1 Thursday, 14 April 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.08 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone.
6 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 Ms. Loukas, I hardly dare to ask you whether you're ready to
11 continue your cross-examination.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Well it seems this morning, Your Honour, the gods are
13 against me.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's even worse, Ms. Loukas. We've looked at the
15 time spent on examination-in-chief, the way it was spent, how parties
16 interrupted each other, but meanwhile, Madam Usher, I ask you to bring the
17 witness into the courtroom.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, before that happens, could I actually
19 formally introduce a couple of new faces to the Court.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I would rather first finish what I was doing and then
21 of course.
22 MS. LOUKAS: It's just that if the witness is being brought in
23 then we're going to run out of time because I have a matter to raise
24 before the witness ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: At the same time, I'd rather not discuss in the
1 presence of the witness the time allotted to you.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour. Yes.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So that we see new faces, they will be introduced
4 later today, I understand.
5 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour, for the sake of politeness.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the Chamber has looked at
7 examination-in-chief, questions put by the Judges, interventions by the
8 Judges, objections by the other party, taken all together, there is no
9 reason whatsoever to grant in respect of this witness any more than 60 per
10 cent of the time taken by the Prosecution. That means, Ms. Loukas, that
11 you've got 1 hour and 13 minutes left for this witness and apart from
12 closing doors, this Chamber would very much appreciate if windows are
13 opened. Could you please escort the witness into the courtroom.
14 MS. LOUKAS: Prior to the witness coming in, Your Honour, I had
15 indicated I had a matter I wished to raise.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Sorry, could I ask you to wait one for moment.
17 Yes, Ms. Loukas.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that point Your Honour raised
19 about my first few questions in cross-examination yesterday, I did want to
20 point something out, Your Honour, and that is that the response to the
21 Prosecution's questions on that score gave an answer that only included
22 Croats and Bosniaks and the response to Your Honour's question elicited a
23 response that was -- firstly, that's on page 31 of the transcript in
24 relation to the Prosecution's evidence in chief. "It was a mixed group
25 including Croats and Bosniaks." That's at line 15.
1 JUDGE ORIE: I've noted the difference, Ms. Loukas. It's not a
2 vital difference, was it? I mean of course we can search now on whether
3 it was the same or almost exactly the same and of course there we have to
4 look at the relevance as well. I think as a matter of fact that the
5 matter as such was clear enough that you didn't pursue any further matter
6 and more or less if it were only 95 per cent where you sought confirmation
7 of the earlier answer, I do understand why because you thought it a very
8 important part of the testimony of the witness but that as such is not
9 enough to ask him the same question again. And even if his answer would
10 be 5 per cent different from the earlier one, in an area which is not the
11 key issue then that's no reason to use your time that way in
13 Madam Usher, you may escort the witness into the courtroom.
14 MS. LOUKAS: If Your Honour pleases. While the witness is being
15 brought in, I can indicate that with me today I have our new case manager
16 Mr. Stefan Karganovic, and also from Seattle we have a high school
17 assisting us. That is Ms. Hannah Day and I would like to introduce them
18 both today to the Court and Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome in this courtroom, both of you,
20 Mr. Karganovic, I think that we'll see you more often whereas Seattle
21 might be only temporarily.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Omeragic, our apologies for letting you in and
24 asking you to leave for one second again. You hear me, I take it?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. Good morning, Your
2 WITNESS: SEAD OMERAGIC [Resumed]
3 JUDGE ORIE: I would like to remind you that you are still bound
4 by the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
5 And Ms. Loukas will now continue the cross-examination..
6 Ms. Loukas, please proceed.
7 Cross-examined by Ms. Loukas:
8 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, you've mentioned Bosanski Brod in your
10 evidence. Just in relation to that, I take it that you are aware that in
11 late March 1992, the Croatian ZNG attacked the Serbian village of Sjekovac
12 located near Bosanski Brod just across the Savo river from the Republic of
13 Croatia. You're aware of that, of course, are you not?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the Serbian villagers were killed inside their homes, you're
16 aware of that, of course?
17 A. Yes, I heard that six people -- six Serbs had been killed.
18 Q. Yes. Now, just in relation to your description of the events you
19 encountered in Bijeljina, would you agree with the assertion that Abdic
20 and Arkan issued a joint -- Mr. Abdic and Mr. Arkan issued a joint
21 statement over the local radio appealing to citizens not to worry and to
22 return to the streets? Would you agree with that assertion?
23 A. I'm not aware of that.
24 Q. Would you agree with an assertion that there were few reported
25 case of any atrocities or killings of Muslim civilians?
1 A. I wouldn't agree with you.
2 Q. Would you agree with the assertion that "The battle for Bijeljina
3 lasted two crisp days and did not in contrast to some of the more lurid
4 newspaper reports result in the widespread destruction of the town."
5 Would you agree with that assertion?
6 A. I cannot agree with an assertion that there was fighting going on
7 but that there was no destruction.
8 Q. Now, moving along, just in relation to some answers you gave
9 yesterday, I was asking you about a matter that had not been included in
10 your article and your response in relation to that -- yes, that's at page
11 82 of the LiveNote yesterday. This is in relation to the aspect of, "Did
12 you cut down those balijas," and a person's response being, "Yes, we have
13 killed quite a lot of them." You indicated there that it was covered in
14 your article, as far as you were concerned, at the top of page 83, a man
15 wearing a band around his arm, about the 25 bodies and what have you. You
16 recall your response in relation to that.
17 When I asked you about why it wasn't it your article, in essence,
18 and I'm paraphrasing here and I'm happy to be corrected in relation to
19 that but I'm trying to get through this as soon as possible in view of the
20 truncated time I have for my cross-examination, you said that because it
21 was a leading question, basically, that you'd asked this question, you
22 felt that you would be accused of extortion if you had quoted the
23 conversation as it occurred.
24 Is that basically a summary of what your response is to that?
25 A. I think I said that I may have done it on that account. But as
1 for mentioning that particular instance, I do mention it in my article.
2 Q. Yes, so you say -- you do mention it in your article, but the way
3 in which you put it in your article is as a result of your feeling that it
4 was from a leading question and you might be accused of extortion; is that
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that, of course, is your complete answer in relation to that
8 question of not inserting that conversation into your article; correct?
9 A. Your Honours, throughout the time I kept thinking about those dead
10 bodies about which I heard over the radio as having been dumped at the
11 garbage dump, those 25 corpses, and I was with this frightening thought in
12 my mind, entering the town. And we know that it's the winners that write
13 history, we know that for a fact. We know that the Serbs were the winners
14 there and had they wanted to, the opposite side, they could have taken us
15 over to the garbage dump and shown us what had been done there.
16 In addition, I was interested in arriving at the truth and I
17 wanted to include as much as possible into my article in order to present
18 this to the general public.
19 Q. Yes, that's understood.
20 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not exactly what Ms. Loukas wanted to ask
21 you. I do understand that this is important for you to say, but
22 Ms. Loukas was especially interested to know why you did not include the
23 specific question that gave you the answer on this event.
24 Ms. Loukas.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour, I'll just ask the question
1 again Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS:
4 Q. Okay. I was asking a series of questions in relation to why you
5 say this particular aspect was not in your article in the exact way in
6 which it occurred. You've given an answer that says basically -- and you
7 respond to my question, you mentioned it in your article, but the way in
8 which you put it in your article is as a result of your feeling, that it
9 was a leading question and you might be accused of extortion. That's
10 correct, and that's your -- that's you reason for not inserting the
11 conversation into your article; correct?
12 A. If I may explain, Your Honours. We are talking about a sentence
13 that I wrote precisely 13 years ago. What it was that I felt at that
14 point in time under those circumstances is something I cannot tell you
15 today. But I wrote about it the way I did. And I wrote it 13 years ago.
16 How can I know today what my reasons for that were, and this is the way I
17 wrote it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if there's any specific matter you'd like
19 to raise in relation to that answer given by the witness yesterday, then
20 please do so.
21 MS. LOUKAS: I'm about to do it, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm waiting for it.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.
24 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic -- okay. So that's the way you wrote it 13
25 years ago and you've told the Court why you wrote it that way 13 years
1 ago, we're agreed on that point; correct?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, this is all ritual, please proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've said.
4 MS. LOUKAS:
5 Q. Well, then, Mr. Omeragic, that's not what you told the Court last
6 year on the 16th of October, 2003.
7 MS. LOUKAS: And for the benefit of Prosecution, page 27.706.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could the Chamber be informed about the testimony
9 given at that time by the witness as well?
10 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I will be quoting the relevant
11 portion and --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
13 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you.
14 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, you were asked by Mr. Milosevic last year, "How
15 come such a cardinal point was left out when you asked someone, 'Did you
16 cut down those balijas,' and he said 'Yes, we killed quite a lot of them.'
17 How come you didn't put that in the article yet you put it in your
18 statement in the year 2001? Did you invent that event, Mr. Omeragic?"
19 And your response was, "I'm just waiting for you to finish, to
20 complete what you're saying. I did not put into my text, into my article
21 even a tenth of what went on, of all the events that occurred in Bijeljina
22 because a newspaper article is always short, too short to include
23 everything, to publish everything. But I could tell you endless tales, go
24 on for days telling you what I experienced." And further on, question "So
25 you considered this not to be essential and that's why you didn't include
1 it into your article, this conversation." And your answer was "Yes,
2 perhaps because there are no names or proof."
3 Now, Mr. Omeragic, just last year in October of last year, you are
4 offering a Court a different explanation for why you didn't insert a
5 matter into your --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Margetts.
7 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, it's October of 2003.
8 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed. Well, 18 months ago. But of course the
9 truth changes for journalists, apparently.
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour --
11 MS. LOUKAS: I withdraw that. No, I withdraw that.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Would you refrain from those kinds of comments.
13 Yes, Please proceed.
14 MS. LOUKAS: I withdraw that.
15 Q. So Mr. Omeragic, you'd agree with me you gave the Court, this
16 Tribunal a different explanation in October of 2003; that's correct, is it
18 A. Yes. I wasn't analysing all these texts in order for me to be
19 able to know what I stated, you know, 13 years ago, nine and a half years
20 ago, or one year ago. My memory fades and there are some questions that I
21 didn't have answers for and of course this may account for some
22 differences as to what I was saying 13 years and 9 years ago.
23 Q. Okay, Mr. Omeragic. You say that memories fade and of course when
24 you made your statement to the Prosecution, you had no notes to go on, did
1 A. Yes, that's right, I had no notes.
2 Q. And of course you went into a great more detail in your statement
3 than your article; correct?
4 A. Witnesses do not need notes in order to testify. That's what I
5 wanted to say first. Secondly, as I was presenting all these details, I
6 tried to include all the different aspects in order to present a complete
7 picture of what was going on. That's why I was supplementing the
8 information and that's why I said that I could write five different pieces
9 of writing about what happened there. And of course the text that I wrote
10 13 years ago was written under very specific circumstances, under shelling
11 and sniping as I was on my way to work awaiting to get killed any moment.
12 Q. Okay. Now, you will recall that I asked you some questions
13 yesterday about why you hadn't included another matter in your article
14 which was having a gun in your face and you -- your basic response to
15 that, if you'd agree with this, is you didn't want to insert yourself into
16 the article; that's correct, is it not?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. So in your statement, you've indicated that "one man,
19 unknown to me appeared. Arkan's man approached him and asked him for his
20 documents. He did not have any documents so Arkan's man said, 'Take him
21 away.' They took him away and they asked for my ID card. At that time, I
22 heard a shot fired by I do not know what happened."
23 Can you point out where that is in your article?
24 If the article might be shown to the witness.
25 A. I don't have it.
1 MS. LOUKAS:
2 Q. It's being brought to you, Mr. Omeragic.
3 A. I can't find it. I'm sorry, I can't find that bit.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Would the Prosecution be prepared to agree that it
5 does not appear in the article?
6 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, if an indication could be given to me
7 where this particular part of the story is depicted in the article and I
8 could review that part but I'm at the moment searching through the entire
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand that this is supposed not to be
11 in the article. We can read the article. So let's just --
12 MS. LOUKAS: I'm happy to proceed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- accept that it's not in the article.
14 MS. LOUKAS:
15 Q. So this is an indent that would be considered newsworthy by you,
17 A. There were lots of things. I'm telling you now, there were lots
18 of things that were newsworthy and that I didn't report nevertheless
19 because the circumstances when I was writing the text were completely
20 different from what they are now. I returned to Sarajevo from Bijeljina,
21 the town was under shelling already. Of all the horrors that I saw there,
22 I singled out only a number to put in the article; however, when I was
23 giving my statement for this Tribunal, I knew perfectly well what I was
24 saying and I stand behind every word. It's still vivid in my memory.
25 When I wrote my article, I had to write it on one single page, not
1 five pages like the statement.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, I think yesterday I said that there was a
3 certain point which was not really worth of further exploring.
4 MS. LOUKAS: Yeah.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I notice that where I kindly said this morning that
6 closing doors was not the issue but opening windows.
7 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That you just go ahead in a similar way as if this
9 case was about how a journalist made the final selection of what he did
10 write down in an article, as if this case was about -- this case is about
11 different things.
12 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And of course I cannot deny that there's any
14 relation, but let's focus on what the case is really about and let's not
15 revisit again the issue unless you've got really something important to
16 add and what we heard until now is the relevance of it is, I would say,
17 low to very low. And therefore I'd like you to use your time on relevant
18 matters or more relevant matters.
19 I don't want any debate at this moment, Ms. Loukas, because this
20 is not the debating club but this is a courtroom. Please proceed and keep
21 in mind what I just said.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I am entitled to respond to
23 Your Honour's assertion.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It's not an assertion, it's reminding you of the view
25 of the Court which is not an assertion.
1 MS. LOUKAS: And I wish to indicate on the record, which I'm
2 entitled to do, that I agree with Your Honour's specific indication there.
3 This is -- this is certainly not a witness that in any way would
4 directly implicate Mr. Krajisnik but the fact that a journalist puts
5 forward certain matters in relation to someone who was formerly a
6 co-accused and by that way the Prosecution seeks by some sort of jigsaw to
7 implicate in terms of joint criminal enterprise and awareness of what
8 happens on the ground the credibility of a journalist who has, when it
9 comes to this court, 13 years later --
10 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, please, if these submissions could be
11 made at the appropriate time and if the -- if this needs to continue --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, if you would ask this witness, and you
13 start doing it in front of the witness, if you would have asked this
14 witness --
15 MS. LOUKAS: We really shouldn't be doing it in front of the
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Then please proceed. That's what I invited
18 you to do. But you said that you wanted to indicate on the record, which
19 you are entitled to do, and then you started the whole series.
20 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed and if there's any need, we could do
22 that when -- at the end of your cross-examination.
23 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can indicate that I have a whole
24 series of matters, critical and important matters that are not in the
25 article that appear in the statement. If Your Honour doesn't want to hear
1 about them, I'm happy to stop my cross-examination now.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, ask him why he didn't include certain
3 matters, and that's it, instead of first closing all doors and -- please
4 proceed but find a balance.
5 MS. LOUKAS: I appreciate Your Honour's guidance in that regard.
6 Of course Your Honour I have to find a balance between my common law
7 training and the different approach in this court, which I attempt to do
8 daily. And if I get the balance wrong occasionally, I hope Your Honour
9 will understand.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We appreciate your effort, Ms. Loukas.
11 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic -- we are on the topic -- of what had and had
13 not been included in your article. Now, let's go to another bit.
14 In your statement, you've got "The Serb civilians who came out of
15 their home were told that they had to have the white ribbon around their
16 arms." Where is that in your article? Can you tell the Court where that
17 is in your article?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, isn't it clear that it isn't in the
19 article. So ask the witness why he didn't put it in the article, fine.
20 But let's not go through all these rituals. I mean, we can see it's not
21 in the article. You can just put it to the witness that it's not in his
22 article and then ask him why.
23 MS. LOUKAS:
24 Q. Why isn't it in the article? Not newsworthy I suppose?
25 A. It's the same problem with the writing, the amount of words you
1 have at your disposal and the memory.
2 Q. Okay. But what you do put in your article, for example, is, "I
3 met a horrified and curious glance of a woman behind a curtain, a glance I
4 shall never forget." Now, surely the bits that I've indicated to you are
5 a bit more newsworthy and a bit more important than the horrified glance
6 of somebody at a window. You do agree with that as a journalist, don't
8 A. Yes, there were other things that were much more important than
9 horrified looks, but that was the first look that I saw as I was entering
10 the town of Bijeljina. I didn't see any other people. That woman who was
11 speaking from behind a curtain some 10, 12 metres away from the road was
12 the only look that I caught.
13 Q. You were just going by in a car; correct?
14 A. Yes. Yes. It's almost a miracle. We were in a car, we were
15 going by fast, and still I caught that look and it was full of horror.
16 Q. What kind of car was it?
17 A. I don't remember, dark green or dark blue.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please move to your next subject.
19 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm wondering if they were
20 politicians cars, the person might be horrified to see politicians.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's really -- that would assist this Chamber
22 to establish that on the view of the car, that someone behind --
23 MS. LOUKAS: No, Your Honour, that's not what I am doing.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Would know that this is a car which is specifically
25 used by politicians and therefore suddenly she changed the expression of
1 her face.
2 Ms. Loukas, please become realistic and please proceed.
3 MS. LOUKAS: But, Your Honour, I'm only hoping for some realistic
4 answers from the witness who leaves out --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, this is not a debating club, this is a
6 courtroom and you may continue your cross-examination.
7 Please proceed.
8 MS. LOUKAS:
9 Q. Let's go to another aspects that's not in your article. Tuzla.
10 Tuzla JNA headquarters, that bit. That's not in your article, is it? Why
11 isn't it in your article?
12 A. Because I think I personally was in the focus of those events and
13 that was at least my impression; however, there are more witnesses beside
14 me who can testify to that meeting, what happened there and how it
15 happened. I believe there are still people alive who remember what
16 happened there and what General Jankovic said.
17 Q. How about Vlado Mrkic, Mr. Vlado Mrkic, you gave evidence in
18 relation to that yesterday and you indicated that this was a highly
19 respected journalist who, on the 4th of April, said to Arkan, "You should
20 not have done this to Muslims. And Arkan took Mrkic's ID card," this is
21 in your statement and said, "You are a Croat. Plavsic was present and she
22 just made a wave with her hand and says he is a Serb but what kind of
23 Serb? After Plavsic made the gesture, Arkan pushed the ID card back into
24 Mrkic's hand. Arkan kept on walking and said 'Take him, Mrkic, away from
25 here, move back.'" Now that bit that's in the statement, that doesn't
1 involve you, does it?
2 A. Right but that's the way it happened.
3 Q. Yes. And you'd agree with me that that is highly newsworthy.
4 That's the kind of thing any professional journalist would have put in his
5 article; correct?
6 A. Yes, it's newsworthy and I believe I should have included it.
7 It's a very important thing because the person in question was a very good
8 journalist, very good professional, and I did not include it. But I do
9 remember it very vividly. It happened and it happened the way I
11 Q. Now, Mr. Omeragic, I take it that in relation to your evidence
12 here that you would disagree with me if I were to suggest that you hadn't
13 entirely been honest with the Trial Chamber about what you witnessed
15 A. Your Honours, for days and for months, whenever I would be
16 remembering all those events, not only in Bijeljina, but also in
17 Sarajevo. In Sarajevo perhaps every moment was 100 times worse than in
18 Bijeljina. I've been everywhere during the war. There was not a single
19 place in Bosnia from which I didn't report. And to doubt my honour, my
20 honesty is something that I really don't know how to comment. I always
21 told the truth. I've always been honest, and all I tried to do in this
22 article was present a faithful picture of what I saw in Bijeljina. I
23 don't know to what extent I was successful. But I was absolutely sincere,
24 that much is true.
25 And what you say about Mr. Mrkic is absolutely true. I remember
1 every detail because I was afraid for his life at that moment. It took so
2 much courage to face Arkan and to tell him something like that. Arkan, a
3 man who was superior to two members of the Presidency of that state, who
4 was above two Generals of that state's army, and that's the kind of
5 courage Mr. Mrkic had. And what Mrs. Plavsic said was some sort of
6 condescension, she was laughing at him like, "Yes, he is a Serb but I
7 might wonder." But nevertheless, Mr. Vlado Mrkic displayed the sort of
8 courage that I personally never had and probably never will have.
9 Q. So Mr. Omeragic, basically, what you describe is a situation in
10 Bijeljina where Arkan had total control of the town; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And he was being asked by Mrs. Plavsic to leave that town,
13 correct, to the JNA?
14 A. The most accurate way to put it would be to say that Mrs. Plavsic
15 was begging him at that moment to turn the town over to the JNA, to the
16 Yugoslav Peoples' Army.
17 MS. LOUKAS: No further questions, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Loukas.
19 Is there any need for further questions?
20 MR. MARGETTS: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Omeragic, there are no further questions for you.
22 Not that the Bench have no questions for you but they have been put to you
23 already during your examination-in-chief and your cross-examination. I'd
24 like to thank you very much for having come to The Hague and to have
25 answered all questions by both parties and by the Bench and I wish you a
1 safe trip home again.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Usher, could you ...
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
6 JUDGE ORIE: I had to ask Madam Registrar whether the necessary
7 technical facilities for face and voice distortion would be in place
8 already because one of them is broken, as far as I understand, and they
9 have to be transported from one courtroom to another.
10 We would need approximately half an hour to get them in place.
11 I'm just now calculating that would bring us to 20 minutes past 10.00
12 which would then have another -- yes, we could then have -- we would have
13 then the longer break now and then we can do with one more break this
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, there's just one matter if this is an
17 appropriate juncture that I should place on the record.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MS. LOUKAS: And that is this: I of course appreciate
20 Your Honour's guidance in relation to the -- the hybrid system that we are
21 dealing with here between common law and civil law. I must indicate from
22 my perspective, perhaps my common law habits of closing the gates are so
23 ingrained they are very difficult to remove. But I do appreciate
24 Your Honour's guidance in relation to the approach that Your Honour
25 prefers and I continue to adjust accordingly.
1 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before, your efforts are highly
2 appreciated, Ms. Loukas.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Before we have a break, however, we'd first like to
5 deal with the exhibits.
6 Madam Registrar.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, for your information, when we are we
9 dealing with the exhibits, I said yesterday something about three items of
10 interviews with Arkan where I never saw any interview with Arkan. I do
11 understand that Mr. Margetts and the registrar have found new descriptions
12 of it, just to draw your attention tension to it. We'll not read them
13 all, you can review them and if there's any comment you can make that
14 comment at a later stage.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Thank you, Your Honour. I hope there is a copy for
16 me as well. That would be great.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibits 584 to P591A tendered through
19 Witness Omeragic.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Since I hear no objections, they are admitted into
22 MR. MARGETTS: Your Honour, just one matter in relation to the
23 translation of P587.1, there was a reference to the LiveNote transcript at
24 page 28, lines 12 to 13, that Your Honour brought the Prosecution's
25 attention to. As it turns out, the translation in the transcript is
1 correct and we have amended the translation accordingly and provided a
2 copy to Madam Registrar.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That means that we now have another P587.1
4 which is in accordance with what you read in Court. Yes. That's clear.
5 MR. MARGETTS: And Your Honour, we will be providing a CD with
6 that amended translation to the registrar.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then this version is the one admitted.
8 MR. MARGETTS: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Any further matters at this moment to be raised by
10 the parties? If not, I would have one -- I'd like to raise one issue in
11 view of the latest motion for protective measures. The Chamber has
12 received a motion from the Prosecution requesting protective measures for
13 the witnesses 84, 239, and 270. This motion was filed on Tuesday and the
14 Chamber would like to make a few comments on that motion.
15 MS. LOUKAS: Certainly, Your Honour, I can indicate I received a
16 copy of that motion in court yesterday very helpfully from -- I think it
17 was the usher yesterday, so that was very helpful.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you received it. It was filed on the
19 Tuesday this week, I do agree with you.
20 The three witnesses referred to in this motion are expected to
21 testify that they were raped. They are also expected to testify about
22 other alleged crimes they witnessed and about the alleged perpetrators of
23 those acts. The three witnesses continue to live in or near the locations
24 where the alleged crimes were committed. One witness has received
25 suspicious telephone calls, and they are all concerned about their
1 personal safety and that of their family, should it become known that they
2 testified before this Tribunal about the alleged crimes.
3 The protective measures requested by the Prosecution for each
4 witness are pseudonym, image and voice distortion, private session for
5 that portion of their testimony dealing with the alleged sexual violence,
6 and private session for the testimony likely to reveal the identity of the
8 There is a long line of authority at the Tribunal that witnesses
9 testifying about sexual abuse committed against them shall have their
10 identity protected if they so request. Even if there were no related
11 safety risk, considerations of privacy call for that result. Therefore,
12 the Prosecution motion is, in the provisional opinion of the Chamber, very
13 likely to succeed for its request for private session in relation to that
15 The next question is whether the motion should also succeed for
16 protective measures requested in relation to testimony by these witnesses
17 on topics other than sexual violence. I would note that a person who is
18 inclined to intimidate or to harm a witness for divulging evidence of rape
19 may deduce from a sudden recession into private session that that is for
20 the purpose of dealing with the evidence of rape; therefore, to avoid that
21 risk, the witness testifying on rape should be accorded as well as private
22 session, both a pseudonym and image and voice distortion. But even
23 leaving aside that consideration, the parties will have gathered from
24 recent decisions of this Chamber that basic protective measures, namely
25 pseudonym, and where the witness is easily identifiable from the context,
1 also image and voice distortion will be granted in cases where there is a
2 threat to the witness's security as well as in cases where a combination
3 of factors not involving explicit threats gives rise to a risk of harm to
4 the witness.
5 As I noted in the decision delivered yesterday, one combination of
6 factors favouring a grant of basic protective measures is the following:
7 First, the expected testimony of the witness may antagonise persons who
8 continue to reside in the territory in which the crimes were committed,
9 for example, by implicating those persons in crimes.
10 Second, the prospective witness or his or her family live in that
11 territory, have property in that territory, or have concrete plans to
12 return to live in the territory.
13 And third, the general security situation is unstable and is
14 particularly unfavourable to witnesses and the families of witnesses who
15 appear before the Tribunal.
16 The Prosecution's motion provides evidence in support of those
17 factors for each of the three witnesses under consideration.
18 I therefore would invite the Defence to consider whether it
19 wouldn't make sense and save time for everyone concerned, and with no
20 negative effects on the fairness of the proceedings, if the Defence would
21 simply agree to the Prosecution's request for protective measures in this
22 particular instance, and if the Defence would be so kind as to respond to
23 this invitation by the end of tomorrow, it would be highly appreciated.
24 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I can indicate that certainly the
25 question of rape victims is one on which we concur, but ultimately, of
1 course, it's a matter that I need to discuss with lead counsel in relation
2 to the further matters indicated by Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course, therefore I didn't ask for an
4 immediate response. I appreciate that you would -- well, of course, the
5 first question is only whether you would consider, but I do understand
6 that you expect it to be --
7 MS. LOUKAS: We're always happy to consider, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, yes.
9 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, in relation to this matter, I should
10 indicate that in further conversations with Witness 270 we've had an
11 indication that there will be a request for closed session in regard to
12 her testimony. I believe Mr. Gaynor filed a supplemental request in that
13 regard yesterday and I would advise the Court and counsel that that will
14 be coming to your attention shortly.
15 That witness is not scheduled to testify, I think, until the 27th
16 of April.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's good that you inform us. Of course, I
18 have not -- the Chamber has not seen this supplemental application and
19 neither, I take it, has the Defence.
20 We are going to have a break now, have a break for half an hour.
21 We'll resume at 10.30 and then I hope that all the technical facilities
22 are in place for the protective measures for the next witness.
23 --- Recess taken at 10.02 a.m.
24 --- On resuming at 10.37 a.m.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, before I'll ask you whether you are
1 ready to call your next witness, I was informed that quite a number of
2 telephone intercepts are prepared to be played. I was also informed that
3 for at least quite a number of them, it's mainly for voice recognition.
4 MS. EDGERTON: Quite so.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's first try to establish whether these --
6 the recognition of the voices, to what extent that's necessary. Is there
7 any dispute between Prosecution and Defence as to the identity of the
9 Ms. Loukas, I'm also looking at you.
10 MS. LOUKAS: Just in relation to that, I have not as yet had an
11 opportunity to go through all the intercepts so at this point, I can't
12 answer that question.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Of course sometimes it might not be expected that
14 there would be any dispute if interlocutors are addressing each other with
15 clear names, et cetera, and course some people have the same names that
16 I'm aware of, but sometimes even in the contexts, one could form its own
17 opinion on how likely it is that it would be anything else.
18 MS. LOUKAS: Well, I must say, Your Honour, had we had a larger
19 Defence team and had I not been dealing with a whole series of matter in
20 court and out of court, then I think that these are the sort of matters
21 that could be settled between the Prosecution and the Defence quite easily
22 and actually shorten the time in court. But as Your Honour is well aware,
23 the Defence team is very small, we spend most of our time playing David
24 and Goliath.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Loukas, it's a theme that comes back now and
2 Ms. Edgerton, would we need those intercepts where you are seeking
3 voice recognition, could they be put apart and perhaps leave to the very
4 end of the examination-in-chief so that at least as there's a further
5 opportunity to see whether any agreement can be reached. That's one.
6 And the second is how much time would you need, I mean if -- just
7 for voice recognition, only a small part of the intercept would do to
8 recognise the voices, perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?
9 MS. EDGERTON: In order to recognise the voices, I think in most
10 cases not a great part of the intercept is required, but it's the
11 Prosecution's position that in the great number of these intercepts, the
12 content is of such significance that they would, according to the past
13 practice, have to be played in court.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if the witness -- of course if the witness
15 can comment on the content, fine; if he has some personal knowledge of the
16 events discussed between the interlocutors, fine. That could be a reason
17 to play it and ask a question about the content. However, if the witness
18 has no personal knowledge of anything that is discussed and is only there
19 for recognition of the voice -- first of all, of course, we should ask
20 ourselves whether there's another way of identifying those persons.
21 Second, then there is no need to play it all. I mean, even if you think
22 it's important, there might be other ways of presenting important material
23 such that we do not spend unnecessary time to it in court.
24 MS. EDGERTON: What I could offer Your Honours with respect to
25 the -- there are four conversations at the end of the list of potential
1 exhibits dating the 18th and 19th of April, 1992. Those are conversations
2 about which the witness has little or no personal knowledge and they would
3 be put in solely for the voice identification and perhaps those four are
4 the ones we could, over the course of time, and before the witness's
5 testimony is concluded, engage in some discussion over. That might be a
6 time saving.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how many intercepts do you have in mind as
8 a whole?
9 MS. EDGERTON: As a whole --
10 JUDGE ORIE: I mean all of them, the total number would be.
11 MS. EDGERTON: The total number is 14, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: So that means that there are 10 where the witness can
13 say something about the contents of his personal knowledge? 14 minus 4
14 makes 10.
15 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, give me just a moment if I may, Your Honour,
16 I'll just have a look and see if I can jog my recollection as to any
18 Your indulgence for a moment, Your Honour, while I speak with
19 Mr. Hannis.
20 [Prosecution counsel confer]
21 MS. EDGERTON: Additionally, additionally, Your Honour, there --
22 there are three dated the 7th of March and the 3rd and 4th of April, and
23 indeed the 6th of April, 1992, which I think would be a case of voice ID
24 only. So that would make --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Seven. We are at 50 per cent, Ms. Edgerton.
1 MS. EDGERTON: I was an English major not a mathematics major.
2 Thank you, Your Honour.
3 So our position, Your Honour, is we'd want the intercepts
4 available to the Trial Chamber to consider their content as well, but if
5 the witness doesn't have to comment on them, that group that I've just
6 identified, they don't need to be played in his presence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 So the Defence is invited to see whether there would be any
9 specific reason to challenge the identity of the interlocutors in the
10 seven mentioned intercepts.
11 Well, Ms. Edgerton, it may be clear to you that content is
12 important but there are other ways of presenting that. If you say that
13 it's important for the public to know what these intercepts are about, I
14 mean the Chamber is still waiting for the first dossiers to be filed and
15 we accepted that documents or -- I would say objects that would be
16 together with documents in a dossier can be tendered into evidence already
17 when a witness who is testifying on approximately the same issue is in
18 court. So therefore, it would be possible to tender such intercepts if
19 there is no discussion about the identity of the interlocutors in such a
20 way that you briefly explain what is in it and you present it and we
21 decide whether or not to admit that into evidence. Then it's clear for
22 the public what we have and at the same time, we do not waste time in
24 Ms. Loukas, you are on your feet.
25 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour, I was on my feet because I thought
1 that Your Honour was addressing me at one point. I can just indicate that
2 that seems a sensible approach to adopt. And as I indicated previously,
3 if there was a larger Defence team, I'm sure we could come to a lot more
4 agreement with the Prosecution and shorten the time in court.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 Then Ms. Edgerton, this witness is scheduled in chief for three
8 MS. EDGERTON: I can't recall at this moment if we estimated three
9 or four, Your Honour, but it's certainly lo no less than three.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'm asking because very often on my schedules I
11 find three and then in court I find four, which is now and then a bit of a
12 surprise. But I think my suggestion has saved you already certainly more
13 than half an hour in playing intercepts. So therefore, let's get started.
14 Protective measures in place are voice distortion, face distortion, and
15 private session for -- pseudonym and private session for those parts
16 identifying the witness; is that correct?
17 MS. EDGERTON: That's correct, Your Honour, and just with respect
18 to the scheduling, provision has been made and the witness has agreed to
19 remain here until Monday to conclude if his testimony isn't concluded
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'd rather conclude the testimony of this
22 witness this week; good for the witness and good for proceedings as well.
23 Madam Usher, could you --
24 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I understand from an e-mail I received
25 from the Prosecution that there's another witness going to be here
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS: And they propose to interpolate that witness into the
4 witness schedule between the evidence in chief and the cross-examination.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, tomorrow morning, there will be another witness
6 which -- I think there is a limit period of time still available for cross
7 examination. I'll carefully look at the list of Madam Registrar, how much
8 time was taken in chief, how much time is still available for cross, but
9 nevertheless, I think if we do it efficiently, there should be an
10 opportunity -- should be a possibility to finish with this witness during
11 this week.
12 Let's proceed and, Madam Usher, may I ask you to escort the
13 witness into the courtroom.
14 I would like to draw the attention of the parties again to the
15 need to switch off your microphones when the witness answers the questions
16 because otherwise, the voice distortion makes no sense at all.
17 Since we are waiting for the witness, I see that number one on the
18 list is a detailed coloured map of -- why not already look at it, unless
19 there is any specific information but I take it it's just for the
20 information the Judges, why not already start to distribute it and to --
21 yes, of course, if Madam Usher is -- has left the courtroom then
22 Madam Registrar, could you ...
23 Madam Registrar, that would be number ...
24 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Prosecution Exhibit P592.
25 JUDGE ORIE: 592.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Witness.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
4 JUDGE ORIE: I should say Witness 073 because we'll not use your
5 own name in these proceedings, we'll call you Witness 73. Your face
6 cannot be seen by the outside world; your voice will be distorted so that
7 it cannot be recognised by the outside world; and those parts of your
8 testimony that could reveal your identity will be in private session so
9 that the content is not known to the outside world either.
10 Witness 73, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules of
11 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration. I'd like
12 to invite you to make that solemn declaration.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS 73
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly swear that I will speak
16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please be seated, Witness 73.
18 You will first be examined by Ms. Edgerton, counsel for the
20 Ms. Edgerton, please proceed.
21 MS. EDGERTON: We're just preparing a pseudonym sheet.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And the pseudonym sheet will have P593, I take it.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, and that will be under seal.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
25 Examined by Ms. Edgerton:
1 Q. Witness 73, you have a piece of paper in front of you. Can you
2 have a look at that piece of paper and tell us whether the name and date
3 of birth written there that you see there are correct?
4 A. Yes, they are correct.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MS. EDGERTON: And I think at this moment, Your Honours, as we
7 move into some personal details about Witness 73, it would be appropriate
8 to go into closed session.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll turn into private session which.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Sorry.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Which is the same in this courtroom, if the public
12 gallery is empty.
13 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 JUDGE ORIE: We are, please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
24 MS. EDGERTON:
25 Q. Now, Witness, I'd like you to give us some information about
1 Vogosca municipality itself and some events in the municipality in the
2 period leading up to the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. First, could you
3 tell us, in the period leading up to the multi-party elections in November
4 1990, do you know how many municipalities made up the Assembly of
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. How many was that?
8 A. Ten municipalities were represented in the Assembly of the town of
10 Q. Vogosca was one of those ten municipalities?
11 A. Yes, it was.
12 Q. Subsequent to the multi-party elections, did the -- did that --
13 the composition of the Assembly of Sarajevo change in any respect?
14 A. Yes, it did change.
15 Q. How?
16 A. Out of -- the Pale municipality left the Sarajevo Assembly so that
17 only nine municipalities remained there.
18 Q. How did you become aware of this?
19 A. It was reported in the media, the whole process took one month,
20 the Pale Municipal Assembly passed a decision to that effect and it was
21 much talked about.
22 Q. Now, Witness 73, I'd like you to look at a map which -- I wonder
23 if it could be given to the witness and placed on the ELMO.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That's P592.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. Prior to coming to testify here this morning, you've had an
2 opportunity to look at that map; isn't that correct?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. Now, referring to that map, can you show us what direction Vogosca
5 municipality lies from metropolitan Sarajevo?
6 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton, first, whether the witness looked at
7 this map before is of no relevance for a (redacted) who has to look at
8 a map and give information. Second, this map, most parts of it is
9 already -- well, parts are in evidence and just a first glance at a map of
10 people who -- I would say not below a certain level of intelligence could
11 answer that question.
12 Let's try to come to the core.
13 MS. EDGERTON:
14 Q. Witness 73, can you tell us, do any significant road links go
15 through Vogosca municipality?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you explain what they are?
18 A. Yes, gladly. There's the Sarajevo-Zenica road that passes through
19 the Vogosca interchange and on to Zenica. The Vogosca interchange is a
20 very important one because that's where the road forks off to Tuzla and
21 Zenica. Vogosca is placed at the northern exit from the town of Sarajevo
22 and it is through Vogosca that one of the roads on the way to Sarajevo
23 passes; that is, through the Vogosca interchange.
24 Q. Thank you. Could you tell us, were there any JNA installations in
25 Vogosca municipality?
1 A. Yes, there were.
2 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry, Your Honour --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Edgerton. Witness, you are wearing a ring. I
4 don't know. My ring is the same as 500.000 people at least in the
5 Netherlands. Yes, please proceed.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I can just indicate that Mr. Krajisnik
7 was not getting translation. I was just informed.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Mr. Krajisnik, if that would -- you have received no translation
10 at all until now or where did it start?
11 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I don't have my interpreter in
12 court, he's translating --
13 JUDGE ORIE: I put a question to Mr. Krajisnik on where it
14 started. If he doesn't receive the translation of that, then of course we
15 have a problem.
16 Yes, Mr. Krajisnik, please say what you'd like to say.
17 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I do receive interpretation but the
18 witness speaks very softly and I cannot hear him because I do not get his
19 voice through my headphones.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'll pay specific attention to that so that --
21 could the technicians take care that the originally-spoken B/C/S words are
22 transmitted in such a way that Mr. Krajisnik can hear it.
23 Yes, let's proceed. If there is any further problem,
24 Mr. Krajisnik, please tell us.
25 MS. EDGERTON:
1 Q. Witness 73, I asked you, were there any JNA installations in
2 Vogosca municipality?
3 A. Yes, there were.
4 Q. What were they?
5 A. There was the JNA barracks at Semizovac and the special purpose
6 industry called Pretis at the Vogosca industrial complex over here.
7 Q. Just dealing with what you mentioned as the JNA barracks at
8 Semizovac, can you tell us what -- are you aware of what JNA assets might
9 have been located there?
10 A. I can't hear. I haven't heard the interpretation.
11 Q. I'll try again. Are you aware as to what was located at the JNA
12 barracks in Semizovac?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What was that?
15 A. The weapons belonging to the Vogosca Territorial Defence were
16 stored there.
17 Q. Were there any troops stationed there to your knowledge?
18 A. Yes, there were. One company.
19 Q. Do you have any idea approximately how many people one company
20 might represent?
21 A. About 150 men.
22 Q. Do you recall who the commander was of the barracks at that time?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. And what was that?
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that they cannot hear the
1 witness unless the microphones are switched off. Could the witness please
2 repeat his answer.
3 MS. EDGERTON:
5 A. It was Cedo Crnogorac, captain in the Yugoslav Peoples' Army.
6 Q. Were there any villages or settlements located in the immediate
7 area of the barracks?
8 A. Yes. The barracks were surrounded by an inhabited area.
9 Q. Are you aware of the ethnic composition of the communities in that
11 A. Yes. The population was mixed. There were Muslims, now they are
12 called Bosniaks, and there were Serbs. The population in the majority
13 across from the barracks and in the immediate surrounding of the barracks
14 in Srakovac [phoen] was Muslim.
15 Q. Now, Witness 73, you've mentioned Pretis was that a major industry
16 or employer in Vogosca?
17 A. Yes. This is one of the largest factories manufacturing arms in
18 the whole of Yugoslavia but there were other companies in metal industry.
19 Q. Do you have any idea how large the labour force was -- that was
20 that was employed at Pretis and this other company?
21 A. Some 15.000 people worked within the entire industrial complex.
22 Q. Now, if I can just ask you about the population of Vogosca
23 municipality. Do you recall the approximate proportions of its ethnic
25 A. Yes, I do.
1 Q. Could you tell us what that was?
2 A. Yes, I can. There was 51 per cent Muslims, 35 per cent Serbs, and
3 4 to 5 per cent were Croats, and then there were the rest.
4 Q. Do you also recall the results at the Vogosca municipality level
5 from the multi-party elections in 1990?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. What were those?
8 A. In the Municipal Assembly or rather the municipal parliament had
9 51 seats. The SDA won 18, the SDS 15, and the other parties 18 seats.
10 Q. Now, like other municipalities in pre-war Bosnia and Herzegovina,
11 were the municipal administrative positions in Vogosca divided according
12 to the municipal election results?
13 A. Yes, they were.
14 Q. Do you know who received the two highest posts in the municipality
16 A. Yes, I do. The SDA won the position of the president of the
17 Municipal Assembly and the SDS won the post of the president of the
18 Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly.
19 Q. So did they have candidates who they put to those posts, then, and
20 what were their names?
21 A. Yes. The SDA nominated for the post of the president of the
22 municipal Assembly, Mr. Bilal Hasanovic [phoen], and the SDS nominated for
23 the post of the president of the executive board Mr. Rajko Koprivica.
24 Q. Now, to your knowledge, did Mr. Koprivica have a high-ranking
25 position within the municipal SDS?
1 A. Yes, he did. He was the president of the municipal SDS.
2 MS. EDGERTON: I think it's appropriate for us to move into
3 private session again at this time, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session.
5 [Private session]
11 Pages 12097-12130 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 JUDGE ORIE: We are in open session, please proceed, Ms. Edgerton.
9 MS. EDGERTON: The transcript bears the number 0328-8714 to
11 JUDGE ORIE: And would have as exhibit number, Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit P596 and P596.A for the
13 transcript both under seal.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think -- aren't we going to play them in open
15 session? Not play, but hear the testimony about it in open session.
16 Should it be under seal?
17 MS. EDGERTON: I don't think it's necessary, Your Honour, to --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, not under seal. Please
20 MS. EDGERTON:
21 Q. Witness, you've had an opportunity to review this transcript in
22 some detail prior to testifying here today and listen to the corresponding
23 conversation; isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And did you recognise any of the interlocutors in this
1 conversation, the voices of any of the interlocutors?
2 A. Yes. Jovan Tintor and Mico Stanisic.
3 Q. And on the second page of this conversation, MS and JT make
4 reference to a man by the surname Andjelic.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Having read the conversation and keeping in mind what you've told
7 us before, do you have an opinion as to who they might be referring to
8 when they refer to the man with the surname Andjelic?
9 A. Radoslav Andjelic, head of the administrative and legal affairs.
10 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. And I think it would be appropriate to
11 move back into private session, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 12133-12137 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 MS. EDGERTON:
7 Q. Witness 73, having had an opportunity to review this transcript,
8 can you tell me whether you recall listening to the conversation that it
10 A. Yes, I've listened to it.
11 Q. And did you recognise one of the interlocutors to this
13 A. I recognized both of them, Jovan Tintor and Ratko Adzic.
14 MS. EDGERTON: I think we could move back into private session,
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll move into private session again.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 12139-12143 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 THE REGISTRAR: May I ask if there is going to be an audio
2 MS. EDGERTON: Yes.
3 THE REGISTRAR: Then the audio will be P599 and the transcript
5 MS. EDGERTON: The transcript bears the number 0328-8675 to 8679.
6 And that's the B/C/S version. The English has the prefix letters ET, and
7 the date of the conversation is 8th of January, 1991.
8 Q. Witness, you had an opportunity to --
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mine is 1992, Ms. Edgerton.
10 MS. EDGERTON: My apologies.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
12 MS. EDGERTON:
13 Q. Witness, you've had an opportunity to review this transcript and
14 listen to the conversation to which it relates; is that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And you were able to recognise or were you able to recognise
17 either of the interlocutors to this conversation?
18 A. Both. Both speakers, Jovan Tintor and Rajko Koprivica. I did
19 recognise them.
20 MS. EDGERTON: And now if we could move into private session for
21 one question for the witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We turn it to private session.
23 [Private session]
11 Page 12146 redacted. Private session.
10 [Open session]
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Edgerton, I do understand that you'd like to
13 discuss scheduling. Do you have any proposal? Because tomorrow, we
14 expect the witness back who left us last Friday.
15 Ms. Loukas.
16 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Do you think that cross-examination could be
18 finished by tomorrow?
19 MS. LOUKAS: Cross-examination of which witness?
20 JUDGE ORIE: Of the witness who will appear tomorrow who returns.
21 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I can indicate that I have
22 received no firm estimate of time from Mr. Stewart, of course Mr. Stewart
23 will be dealing with the cross-examination of that witness, that's the
24 witness that he commenced the cross-examination of, and I understand that
25 Mr. Stewart has another conference with Mr. Krajisnik this evening. So I
1 don't think there's any final estimate in relation to how long
2 Mr. Stewart's cross-examination, the remainder of his cross-examination of
3 the witness will take, unfortunately, at this point.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If we would follow the guidance of the 60 per
5 cent, then there would be -- there would remain approximately a little bit
6 over four hours, four and a half hours which would, under normal
7 circumstances, fit within the day.
8 So therefore, for scheduling reasons, I ask Madam Registrar where
9 the usual effective time is four hours, whether there could be found any
10 solution for tomorrow to have a little bit over four hours unless you say,
11 well, we can improve efficiency in such a way that we would gain half an
12 hour on four hours. You gave a splendid example today, Ms. Loukas. I'm
13 just looking to Madam Registrar because it was not easy from what I
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour can I just indicate, I'm sending out
17 Ms. Day to make a phone call of Mr. Stewart so that we can perhaps be of
18 more assistance in relation to the Court on the question of scheduling.
19 Unfortunately, we don't have a phone on our bar table on this side of the
20 room like the Prosecution.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The Judges neither have.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Your Honour, I'm just wondering what the splendid
23 example was, I must say.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You indicated that you would need until the first
25 break, then I told you that you would get 1 hour and 30 minutes and
1 finally you finished in approximately 35 to 40 minutes.
2 MS. LOUKAS: That was a splendid example. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps we wait for a second ...
4 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: We'll adjourn for one minute so that not only the
6 Defence can make phone calls so that the Chamber can make phone calls for
7 rescheduling, it's about court rooms, it's about other cases. So I'll try
8 to make a phone call. We'll adjourn for a very short period of time.
9 --- Break taken at 1.45 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.53 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, any news to report from your phone calls?
12 MS. LOUKAS: Indeed I do have news, Your Honour. Mr. Stewart
13 seems to be of the opinion that he could be as low as [French on the
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes we now receive the French translation on channel
16 4. I apologise, but sometimes I'm not aware what I'm listening to. Let
17 me just see -- yes, I think now French is again on 5.
18 [No interpretation] ...
19 THE INTERPRETER: Testing on channel 4, is that okay.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I now hear channel 4 in English.
21 So Ms. Loukas, you said two hours.
22 MS. LOUKAS: Yes, Your Honour. I might just repeat what I said.
23 First of all, might I just indicate very impressive French on
24 Your Honour's part. Yes, Mr. Mr. Stewart conveyed a message to Ms. Day
25 that the cross-examination in terms of time estimates could be as low as
1 two hours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then the result of the phone calls if I made, if
3 there would be any need to have a little bit more than four hours which
4 would be under the 60 per cent rule, then we would find a solution by
5 moving to courtroom I, but given this information now, that two hours
6 would do, is there any idea on how much time re-examination would take?
7 No, but I take it this that could be easily done within half an hour or
8 something like that.
9 MS. EDGERTON: Mr. Tieger's indication to me this morning was that
10 he expected to be quite quick in re-examination. There were only a few
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, these are vague terms which for scheduling
13 purposes are not very suitable. While the Judges have used already two
14 hours and nine minutes on that witness, but let me first consult with the
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Loukas, we don't want to make any mistake. Under
18 on the basis of what Mr. Stewart said, do you -- would you agree with
19 staying in this courtroom, that means that two and a half hours would be
20 the maximum or, well let's say, two hours and 45 minutes. We have four
21 hours during the whole day, we might have some additional questions. If
22 not, then we'll move to courtroom I, and then we would have altogether
23 four and a half to five hours available. That, of course, asks a lot; I
24 lay it more or less in your hands. If you say it's too risky to do it, to
25 bind Mr. Stewart to two and a half to two and three-quarters of an hour,
1 then we'll move to courtroom I. If you say well that's acceptable and
2 within the limits, then we'll just stay where we are.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Well, Your Honour, I'm always averse to binding
4 Mr. Stewart.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. LOUKAS: But it seems quite clear the message conveyed was
7 about two hours so I'm in Your Honour's hands in terms of risks.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I do understand but it might be difficult if we
9 don't move now it might not be possible at a later stage anymore and of
10 course it asks a lot from others because they have to move from court
11 rooms an initial appearance.
12 MS. LOUKAS: It seems to me if we are looking at about two hours
13 and the Prosecution re-examination is going to be very short in terms of
14 Mr. Trbojevic, then I imagine Your Honour's questions, because you've
15 asked a lot of questions throughout his evidence, would be quite
16 curtailed. It really should be enough for that witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hannis, could you, in case there would be a need
18 to do so, commit yourself to not more than 30 minutes.
19 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I believe, based on past conversations
20 with Mr. Tieger, that that will be adequate. I think we should be able to
21 finish, based on that estimate of the time for cross-examination, I think
22 we will be able to finish.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then an absolute maximum would be if needed, --
24 is there be close to three hours, we have four hours available, four
25 effective hours. If that is acceptable they'll stay where we are.
1 MS. LOUKAS: In this courtroom for tomorrow for Mr. Trbojevic.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MS. LOUKAS: Sorry in this courtroom -- I think it's come down on
4 the transcript in any event.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MS. LOUKAS: Because my microphone wasn't on. Just one matter
7 before we go, if I may, and I note that it's we're taking a lot of time
8 from the interpreters but there is one matter I wanted to place on the
9 record because Your Honours could consider it overnight, and that is on
10 the transcript today from pages 71 to 74 a topic was dealt with in terms
11 of a ten-year span of permits. Now, Your Honour, I let it go to see if it
12 would become in any way relevant but it seems to me that that entire span
13 between 71 and 74 on this topic should be struck from the record because
14 it is no in way relevant to the issues before the Trial Chamber. If we're
15 talking about a time span during which the Communists were in power, the
16 SDS did wasn't formed until 1990, it strikes me, Your Honour, as evidence
17 that is simply not probative.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 Ms. Edgerton, I take it that you will give this a thought.
20 Then the next scheduling, we would continue with this witness on
21 next Monday?
22 MS. EDGERTON: Yes, that's fine.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So we'll adjourn until tomorrow morning, 9.00,
24 irrespective of any traffic jams, any wrong clocks, we start tomorrow
25 morning at 9.00 in the same courtroom.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.01 p.m.,
2 to be reconvened on Friday, the 15th day of April,
3 2005, at 9.00 a.m.