
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Elford, let's make sure that
20 I understand the question.
21 You have given evidence, according to this
22 map, based on Blaskic's orders of the 17th; is that
24 THE WITNESS: That's correct, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MAY: You are now being asked about the
1 16th. Can you assist us about the 16th or not?
2 THE WITNESS: The question was about the
3 units deployed at the time, and I don't have
4 information on that. The information shown is the
5 general intention, the general area to be covered by
6 the front line, the defence lines, not the actual
7 deployment of units there.
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, it appears this
9 witness cannot help beyond the evidence that he's given
10 about the 17th and the intended orders, or the intended
11 dispositions, and it must be doubtful whether there's
12 any point going on, trying to get evidence out of him.
13 As I have said more than once, you can call
14 your own evidence, you can produce these documents in
15 your own case, but there's little point arguing with a
16 witness who can't assist on these particular matters.
17 MR. KOVACIC: Just one question, Your
19 Q. [Interpretation] All the orders that you had
20 at your disposal show only the intended deployment.
21 Not only those of the 16th, but also of the 17th. You
22 do not really know who was where, you only know what
23 was the intention of the commander when he issued the
24 orders, which were the areas he wanted to get hold of.
25 But otherwise, you don't have any other information.
1 Do we agree on that?
2 A. That's correct. It shows the intention, and
3 that then shows how the front line subsequently
5 Q. So in that sense, there is no difference
6 between the order of the 16th or the 17th. Both of
7 them -- or, rather, all four of them are only about
8 intention; is that true?
9 A. Intended in the sense that the order was
10 made. It is an order. It's not an -- it is an order
11 to them, but implies an intention to it. It's given as
12 an order.
13 Q. Yes, I agree.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
15 may I say one thing. If I may, I should like to remind
16 you that at the time we received this material, we made
17 a very serious effort to avoid precisely what we're
18 talking about now. We're quite ready to reach an
19 understanding about individual lines. Now, one cannot
20 only conclude what was the intention emanating from
21 these orders. We simply wanted to confirm where the
22 units were, and, much to our regret, we have not
23 managed to do that.
24 I, nevertheless, think, in view of the
25 documents we received, and the situation as presented
1 by the witness, I think it is simply not realistic to
2 speak about the 17th, which is the second day of the
3 conflict, rather than the 16th, that is, the first
4 order that was issued. But, as you said, there are, of
5 course, other ways and other means of achieving that.
6 But this is not a fair picture because it begins in the
7 middle of the story, rather than at the beginning of
8 it, and it is for that reason why I think that this
9 testimony is worthless.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Those are matters which you
11 can make submissions on at the appropriate time.
12 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, sir. Certainly.
13 [Interpretation] Right. Then I do not wish to waste
14 any more of your time.
15 Q. Very briefly, going through the orders, those
16 other orders of the 17th that you specifically
17 mentioned, the one of 4.00, is to the units of the
18 Frankopan Zrinjski Brigade and the Vitez Brigade; is
19 that so?
20 A. If I can just refer to the actual order. The
21 0400 order --
22 Q. [In English] The 0400 order is addressed to
23 Zrinjski and Viteska; right?
24 A. That's correct, to the command.
25 Q. The next one, 1815, is addressed to Viteska,
1 to the forward battalion of the military police, and to
2 Zrinski; correct?
3 A. That's correct. It then goes on to say "The
4 commanders of the above-mentioned units are responsible
5 to me for its execution." Yes.
6 Q. [Interpretation] You are referring to item
7 3. So there is no subordination. All three
8 commanders, whose units are mentioned here and then
9 sent to individual areas, are responsible to the
10 commander of the Operative Zone, that is, Blaskic. Is
11 that correct?
12 A. That's correct, because they are taking up
13 positions along the same line, and the subordination is
14 to the commander of the Operative Zone.
15 Q. There is no subordination, there is no
16 relation of subordination among the three of them, are
18 A. It talks about coordination between them.
19 Q. Yes, that is so. Thank you.
20 The last one of the 17th or 4th [sic], it is
21 being issued only to the Vitez Brigade, the 2210.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Did you also look at other orders issued to
24 other units in other defence sectors during that night?
25 A. No. I just took these ones for showing the
1 areas around Vitez for the Viteska Brigade. That's the
2 information to show the intention in this area.
3 Q. I'm not quite sure I understand you. So your
4 purpose was to show us only the positions of the Vitez
5 Brigade or the HVO in the Lasva pocket on that
6 particular critical day. Earlier, it seemed that you
7 were to show all the HVO units, all the HVO forces, in
8 the Vitez pocket, not only the Vitez municipality.
9 Could you please explain that to me?
10 A. Yes. The final map here shown shows the
11 final front lines for the whole of the Vitez pocket.
12 The preceding ones show some of the build-up of it from
13 the information we had. So there was not information
14 that I've seen for other areas of the pocket. The
15 final map, to get the information for the whole pocket,
16 we had to also use information from BritBat and from
17 other sources of maps.
18 Q. But there is no doubt then in the
19 municipality of Vitez itself. There were different HVO
20 units; is that correct?
21 A. Yes. There were units other than the Viteska
23 Q. And we have just seen it from these orders,
24 haven't we, if we didn't glean it from some other
1 A. The orders referring to, say, the Zrinski
3 Q. Quite. There is the forward battalion of the
4 police, Tvrtko is mentioned too. So quite a number of
6 A. Yes. The last thing you mentioned, yes, that
7 they're shown in areas within Vitez.
8 Q. These orders we've just been through, they
9 are establishing the areas of responsibility of
10 individual units at different periods of time; is that
12 A. I don't think they refer to the actual area
13 of responsibility. These are specific orders on a
14 specific day. I don't think it says that, for example,
15 the Tvrtko Brigade was to always operate in that area.
16 Q. Could you then clarify this for me, please,
17 Mr. Elford. If a commander decides that a particular
18 unit is to be deployed in a particular area, in an X or
19 Y village, and regardless of whether it's two hours,
20 six hours, 16 days, the commander is thereby
21 determining that unit's operational zone and the area
22 of responsibility.
23 I may be a layman, but that is how I
24 understand how the army functions. Does not such an
25 order define, by definition, also the area of
2 A. The area of responsibility is the actual
3 operational area. If it's sent to another area, that
4 would be another area within the area of responsibility
5 of another unit.
6 Q. And when we are dealing with a number of
7 units in one and the same area?
8 A. If you're asking me for the hierarchy of
9 units in the area, I'm not sure.
10 JUDGE MAY: If you don't understand the
11 question, Mr. Elford, just say so.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I don't feel
13 this is an area that I've studied for this
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Very well. When you showed us the front
17 lines on the maps, conditionally speaking --
18 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,
19 you told us on Tuesday that you would not take more
20 than one hour for your cross-examination. You've been
21 at it for one hour and a half. You have to finish
22 before the break, because we have other business. So
23 it will be really very sensible if you finished before
24 the break, particularly since we're dealing with the
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I hope I will
2 not need more than 10 or 15 minutes. Yes, we did,
3 indeed, dwell on these maps because the witness was
4 saying some new things. All right.
5 Q. So as for the front lines, you do not really
6 think they're front lines, these are the areas which
7 should be controlled by units; that is, some units
8 should hold individual points and individual roads.
9 That is, I believe, how you explained it to us.
10 Individual routes. That is, I believe, how I
11 understood your testimony.
12 A. Areas held by units, the front line would
13 change depending on where defensive positions were for
14 both sides, and where attacks were made.
15 Q. Did you come across any information that the
16 HVO positions had been prepared in advance? I mean,
17 had any engineering works been done, fortifications,
18 trenches, or anything? But there is no such
19 information, is there?
20 A. For the preparation of this report, I'm not
21 sure what engineering works were carried out for this
22 specific time period. I know that there were also
23 conflicts in the area in early 1993, January of 1993,
24 which would have involved preparation of defence
1 Q. Mr. Elford, my question was quite clear.
2 Have you seen any information that the HVO had
3 engineering positions ready, that is, trenches,
4 cross-trenches, some fortifications, for this conflict
5 in the Vitez pocket, for the conflict between the HVO
6 and the army of BiH? Have you ever laid your eyes on a
7 document that would tell us anything about that?
8 A. The information I referred to on
9 fortifications refers to fortifications that developed
10 at a later period.
11 Q. That is, after the beginning of the conflict,
12 not before the conflict broke out.
13 A. Yes, because I was reporting on the front
14 lines that developed.
15 Q. Mr. Elford, according to military doctrine,
16 is there some theory about the force ratio between the
17 offensive and the defensive forces? According to
18 military doctrine, how much stronger need the attacker
19 be than the defense forces, two-fold, three-fold,
20 four-fold, or how much stronger does he need to be? If
21 you were in the ABiH, how many men would you need to
22 overcome the HVO in the pocket? What do the doctrines
23 tell us about that?
24 JUDGE MAY: There are a number of questions.
25 Is there a doctrine at all that you know of?
1 THE WITNESS: The concept of force ratio
2 relies on many variables, and I don't think you can
3 just talk about the numbers involved. There is
4 evidence where small forces have defeated large
5 forces. The numbers vary, and you have to take into
6 account all the other factors.
7 JUDGE MAY: When one thinks about it, it's a
8 matter of common sense. I don't think we're going to
9 get much further on that.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Very well. But
11 we were told that the witness is an analyst. If he is
12 an analyst, then he should know such things.
13 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on.
14 MR. KOVACIC: Yes. I'm going to move on.
15 Q. [Interpretation] There are two places along
16 the main thoroughfare through the Vitez pocket, in the
17 area of the Vitez municipality. Both are strategically
18 important. Would you agree that this is below Sivrino
19 Selo, on the road, and at Grbavica, alongside the
20 BritBat? You know what I'm talking about.
21 Do you think these are important ABiH
22 positions which it held there over the main road? Can
23 we agree on that?
24 A. Yes. I've shown the positions. I haven't
25 tried to make any value judgement on the importance of
2 Q. Very well. One of your conclusions about
3 sectors was based on a document that you used, and that
4 was the document of the Defence Office. Did you see
5 that the language used, the terminology, that is, there
6 are no elevation points, there is no military idiom
7 there, and that it is, therefore, a different document
8 linguistically speaking than military documents issued,
9 for instance, by Blaskic in that same area?
10 Because it was on the basis of that document
11 that you defined, outlined, some sectors in the Vitez
12 valley, or rather in the municipality of Vitez.
13 A. Yeah. The report is written by the Defence
14 office and explains the organisation of the brigade.
15 Q. You've read a number of documents, documents
16 issued by military commanders, military units. Judging
17 from the form of the document, do you think this is a
18 document that was written by a military person?
19 Let me simplify and question and let us not
20 waste more time than necessary.
21 This document speaks about sectors, that is,
22 mobilization sectors, the sectors where the
23 mobilization was supposed to be carried out. It is not
24 a document about actual deployment. Could you agree on
1 A. Yeah, this document written by the Defence
2 office relating to sectors that were established, which
3 would be in accordance with the demand for the command
4 of the Vitez Brigade, and the sectors they've used in
5 this match up, then, with some of the sectors that are
6 given in subsequent orders to sector commanders by the
7 brigade commander.
8 Q. Only in certain parts. They do not agree
9 completely; is that correct?
10 A. It's more that we only have orders for
11 certain parts.
12 Q. That's correct, yes, thank you.
13 During your analysis, did you use evidence
14 from the Blaskic case? You did say so for certain
15 documents, but did you also use photographs of certain
16 positions, positions that were shown or indicated by
17 witnesses on a model which was used in the Blaskic
19 A. I've seen some of the testimony relating to
20 the model and some of the pictures, which are not
21 particularly good.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, have you got many
23 more minutes?
24 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, I think I'm -- I'm
25 just checking whether I omitted -- I mean I did omit a
1 lot of things, but whether there's anything of crucial
3 Your Honour, excuse me. I'm not sure whether
4 you ruled or not, but I would like to enter this
5 document from 16.
6 JUDGE MAY: No, no.
7 MR. KOVACIC: Okay.
8 JUDGE MAY: It's nothing to do with the
9 witness. You'll have to call him properly.
10 MR. KOVACIC: And then if I may, just one
11 minor thing.
12 We had been given, the day before yesterday,
13 after this witness concluded testimony, an additional
14 paper also coming from the office of Defence, and I
15 will not ask about documents. Probably that will be
16 addressed on redirect. If it will be, I don't know.
17 But there is again an error in translation. So if that
18 document will be mentioned, then I will react on --
19 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you would like to speak
20 to Mr. Lopez-Terres about it during the adjournment.
21 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, I would, certainly. Thank
22 you, sir.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn for
24 half an hour.
25 --- Recess taken at 11.08 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.44 a.m.
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if
4 I may, just one proposal or suggestion.
5 In the meantime, we checked the transcript
6 from the direct examination yesterday, and on the page
7 14779, in line 21, the witness said the following:
8 [In English] [Previous translation continues]
9 "... by one of the 16 of April, which was a more
10 limited focus, just focusing on the blockade at
11 Kruscica and Vranjska."
12 [Interpretation] In light of that, I would
13 kindly ask you to allow me one more question for this
14 witness, because this is exactly what this order refers
15 to, the order that I wanted to show to the witness.
16 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your
19 Q. Mr. Elford, the day before yesterday you
20 mentioned, during your direct examination, that before
21 the order of the 17th of April at 4.00, an order had
22 been issued, the order of the 16th of April, which
23 focused on the possibility of the attack from Kruscica
24 and Vranjska. You have that order in your binder. Is
25 this the order that I showed you, and were you
1 referring to that order? I mean the order of the 16th
2 of April issued at half past one.
3 A. In the binder, if it's an order of 16th of
4 April, half past one, yes.
5 Q. Half past one in the morning?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And you do have that order in your binder;
9 A. Yeah, the order referred to in the notes,
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Well, we still
12 do not know whether the binder will be admitted into
13 evidence or not. But in any case, I tender this order
14 for now as my exhibit, and I would like it to be marked
15 as an exhibit if the binder is not being marked as
17 JUDGE MAY: Where is the order, please,
18 Mr. Kovacic?
19 MR. KOVACIC: It was distributed earlier this
20 morning, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MAY: Can somebody assist as to which
22 one it is?
23 MR. KOVACIC: I can give you mine, Your
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, let's have that one.
1 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
2 Mr. President, in the binder this order was linked to
3 the note on page 75, and it was marked as Z672.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The number for this exhibit
5 is D60/2.
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,
9 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry. I hope that there
10 is no sense in wasting your time and asking the witness
11 to show us that location on the map. Both are visible
12 on the map, that is, south of the main route just a
13 little bit north from Kruscica.
14 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
15 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you.
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres.
17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I have a
18 few questions for the witness, in view of the questions
19 posed to him by Mr. Sayers first and then by
20 Mr. Kovacic.
21 Re-examined by Mr. Lopez-Terres:
22 Q. First of all, as regards the front line where
23 troops were deployed against the army of the Republika
24 Srpska, Mr. Elford, in view of the documents that you
25 have examined and analysed, do you have the impression
1 that as of January 1993, the HVO forces progressively
2 withdrew from the front line against Serbs so as to
3 leave that front line only to the troops of the BH
4 army? I'm referring to the area of Central Bosnia, of
6 A. I believe there is a progressive reduction
7 and a complete withdrawal which I mentioned yesterday.
8 Q. In your binder, you referred to two orders in
9 particular; one emanating from General Blaskic, the
10 other from General Petkovic, from January 1993. By
11 these orders, two rotations were being requested and
12 then a diminishment of troops deployed on the line
13 against the Serbs; is that correct? I think the first
14 order is dated 16th of January, and the second one,
15 21st of January.
16 A. I've seen it. I'm not sure where the exact
17 place is in the binder for them.
18 Q. The two orders in question, do they remind
19 you of anything as regards instructions given by HVO in
20 January 1993?
21 A. Yes, they do.
22 Q. As regards the troops present in the area,
23 Mr. Sayers asked you two days ago if, during the
24 analysis that you undertook, you were able to establish
25 that there had been Croatian army units, and I'm
1 referring to the units of the army of the Republic of
2 Croatia, in the area of Busovaca, Kiseljak, Vares and
4 In response to that question, you said that
5 in the course of your work, you were not able to find
6 any information which would suggest that there were
7 units with the same strength of a brigade in the said
8 area, or a battalion. This can be found on page 14840
9 of the 22nd of February. Is that what you said, that
10 there were no brigades and no battalions in the area?
11 A. In the areas referred to, I think my evidence
12 of units of that size. Reportings of larger-size units
13 were perhaps in the Gornji Vakuf and Prozor area.
14 Q. You have anticipated the question I was going
15 to ask you. In the list mentioned by Mr. Sayers, the
16 municipalities of Gornji Vakuf, Prozor and Bugojno were
17 not mentioned?
18 A. Yeah, that's correct, yes.
19 Q. On the basis of several milinfosum reports,
20 and you have seen quite a few of them for the purposes
21 of your study, you were able to establish that in those
22 three areas, presence or movement of troops of the army
23 of the Republic of Croatia was mentioned on several
24 instances; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, several instances of troop movements
1 being seen in those areas.
2 Q. I would like to show you, in connection with
3 that, two milinfosum reports. The first one is dated
4 28th of May, 1993, and it is marked as Z2423.2, and
5 another one dated 18th of June --
6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Sayers.
7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] -- which
8 was marked as Z2427.1.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, there is an objection. Just
10 wait. Don't hand it to the witness, please,
11 Mr. Usher.
12 MR. SAYERS: I don't mean to interrupt. If
13 these milinfosums are included, obviously, within the
14 materials that Mr. Elford relied upon, then there is no
15 objection. But if these are new milinfosums about
16 which no questions have been asked on
17 cross-examination, then there is an objection.
18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres, can you help
19 us? Where do these come from?
20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] These two
21 documents are not in the binder. We have prepared a
22 binder, but the Defence has certain objections as to
23 the admission of these documents. But it's getting
24 increasingly more difficult for us to present certain
25 evidence which can be commented upon by this witness.
1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]
2 Mr. Lopez-Terres, this witness is getting out of the
3 framework of his evidence. This witness is a member of
4 your office, and he has come to expose certain
5 conclusions about maps. He is not an expert, he is not
6 an expert witness. He's not testifying to any specific
7 area as an expert. We are basing ourselves on a
8 certain number of maps, and we should restrict
9 ourselves to that particular area, because we cannot
10 pass and review all of the relevant elements through
11 this witness.
12 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your
13 Honour, the other day the Defence wanted to limit the
14 area of testimony of Mr. Elford, and the Chamber
15 decided at that time that it needed certain information
16 as regards deployment of troops in the relevant area.
17 This decision was taken two days ago, but contrary to
18 what we have in the report, a question was asked
19 regarding the number of troops of the Croatian army in
20 the area, and this was not the subject of the report of
21 Mr. Elford. And because that question was asked, a
22 question concerning the presence of the soldiers of the
23 Republic of Croatia -- and this issue is very important
24 for the purposes of evaluation of reports on the
25 ground -- it is very important for us to be able to ask
1 questions to that witness.
2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, but we
3 do not have any additional documents. We have had
4 enough documents. He has to base himself on the
5 existing documents, the documents that we already
6 have. Please ask your question, Mr. Lopez-Terres.
7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, but
8 the analysis is based on a certain number of documents,
9 and later on the Defence may have objections as to the
10 justification for his arguments.
11 JUDGE MAY: That was a ruling,
12 Mr. Lopez-Terres, not an invitation to argument. Now,
13 would you move on, please.
14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, Your
16 Q. Mr. Elford, in the course of your work for
17 the Office of the Prosecutor, were you able to find --
18 familiarise yourself with certain documents from the
19 HVO to the effect that certain orders were given to
20 Croatian army units to get rid of the military insignia
21 of the Croatian army and to put only the HVO insignia?
22 A. Yes, I've seen documents related to the
23 removal of HV insignia for HVO and to put on --
24 regarding removal of those and wearing of HVO
1 Q. The need to remove the HV insignia, of
2 course, had to do with the interest of being identified
3 as HVO units?
4 A. Yes, I think to avoid being identified as HV
5 units, yes.
6 Q. In your capacity as an analyst who has worked
7 on material concerning the HVO and the Croatian army,
8 have you also seen documents, some of them signed by
9 Colonel Blaskic in April of 1993, whereby units were
10 required to compose lists of members of the Croatian
11 army who were at the same time members of these other
13 A. Yes, I have seen units like that -- orders
14 like that which have been produced, yes.
15 Q. And then you concluded there were, indeed, HV
16 soldiers and different units deployed in Central Bosnia
17 and in the area of Vitez, didn't you?
18 A. Yes. The order implies that there were,
19 perhaps, people there. To be honest, it's asking for
21 Q. Thank you. I have no more questions
22 regarding that subject, that is, the army of the
23 Republic of Croatia.
24 In your report, you also referred to a
25 document of the 7th of May, 1993, a document issued by
1 Colonel Blaskic, and that is an assessment of the
2 situation. That document was annex number 3, attached
3 to your report, and it is has the exhibit number Z891.
4 A. I have the document.
5 Q. Have you found that document?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Would you please look at page 3, where you
8 have the description of the enemy.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, as regards the Muslim forces, could you
11 read out the paragraph where we have the description of
12 the Muslim forces, or, rather, the paragraph which
13 refers to the structure of these forces and the
14 materiel they have.
15 A. [As read] "The structure: Mainly infantry
16 units, poorly equipped. Most without military
17 uniforms, in civilian clothes, with only battalion
18 commanders having complete uniforms, which demonstrates
19 that civilians are being killed. Mountain formations
20 have a large amount of snipers in their ranks with
21 automatic weapons and are very eager to attack the
23 Q. And you can deduce from that that in May
24 1993, Blaskic himself described the Muslim army as an
25 army very poorly armed, very poorly equipped.
1 A. Yes, that is correct, because it's a report
2 on the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, the area.
3 Q. I'm moving on to a different subject.
4 You wrote a document, Z505, which concerns
5 the active part of the Vitez Brigade, which had some
6 300 men.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can one then conclude, after analysing this
9 document, that the document concerning the mobilization
10 that Mr. Kovacic spoke about some time ago, that there
11 was a permanent standing part of the Vitez Brigade, and
12 that that was long before the conflict broke out in
13 April 1993, that there was a certain standing force in
14 the Vitez Brigade?
15 A. There's an active element, and it included
16 orders showing deployments of those before the 16th of
18 Q. In one of the documents, and that is a report
19 concerning the mobilization, the document issued at the
20 end of April 1993, it mentions the mobilization of 498
21 persons attached to the -- and that these were the
22 regulars of the Vitez Brigade. They constituted the
23 active and standing part that you are referring to. Is
24 that so?
25 A. Sorry. I referred to the active part of the
1 300, yes.
2 Q. Quite. Yes. I'm asking if in the report --
3 in this report, in addition to the mobilized ones, it
4 said 498 soldiers were mobilized in addition to the
5 regular troops of the Vitez Brigade, whether these
6 regular troops would be those 300 men who were the
7 active part of the brigade that you referred to. That
8 is how you understand this.
9 A. ... the regular part -- the active part, and
10 then anyone else who had been mobilized before that
12 Q. You were asked about the boundaries of the
13 Vitez municipality. I should like to go through some
14 names with you, and you will tell us whether these
15 localities fell within the area of responsibility of
16 the accused Cerkez and --
17 JUDGE MAY: We must have some regard to the
18 clock. It must be possible to agree what was part of
19 the boundary and what wasn't. This witness isn't a
20 local expert, he's merely a -- not merely. He is the
21 drawer of the map. So can we move on, please.
22 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
23 Q. The order of the 16th of April, issued at
24 half past one by Colonel Blaskic, and which was then
25 followed by three other orders on the 17th of April,
1 which were all mentioned, this order of the 16th of
2 April, issued at half past one, was an order issued to
3 Mr. Mario Cerkez and the unit Tvrtko II. We can agree
4 on that.
5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 Q. Could you tell us, or perhaps read to us
7 paragraph 4 of that order?
8 A. Yes. Paragraph 4 reads: "Personally
9 responsible to me for the execution of the given
10 assignments is the commander --"
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down,
12 because the interpreters don't have it. Could you
13 please slow down.
14 A. Yes. "Personally responsible to me for the
15 execution of the given assignments is the commander of
16 the HVO Brigade Vitez, Mr. M. Cerkez."
17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Could you also tell us what was the objective
19 of that order? Particularly, if you look at the upper
20 left part of that order, you will find that.
21 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE MAY: There's an administrative
24 matter. Apparently there's a power failure in the
25 building, and we were being asked to adjourn, but, in
1 fact, we're going to go on until 1.00.
2 But, Mr. Lopez-Terres, it would be helpful if
3 we could finish this witness, please, quickly.
4 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Exactly,
5 Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Elford, this order, could you please read
7 out who it was addressed to. You have it up there, in
8 the upper left corner, above the hour 1.30 in the
10 A. The actual addressee is to the commander of
11 the HVO Brigade. The top left corner is referring to
12 the address of the originator. But the addressee is to
13 the commander of the HVO Brigade Vitez, Mr. Mario
14 Cerkez, and to the special forces unit, Tvrtko. In the
15 top left-hand corner is the forward command post Vitez,
16 command headquarters, Central Bosnia Operative Zone.
17 Q. What I'm asking -- I'm asking what is that
18 below that?
19 A. Sorry. Where it reads "combat commands"?
20 Q. That is it. Yes, that's it.
21 A. It reads: "Combat commands in order to
22 prevent attack activity by the enemy (extreme Muslim
23 forces) and blockade the border territory of Kruscica,
24 Vranjska, and Donja Veceriska."
25 Q. In paragraph 2, it is said that the forces
1 need to take the defence area indicated, to block the
2 village, and in case of a Muslim attack, to offset it,
3 to neutralise it, and to prevent all movement.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Donja Veceriska, as it transpires from this
6 order, was within the area of responsibility of the
7 Vitez Brigade, wasn't it?
8 A. That is correct, yes.
9 Q. In this order, Mr. Cerkez is named as
10 responsible for that operation, even though this order
11 does not concern only his brigade but also the special
12 unit Tvrtko. Should one, therefore, deduce from that
13 that the brigade commander, Mario Cerkez, became also
14 responsible for the special purpose unit which operated
15 in his area of responsibility?
16 A. Yes. He's been given responsibility for the
17 actions of the Tvrtko special forces unit.
18 Q. That is, this order gave him authority over
19 that special forces unit, didn't it?
20 A. That is correct. A responsibility over
22 Q. In the binder, you produced a document which
23 is a fragment from the diary of the commander of the
24 brigade; as such, it was developed in July 1994 by the
25 JNA. It is in the first part, the first piece, the
1 first item in your binder.
2 A. Yes, I have that.
3 Q. Could you read out paragraph 115 of that
5 JUDGE MAY: There is no need to read things
6 out. Now, can we conclude now, please,
7 Mr. Lopez-Terres.
8 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
9 Mr. President, the Defence asked the witness a moment
10 ago some information about the subordination, and
11 Mr. Sayers did the same thing.
12 JUDGE MAY: Cross-examination and
13 re-examination must be conducted with some regard to
14 timing. Now, you've been re-examining,
15 Mr. Lopez-Terres, for half an hour and more, and that,
16 in our judgement, is enough. We can read the documents
17 in due course and you can comment on them.
18 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
19 Mr. President, I am reassured as you have just said that
20 you will read the documents in due course. I have no
21 further questions to ask to the witness.
22 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
23 Mr. Elford, thank you for coming to give your
24 evidence. You are free to go.
25 [The witness withdrew]
1 MR. NICE: Indeed, then, we will respond to
2 the suggestion that the production of supporting
3 material be discussed and returned to later in due
4 course. In fact, Mr. Lopez-Terres is going to call the
5 next witness as well, a general area of his particular
7 Just to set out a time scale of what remains
8 for this week, because I don't know how long this
9 power-cut is going to affect us, if at all.
10 There's this witness. I've had no request to
11 call the investigator who took the statement of the
12 deceased witness, the witness I said I was going to
13 tender, and she's available today. But absent any
14 request to call her then, I take it, there's no
15 challenge to the integrity of the taking of the
17 There's the language assistant, who can deal
18 with the audiotape, and he's available today or
19 tomorrow. I don't think he'll be very long.
20 There are a few remaining binders to be
21 considered, and there will be discussion then, I think,
22 about exhibits and videos, and I have no doubt that
23 that material can last us until lunchtime tomorrow, one
24 way or another.
25 But if Mr. Lopez-Terres can take the next
1 witness, that's Carry Spork, we will use the time until
2 the possible power-cut to the maximum.
3 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
5 MR. KOVACIC: If I may make just a small
6 suggestion. Since we may be entering the same problems
7 of the documents with the next witness, probably it
8 would be, for practical reasons, better to discuss the
9 raised issue on how we will classify them, what status
10 the documents will have, before we continue.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 JUDGE MAY: Well, let's call the witness and
13 begin his evidence, and then we can deal with that.
14 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
15 Mr. President, may I say something before the witness
16 takes the declaration? The translation into English of
17 what I just said is not correct. It seems to have
18 shortened -- to have cut down what I said.
19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the
20 declaration and have a seat.
21 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will
22 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
24 WITNESS: CARRY SPORK
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Lopez-Terres.
1 Examined by Mr. Lopez-Terres:
2 Q. Are you Carry Spork, 42 years old?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And you work as an investigator at the Office
5 of the Prosecutor?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. You are Dutch by nationality?
8 A. [No audible response]
9 Q. You joined the Dutch police force in '79, and
10 you became an investigator in 1981. And since March
11 '96, you have been working with the Office of the
12 Prosecutor first as an investigator seconded by the
13 Dutch government to the Tribunal, and then, as of July
14 '98, you have been working here within the Office of
15 the Prosecutor?
16 A. That's correct, sir.
17 Q. And you were promoted in '98 and had become
18 the first investigator?
19 A. That's correct, sir.
20 Q. Mr. Spork, as an investigator at the
21 Prosecutor's office and the team that you worked with,
22 you conducted an investigation, and the objective of
23 this investigation was to identify HVO soldiers who
24 operated in the area of Vitez and who could have
25 committed some criminal offences, these soldiers having
1 belonged to the brigade commanded by Mario Cerkez?
2 A. That's correct, sir.
3 Q. And you organised an investigation. Could
4 you please tell us something about the methodology that
5 you used to conduct that investigation?
6 A. First of all, we gathered 98 statements given
7 by witnesses in relation to the happenings in the Lasva
8 Valley. These statements were analysed by the team,
9 and the results of that analysis were handed over to
10 me. After we did the analyses, we formulated some kind
11 of a --
12 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Wait a second, please.
13 JUDGE MAY: Apparently the power cut is
14 starting in five minutes. We'll adjourn now until
16 Just one point, Mr. Lopez-Terres. I mean is
17 this going to be another report, as it were? We
18 haven't got a summary for this witness. We've got
19 various documents, but if it's merely another report by
20 an investigator, then I think you ought perhaps to look
21 at the Tulica decision. But it may be that I've got it
23 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
24 Mr. President, it was prepared for the Chamber, and it
25 was handed over to the Defence.
1 JUDGE MAY: We'll look at that, and we better
2 leave it at that for the power cut. We'll adjourn now
3 until 2.00.
4 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.10 p.m.
2 MR. MIKULICIC: If Your Honour please.
3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.
4 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
5 will you please allow me to express the position of
6 Mr. Cerkez' Defence regarding the actual situation, and
7 I'll try to be as brief as possible.
8 As you yourself have said, the Defence has
9 not received the resume of the testimony of Mr. Spork.
10 We have received two binders with a certain number of
11 documents. However, we have not received any summary
12 of his statement. So we didn't know until today what
13 kind of approach is going to be adopted and what
14 exactly is it that Mr. Spork will be saying.
15 This morning Mr. Spork, on page 69, line 14,
16 stated that he would testify using a certain
17 methodology which consists in the following:
18 Investigators of the OTP have analysed 98 statements of
19 witnesses, they have made an analysis, and that
20 analysis has been submitted to date to Mr. Spork, and
21 he is going to testify on the basis of that document.
22 So we are here dealing with materials that
23 have not been admitted into evidence and the documents
24 which represent multiple hearsay, double-hearsay
25 evidence. So we think that the testimony of
1 Mr. Spork -- we thought that it was going to be another
3 I would like to remind this Honourable
4 Chamber of the Tulica decision of the 29th of July,
5 '99. In paragraph 20 on page 8, the Chamber stated
6 that that type of evidence would be of very little if
7 no value at all, probative value at all.
8 So bearing in mind this ruling, the Tulica
9 decision, we believe that the Prosecution is trying,
10 through this witness, to circumvent the decision of the
11 Trial Chamber that I've just quoted, so we strongly
12 object to the testimony of Mr. Spork and we move that
13 it be excluded from the evidence in this case.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
15 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, we join in the
16 objection, in principle.
17 As a matter of particular detail, I don't
18 believe this witness gives evidence that is of concern
19 to our client. But in principle, it appears that, as
20 Mr. Mikulicic said, this witness is not reporting as a
21 contemporary witness. He's collated statements and
22 other materials for purposes of his opinions.
23 And as Mr. Mikulicic said, on page 8,
24 paragraph 20 of the Tulica decision, the Court said
25 that the report therefore is of little or no probative
1 value and will not be admitted into evidence, and it
2 seems, as my colleague said, that that's precisely what
3 the Prosecution seems to be wanting to do in this
4 case. We join, in principle, with the objection.
5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
6 Mr. President, when we provide a report, the Defence is
7 objecting. When we're not supplying a document because
8 there is no document and we are inviting a witness to
9 testify before the Chamber in a direct manner about the
10 nature of available information and when we call
11 witnesses to expose results of such an analysis,
12 Defence is again objecting.
13 Mr. Spork is an investigator at the Office of
14 the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. Mr. Carry Spork has
15 conducted an inquiry, and on the basis of that inquiry,
16 he has made certain conclusions permitting him to
17 identify a number of soldiers who may have been
18 perpetrators of war crimes and who were members of the
19 brigade of Mr. Cerkez. It is not very difficult to
21 Mr. Spork started explaining why he was
22 tasked with that matter, together with other members of
23 the office, and he was going to explain about the
24 nature of documents on the basis of which he was
25 working. And he was going to do that in an oral manner
1 in order to facilitate the understanding of Your
2 Honours and in order to obtain for all of us all
3 necessary elements, all necessary information as to the
4 documents that have been used.
5 And as to the source of these documents, we
6 have prepared this table which has been provided to you
7 and on the basis of which Mr. Spork wanted to explain
8 to you what the significance of the information is.
9 The table, it is true, it does not speak for itself,
10 but Mr. Spork is here to provide additional
12 Here we have a document -- we have an office
13 here, office of the --
14 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation]
15 Mr. Lopez-Terres, you're telling us that this is the
16 person who was in charge of this analysis, who has
17 analysed the situation concerning the Vitez Brigade,
18 including certain allegations of criminal behaviour.
19 Are you telling us that -- and you have told us that
20 you have given us this table. Is this table made on
21 the basis of statements which are quoted on the right
22 side of the table, so on the basis of statements that
23 are at the disposal of your office, or is this an
24 inquiry that was conducted on site? These are the
25 crucial questions that the Defence is actually asking,
1 because if this is done through statements, if they are
2 going to speak about statements, we are within the
3 framework of the Tulica decision, as it has been stated
4 by the Defence. If we are dealing with certain other
5 means of investigation, you have to tell us what
6 exactly it is.
7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] These are
8 statements, yes, and these statements represent a basis
9 for all the work of our investigators. They are
10 working on the basis of such statements in order to
11 conduct their investigation.
12 In order to identify certain individuals, if
13 we are not able to take, for example, fingerprints, or
14 work on-site, it is evident, it is clear, that the only
15 elements that can be used by investigators are the
16 elements, the information, that has been provided by
17 witnesses and victims. They provide statements to
18 investigators, and this is their main task. They are
19 charged with interviewing witnesses and victims, and on
20 the basis of such statements, they can reach certain
21 conclusions about possible perpetrators of war crimes,
22 including all identifying information, such as father's
23 name, date and place of birth, and so on.
24 So it is true that this type of information
25 has been collected on the basis of statements given to
2 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Is it true
3 that you were not able to call these witnesses in
4 question to testify before the Chamber?
5 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Mr. Spork
6 will be able to tell you more about that. All these
7 witnesses have been selected on the basis of lists that
8 were provided to you at the beginning of the trial. We
9 are not talking about exterior witnesses. All these
10 statements were given, disclosed, to the Defence at the
11 same time as the list was provided to the Defence. So
12 this is beyond dispute.
13 As regards specific witnesses, there are
14 about 50 of them who are able to provide us with some
15 identifying information about perpetrators.
16 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, but I'm
17 wondering, is it true that you were not able to call
19 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] We could
20 have called them to testify before the Chamber, at
21 least part of them, but in that case, we would have 40
22 additional witnesses, and the only purpose of those
23 witnesses would be to tell us the names of presumed
24 perpetrators of war crimes.
25 Amongst victims and witnesses, we have
1 identified certain individuals who can provide better
2 quality testimony. They have been selected by our
3 office and they have testified before the Chamber, a
4 dozen of them, and to the extent it was possible, they
5 have confirmed the names of those presumed
7 On the right side of the column, you have the
8 actual references of the transcript, because these
9 witnesses testified before the Chamber in this case.
10 We have recently, on the basis of discussions
11 that we had last year, we have compiled pages from the
12 Blaskic transcript -- there are not that many of them,
13 maybe two -- and that also appears on the right-hand
14 side of the table, together with the name of the
15 witnesses who testified either in the Kordic case or in
16 the Blaskic case.
17 There are other witnesses as well who are
18 still waiting to be called. There are two witnesses
19 among those that have been selected that we intend to
20 call. They're living in the United States at the time,
21 and we hope that they will be able to come. But there
22 are certain technical difficulties, such as visas and
23 passports, and we are not as yet sure whether we will
24 be able to bring them here.
1 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Lopez-Terres, let me
2 interrupt you. What, in principle, is the difference
3 between this witness's evidence and the evidence of the
4 investigator in the Tulica dossier matter?
5 Both, as far as I can see, are investigators
6 who've examined material and, as a result, have drawn
7 up a report; one about events in a village, the other
8 about the brigade, the membership of the brigade, and
9 what the brigade did.
10 Now, just as a matter of principle, is there
11 any distinction between the two?
12 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] There is a
13 distinction in the sense that the investigator
14 testifies about his investigation and his methods, and
15 he is analysing certain material, but not in the manner
16 as was stated in the Tulica decision. I think that
17 this witness can add some personal value in connection
18 with that type of evidence, and there will be certain
19 exhibits that we would like to have admitted into
20 evidence. They're concerning individual soldiers who
21 were members of the said unit. These documents come
22 from the HVO itself, and these documents can be
23 identified here as relevant documents.
24 Only investigators are in a position to
25 identify those documents as such. They are the only
1 ones who can tell us more about the HVO documents, on
2 the basis of which we can conclude something about
3 certain individuals.
4 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] You have
5 just told us -- well, we have an investigator here who
6 is going to analyse certain witness statements. I do
7 not know whether we are now within the framework of the
8 Tulica decision or if we have another situation; that
9 is, an investigator from your office who is going to
10 analyse a certain number of documents. I forgot the
11 name of the preceding witness. He spoke about certain
12 maps and other documents, and he has told us about his
13 analysis of such material.
14 These witnesses are basing themselves on the
15 documents that are available to your office. We cannot
16 introduce, in a direct manner, these type of
17 statements, because this is what you're asking. We
18 cannot do that if we are not dealing with affidavits,
19 but this is a different problem, a different area,
20 concerning authenticity of documents, and so on. You
21 cannot introduce witness statements through an
22 investigator, we have already stated that clearly.
23 So you can ask your witness to provide us
24 with his analysis of documents, documents that have
25 been obtained by your office, that could be maybe
1 admitted by the Chamber or introduced by the Defence.
2 It's up to you.
3 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Your
4 Honours, Mr. President, we have certain documents that
5 have been seized, emanating from the HVO. After
6 several verifications, we believe that these documents
7 concern soldiers of the Vitez Brigade who were
8 implicated in the relevant events. If we present you
9 with these documents without explaining to you how it
10 was that we were able to identify the names of these
11 individuals, it will be very difficult for the Chamber
12 to understand the type of work of the Tribunal.
13 The investigators have to base themselves on
14 certain information, and, as I told you, these
15 witnesses have provided names of presumed
17 Our objective is not to ask you to admit, in
18 this way, statements which we know are not going to be
19 admitted in that way. This is only in order to explain
20 our approach, methodological approach, to this
22 We now have, for example, 38 individuals that
23 we believe were members of the Vitez Brigade, and we
24 are now going to tell you, through this witness, how we
25 were able to identify those soldiers.
1 In view of the very high number of witnesses
2 that have already testified before the Chamber, we
3 thought that this might be a better way to proceed than
4 to call witnesses just to tell us who was the
5 individual who arrested him, and so on. We have, of
6 course, honoured the adversarial nature of the system.
7 All the statements have been disclosed to the Defence.
8 What we are doing now is just to explain our
9 methodology and tell you how these documents were
10 obtained and what value can be attached to them.
11 JUDGE MAY: Well, I'm afraid as far as that
12 is concerned, I can see no distinction between what you
13 want this witness to do and what you asked witnesses to
14 do in the Tulica case. It was precisely the same
15 thing, which was to look at witness statements and make
16 a report upon them.
17 Now, that is one thing to which the Defence
18 object, and I must say, speaking for myself, I think
19 there is force in that.
20 On the other hand, if you want the witness to
21 produce documents which your office has seized, that's
22 a different matter, and he may very well be able to do
23 that. That's a more straightforward matter, rather
24 than the purely hearsay matter of reporting what
25 somebody else has said. Now, that's our view.
1 Now, if you want the witness to produce the
2 documents, that again is a different matter. It may
3 well be that you're entitled to do that.
4 I see you've got one document which I've seen
5 before, which is a list of members, for instance, of
6 the 92nd Home Guard Brigade. If you want to produce
7 that, then it seems to me you're probably entitled to
8 do that.
9 MR. NICE: Can I just contribute four very
10 short points, listening to the discussion and debate.
11 There are distinctions between this and the
12 Tulica decision, because Tulica was dealing with
13 describing a general, on-the-ground narrative, which
14 was important to establish and which the Chamber
15 effectively judged could be dealt with by a limited
16 number of witnesses and not by calling the totality.
17 In this case, as Mr. Lopez-Terres has explained, it
18 would simply be impossible to call -- indeed we
19 wouldn't be allowed to call by the Chamber all the
20 witnesses simply to produce the names of perpetrators.
21 The history of these proceedings is that
22 where victims and witnesses have been called and have
23 simply identified, by name, a perpetrator, someone
24 involved, rarely, if ever, has the name itself been
25 challenged. So to that extent it's different. We
1 can't deal with it, we wouldn't be allowed to deal with
2 it comprehensively, and all the indication is that
3 there would be little, if any, challenge to the names
4 once produced.
5 I think it's also the case -- it may also be
6 the case that many of the entries that Mr. Lopez-Terres
7 would rely on relate to material that has been
8 supported by evidence in this Chamber.
9 Finally, without the help of this schedule in
10 its complete form, making all due allowances for what
11 is and what is not produced in one way or another, the
12 Chamber will be subject to generalities about
13 involvement of this brigade without being able to
14 quantify, save by the most -- well, it won't be able to
15 quantify figures of people who have been named as being
17 So bearing in mind that in your decision in
18 Tulica you did not exclude altogether and for all
19 purposes hearsay statements, indeed you specifically
20 acknowledged the potential for hearsay statements to
21 qualify as evidence in this Chamber, and given that
22 they are only really being relied on here for picking
23 up names which we simply wouldn't be allowed to prove
24 by calling 60 or however many more witnesses, there are
25 distinctions, and it's our respectful submission that
1 this method, which I think probably parallels one of
2 the methods known in America under the federal rules
3 and indeed, I thought, to some degree reflected by one
4 of the witnesses in one of the other cases in this
5 Chamber where a summarising witness has been produced,
6 we would urge you to say that there is a difference and
7 that you should look at the whole of the schedule.
8 Those are the only things I wish to add.
9 JUDGE MAY: Do we need, in any event, this
10 sort of detail? Do we need to know what soldiers did
11 what in order to determine this case? Again, I wonder
12 about the wood and the trees.
13 MR. NICE: I quite understand that, if I can
14 just speak to that point. I quite understand that
15 point in general, but we don't know the nature of the
16 Defence case, and indeed we won't know it until it's
18 It may be going to be urged that to no extent
19 and on no occasions were members of this brigade ever
20 involved, and therefore -- and then it may be allowed,
21 well, maybe one or two were involved but they would
22 only be involved when they were engaged in a frolic of
23 their own. And to that it would be important to know
24 that there is evidence and material to show that
25 there's a very large number of them named as
1 perpetrators. Then it does become important.
2 Now, of course, there is only a limited
3 degree to which it's justified to forecast the Defence
4 case, and we've been listening carefully to the
5 cross-examination, but I don't think at the moment
6 there's any reason to discount the possibility that it
7 will be urged that this brigade was effectively
9 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
10 JUDGE MAY: We have, first of all as a matter
11 of principle, as I've said, ruled in general on this
12 sort of evidence in our Tulica decision, and we don't
13 accept that, in principle, something different is being
14 done here. We shall accordingly rule out at this stage
15 any evidence which is based on witness statements and
16 the like.
17 If it becomes a live issue as to what
18 particular members of the brigade did, and if it is at
19 any time suggested that the brigade was, as Mr. Kordic
20 put it -- as Mr. Nice put it, blameless, then, of
21 course, it may be a matter which will have to be
22 considered in rebuttal. But at this stage, we
23 certainly regard this evidence as falling within the
24 Tulica decision.
25 But we, on the other hand, will admit the
1 evidence, insofar as it can be given, of the various
2 exhibits which the witness produces, and so he can
3 produce his exhibits. We'll hear any argument about
4 that, but at the moment we would be minded to admit
5 that and any relevant questions that you may have in
6 relation to the exhibits, the documents.
7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Before I
8 give the floor to the witness, Mr. President, I should
9 like to add something to what Mr. Nice said.
10 The position of Mr. Cerkez' Defence we know
11 says their brief in April about the things which
12 happened in the area of responsibility of the Vitez
13 Brigade were not committed by members of the Vitez
14 Brigade, and ever since the accused, the brigade
15 commander, did not know either his men, but we believed
16 it was up to us to prove the participation of the
17 members of his brigade and his men in these acts, and
18 that was with only this objective in mind that we
19 proceeded along those lines.
20 One saw the witnesses, and reference to them
21 can be found here in this table which was submitted to
22 you, that every time where we wanted to produce this,
23 then the Defence attempted to destabilise the witness,
24 requesting a precision about the identity of soldiers
25 and so on and so forth, or to prove that somebody was
1 not a member of the Vitez Brigade but a member of some
2 other brigade, or that somebody was a member of the
3 military police but never mentioning that military
4 police were also part of the Vitez Brigade. And they
5 did it with all of the witnesses from Vitez who were in
6 a position to give some names and who had come here.
7 We compiled some documents which concerned
8 several soldiers whose names were given to the
9 Prosecution by the witnesses who had come here to
10 testify, and the names were also given by some other
11 witnesses who perhaps will come to testify here -- we
12 hope so -- but have not done so because simply their
13 number was very large.
14 So this document was compiled, and it is the
15 subject of two binders, and Mr. Carry Spork perhaps
16 will be able to explain and clarify them to you, if you
17 allow him to do so, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, deal with those
19 exhibits which you want the witness to produce.
20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Carry Spork, having identified the names
22 of perpetrators of some crimes who could have been
23 members of the Vitez Brigade, you also investigated if
24 there were any documents which would concern those same
25 witnesses; is that so?
1 A. That is correct, sir.
2 Q. Could you explain, in some detail, what kind
3 of documents are you talking about and how did you
4 verify this in order to ascertain that in these
5 documents where, indeed, the -- indeed figured the
6 names of people about whom you had information?
7 A. Most of these documents are available in our
8 database systems. Once we had eliminated the names of
9 people that might not be members of the Viteska Brigade
10 because they were only mentioned once or twice or we
11 didn't have enough particulars of them, we started
12 screening our databases by checking the names in the
14 Most of the documents we found were documents
15 that were seized during the 1998 -- September 1998
16 search in the Vitez and Novi Travnik and Mostar area,
17 and once we found these documents, we started to
18 check -- or at least I started to check each single
19 document and compare them with the list of names we
20 had. As soon as we would find a document, we would try
21 to eliminate all possibilities that the name that was
22 mentioned was not the same one as the one that was in
23 the document. This could be done, for instance, by
24 checking the date of birth, because of some of the
25 people we had the date of birth, fathers' names, places
1 where they were born and places where they were living
2 at that time.
3 If you would look at the documents, some of
4 the documents contain significant information on that,
5 especially the date of birth, because each single
6 soldier which was a member of the 92nd Home Guard
7 Regiment had a specific ID number based on his date of
8 birth plus a personal ID number, and the first --
9 excuse me.
10 JUDGE MAY: This is the list, is it, of the
11 Home Guard, Mr. Spork? I'm looking now at the document
12 with "353" on the first front page, "353" at the top.
13 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] That is
15 JUDGE MAY: With our Exhibit number Z2332.1.
16 Is that it?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps you could tell us what it
19 is first.
20 A. This is the listing with all the members of
21 the 92nd Home Guard Regiment, Vitez, from the period
22 from the 8th of April 1992 until the 24th of April,
24 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
25 Q. This document lists several thousand names
1 for the period between the 8th of April, '92, until the
2 22nd of April, '96?
3 A. That's correct, sir.
4 Q. In general terms, this document, which is the
5 document in the first binder which you put together,
6 there are, in point of fact, 15 documents, which are
7 all of the documents based on the lists of names; is
8 that so?
9 A. That is correct, sir.
10 Q. So the list that we have just spoken about,
11 the second document, is a list of people who died, that
12 is, 23 who died, 63 who were wounded, in 1993, and
13 these were by the assistant commander of the brigade,
14 whose name was Zvonko Cilic.
15 A. That's correct, sir.
16 Q. Then comes a list containing some 30 -- or,
17 rather, 35 members of a unit which was called the Alfa
19 A. That is correct, sir.
20 Q. Then you have another list which lists the
21 661 wounded of the Vitez Brigade, according to the
22 status as at the 12th of November, 1993.
23 A. That's correct, sir.
24 Q. The sixth document is a list of 75 members of
25 the Vitez Brigade, and some civilians, who were killed
1 on the 24th of May, 1993.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Then you have a list of members of the 3rd
4 and 4th Battalion of the Vitez Brigade who were killed
5 in 1993.
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. You also have another list of members of the
8 Vitez Brigade who were killed or reported missing on
9 the 20th of December, 1993.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Then document number 9, which is again a list
12 of killed, wounded, and missing members, between the
13 4th of April and the 20th of May, 1993, which was again
14 signed by the same officer, that is, the assistant
15 commander responsible for propaganda, Zvonimir Cilic.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. The tenth document is a list of soldiers of
18 the Vitez Brigade who were killed in the area of
19 responsibility of the 5th Battalion, and the date of
20 the document is the 12th of February, 1994.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. The eleventh document is, once again, a list
23 of those members of the military police of the Vitez
24 Brigade who were to receive some financial
25 compensation, and that again is a document dated the
1 3rd of December, 1993.
2 A. Right.
3 Q. The twelfth document is a list of soldiers of
4 the 2nd Battalion of the Novi Travnik HVO Brigade, it
5 was called the Novi Travnik Brigade at the time, and it
6 is dated the 27th of February, 1993.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. The three ultimate documents are reports
9 compiled by the investigation services of Bosnia, and
10 they mention the names of quite a number of people they
11 suspect of having committed crimes in the area of Vitez
12 in June 1993, and also for the acts committed in
14 A. Correct.
15 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] I'd like
16 to draw the Chamber's attention to the fact that
17 documents number 13 and 14 have already been admitted
18 by your Chamber.
19 Q. The documents that we are talking about are
20 all lists of individuals. Have you found on these
21 lists certain persons -- persons who are listed here as
22 killed, wounded, or missing as people who were
23 indicated by witnesses as having operated in the area
24 of Vitez?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1 MR. KOVACIC: Objection.
2 JUDGE MAY: The witness can give the
3 evidence. What weight we give to it is entirely for us
4 to say.
5 MR. KOVACIC: I thought on another element
6 that -- I was thinking about what you said at the
7 beginning, that this witness would not tell us what the
8 witnesses told him.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, that's right.
10 MR. KOVACIC: But only the documents.
11 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
12 Is that the first volume?
13 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] That is
14 the first volume, Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Spork, the second volume, which covers
16 documents 16 to 53, contains some names from the list
17 which we have just mentioned, or not. On the other
18 hand, it also contains specific documents which concern
19 individuals indicated and identified.
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. Could you briefly tell us, what is the nature
22 of the documents, of the specific documents, those
23 which concern identified individuals?
24 We spoke about lists in the first binder.
25 Could you now, once again, briefly tell us about the
1 documents which are compiled in the second binder.
2 A. The documents that were compiled in the
3 second binder mainly mention names of specific
4 identified HVO soldiers that, according to these
5 documents, were members of the Viteska Brigade.
6 For instance, we have certificates of
7 wounding and membership, we have certificates of death
8 and membership, and we have certain certificates which
9 show that the person was promoted to a higher rank, due
10 to the conflict; also identifying him as being a member
11 of the Viteska Brigade.
12 These documents, most of the time, contain
13 also the personal ID number of the specific person. So
14 after comparing that with the first big list of the
15 92nd Home Guard Regiment, plus the other lists of
16 documents that we spoke about before, as soon as they
17 would have the same ID number, we could reasonably --
18 without reasonable doubt believe that it was about the
19 same person.
20 All the ones that we were not sure of, we
21 eliminated right away, which means that if you find a
22 document stating the certificate of wounding without
23 saying what kind of person it actually was, or it has
24 not been confirmed by a witness who also stated that
25 this person was wounded, we would eliminate that name
1 from the list of names of alleged Viteska Brigade
3 If we would go into the folder, the first
4 one, number 16, the file about Damjan Baskarad, will
5 show us that he was first listed as a member of the 2nd
6 Battalion, 3rd Company, which is one of the big lists.
7 The second one is that he is listed as a member of the
8 92nd Home Guard Regiment, which is the list I spoke
9 about, Your Honours, before.
10 It continues with all the other identified
11 HVO soldiers. Unfortunately, it is very hard to talk
12 about this without being able to tell you how we
13 exactly found these names, so how we started picking
14 out these names to compare them with the documents,
15 because they are all in relation to the witness
16 statements. This makes it very difficult to explain
17 how the procedure was to identify this specific person
18 as being the one who was a member of the Viteska
20 Q. A clarification regarding the information
21 which can be found in the table, which was submitted by
22 the Defence and the Chamber. The figures which are in
23 brackets, after it says "member of the 2nd Battalion,
24 3rd Company," could you please explain what that means?
25 A. The figure in the two brackets means that
1 this person is listed on the original list of the 92nd
2 Home Guard Regiment under that number. It's in
3 chronological order, the original document, which means
4 that if you would go to number 673 on the 92nd Home
5 Guard Regiment list, you would find the name of
6 Mr. Baskarad, Dragan.
7 Q. For practical reasons, we do not have to
8 focus on only the first -- we can focus only on the
9 first page. Mr. Spork will use the list of the
10 regiment, the first page of the regiment.
11 A. Excuse me, sir. Which?
12 Q. The first page of the list of the 82nd
13 Regiment. Only the first name which appears here under
14 number 1, that is, the accused Mario Cerkez --
15 A. That is correct. According to the date
16 referred to, it should be Mr. Mario Cerkez.
17 Q. And it's so that he joined the ranks of the
18 HVO on the 8th of April, 1992.
19 A. That is correct. And he stayed within that
20 area until the 26th of June -- sorry, the 6th of June,
21 1994, because on the 6th of June, 1994, it was renamed
22 to the 92nd Home Guard Regiment. And so from that day
23 on, he was a member of the 92nd Home Guard Regiment, I
25 Q. Number 4, do you find again that name amongst
1 the documents on the basis of which you could
2 individualise him, that is, the name of Karlo
4 A. That's correct, sir.
5 Q. The same goes for number 7, Ivica Drmic.
6 A. That's correct, sir.
7 Q. Once again, and I will finish shortly, all
8 the numbers that appear under the title "Members of the
9 92nd Home Guard Brigade" are numbers who can be found
10 on the longer list consisting of several thousand
11 names, and where we can find the name of the soldier
13 A. Correct, sir.
14 Q. You were able to find -- to identify
15 documents concerning 38 soldiers exactly; is that
17 A. That's correct, sir.
18 Q. If I understand correctly what you say, you
19 also dispose of a much larger number of documents, and
20 you are sure that these documents -- these documents
21 here concern the 38 soldiers in question.
22 A. Correct, sir.
23 Q. If there was any doubt as to the identity or
24 the link between the document and the identity, you did
25 not take that into account; is that right?
1 A. No, sir. We eliminated that document right
3 Q. Amongst the soldiers that you have
4 identified, and you have quoted names of several
5 soldiers, for example, having the same name Baskarad,
6 you were also able to find an individual by the name of
7 Krunoslav Bonic amongst these individuals.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. The name of this soldier can be found on the
10 Vitez Brigade list, and this soldier was listed as
11 missing in that particular document; is that correct?
12 A. That is correct, sir.
13 Q. The same goes for the individual by the name
14 of Miroslav Bobas.
15 A. Correct, sir.
16 Q. As regard the individual named Miroslav
17 Bralo, you have also found documents testifying to the
18 fact that he was a member of the Vitez Brigade; is that
20 A. Correct, sir.
21 Q. Zvonimir Cilic, we have already mentioned
22 him, because he was the one who compiled the first
23 list, he too was a member of the Vitez Brigade; is that
25 A. Correct, sir.
1 Q. Borislav Jozic was also a member of the Vitez
3 A. Correct, sir.
4 Q. And he died during the conflict.
5 A. According to the documents we have, yes,
7 Q. You were also able to find information and
8 documents on the basis of which you were able to
9 conclude that Anto Kovac was a member of the police
10 unit of the Vitez Brigade; is that correct?
11 A. That is correct, sir. We found documents
12 which listed him as a wounded member of the Vitez
13 Brigade military police.
14 Q. The same goes for Nevenko or Nevenko Kovac;
15 is that correct?
16 A. Yes, sir. He was listed as being killed in
17 the zone of responsibility of the 5th Battalion, and we
18 found another document which confirmed that he had been
20 Q. Zlatko Nakic was also a member of the
21 military police of the said brigade?
22 A. Yes, sir. He's listed in the document as a
23 killed member of the brigade military police.
24 Q. Nenad Santic, you have several documents
25 about him, permitting you to conclude that he too was a
1 member of the Vitez Brigade?
2 A. That's right.
3 Q. And the same goes for all other soldiers
4 whose names appear on this list?
5 A. Indeed, sir.
6 Q. There is something particular as regards an
7 individual named Perica Vukadinovic. Could you please
8 tell us, in a few words, to what facts the individual
9 by the name of Vukadinovic can be associated?
10 A. Sorry, I don't understand the question, sir.
11 Q. To what specific events that took place in
12 Vitez can the name of Perica Vukadinovic be linked? I
13 have in mind the events that took place in May 1992,
14 the murder of Semir Trako.
15 JUDGE MAY: We've heard evidence about this
16 from some other witnesses, that this individual was
17 suspected of that offence, so there's no need to go
18 over it again.
19 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Very
21 JUDGE MAY: But perhaps we could deal with
22 one, since we are dealing with that one. The last
23 named soldier is called Kriss Wilson?
24 A. That's correct, sir.
25 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] The file
1 concerning this individual was the last file that was
3 Q. Mr. Spork, what can you tell us about this
4 particular file, file number 53 of the binder?
5 A. [Previous translation continues] ... a
6 British mercenary named Kriss Wilson who joined the HVO
7 as a mercenary. He has never been identified by any of
8 the witnesses. But while we did the search, we found
9 documents indicating that he was the commander of the
10 so-called Alfa Force, and because of that we also found
11 that he was on the list of salaries of the Vitez Alfa
12 Force sabotage group for the month -- on the month of
13 June 1992, which indicates that he must have been a
14 member before that. Otherwise, he couldn't have been
15 on the salary list.
16 Then we have a certificate of wounding, which
17 is specifically naming this person, and it says that he
18 was wounded on the 14th of October, 1992, in Novi
20 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I think we had some evidence
21 of that. I seem to remember that evidence.
22 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Mr. Kriss Wilson was wounded on the 14th of
24 October, 1992, in combat in Novi Travnik, as you have
25 just said. He was examined by doctors, and a report
1 was compiled thereof. This report can be found in the
2 file under Z2663.2. Do you have this report in front
3 of you?
4 A. Yes, sir, but it's Z2663.3 is the English
5 translation, and it's number --
6 Q. Yes, you're right. As far as this English
7 translation is concerned, could you show me, on the
8 translation, the column which speaks about his
9 immediate superior? What is the name that appears in
10 that part of the report?
11 A. It says that his direct superior was
12 Mr. Mario Cerkez.
13 Q. This took place during a conflict with the BH
14 army. This individual was wounded during that conflict
15 on the 14th of October, 1992, in Novi Travnik,
16 according to the medical report that we have. Is that
18 A. That's correct. The certificate also says:
19 "During combat and immediate preparations for combat,
20 the above-named was wounded by fragmentation ammunition
21 fired by an enemy sniper."
22 Q. There is something special about Zoran Sero,
23 and this is the last name I will be referring to. His
24 file is listed under number 48 in the binder. Excuse
25 me, I misspoke. Forty-seven.
1 A. According to the information we have, he was
2 listed as a member of the Alfa Force and also listed as
3 being killed. The evidence, number Z1372.1 says that
4 Zoran Nikica Sero, born in 1962, was killed on the 18th
5 of June, 1993, in Stari Vitez, and --
6 Q. You have a document here, a military identity
7 card that is reproduced here as Exhibit Z142, dated
8 26th of June, 1992; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct, sir.
10 Q. This document indicates, on the back page,
11 under the name of Zoran Sero, the 1st Vitez Brigade.
12 We have a signature here that appears at the bottom of
13 the document. Do you recognise this signature?
14 A. It's the signature of, as far as I'm aware,
15 of Mr. Mario Cerkez.
16 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
17 Mr. President, we have now reviewed several of the
18 files that appear in the second binder, the lists that
19 appear in the first binder. I can speak about every
20 single soldier in the same manner, but that would take
21 us too long, and I don't think it will be useful and
22 necessary. But I hope that you have understood the
23 approach and methodology that was used in this analysis
24 by the Office of the Prosecutor and its investigators.
25 Of course, I tender this into evidence, that
1 is, the documents contained in the two binders.
2 JUDGE MAY: The second binder, according to
3 mine, is numbered Exhibit 2813.2. Is that right? I
4 have it on the back of the binder. I don't know who
5 put it on. It may have been the legal officer.
6 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] This
7 document -- oh, yes. It's the reference of the table
8 that has been given to you. The binder itself has not
9 been marked, and it contains separate exhibits. The
10 only reference that we have is here, but each exhibit
11 has its own mark, its own number.
12 JUDGE MAY: It may be sensible too, for
13 future reference, to have the binder, as a whole,
14 marked, and since we are not going to admit the
15 schedule, perhaps it could have the same number. It
16 would save me having to change this.
17 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Of
19 JUDGE MAY: 2813.2 can be the binder. Yes,
20 thank you.
21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, of
22 course, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE MAY: Now --
24 MR. NICE: Sorry. Before cross-examination,
25 I don't know if you've been told, for purposes of
1 timetabling, if possible, I would be grateful for a
2 short hearing at the end of the afternoon.
3 JUDGE MAY: We have been told. We will take
4 a break at about half past three, continue for a period
5 afterwards, depending on how we get on, and then, of
6 course, at the end or after the break, we will have
7 your hearing.
8 MR. NICE: Thank you very much.
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
10 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I
11 just suggest, since you raised a number issue, we are
12 indeed having two binders.
13 JUDGE MAY: Yes. The first binder contains
14 exhibits all of which have got numbers. It's the
15 second one which contains additional material, as I
16 understand it.
17 MR. KOVACIC: Okay. I just ask in order to
18 make not too many words when putting the questions.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Kovacic:
20 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Spork. I have certain
21 documents here, and I would like to ask you some
22 questions. I think it's virtually impossible to
23 discuss every single document, and by using our right
24 to cross-examine witnesses, I will restrict myself to
25 certain -- to a limited number of issues. And in our
1 case, we will be addressing each issue separately.
2 As regards the first binder containing
3 general documents, we have a document that was issued
4 by the command of the Vitez Brigade on the 24th of
5 April, 1993. The number is the number of the brigade,
6 and we have another number here which is your number,
7 Z808. The document is a typed one. It was signed by
8 Mr. Zvonimir Cilic, and we agreed with what you said
9 about Mr. Zvonimir Cilic, and we agree with what is
10 written here, a member of the command of the Vitez
11 Brigade in charge of information. Could you please
12 tell me if you have ever seen the original of this
13 document bearing the signature of Mr. Cilic?
14 A. I have not, sir.
15 Q. Could you tell us anything about the origin
16 of this document and how it ended up with the Office of
17 the Prosecutor?
18 A. As far as I'm aware of, sir, this document
19 was seized during the search in Vitez in September
21 Q. Are you not aware of the fact that the
22 Defence tendered this document in the Blaskic case?
23 A. Yes, sir. I'm sorry for that, sorry for
25 Q. [In English] It's okay, it's okay. It's too
1 many documents, I agree.
2 [Interpretation] At the beginning of your
3 testimony, you mentioned a search that you carried out
4 while you were explaining to us your methods, and you
5 mentioned names that did not appear anywhere else. So
6 the number of names decreased as you progressed through
7 your investigation, because you could link certain
8 names with specific events and facts, but there were
9 also names which could not be linked to any specific
10 events. Am I correct in understanding your method?
11 A. If I may say so, the names that were
12 mentioned by the different witnesses were not giving --
13 or the statements were not giving that many
14 particulars, so we were not able to follow up on that
15 name, because as we are all aware of in Bosnia, many
16 people have the same surname and first name and
17 occasionally also father's name, which made it very
18 difficult to be sure that the name mentioned by the
19 witness was the same one as mentioned on the listing.
20 So we needed more particulars on the alleged member to
21 be sure that we were -- that the witness was talking
22 about the same person that was mentioned in one of the
24 Q. In the course of your work -- or let me
25 rephrase it.
1 Do you have any previous knowledge about
2 Bosnia, about their customs, names, religion, and so on
3 and so forth? I mean before you started working here.
4 A. Yes, sir, I do. Actually, I was involved in
5 several investigations with the Dutch police force
6 involved -- where former inhabitants of the former
7 Yugoslavia were involved.
8 Q. Excellent. So the territory was not
9 completely new to you, you had some previous
10 knowledge. Thanks to that knowledge and thanks to the
11 results of investigations, you will agree with me that
12 we can conclude that very often we have the same names
13 appearing on the same area. I'm referring now to
15 A. Correct, sir.
16 Q. Did you also -- were you able to establish
17 that certain names of villages or towns were the same
18 as the surname of the family who lived there?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Let me give you an example. Haskici, were
21 you able to conclude anything as to the origin of that
23 A. Not of that name, sir. But, for instance, I
24 could give you an example like Santici and Santic, it's
1 Q. Yes. So we can agree on that. Sometimes the
2 name of the village is linked to the family name, but
3 sometimes it is not, or maybe it can only be a part of
4 the village that is linked with a certain family name.
5 However, we have very often predominant family names in
6 a certain area. Let us take the example of the Haskic
7 family. Could you, perhaps, link that to Donja
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. I think that you personally -- or maybe your
11 colleagues did interviews with at least 10 or 12 people
12 by the family name of Haskic, and they were all from
13 Donja Veceriska. Were you not able to establish that?
14 A. As I explained this morning, sir, the
15 statements, as they were, were of 98 different
16 witnesses. Some of these witnesses gave two or three
17 statements which were reviewed by the team, because it
18 is impossible to do it all yourself. At least I can
19 tell for myself, I've never interviewed somebody from
20 Donja Veceriska with the name of Haskic.
21 Q. Very well. Thank you.
22 Having mentioned Donja Veceriska, let us take
23 the family name of Drmic, it's a Croatian family name.
24 Were you able to observe that there were several people
25 by the family name of Drmic and that they were all, or
1 almost all of them, from Donja Veceriska?
2 A. The name of Drmic was identified in the
3 witness statements. If they were all from the village
4 of Donja Veceriska, I don't dare to say no. I should
5 have to consult the documents in relation to each of
6 these individual persons.
7 Q. Several people by the surname of Drmic were
8 identified, if you remember.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Let me sum up this subject. I think it is
11 indisputable that from the village of Ahmici, at least
12 two-thirds of the witnesses who testified here were
13 people by the name of Ahmic; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Therefore, we can conclude that the family
16 name itself is sometimes not enough in order to
17 identify certain villages.
18 Now, let us talk about the Christian names.
19 In Croatian, we have names such as Ante, Dragan, and so
20 on, and such Christian names are very common in that
21 area. There is a limited number of preferred names in
22 a certain area. Is that correct?
23 A. Correct, sir.
24 Q. Therefore, in order for us to be able to
25 identify a certain person, we have to have other
1 identifying information as well. We have to know the
2 place of residence, preferably the name of the father.
3 That doesn't mean a lot, because, again, it can be the
4 same as some other name. Would you agree with me on
6 A. I would agree when we say that in the area we
7 are talking about now, more than one person could have
8 the same first name, surname, and father's name. Yes,
9 I would.
10 Q. Thank you. Therefore, so as to be absolutely
11 sure in terms of identification of a certain
12 individual, we have to go further on and have the place
13 and date of birth.
14 You also mentioned a citizen's number when
15 speaking about individual people. When you did so, I
16 had the impression that you were referring to the
17 military identification number. This is the number
18 that we can see, for example, on the list of the Novi
19 Travnik Battalion. I don't remember the number. I
20 believe it was Z505, in section 12 of the general
21 documents binder.
22 A. Correct, sir.
23 Q. What does this number mean to you? How do
24 you interpret it?
25 A. The first two figures are the date of birth;
1 the second --
2 Q. I apologise. Actually, it is not necessary
3 to know the exact interpretation. But just tell me
4 whether this was a military identification number or a
5 number given to every civilian in the territory of
6 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 A. I can't tell you that, sir. The only thing I
8 know is that many people who were soldiers in, let's
9 say, the HVO had a military identification number,
10 which consisted of date and year of birth, plus a
11 specific number in relation to this person, and that,
12 in total, made it the military identification number,
13 as they were mentioned in the big 92nd Home Guard
14 Regiment list. Because on that list, we also found
15 many people without a military identification number,
16 which means that -- I assume, and that's an
17 assumption -- if everybody would have a specific number
18 in the former Yugoslavia, it should have been mentioned
19 on this list, or it would have been mentioned on this
21 Q. These are two speculate issues. Let us try
22 to distinguish between them.
23 So you don't know that every citizen in the
24 territory of the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia
25 and Herzegovina at the time, every citizen had this
1 so-called -- if I'm not mistaken, it used to be called
2 the citizen's personal number. Later on, the term
3 changed somewhat. So you didn't know that. You didn't
4 know that every citizen of the former Yugoslavia had to
5 have a number like that.
6 A. I'm aware of the fact that every citizen in
7 the former Yugoslavia had a number, because I know that
8 in a previous investigation, when we investigated the
9 casualties of Ahmici, when we tried to obtain the death
10 certificates, we went first to the birth certificate,
11 which gives a number and a date of birth, which would
12 then be passed on to when the involved person was
13 married, so the marriage certificate, and eventually
14 when that person would pass away, that number would
15 proceed to the death -- I can't recollect the exact
16 name of it, but there was some kind of a document which
17 was made in each municipality showing that on such and
18 such date, a person with this and this identification
19 number had died or was killed.
20 Q. Yes, that is correct. So I believe we can
21 agree that since every soldier, who was at the same
22 time a citizen, had to have that number.
23 A. Yes, but I'm not sure if the number would
24 have to be the same.
25 Q. So you think that there are military numbers,
1 military identification numbers as well, and that, for
2 example, Goran Babic, the first name that appears on
3 the list, that the number indicated next to his name
4 was his military identification number, but that he
5 also had a citizen's personal number. Or does it mean
6 that if Goran Babic died, if I look him up under the
7 military identification number, I will not be able to
8 find him; however, if the number is the so-called
9 citizen's personal number, then I will be able to find
11 A. Which document are you referring to, sir?
12 Q. It was just an example. I took it from
13 section number 12. It's from the Novi Travnik HVO. It
14 was on the first page of the document, the name under
15 number 1, Goran Babic, or Babic, Franjo Goran. But you
16 can take any name like that; the situation is always
17 the same.
18 A. It could be that in the situation of the
19 former Yugoslavia, that this personal identification
20 number which was given to a person as soon as he was
21 born, that that same number would be used as his
22 military identification number.
23 Nevertheless, it still shows the date and
24 year of birth, plus a specific number in relation --
25 because the total, the date and year of birth, plus the
1 specific number, identifies the person as being that
2 specific person.
3 Q. Yes, that's correct. That is the structure
4 of the number. The number contains the date of
5 birth -- day, month, year -- which is followed by the
6 code for relevant register; we also have a figure for
7 the sex and the relevant municipality. So this is all
8 for the purposes of local administration, and we can
9 agree on that.
10 Mr. Spork, you said that you spent a number
11 of years working for the Dutch police and that you also
12 had some relevant experience concerning the former
13 Yugoslavia. In the late '70s, early '80s, there were
14 quite a few illegal Gypsies from the former Yugoslavia
15 in the Netherlands which were deported back to the
16 former Yugoslavia because their status here was
17 illegal. However, the problem of identification --
18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I'm going to stop
19 you. The question is two paragraphs long already.
20 Could you shorten the questions? But, in fact, we're
21 going to adjourn now for a quarter of an hour. Can you
22 finish this witness conveniently this afternoon?
23 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sure. Your Honour, I
24 really don't have the intention of going document by
25 document. I will only open issues which obviously
1 should be discussed later.
2 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
3 We will adjourn now for a quarter of an
5 --- Recess taken at 3.32 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 3.55 p.m.
7 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
8 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you, sir.
9 Q. [Interpretation] Let us then finish with this
11 Perhaps just for the sake of illustration, as
12 a member of the Royal Dutch Police, were you ever
13 involved in any matters dealing with the deportation of
14 former Yugoslav citizens, I mean the Romany, in
15 particular, back to Yugoslavia sometime in the early
16 '80s, perhaps, and late '70s? It was quite a problem
17 in the Netherlands.
18 A. No, sir, I haven't.
19 Q. Thank you, thank you. So let us then go back
20 and round off the first subject.
21 So this long list, 353, that we spoke about,
22 V.P. 1779, that is what it says, and if we turn a
23 couple of pages just at random, we see that for quite a
24 number of persons, the number of the military booklet
25 is missing. Would you agree with that?
1 A. That's correct, sir.
2 Q. It is practically a rule that a soldier has a
3 document of one kind or another, and we saw it already,
4 because that is one of the identification documents,
5 documents by which military can be identified. We
6 agree about that?
7 A. In general, yes.
8 Q. Also, quite a number of people, perhaps a
9 little less than in the former case but quite a number
10 of persons, some 15 or maybe even 20 percent of
11 persons on the list, also do not have the personal
12 number of the citizens, and we mentioned that was also
13 another important identification element; is that true?
14 A. As I said before, sir, I'm not sure if it is
15 a citizen number or military identification number.
16 The only thing I'm aware of, I think it's not 15 or 20
17 percent, it's less, because as far as I remember, most
18 of the names contain at least the date, month, and year
19 of birth, but they don't include the last six numbers.
20 But that isn't 15 to 20 percent. I would say much
22 Q. Very well. Less, but some are missing. I
23 can really do the calculations sometime tomorrow. But
24 some of them do not have here -- some of those who are
25 listed here do not have their personal numbers in this
2 A. Some of them do.
3 Q. Quite. Incidentally, I did not see the
4 translation of this document, but I should like to warn
5 you, as regards this number in the first column after
6 the name, it says here "JMBG", and that was the former
7 acronym for that personal number that this talks
8 about. But since we all have this list before us, let
9 us look at it, the first page.
10 During the examination-in-chief, my client,
11 Mario Cerkez, was mentioned, and he appears on page 1
12 of this list, and then it would be twice, and there is
13 a signature then, and all the other individuals also
14 have their signatures affixed here. So I conclude it's
15 true, I do have an advantage over you because I know
16 how this list was compounded, but evidently each one of
17 these witnesses had to put his signature on this list.
18 In other words, the list was compounded on the basis of
19 somebody's report, presumably the person himself or
20 somebody else, and a signature was a confirmation that
21 this information is true. That is, every person listed
22 here confirms, with his signature, that the information
23 here is authentic.
24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Kovacic, I mentioned before,
25 just before the adjournment, you're not giving
1 evidence. Can you kindly confine yourself to asking
2 simple questions rather than --
3 MR. KOVACIC: Very well, sir. I was trying
4 to shorten the thing.
5 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
6 MR. KOVACIC: Okay.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Right. So we are agreed that
8 there is a signature accompanying every name?
9 A. We are, sir.
10 Q. And let us still look at Mario Cerkez here.
11 Are you claiming that this is his signature?
12 A. According to the list, it should be, but I'm
13 not qualified to say if it is his signature because I
14 wasn't present when the signature was written down.
15 Q. [In English] Very correct. Thank you,
16 sir. [Interpretation] Let us take one example more.
17 On the page with ordinal numbers beginning
18 1227, it's halfway through and is somewhere midway
19 through the list, so in the middle of the page -- have
20 you managed to find it? And then it goes on, that is,
21 the names then go down to number 1237, so ten persons.
22 The first two are Dragan Bobas and Ljuban Bobas,
23 and the last one is -- I think it says Marina Bobas,
24 and perhaps one after her, Grebenar -- yes, Marina
25 Bobas, Marina Bobas is the last one, yes.
1 And now look at this column on the right
2 where the signatures are. One does not need an expert
3 in graphology to see that they had all been signed the
4 same way, that is, initials in the same hand and in the
5 same way, and it is quite legible, I should say, that
6 it was signed by a person called N. Bobas?
7 A. It looks like it, sir.
8 Q. [In English] It looks like it. So much about
9 this list. Of course, there are many other things, but
10 I will not raise them for the moment.
11 Let me ask you about a couple of documents
12 from the smaller binder where we have documents, not
13 the person files.
14 [Interpretation] Let us go back to the list
15 under 2, where we saw Cilic's signature, but typed, and
16 the list of killed Vitezovi, that is, members of that
17 Vitez unit. As a matter of fact, it was produced with
18 the last witness, with the previous witness.
19 The first part of this list refers to the
20 killed, and the names under 2, a person named Lovro
21 Kolak, and then 20, Zoran Ramljak, and 3, Ivo Zuljevic,
22 they also figure in the list of killed Vitezovi, that
23 is, members of the Vitezovi unit.
24 A. Are you referring to this list, sir? I mean,
25 the list we are looking at, Exhibit Z808, it says,
1 obviously, "List of Vitezovi Brigade soldiers killed in
2 the conflict." I'm not aware if they were also
3 mentioned on another list, if this list is not included
4 in this document.
5 Q. Right. Very well. I wanted to ask you if
6 you remember seeing the list of the killed members of
7 the Vitez Brigade -- no, excuse me -- list of killed
8 members of the Vitezovi unit, because we have not been
9 handed over that list.
10 A. Because I didn't review that list, sir,
11 because my single -- the single purpose of this
12 exercise was to identify members of the Viteska Brigade
13 and not members of the Vitezovi, which does not exclude
14 that it could be that members of the Vitezovi have also
15 been members of the Viteska Brigade, because they could
16 have been lent, one to the other.
17 But, as I said before, I was just
18 concentrating on names, dates of birth, and specific
19 items that could identify a member of the Viteska
20 Brigade, and this document which was tendered, as you
21 said before, gives us names of people that were also
22 mentioned on our list of identified members of the
23 Viteska Brigade.
24 Q. Since you mentioned this, just a short side
25 question. As you investigated those people on the
1 various lists, did you happen to notice that some
2 people spent some time in one unit and then moved on to
3 another unit?
4 A. Not via this investigation, sir, no.
5 Q. Very well.
6 Let us move on to the next document, that is,
7 the same binder, same binder, but the one under 3.
8 When one looks at it, one should say that this was from
9 a computer. These were lists which were done on a
10 computer, if one looks at the original, the Alfa Force,
11 the list of 35 names. It looks like a computer list.
12 Have you ever seen the original of this document, or do
13 you have it, perhaps, in your files?
14 A. No, I don't have it, sir. This is the
15 document I obtained via our database, which means that
16 it could be that the original is in the evidence
17 folder, but at least this is a copy of the document
18 that's in our possession.
19 Q. Do you perhaps know, how did this document
20 reach the Prosecutor's office? What is the source of
21 this document?
22 A. No, I don't, sir.
23 Q. The title says that it was issued by the
24 command OS -- we're not quite sure if we know what that
25 acronym means -- of Central Bosnia; is that correct?
1 That is what one reads at the top.
2 A. Yes. At the top, it says: "The Alfa Force
3 Reconnaissance Sabotage Group was formed on the 6th of
4 April, 1992, on an order of the Central Bosnia OS
6 Q. True. And then one of the members, and let's
7 move on to the next document, that is, the document
8 under 4, that these members received their salaries,
9 are paid. And then it says, "Central Bosnia, the
10 command of the Operative Zone," so you would know that
11 institution, and it is signed by the commander of the
12 Operative Zone. Is that correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. So this Alfa Force evidently has nothing to
15 do with the brigade. You know what was the Operative
16 Zone and the commander of the Operative Zone, that he
17 was a superior to the accused Mario Cerkez.
18 A. Generally, what the document says is that it
19 is signed by Colonel Tihomir Blaskic. I haven't found
20 anything that would assure me or my colleagues that
21 that also means that this Alfa Force has never been
22 under the command of Mr. Mario Cerkez. It just means
23 that as commander of the Operative Zone of Central
24 Bosnia, it is obvious that Mr. Blaskic -- Colonel
25 Blaskic, in this situation, signed for paying the
1 amount of money to these several unit members.
2 Q. I see. Very well. But tell me, please,
3 apart from those six names which are circled and you
4 believe that are in some other lists that you managed
5 to identify, that is, that they appear in some
6 documents which are associated with the Vitez Brigade,
7 but other persons here are also associated with the
8 Vitez Brigade, the rest of the 29 of them.
9 A. [Answer obscured by translation]
10 Q. On this list, six names are circled, and then
11 these persons appear in individual files. So when you
12 subtract them from 35, it's 29. You do not identify
13 those 29 as members of the brigade, at least we did not
14 find it. Is it that, in your opinion, they were not
16 A. The people that are circled on this list are
17 the people of which we have personal files, and the
18 only thing this document says is that obviously he was
19 paid as a member of the Alfa Force Sabotage Group.
20 As I said before, according to our
21 investigation, this doesn't mean necessarily that --
22 being a member of a special unit, that doesn't mean
23 that this unit can't be under the control, or under the
24 direct supervision or command of Mr. Mario Cerkez.
25 Q. I see. So you are not identifying them by
1 people but by the structure, by the organisation.
2 Now, let me ask you, have you seen a
3 document -- do you think there is a document which
4 would show that Alfa Force would be a unit -- part of
5 the Vitez Brigade? Have you ever seen such a document?
6 A. No, I have not, sir. But, as I said before,
7 the reason for this identification of possible members
8 of the Viteska Brigade meant that when we went through
9 the databases, we brought in the names of the people
10 that were recognised and of which we could reasonably
11 think that they were members of the Viteska Brigade,
12 and once we did that, names came up and documents came
13 up, and one of these documents is this one.
14 So my assumption in this would then be that
15 if he was a member of the Viteska Brigade, and he was
16 also a member of the Alfa Force, that this unit was
17 under the command of the commander of the Viteska
19 Q. Thank you for repeating the explanation, but
20 will you please answer the question, and it is very
22 Have you ever seen in your work at the
23 Prosecutor's office, ever, a document, any kind of
24 document -- a military order or an organisational chart
25 or any document at all -- from which one could conclude
1 that a unit called Alfa Force was subordinated to the
2 Vitez Brigade, that is, that it was a component, an
3 element, of the Vitez Brigade? Yes or no, please.
4 We've already heard the explanation.
5 A. Not as far as I can recollect.
6 Q. Correct. Never.
7 This document does not have a signature or a
8 stamp; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct, sir.
10 Q. It doesn't have a date either.
11 A. The date says, "3rd of November, 1992."
12 Q. I'm sorry, but I cannot find it, I don't see
13 any date.
14 JUDGE MAY: Z265, under the tab number 4, has
15 the date the 3rd of November. But you're right, the
16 other one doesn't have a date. We can see that.
17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It is Z67, that
18 one doesn't have a date.
19 Q. In respect to that, have you noticed from the
20 documents issued in Bosnia that we, unlike here in
21 Europe, attach a lot of importance to stamps. Every
22 document, every serious document must have a stamp.
23 Have you noticed that custom?
24 A. I have to admit that I've seen a lot of
25 documents with stamps, but I've also seen documents
1 without stamps.
2 Q. As an illustration, this long list has even
3 two stamps. Some people think that it might add to the
4 reliability of the document. However, the document
5 number 67 does not have a stamp. Z265, in section 4,
6 signed by Blaskic, also has a stamp.
7 Let us have a look at number 5. It is the
8 document Z1299.2, in section 5 of the binder. Have you
9 seen the original of this document?
10 A. No, sir.
11 Q. Would you agree with me that, again, we have
12 a computer printout?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Can we also agree that it doesn't have a
15 signature or a stamp?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. The title of the document says it is a list
18 of the wounded members of the brigade. What does the
19 date on the left-hand side mean, that is, the 12th of
20 November, 1993?
21 A. I assume that this was the date that this
22 document was produced.
23 Q. Can you tell us anything about the source of
24 the document and how it reached the Office of the
1 A. I cannot because, as I said before, during
2 this search in September 1998, we seized an enormous
3 amount of documents, and these documents were put into
4 the database by this office. The purpose of this
5 investigation was not to authenticate the documents
6 that were in our possession but to find the names of
7 people that were mentioned by the witnesses.
8 So I cannot tell you exactly where this
9 document comes from, but according to my knowledge,
10 about 90 percent of the documents that have been put
11 into these binders, they were directly related to the
12 search of 1998. But, no, sir, I cannot specifically
13 say if this was one of these documents.
14 Q. Is it true that on that occasion -- I'm not
15 referring to every location, but only the two that are
16 of interest for us -- that they were seized at a
17 municipal building?
18 A. I can't tell you that because I was not
19 involved in these two locations. I was on the third
21 Q. Since you don't know that, can you exclude
22 the possibility that that document was composed in the
23 Defence Office, that is, in the civilian section of the
24 municipal government?
25 A. No, I cannot.
1 Q. Is it true that it is a bit difficult to
2 speak about the value of names if we are not sure about
3 the authenticity of the document, in view of what you
4 have just said, that your objective was not to
5 ascertain the authenticity of the document but to link
6 the names with the names mentioned by witnesses?
7 A. I don't necessarily agree, because during a
8 criminal investigation, once one does a search, the
9 documents -- in this situation, the documents that you
10 obtain are supposed to be authentic; I mean, at least
11 they have been made in that office or at least they
12 were kept in that office, and should, as such, be a
13 document in relation to that organisation, or
15 Q. At the location where you were, was the
16 computer's hard disk taken as well?
17 A. Yes, we did, sir.
18 Q. Is it possible that this document is actually
19 the printout from that hard disk? If you don't
20 remember that, it's not important.
21 I should take this opportunity -- I do not
22 have pages 14 and 15 that is completely legible. The
23 last page that is legible is page number 13. I want to
24 check whether you have pages 14 and 15, from numbers
25 651 to 661, and there's also something written on the
1 last page. But I just cannot read it.
2 Do you have the two pages in question?
3 The number of the last illegible page is
4 0080838. I don't know whether that document contains a
5 signature, or a stamp, or some other markings. Are
6 those two pages legible in your binder?
7 A. I have these two pages, and they are
8 illegible on my binder too.
9 Q. So the penultimate page contains the list
10 from 651 to 661, but there is a certain text on the
11 last page, and I would like to know whether that page,
12 the last one, contains any identifying information such
13 as signature or a stamp.
14 A. No, sir, because my page is the same as
16 Q. The next list is the list of the killed
17 members. I'm referring to section 6, document Z996.3.
18 Looking at the document, I think it's more or less the
19 same type of document. It says: "List of Killed
20 Members of the HVO and Civilians." Again, in the header
21 of the document, we see the Vitez Brigade. Do you
22 think it's logical for a brigade to have also lists of
23 killed civilians? Did you find any other document that
24 would explain such an unusual procedure?
25 A. I'm not sure what you want to --
1 JUDGE MAY: It's a comment, it's a comment.
2 Yes, let's move on.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. The source of this document is the same as
5 for previous documents; is that correct?
6 A. It should be.
7 Q. So we don't have to discuss the issue of
8 signature and stamp again.
9 Next is a document 750.1 in section 7 of the
10 binder. Is the source of that document the same again?
11 A. I assume so, sir.
12 Q. Let us have a look at the signature. There
13 is something added in handwriting at the end of the
14 document on the second page, some kind of note, and
15 then at the very end of the document we have "Commander
16 Mario Cerkez". This was probably prepared by an
17 official and the document had to be signed by someone.
18 In this case, it was signed -- it was supposed to be
19 signed by Mario Cerkez. Does your copy contain the
20 handwritten signature as well?
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. As I can see under the name of Mario Cerkez,
23 there are three other places, three numbers. I don't
24 see any names on my copy.
25 A. Neither on mine, sir, and you have the same
1 copy as I do.
2 Q. Thank you. One last thing about this
4 The handwritten part, there is a sentence
5 here in handwriting which precedes the name. [In
6 English] [Previous interpretation continues] ...
7 "soldiers were members of the Vitez Brigade who were
9 [Interpretation] This does not correspond to
10 the Croatian text, because the Croatian text contains
11 the word "casualties", which can include wounding and
12 killing. This is not specific enough, so I should ask
13 this translation to be corrected again. Some of them
14 may have actually survived, but some may have been
15 killed as well.
16 The next document is the document Z1337.1 in
17 section 8 of the binder, and I assume that it was
18 obtained in the same manner.
19 A. Umm-hmm.
20 Q. As regards this document, we have several
21 categories, several categories of persons which were
22 apparently killed. Apparently this is a list of killed
23 persons. The first names refer to the situation before
24 the 16th of April, 1993. Can we agree on that?
25 A. Yes, we can.
1 Q. However, the remaining information concerns
2 the relevant sector, obligatory work, member of the
3 brigade command, so these are different categories of
4 persons listed here?
5 A. When I look at this document, sir, I would
6 say that this document which was drafted, according to
7 the date, on the 20th of December, 1993, that the
8 people that were killed before the 16th of April, 1992,
9 were put together, and then it was specified after --
10 as of the 16th of April, 1993, where the specific
11 person belonged to or what part of the working area he
13 Q. It's a logical conclusion, because we have
14 the category. It is stated here, and that was my line
15 of thinking as well. But except for the first ten
16 persons who refer to the situation before the 16th of
17 April, 1993, this is no longer the case. That's why I
18 stated the subheadings.
19 Let us take the next category, for example,
20 the brigade command. We have one person only, Borislav
21 Josic, and here the date is the date of the death of
22 the individual in question, the 31st of August, 1993.
23 So all of the remaining categories contain dates of
24 death, but those dates are the ones after the 16th of
25 April, 1993, or at least starting with that date.
1 JUDGE MAY: What is the question?
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Would you agree with me that the title or the
4 heading, as you explained it to us, that is, the
5 situation before the 16th of April, 1993, concerns only
6 the ten persons listed in the first section?
7 A. The way I read this document, sir, is that
8 this document gives an overview of men that were
9 killed, the first ten in relation to the period before
10 the 16th of April, and after -- the others, between the
11 16th of April and the 20th of December, 1993, when this
12 document was drafted.
13 Q. Very well. So only the first ten individuals
14 concern the situation before the 16th of April.
15 JUDGE MAY: We've been over this,
16 Mr. Kovacic. Please, let's go on. We can read it.
17 MR. KOVACIC: Yes, yes.
18 Q. [Interpretation] Let us not waste any more
19 time on that. Just confirm that the source of the
20 document is the same as for the previous three or four
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Perhaps one additional question.
24 Have you ever seen, in your analysis, a
25 document enabling you to conclude that the members of
1 the detail units would be actually members of the Vitez
2 Brigade itself?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Thank you. As regards the next document,
5 section 9, document Z957.1, I should just ask you to
6 comment on the note of page 5 of the Croatian
7 original. I believe that it should be page 6 of the
8 translation. Did you take this remark into account
9 when you followed further on the names that were
10 contained in the list?
11 A. Yes, I did.
12 Q. So you did take into account the contents of
13 this remark. The remark actually speaks about certain
14 oversights, as far as I can see. Would you agree with
16 A. Not necessarily. The remark says that during
17 the course of the fighting, a lot of people who were
18 not members of the units before joined the fighting on
19 their side, so the list might not be complete.
20 Q. Very well. Again, this document was signed
21 by Mr. Cilic. This particular document contains the
22 signature itself?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. The document under number 10, Z1372.1, I'm
25 interested in the title of the document, which states
1 as follows: "List of Soldiers Killed in the Zone of
2 Responsibility of the 5th Battalion".
3 Looking at this list containing 16 persons,
4 can you conclude that all these persons were members of
5 this battalion, which was part of the Vitez Brigade?
6 Are you sure about that?
7 A. No, I cannot, because the document obviously
8 says, "Killed in the Zone of Responsibility," which
9 does not necessarily mean that they were members of
10 that battalion.
11 Q. Therefore, the names that have been
12 encircled, the five names that are dealt with later on,
13 could have been killed in the zone of responsibility of
14 the battalion and thereby enter the list of the wounded
15 or the killed, and on the basis of that, we conclude
16 that they were actually members of that unit; is that
18 A. No, that's not correct, sir, because the
19 people that were encircled are persons of whom we found
20 other documents in relation which would show that they
21 were members of the Vitez Brigade. That's why these
22 five were selected.
23 Q. Very well then. Did you ever -- sorry, let
24 me rephrase my question.
25 Section 11, document Z1324.1, the document
1 that was signed by a certain Mrs. Mira Vrebac, did you
2 manage to identify that person on the basis of some
3 other documents? Did you maybe see her name in any
4 other document?
5 A. You're talking about Mrs. Vrebac? No. But
6 as I said before, I was not looking for this name,
7 because this name was not mentioned by the witnesses.
8 Q. However, she is the author of the document,
9 but never mind.
10 Attached to this document are two empty
11 documents with an official heading. It seems that
12 someone had access to official documents of a certain
13 institution which were actually not used while
14 composing this document. Are you sure that these
15 documents were found together, and could you perhaps
16 explain to us why these empty documents are attached to
17 the document which was compiled by Mrs. Vrebac? Is
18 there any explanation for that?
19 A. The reason for this is so that, as I can see
20 it now, but I'm looking at the area numbers, this means
21 that both documents were obtained together, so as a
22 package, and therefore they were brought into the
23 system as a package, because the U.N. numbers are
24 following up corresponding U.N. numbers which, as I
25 said before, means that they must have been seized as a
2 Q. You have obviously reviewed a large number of
3 documents that were seized there, but have you noticed
4 that this type of document was used -- does this type
5 of document with the header like this has been used
6 elsewhere, that the same heading was used, and then the
7 Defence office would also mention its title? It was
8 also used by the Defence office? Have you noticed
10 A. No, I have not, sir, but as I --
11 Q. Thank you. We have come to the list Z505 in
12 section 12, which was composed on the 27th of February,
13 1993. Again, it's a computer printout. According to
14 this printout, if we sum up every entry, we realise
15 that the number of persons mentioned here is 433. I
16 may have made a mistake, but I think this is
17 approximately the number. Have you counted them?
18 A. No, sir.
19 Q. Unlike other documents, this list is very
20 precise in the sense that it gives citizens personal
21 numbers for every person, as well as the address and
22 other necessary identifying information. The relevant
23 identifying information, that is, the citizen's
24 personal number, address, date of birth, has been
25 indicated in, if not in all cases, then at least in 99
1 percent of them. Would you agree with that?
2 A. It gives the PIN address, sir.
3 Q. Sorry?
4 A. PIN address, P-I-N address.
5 Q. Oh, that is what you call it.
6 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic,
7 could you please explain to us, because are you
8 speaking about this list in detail, we would like to
9 know if you are disputing this list, the list of
10 persons here. This is the question.
11 We are not investigating for the sake of
12 investigating here. The question is whether there is a
13 list and if this list is disputed by you or not. We
14 are talking about it in detail, and personally I don't
15 quite understand how we are progressing in our case.
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
17 I'm disputing every single document here except for
18 this one. However, I have to check certain details.
19 But as far as I can see, it's an authentic document,
20 and except for two or three other documents that have
21 also been admitted here, that is as far as the
22 authenticity of the document is concerned.
23 As regards all other documents, I dispute all
24 of them. This is only what these documents purport to
25 be. I mean we cannot be sure. I can give you one more
1 example, but --
2 JUDGE MAY: There's no need to go on.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] -- our
5 JUDGE MAY: Let us move on. At some stage,
6 you can tell us why you dispute the authenticity of
7 these documents. Now, they appear to speak for
8 themselves, but let us move on now.
9 Do you need to ask any more questions about
10 any more?
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
12 I do agree with you, that we should not waste any more
13 time on these documents. I am challenging their
14 authenticity, and I will call my evidence to prove it.
15 However, I should use two or three more
16 examples from this file which can show us the
17 unreliability of such material.
18 As regards this particular binder, Witness,
19 would you please have a look at section 9.
20 JUDGE MAY: There's no need to go through
21 these documents. We've been over them.
22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I just wanted
23 to show you a name so that we can search for it in the
25 Q. In that document, Z957.1, under number 45,
1 I'm using this only as an illustration, Adis Cosic's
2 name is mentioned, father's name Ejub. That particular
3 person can be found in the large list, mentioned
4 again -- I apologise, I don't have it here -- we have
5 him in the list of the military police, the list which
6 was given to us together with the documents of the
7 previous witness, under the number 37.
8 I would like the witness to explain the fact
9 that we have one and the same person listed under two
10 units, and let us take this only as an example.
11 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Spork, can you say anything
12 more than what appears in the documents?
13 THE WITNESS: No, I couldn't, sir. I
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President,
16 I could go on with a number of examples and
17 illustrations, and that would require some additional
18 documents, but this is obviously not the right time.
19 We will be calling our own evidence as to that.
20 However, I still have a few general questions maybe.
21 No, I believe I have finished with the
22 general issues as well.
23 If you will just allow me to add, before I
24 conclude. While we were discussing the testimony of
25 this witness, my learned colleague, Mr. Nice, mentioned
1 our defence, mentioned our argument. I will just say,
2 and we will prove it later on, that the Vitez Brigade
3 was never actually in Ahmici. I wanted the record to
4 reflect that.
5 JUDGE MAY: That is a totally different
6 point. Are you disputing, Mr. Kovacic, are you
7 disputing that the 38 individuals mentioned in the
8 second binder were members of the Vitez Brigade or
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Except one or
11 two, at present, I cannot say that. What I mean is
12 some of them were members of the Vitez Brigade at some
13 point in time, which means, in view of the time when
14 the Vitez Brigade was founded, it could have been
15 sometime in summer or sometime, perhaps, in autumn,
16 perhaps after the period for which Mr. Cerkez is
18 What I do dispute is that any one of those 38
19 was a member of the Vitez Brigade on the 16th of April,
20 or that he committed a crime as a member of the Vitez
22 There are some individuals who joined the
23 brigade in August or September, for instance; there are
24 some people who never were members of the brigade;
25 there may be some who were with the brigade in May,
1 then they went to another unit, and then they came back
2 in June. But I dispute that those people were members
3 of the Vitez Brigade, as it is put to us here, and that
4 they committed crimes as members of that brigade.
5 There are also some persons who were
6 so-called -- and I'm referring to 1992 -- who were
7 so-called shift soldiers, that is, a soldier would be
8 called up to go to the front line with the Serbs, and
9 he would go there, he would be treated as a military,
10 and then he would go back to his place, he would go
11 back to work in his factory, or work his land, or
12 whatever. And if he committed the crime at that
13 particular time, then he is not a member of the unit at
14 that particular time.
15 That is our view.
16 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Thank you.
17 Mr. Sayers.
18 MR. SAYERS: No questions, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
20 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
21 Mr. President, if I may, just a very brief comment to
22 begin with. I listened to Mr. Kovacic. The Vitez
23 Brigade is evidently a brigade one joins and then
24 leaves whenever one wants. They are part-time soldiers
25 when they have time because they are not working the
1 land, or whatever.
2 All I wanted to ask the witness, Mr. Spork,
3 is if he could simply tell us something about the
4 soldier called Zoran Matosevic, a soldier figuring
5 under 39, entry 39. Does he know something about his
7 Q. It is true, Mr. Spork, that this soldier was
8 killed on the 11th of June, 1993, that is, on the day
9 when the convoy known as the Convoy of Joy was blocked
10 in the area of Vitez.
11 A. That's correct, sir.
12 Q. Who killed that soldier?
13 A. He was killed by members of BritBat, I
15 Q. I should like to show you a document, a copy
16 of a document, naturally, which seems to show -- where
17 we see that he was killed, and this is the document
19 I should also like to show you, once again, a
20 document that we discussed this morning and which has
21 to do with the soldier Zoran Sero.
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. As for the Zoran Matosevic document, there is
24 a signature and there is a name.
25 A. That's correct, sir. Mr. Mario Cerkez.
1 Q. That is also the name -- or, rather, this
2 signature is identical with the one which we found on
3 the identity card issued to Zoran Sero.
4 A. I'm not an expert, but I would say so, yes.
5 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, are those
6 documents from the files? It seems not.
7 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Oh, yes,
9 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Let's move on. Let's come
10 to an end.
11 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Kovacic showed to you the big list, and
13 here Mario Cerkez appears as the first member of the
14 92nd Brigade. We were shown the signature of
15 Mr. Cerkez, and, yes, indeed, we see that Mr. Cerkez's
16 signature varies, we have different signatures. And
17 this is the list of the 92nd Regiment, these are the
18 same, but it is, again, the same signature here I've
19 shown you, not the one that we see here in the long
21 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Yes, I am
22 about to finish, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE MAY: He's not a handwriting expert.
24 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Very
1 Q. Mr. Carry Spork, again, a clarification as
2 regards the list, the list 808, that is, the list
3 signed by Mr. Cilic. In the transcript it says that,
4 but I believe it was your slip of the tongue, that it
5 is a list of the members of the Vitezovi killed in
6 Vitez, but it is a list of members of the Vitez
7 Brigade, or Viteska Brigade.
8 A. Yes, that was a slip of the tongue. Sorry.
9 Q. When you spoke about the Alfa Force, about
10 that unit, and there is a list where there are a number
11 of names, the first known name on it is Kriss Wilson,
12 and it is the document issued on the 3rd of November,
13 1992. Do you remember the document?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. You told us that this same Kriss Wilson, when
16 he was wounded in Novi Travnik, on the 14th of October,
17 1992, that is, a few days earlier, that he said that
18 his direct superior was Mario Cerkez, didn't he?
19 A. According to the certificate we have, yes, he
21 Q. You verified two of those soldiers, Bralo and
22 Perica Vukadinovic, and after the verification that you
23 undertook, were those two soldiers ever condemned for
24 the offences they committed in Bosnia in 1992 and
25 1993 -- 1994. Excuse me. 1993 and 1994.
1 A. I didn't understand the question. Sorry.
2 Q. You undertook the verification of two of
3 those soldiers, soldier Miroslav Bralo and another one
4 called Perica Vukadinovic, with the Bosnian
5 authorities. And the information that was communicated
6 to you, did it show that those two soldiers were
7 condemned for the crimes committed in 1992 and 1993?
8 A. Yes, sir. Maybe I totally misunderstood the
10 Q. I don't know. I don't know about the
11 interpretation. I was trying to be quite clear in what
12 I said. I'm asking you if, to your knowledge, the two
13 soldiers, Miroslav Bralo and Perica Vukadinovic, were
14 penally charged in Bosnia for the crimes they committed
15 in 1992 and 1993, whether they were brought to trial
16 for those?
17 A. I can't answer that question. I don't know.
18 Q. Very well. Thank you.
19 MR. LOPEZ-TERRES: [Interpretation] Thank
20 you. I have no other questions.
21 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Spork, thank you for coming
22 to give your evidence. That concludes it. You're free
23 to go.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 MR. NICE: Your Honour, it's not a matter
1 that Mr. Spork could have dealt with, I think, and
2 therefore there was no point in interrupting the flow
3 of cross-examination, but I would have thought that if
4 any of the apparent signatures of the defendant Cerkez
5 were to be challenged, if it's not made plain in our
6 case, then, of course, the matter can be dealt with in
7 rebuttal. Alternatively, if it is made plain, it might
8 conceivably, although we are pressed for time, be dealt
9 with in our case. But, in any event, it simply hasn't
10 been made plain, so we can't deal with it at the
12 JUDGE MAY: No.
13 MR. NICE: Likewise, the point raised by the
14 Chamber, the authenticity or otherwise of documents has
15 been dealt with in very global terms, and it would be
16 impossible for us to do more effectively than to say
17 that which Mr. Spork said about the general origin of
18 documents seized in Vitez. And, again, absent further
19 particularised notice from the Defence, we'll await to
20 deal with those matters if and when clear evidence
21 emerges to the effect that they are other than what
22 they appear to be, speaking for themselves.
23 JUDGE MAY: Yes. There has been, I'm afraid,
24 another witness waiting.
25 MR. NICE: Yes, but I suspect it's too late.
1 JUDGE MAY: It's too late, it really is.
2 MR. NICE: He's from the building, he's been
3 very understanding, and I'll take him first thing in
4 the morning, if I may.
5 JUDGE MAY: With the apologies of the Court
6 that he's been kept hanging about.
7 MR. NICE: Can I deal with one very short
8 public matter in open court session.
9 I'm happy to say that the diary of
10 Mr. Ashdown is now available. It's been resupplied by
11 him. Copies for the Defence, copies for the Chamber.
12 It has the map, which, if you haven't seen it before,
13 is quite interesting. We all know about the map that
14 was written on the invitation card. It's attached.
15 JUDGE MAY: Is this the map that was produced
16 at the dinner, the famous dinner?
17 MR. NICE: Yes, the banquet and everything
18 else. Copies for the Defence, as requested; copies for
19 the Chamber. I can, in due course, slot it in as part
20 of the statement -- of the transcript of the witness,
21 but I thought that possibly as a little bit of
22 interesting relief, it might come this afternoon. The
23 map is on the last sheet. And it is a fairly steady
24 hand, whatever the state of the dinner.
25 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't give the menu.
1 MR. NICE: No, but I think a good time was
2 had by all.
3 JUDGE MAY: There's one matter we want to
4 deal with, apart from that, and that concerns the
5 application for a video conference, which you have
7 MR. NICE: Yes.
8 JUDGE MAY: Some for next week --
9 MR. NICE: Yes.
10 JUDGE MAY: -- which is fairly short notice.
11 MR. NICE: It is, indeed.
12 JUDGE MAY: It's right that the Defence
13 should make any representations that they want about
14 that, the application to have witnesses by video
15 conference link next week.
16 MR. SAYERS: We have not had a great deal of
17 time to digest this, Mr. President, but in principle, I
18 think the witnesses who are obviously sick or
19 physically incapable of coming to The Hague represent a
20 clearly exceptional circumstance, or it would certainly
21 be in the interests of justice to minimise the
22 inconvenience to them. We couldn't, and we don't
23 object to those.
24 That certainly covers most of the first
25 witness in paragraph 2(a) of the application.
1 With respect to the witness in
2 paragraph 2(b), the last thing that we want to do is
3 require this witness to travel to a foreign country
4 while his wife is ill, and we have no particular
5 objection to that application either.
6 With respect to Witness 2(c), we frankly see
7 no reason why he shouldn't be here. He doesn't appear
8 to be sick. He appears to be subject to a subpoena,
9 and it seems to me that if he's going to testify in the
10 case, then he should do so here.
11 With respect to Witness 2(d), let me defer to
12 my colleagues representing the co-defendant on that.
13 With respect to Witness 2(e), Your Honour, I
14 am at a loss to understand why this witness needs to
15 testify live. Surely this village witness falls into
16 the category of those witnesses who have been victims.
17 They've already testified at length in the Blaskic
18 case. Presumably he or she has been fully questioned
19 on all matters pertinent to this case. I simply do not
20 understand why it's necessary for her to testify yet
21 again and be subject to the pressures that perhaps
22 don't need to be imposed upon her in that regard.
23 And then with respect to Witness 3(a), here
24 is a gentleman who has apparently undergone a recent
25 operation and is not able to come to The Hague, and so
1 that clearly seems to us to fall into the category of
2 circumstances in which a videolink would be
4 I think that's our position. Thank you.
5 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry. Too many papers,
6 Your Honour.
7 I will join whatever my colleagues have said,
8 and the only thing which he left for us is the witness
9 under item 2(d). I think that his name was restricted
10 so far, so I will stick to the number.
11 We think that there is some misunderstanding
12 with that witness. It was promised many times that he
13 would come and then that he would not come. Anyway, I
14 would like to have this witness on direct/cross, if
15 possible, here. But if that is not possible for any
16 justifiable reasons, which I cannot find in this
17 paragraph, then so be it. However, I do think that
18 this witness should be brought here, if need there be,
19 and of course that I also think that all other evidence
20 we already tendered related to that incident are quite
21 sufficient to understand the real probative value of
22 statement of -- of testimony of that witness.
23 That's about what we have to say.
24 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. We'll consider that.
25 MR. NICE: Yes. Unfortunately I haven't got
1 my own copy of the application with me, so I can't
2 respond immediately, if any response is required, in
3 relation to the names, but -- ah, we have found it at
5 There's one thing I'll have to add about
6 number 2(d), but I'll have to add that at the ex parte
8 As to the one in respect of which Mr. Sayers
9 raised objection, I think he's the one in respect of
10 whom there's the wife problem, and it seems to me a
11 perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. His attitude
12 is as it is, and time is short. If the videolink is
13 going to be set up, there's absolutely no reason for
14 him not to be taken in that way, and we would certainly
15 ask you to look favourably on that application.
16 I can tell you that in relation to one of the
17 applicants, and if I can find it, it's not "E" -- no,
18 "F", I think -- no, number "E", I think we're in the
19 rather odd positions here that in the belt-and-braces
20 exercise, that witness has provided an affidavit, and
21 having provided an affidavit and at the time of
22 providing an affidavit was asked what her attitude
23 would be to giving evidence, the reply was, "I'll give
24 evidence and come here to do so." So it may be that
25 that witness would prefer now to come. The possibility
1 of a videolink was offered, and I think the response
2 was, "Well, you can either have the affidavit or you
3 can have the evidence in The Hague," but there it is.
4 So it may be that that witness will want to come to The
5 Hague rather than to do it by videolink, which would
6 seem to me to be much to the -- well, much preferable
7 from the witness's point of view, but there it is.
8 JUDGE MAY: Are you continuing the
9 application or not?
10 MR. NICE: I think probably, at the moment,
11 not, because I think -- I'll have to deal with the
12 question of affidavit tomorrow. Maybe the witness can
13 give the evidence by affidavit and that will be that.
14 But the other three -- and there's something
15 I've got to say about the one in ex parte hearing, and
16 so that would leave only the three, in reality, because
17 I don't think there's any prospect of that other one
18 being a witness by video in any event.
19 JUDGE MAY: Very well. I was going to ask
20 the legal officer --
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Now, are there any other
23 matters before we go into closed session?
24 MR. SAYERS: I don't know whether there was a
25 miscommunication, Mr. President, but I thought that I
1 had said that with respect to Witness 2(B) in the
2 application, the gentleman whose wife is in the
3 hospital in Travnik, we did not oppose that.
4 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
5 MR. KOVACIC: Your Honour, perhaps for the
6 better planning of the Prosecution, we should say what
7 you ask us to state on the open transcripts.
8 JUDGE MAY: Let's deal with that tomorrow, as
9 it's getting late.
10 MR. KOVACIC: Indeed, if I may, Your Honour,
11 just to mention one thing also just for better
13 It is not that we will raise issue on the
14 authenticity of the Cerkez signature, yes, with us, for
15 this is a particular document. But mainly all the --
16 and we will bring in the case a lot of -- some are
17 already in the case. We will tender many orders signed
18 by Cerkez personally, so there is no chance that we
19 would raise that issue. But this one, yes.
20 And talking about documents, my learned
21 colleague mentioned something like that we have to
22 prove that those documents are not correct. We should
23 also consider that in a broader picture as who is
24 having the burden of evidence.
25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. These are all points you
1 can make.
2 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you.
3 JUDGE MAY: Now, unless there's anything else
4 before we go into ex parte session.
5 MR. NICE: I don't think so, save to give
6 notice, the tape tomorrow, possibly a witness dealing
7 with provenance of the bulk of the remaining documents
8 in general, village binders, and discuss about the
9 videos. That's what I was planning for tomorrow's
11 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, with respect to
12 the taped witness, we don't know who it is and we don't
13 know what they are going to say.
14 And with respect to the identification of
15 documents witness, once again we don't know who that
16 witness is or what they are going to say. I wonder if
17 we might just request some information along those
18 lines so that we can prepare.
19 JUDGE MAY: Yes. No doubt that could be
20 provided in some short form.
21 MR. NICE: Yes, we'll deal with it by
22 telephone or otherwise overnight.
23 JUDGE MAY: Very well.
24 MR. NICE: I'll tell my friends afterwards
25 about the taped witness.
1 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll rise for ten
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
4 5.11 p.m., to be reconvened on
5 Friday, the 25th day of February, 2000,
6 at 9.30 a.m.