1 Monday, 23 May 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-00-39-T, the Prosecutor versus Momcilo Krajisnik.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 Good morning to everyone as well from the Bench.
10 Mr. Tieger, is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness,
11 who is an expert witness?
12 Ms. Richterova.
13 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I apologise this morning.
15 MS. RICHTEROVA: I am calling the next witness, and I hope that
16 he's here.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So do I. So does the Chamber.
18 Madam Usher.
19 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
20 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
21 [The witness entered court]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Riedlmayer, I take it?
23 Mr. Riedlmayer, before you give evidence in this court T Rules of
24 Procedure and Evidence require you to make a solemn declaration that
25 you'll speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The
1 text is now handed out to you by Madam Usher. May I invite you to make
2 that solemn declaration.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I solemnly declare that I
4 will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you very much. Please be seated,
6 Mr. Riedlmayer.
7 WITNESS: ANDRAS RIEDLMAYER
8 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Richterova, I don't know exactly how you intend
9 to proceed. Of course, the Chamber has read the report of Mr. Riedlmayer
10 so there's no need to go over all the matters involved. I am a bit
11 handicapped, since I brought my CD-ROM for the annexes. But since we
12 moved to Courtroom III, I have no laptop anymore where I could open them.
13 So -- but I don't know how you want to deal with the matter.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, I would try to be very brief, just
15 clarify certain points and conclusions which was reached by
16 Mr. Riedlmayer, and then I can hand over the witness --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MS. RICHTEROVA: -- to the Defence.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
20 Examined by Ms. Richterova:
21 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you prepared a report for the Milosevic case; is
22 it correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. When was it?
25 A. I did that in 2002 and it was submitted in early 2003.
1 Q. And in this report, you dealt with 19 municipalities.
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. Which period of time was covered in this report?
4 A. In that report, the entire period of the war in Bosnia, from 1992
5 to Dayton, was covered.
6 Q. Later on you were asked to prepare another report. It was in
7 April 1993.
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. How many municipalities are covered in this report?
10 A. A smaller number. I have to get out my copy. I don't have a
11 number memorised. But the municipalities were specified in my contract.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Richterova, perhaps I did not fully understand
13 you. You started asking about a report that was made in 2002 and was
14 submitted in 2003. And then you say: "Later on you were asked to prepare
15 another report. It was in April 1993."
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: I will be more specific for -- for the record.
17 When I was referring to the first report prepared for the Milosevic case,
18 I was referring to the report which bears ERN numbers 0326-2227 through
20 And I can see the point. It was a mistake, April 1993. It was
21 meant April 2003.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that clarifies the issue. Please proceed.
23 MS. RICHTEROVA:
24 Q. So when I was referring to the second report from 2003, I am
25 referring to the report which bears ERN number 0340-5804 through 5829.
1 You were asked to -- to do your research on additional
2 municipalities, or were you asked to do research on the same municipality
3 as for the Milosevic case?
4 A. What I was asked to do was to essentially prepare a report based
5 on the previous report I had done for the Milosevic case but limit it to
6 the municipalities that are mentioned here, 11 in all, and limit it to the
7 time period of this indictment, which ends at December 31st of 1992.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, if we're continuing with these --
9 these practical matters, I have absolutely no objection whatever to
10 Ms. Richterova leading the witness through by basically telling him
11 what -- what happened, because I think it's pretty clear how this process
12 was done.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Richterova.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: I am almost done with this procedure, because I
15 want to reach now the -- the new document, and it was the reason for these
17 Q. In your Milosevic report, you managed to cover the whole period
18 of the war but you were able to distinguish which of the religious sites
19 were destroyed in which year; is it correct?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And is it correct that I asked you to prepare for -- for the
22 Judges, for the benefit of the Judges, a statistical addendum based on
23 your Milosevic report which would focus -- which will focus only on the
24 year 1992?
25 A. I did.
1 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, I would -- at this point, I would
2 like to tender into evidence the report prepared for the Krajisnik case,
3 which bears the ERN 03405804 through 5829, and statistical addendum, dated
4 22nd of May, 2005, and also the transcript of Mr. Riedlmayer's testimony
5 in the case IT-02-54.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections, Mr. Stewart?
7 MR. STEWART: I thought they were already in evidence, Your
8 Honour, because weren't they the subject of a 92 bis or 94 bis
10 MS. RICHTEROVA: I -- I was not sure whether they were in -- in
11 evidence, and I ...
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think strictly speaking the report,
14 as far as I know, is already in under 94 bis and the transcript already in
15 under 92 bis.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll check that.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes. We have this decision dated 31st March
18 2004, and it says -- admits into evidence the identified excerpts of
19 Riedlmayer's testimony in the Milosevic case which shall be open to
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's the old report, isn't it, you said? No,
22 excerpts of the -- no, let me just --
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I don't think it's the old report
24 because we had the new report by the -- next to the application.
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yeah, it's correct. I -- my intention is to
1 tender the new report, which was prepared primarily --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I thought it was in evidence. But if -- if there's
3 any mistake, there would be no objection, Mr. Stewart?
4 MR. STEWART: There's no objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. STEWART: I'm just trying to avoid a plethora of documents
7 being added to the slightly voluminous documents we have in this case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My problem is I've got it on a CD-ROM and the
9 exact status is -- of the CD-ROM is a different matter.
10 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Ms. Richterova, whether or not in evidence,
12 we'll verify that, but this material does not contain the database
13 attached to it, to the report.
14 MS. RICHTEROVA: That's correct. We would like to tender into
15 evidence this database on -- in the CD-ROM format.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 MS. RICHTEROVA: And we are --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But usually, of course, then we -- if a number
19 still had to be assigned, then we'll do that after the first break, and
20 then the number numbers will be related.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA:
23 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, I have only a few questions to you.
24 Based on your searches, based on your field trips, what were
25 your -- what were your conclusions about the damage and the destruction of
1 these religious sites? Would you be able to conclude whether the damage
2 was accidental or whether there was some pattern in -- in this behaviour?
3 A. Yes. In my field survey, I found very extensive damage to the
4 non-Serb religious sites in all areas which had come under the control of
5 Bosnian Serb forces during the war. In many cases, the damage occurred at
6 a time when there was no fighting, in areas which were fully under the
7 control of the Bosnian Serb authorities at the time. I also paid close
8 attention to the context in which the destruction happened and damaged
9 Catholic churches and mosques were often surrounded by otherwise intact
10 buildings. From this, I would conclude that the damage was not incidental
11 to an armed conflict but deliberate.
12 Q. Because you did -- you focus in your research on the whole period
13 of the war, between 1992 and 1995, were you able to conclude where was the
14 peak of the destruction and the damage of these religious sites?
15 A. Yes. In that statistical annex that you talked about, I look
16 through the dates of destruction and found that in all the municipalities
17 surveyed 85 per cent of all the destruction happened in the first year of
18 the war, that is, before December 31st, 1992. There were two smaller
19 subsequent waves of destruction limited to certain municipalities in 1993
20 and in 1995.
21 Q. And from the addendum, you concluded that the total percentage of
22 destruction is 85 per cent; is it correct?
23 A. The 85 per cent is the amount of the destruction that took place
24 in 1992 in all of Bosnia -- I mean, in all of the Bosnian municipalities
25 that my survey covered. The destruction -- the percentage of either
1 heavily damaged or destroyed objects was close to 90 per cent.
2 Q. On page 12 of your report prepared for the Krajisnik case, you
3 concluded - it is the top paragraph - "The destruction of mosques and of
4 other Islamic religious monuments appears to have been widespread and
6 Are you able to draw the same conclusion or a different
7 conclusion with respect to destruction of Catholic religious sites?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Based on your analysis and on your work in the area, what
10 significance do you attach to the destruction and the damage to the
11 Islamic and Catholic sacral buildings?
12 MR. STEWART: I'm not sure -- Your Honour, this isn't a question
13 for this witness. The -- he wasn't originally going to be examined in
14 chief at all, as it happens, but this isn't within the proper scope of his
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course, it very much depends on what you
17 understand to be "significance," which is a rather wide concept.
18 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour -- sorry, Your Honour. I beg
19 your pardon.
20 JUDGE ORIE: I --
21 MR. STEWART: The question is too general then, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's --
23 MR. STEWART: It carries with it a severe danger that we're
24 stepping outside this witness's area of expertise. It should be reframed.
25 If it does fall within his area of expertise, it should be reframed and
1 narrowed down to make that clear before he answers.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: I will rephrase my question.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Richterova.
4 MS. RICHTEROVA:
5 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, during your field trips, did you speak -- did you
6 speak to people living in various villages?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Did you obtain information from these people about the
9 destruction of the religious sites?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you ask them about the effect of the destruction on -- on
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. What did you learn from people in -- in these places? What --
15 what effect the destruction had on them?
16 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, this isn't -- this isn't a matter
17 within this witness's area of expertise.
18 JUDGE ORIE: No. I do agree, Ms. Richterova. What the effect is
19 would be rather for a psychologist or for common sense.
20 Please proceed.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: If I am not allowed to ask these questions, I
22 don't have further questions.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Ms. Richterova.
25 Mr. Stewart.
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, the only -- it seems slightly odd that
2 I might invite further examination-in-chief. It's only this, Your Honour,
3 that I wonder whether what would be helpful to the Trial Chamber, and
4 incidentally also to the Defence, would be to indicate how the material
5 that Mr. Riedlmayer has produced relates specifically to the items in
6 Schedule D of the indictment. I can explore that in cross-examination,
7 but we do have, after all, a specific schedule in the amended consolidated
8 indictment setting out in relation to designated municipalities
9 specific -- usually buildings, specific buildings which are alleged to
10 have been destroyed. That just might be helpful to be done by
11 Ms. Richterova rather than in cross-examination.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Richterova, Mr. Stewart invites you to make the
13 link with the annex to the indictment where religious sites are
14 specifically mentioned. I don't know whether it's a question for the
15 witness, as a matter of fact. I don't know to what extent he's aware of
16 the annexes to the indictment. But perhaps you could express yourself on
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: If -- if not, we'll have to conclude on the basis of
20 the evidence to what extent the report covers the specific sites mentioned
21 in the annex to the indictment. But if you could give us some clue,
22 Ms. Richterova, or if the witness may have consulted that list. I don't
23 know whether you gave it to him.
24 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, Your Honour. If I may.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. TIEGER: I think the Court's suggestion is probably at this
2 point the most expeditious way of moving forward, and that is to draw its
3 conclusions by measuring the testimony against the schedule itself.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your answer is do the job yourself. We can do
5 that, yes.
6 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it's not that easy --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
8 MR. STEWART: -- if I may suggest. Well, only for this reason,
9 Your Honour, that the descriptions in the -- in the indictment are very
10 bare. They -- in some cases they may refer to perhaps -- Your Honour, as
11 far as necessary, I am proposing to go to one municipality and explore
12 this because you simply get: "Mosque in Doboj," for example, "Mosque in
13 Doboj," and they're just simply numbered, and nobody can tell from the
14 indictment which mosque is being talked about.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Well, the invitation for the -- for the
16 Prosecution has been there. It goes as it goes.
17 I've got, however, one question before I would turn to you again,
18 Mr. Stewart, and to allow you to cross-examine the witness, and that's the
19 following matter: On page 11 of the report, you already situate in time
20 the destruction which, of course, is now further elaborated in your -- in
21 the statistical addendum. On what basis exactly - because that was a
22 question that came already into my mind when reading the report - on what
23 basis exactly did you conclude that damage was done in 1992? Was that a
24 mixture of the photographs you were talking about and the information
25 given to you by -- by the local people or -- could you please be a bit
1 more precise on the sources you used when reaching this conclusion.
2 THE WITNESS: Gladly, Your Honour. If you will look at the
3 database entries, you will see that generally the date is sourced either
4 to the informant statement. The informant in most cases was a local
5 clergyman, and I usually tried to indicate if that local clergyman had
6 been present in the area when the destruction happened.
7 In some other cases, the information came from other sources,
8 such as photographs taken during the war in a few instances. Sometimes
9 published reports. I usually tried to indicate where it came from.
10 I don't think in most cases it's a matter of dispute. The only
11 thing that is sometimes hard to pin down is when the damage was done over
12 a period of time in repeat intervals. First the building was vandalised
13 or shot up. Next the minaret was blown up. And finally, the building was
14 razed. This can take place over a period of time, and then it is hard to
15 say the building was damaged and destroyed in one year, because it was
16 really a series of incidents.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
18 Mr. Stewart.
19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart:
21 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, you refer on page 5 of your report to your terms
22 of reference. And those related to what I will call your Milosevic
23 report, didn't they?
24 A. Sir, which page 5 are you --
25 Q. Page 5. It's -- well, I think it's page 5. It says at the
1 bottom: "Bosnia-Herzegovina cultural heritage report, page 5."
2 A. This is the Milosevic report or the Krajisnik?
3 Q. No, we're not -- I mentioned the Milosevic report, but we're not
4 looking at the Milosevic report at all. I -- Ms. Richterova didn't bring
5 you to it, and I'm not going to refer to it unless something unexpected
6 comes up.
7 A. All right. I have the cite.
8 Q. It's the paragraph beginning: "The fieldwork in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina." You have that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Yes. "Which was carried out in July 1992." My point is, first
12 of all, your fieldwork was conducted for the Milosevic report, wasn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you haven't done further fieldwork. You've edited the
15 Milosevic report for the purpose of this case, but it all goes back to the
16 fieldwork that you did for the Milosevic report.
17 A. For the most part. Some documentation was acquired independent
18 of the actual fieldwork. I was able to acquire photographs and other
19 things, other documents, once I was back in Boston, so ...
20 Q. Yes. But just one lot of fieldwork has been done.
21 A. That's really the bulk of it, yes.
22 Q. Well, it's not just the bulk of it. You distinguished documents
23 from fieldwork.
24 A. Yes. Well, let me make it clear. I -- each time I went to
25 Bosnia since the war - I've been there about four or five times - I took
1 pictures and so forth, but the only systematic field work I did going into
2 a number of municipalities was the one in July 2002. And so that accounts
3 for the overwhelming majority of what I did. The major exception is for
4 the Milosevic report, not this one, the photos of Sarajevo, which I took
6 Q. And you -- you record here: "Two and a half weeks of travel in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina documenting sites in 19 municipalities."
8 So -- well, if you worked every day, it's about one municipality a
9 day clearly.
10 A. Yes. In those two and a half weeks, we covered over 4.000
11 kilometres, which is an achievement in a small country.
12 Q. The -- and is -- is it that you -- well, have you ever looked at
13 the indictment in this case and in particular Schedule D to the indictment
14 in the present case?
15 A. Only after I submitted the report. I did not want to be
16 directing my research with the indictment in view. I wanted to be as
17 independent as I could. In any case, the Milosevic research was done
18 before I knew that I would be submitting a report for the Krajisnik case.
19 Q. And the -- the cutting-down of the 19 municipalities which were
20 considered in writing in the Milosevic report to 11 in the -- the
21 Krajisnik report, you were steered towards the cutting-down to those 11 by
22 the Prosecution.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The -- and well, just --
25 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, by comment, so everybody sees
1 where we are - I don't think there's any dispute about that - the 11
2 municipalities we have now listed are listed to pages 6 to 7 of the
3 report. May I simply observe that it seems a legitimate observation to
4 make that number 1, Banja Luka, does not appear in Schedule D to the
5 indictment. So the other 10 do, so 10 of the 11 coincide with
6 municipalities in Schedule D. And, again, Your Honour, I think it's a
7 legitimate comment to make so that there's an understanding of where we
8 are that there being 29 municipalities mentioned in Schedule D, it follows
9 that 19 --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. STEWART: -- of them are not specifically considered in
12 Mr. Riedlmayer's report.
13 Q. The -- you refer to the OTP setting the terms of reference for
14 the mission. Were those terms of reference provided to you in writing?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. In what form? A letter or ...?
17 A. A contract.
18 Q. A contract. Do you have a copy of that contract with you?
19 A. Not with me, but I'm sure I can find it for you. Basically what
20 it set out was the municipalities to be covered and the time range to be
21 covered, and then technical matters about -- by when the report was
22 supposed to be produced.
23 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I would invite -- we're not obviously
24 concerned about his daily fees and per diem costs, as much he might be.
25 The -- but, Your Honour, I would invite the -- the bit of the contract
1 which sets out the -- the terms of reference --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. STEWART: -- as opposed to his own possible conditions to be
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would it be -- would access to that part of
6 the contract be sufficient at this time? Because to tender that in
7 evidence, if it doesn't give any --
8 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honours, certainly.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps during the next break --
10 MR. STEWART: Yes.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- perhaps, Ms. Richterova --
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes, we will provide the Defence with the
13 relevant part.
14 MR. STEWART: That's perfectly satisfactory, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: And then we'll see whether there's any need to look
16 at it.
17 MR. STEWART: Yes, indeed.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 MR. STEWART:
20 Q. The -- anyway, you've had the terms of reference as you've
21 summarised them here. And on the previous page, the foot of page 4, last
22 two lines, you say: "The assignment was to document damage to cultural
23 and religious sites of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat Roman Catholic
24 communities in at least" -- and then a number of municipalities we've
25 dealt with.
1 And then further down on page 5, immediately under the heading
2 1.2 you say: "The goal of the survey was to document cases of the
3 deliberate destruction of cultural and religious heritage of the Bosnian
4 Muslim and Bosnian Croat communities." So more specifically --
5 A. What I meant by "deliberate" is I was trying to exclude buildings
6 that had been, you know, damaged in floods or had fallen down from
7 disrepair and so forth.
8 Q. So "deliberate" there is perhaps, then, in the light of the
9 answer you've just given, that could be correctly -- well, I'm trying to
10 think of the appropriate phase. Certainly -- certainly not accidental.
11 A. Exactly.
12 Q. But not simply wear and tear.
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. Excluding wear and tear, excluding any accidental lightning
15 strike or whatever.
16 A. Well, may I clarify this for a moment. There were a number of
17 buildings where this was a -- an issue in that during the communist period
18 houses of worship were not maintained. The authorities tended to withhold
19 permits. And so a lot of houses of worship were in very bad repair. In
20 the last years of communist rule, these restrictions were relaxed and
21 there was a great deal of new construction on the eve of the war. In the
22 process, a lot of the old buildings were simply abandoned. And I had to
23 take great care not to confuse wartime destruction with this kind of
25 Q. And that presumably is rather a difficult distinction to draw
1 when you get near to the borderline.
2 A. Well, the way I tried to do that is whenever possible to get
3 pictures as close to the outbreak of the war as possible, to rule out
4 buildings that, for example, had been replaced a year or two before the
5 war. In addition, I -- I looked for published reports; for example,
6 journalists travelling through the area, seeing a building, reporting on
8 Q. On page 9 of your report - and you're dealing there with damage
9 to Islamic architectural heritage - the second paragraph under that
10 heading you say: "The survey has documented 120 mosques in the
11 municipalities covered in this report. The great majority of them located
12 in territory seized and held by Bosnian Serb forces during the period of
13 the indictment."
14 Mr. Riedlmayer, I -- you -- you were reliant upon -- you are and
15 were reliant upon somebody else to provide you with information as to
16 which territory was seized and held by Bosnian Serb forces during the
17 period of the indictment; correct?
18 A. I'm reliant upon a great deal of published material on the
19 history of the war, including extremely detailed maps that have been
20 produced on which parts of the territory were under whose control at what
22 Q. But so are you saying that it was part of -- of your research and
23 your work in the preparation of this report, then, to identify which
24 territories were seized and held by Bosnian Serb forces?
25 A. Absolutely. I can give you an example, sir. Doboj municipality
1 was never under the exclusive control of Bosnian Serb forces and the front
2 lines shifted a good deal, and I took great care to match up the alleged
3 time of destruction with who was controlling the territory.
4 On the other hand, it was usually fairly easy to see from the
5 type of damage what caused the damage. For example, if a building was
6 damaged by shelling and you could see great holes in the wall and shrapnel
7 and shell impacts, this generally happened in places close to the front
8 line. In other places where there was no fighting, the more common
9 techniques were things like mining of a building or arson. And you
10 generally did not see shell impacts.
11 So in places like the suburbs of Brcko, for example, which was on
12 the Posavina Corridor and where there was a great deal of fighting, there
13 were a number of houses of worship which had been very badly destroyed at
14 long range, by appearances.
15 Q. So is it this, that in relation to -- well, originally it would
16 have been the 19 municipalities, but now the 11, that you have done a
17 substantial amount of work to identify, (a), what territories were held by
18 Bosnian Serb forces; and, (b), where the front line was at various
19 critical periods?
20 A. Yes. Just to make it clear, this is -- I'm not a military
21 researcher, but I do work at Harvard, which has a very good library, and
22 there are reports published by various sources. For example, a
23 four-volume military study of the Bosnian war by the US government. There
24 are a number of substantial books published. And all of these come with
25 maps. So it -- it wasn't as hard as it sounds.
1 Q. The -- your report, of course, has an appendix 2, list of
2 documents submitted. Do you anywhere produce a list of sources which
3 includes the material which you've just referred to?
4 A. No. That is not included. I thought that was more or less part
5 of general background knowledge. In -- in any case, it's not as
6 contentious an issue as it might seem because, in fact, the front lines
7 after the first year of the war did not shift a great deal.
8 Q. At the foot of page 9, you say: "Unfinished houses of worship."
9 This is the last paragraph of page 9: "Unfinished houses of worship of
10 the non-Serb community seem to have been frequent targets of vandalism and
11 looting of building materials during the war but were rarely destroyed.
12 This odd selectivity suggests that those involved in tearing down mosques
13 and activity that required some advanced organisation of planning may have
14 been working from prepared lists."
15 What -- Mr. Riedlmayer, what is the particular oddity that you
16 identify there?
17 A. The -- the oddity is the following: If you have read carefully
18 the parts of the report that talk about degrees of damage, the buildings
19 that were lightly damaged - and you saw my various damage categories - the
20 buildings that were lightly damaged tended to fall into two categories:
21 Either they were buildings that were outside of Bosnian-held -- Bosnian
22 Serb-held territory and had been hit by long-range shelling and not very
23 accurately; or if they were in Bosnian Serb-held territory, almost
24 invariably these were buildings that not had been -- that had not yet been
25 officially dedicated. It was very odd because you would expect that if
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 this was a random pattern, there wouldn't be such a neat categorisation.
2 And let me point out, I'm -- I'm not talking about buildings that
3 are mere foundations. These were buildings that were substantially
4 complete. And then you go there and you see, you know, the only damage is
5 bricks have been stolen, roof tiles have been stripped off and the like.
6 And then 100 metres down the road is the old mosque and it has been very
7 substantially wrecked with explosives or even with heavy equipment
8 knocking it down.
9 And what I'm suggesting is a common-sense explanation, namely,
10 that to put such a house of worship into operation, you require certain
11 permits. These permits are centrally filed. And it is conceivable, to my
12 mind, that it is relatively a straightforward matter to get a list of
13 registered houses of worship on which these unfinished buildings would not
14 yet figure.
15 Q. These unfinished buildings though that you -- you say that - I'll
16 paraphrase - it shouldn't be assumed that they are simply foundations.
17 But they would have involved a whole range of buildings from those that
18 were -- were pretty much at the beginning foundation stages to those that
19 were in a more advanced state of construction.
20 A. Well, with respect to the Krajisnik case actually, I can't think
21 of a single building that would have fallen into the "just foundation
22 category." I'm talking about buildings that basically had a roof and
23 walls but perhaps the minaret hadn't been built yet. In some cases, the
24 local inhabitants told me they had already started to use them for
25 overflow prayer on major holidays. Just on the eve of the war was one of
1 the major Muslim holidays and some people anticipated the opening by using
2 these buildings.
3 So, in effect, these were recognisable as houses of worship.
4 Nevertheless, they had not entered the officially registered category.
5 And in those areas, these were the only ones left effectively standing.
6 Q. Could we look at -- I don't know what form you have this material
7 in exactly, Mr. -- Mr. Riedlmayer, but the --
8 A. With --
9 Q. -- the appendices -- I think that's what they're described at.
10 But the various photographs and --
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. -- and notes. Do you have those with you?
13 A. Your Honour, I have my laptop here with a database on it. May I
14 consult it to answer counsel's questions?
15 MR. STEWART: Well, I would say have no objection, Your Honour,
16 whatever to that.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would there be any possibility to have it on the
18 screens for the -- I've got a CD-ROM. The problem is that it's split up
19 in -- or isolated. And, therefore, Dr. Riedlmayer, there's no problem in
20 you consulting it, but, of course, we'd like to follow you, and we're
21 trying to find out how this could be technically done.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Prosecution has the material on Sanction,
24 is that it?
25 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, we have a CD with all these
1 documents --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay.
3 MS. RICHTEROVA: However, I want to point one thing: That our
4 copy is with ERN numbers, and Mr. Riedlmayer's is logically without ERN
5 numbers. So it will be probably difficult to -- to find the relative --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I saw that on your CD-ROM they were split up
7 in two series.
8 MS. RICHTEROVA: Yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And all of them having a -- I think it was a type of
10 GPH numbering, something like that. But I don't know whether
11 Dr. Riedlmayer is aware of how you stored this so that we could find it.
12 MS. RICHTEROVA: No. He -- he saw it. But his way to search is
13 easier than other way to search.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Let's, then,-- let's then allow
15 Dr. Riedlmayer to do it this way: Is there any way -- because Dr.
16 Riedlmayer has stated in his report under what database programme he -- he
17 created his database. I'm not, as far as I'm aware of, not in the
18 possession of a copy of this programme, so I could not use the database in
19 a similar way, which of course would be very helpful. For example, if Dr.
20 Riedlmayer says: In Banja Luka this and this happened. I couldn't go
21 through all the 177 or what is it to find for Banja Luka. Whereas, if I
22 could have access to the database in its original form, it would be very
23 easier to verify the conclusions.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: We have one copy of the original. However, what
25 I learned is there is only one computer -- yeah, there is only one
1 computer in the building which has this programme. The -- the name of the
2 programme is Filemaker PRO.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And usually -- usually if you install the
4 programme on another computer, that other computer could then deal with it
5 as well. It's usually not a matter of hardware but a matter of software.
6 MS. RICHTEROVA: It's a matter of having a licence.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. Okay. Now we are back to what the real
8 problem is, that -- no test copies available of this programme? Sometimes
9 that helps you out for one or two months.
10 THE WITNESS: There are.
11 JUDGE ORIE: There are? You see --
12 THE WITNESS: They do expire after a set amount of time.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, then at least during the time you can
14 use it.
15 MR. STEWART: You just have to work fast. That's all.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Dr. Riedlmayer, I'm afraid we can't resolve
17 the problem right away, and therefore you are allowed to consult your
18 laptop if Mr. Stewart puts questions to you.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. If I could ask you to wait one second.
21 JUDGE ORIE: So that it's -- yes, please proceed, Mr. Stewart.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 MR. STEWART:
24 Q. Sir, what I -- what I wanted to look at was -- was Doboj. That
25 presumably is not too difficult for you, Mr. Riedlmayer, to track down.
1 A. No, not at all. I just have to bring up a database.
2 Yes, I have it. And so what in particular with respect to Doboj?
3 Q. Well, it's -- for anybody else's reference, the ERN number is
5 A. You're talking about the town of Doboj?
6 Q. Yes. It's -- Mr. Riedlmayer, may I simply ask you as a practical
7 matter: Are you going to search for these items or -- or can you readily
8 find them if I give you a -- an indication of --
9 A. If you just tell me what you -- what you want, I can find them
10 very quickly.
11 Q. Yes, all right. This one is -- it says: "District Doboj. Town
12 Bukovac. Construction twentieth century." It's a Catholic church.
13 A. V-u-k ...?
14 Q. B-u-k-o-v-a-c.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, if you would happen to have the page
16 number of the filing, because that's how I have it in front of me at this
18 MR. STEWART: Of the filing, Your Honour?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, handwritten in the top right-hand corner but --
20 MR. STEWART: But -- the only number I have, Your Honour, on my
21 copy is the one I gave; 01181159.
22 MS. RICHTEROVA: Your Honour, it is on the screen at this moment.
23 We managed to find it on our CD.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's ...
25 THE WITNESS: And I have it too.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. So everyone can look at it.
2 MR. STEWART: Well, they can look at it. They just can't read
4 A. Okay. It's the Roman Catholic Parish Church of St. George?
5 Q. That's the very same, Mr. Riedlmayer.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And I --
8 JUDGE ORIE: If there's a possibility to zoom in. I don't know
9 whether that's possible. It's not. Okay.
10 MR. STEWART: If it's not, Your Honour, then it doesn't help Your
11 Honours very much, does it?
12 THE WITNESS: Would you like me to read out loud what it says?
13 JUDGE ORIE: We can zoom in, as I see. Yes.
14 MR. STEWART: Yes, we can move in.
15 Q. Mr. Riedlmayer, could I just ask you - because I'm trying to use
16 this opportunity to sort something out at least - are you able also to
17 find a Catholic church, again, Doboj. The town is -- well, is it Cer,
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Cer. Are you able to find that?
21 A. Yes, I found it right away.
22 Q. Yes. That's Roman Catholic Parish Church of Christ the King.
23 A. Mm-hm.
24 Q. The reason -- would one of other of these, would they both be
25 described as being in the town of Doboj or ...?
1 A. No, no, they're both in the municipality of Doboj. They're both
2 in villages.
3 Q. They're not in the town, then.
4 A. They're not in the town. They -- the town of Doboj has only a
5 single Roman Catholic church, and I have quite extensive entry upon -- on
7 Q. Well, let's -- let's just deal with the one -- we'll come to that
8 in a moment, then. Let's just deal with the one that I asked you about
9 first, then, which was the Roman Catholic Parish Church of St. George.
10 A. The Bukovac one.
11 Q. The Bukovac one. And your notes under damage -- and this is your
12 notes, isn't it: "Church burnt out. Roof collapsed" and so on.
13 According to local Catholic church authorities, the Bukovac parish church
14 was burnt by Serb forces in 1992 and then the sources of information you
15 give, July 2002, based on information and photos from the Roman Catholic
16 ordinariat, and the photos include the photos that --
17 A. In the book.
18 Q. -- you display --
19 A. That's correct
20 Q. -- here? And then the information from the Roman Catholic
21 ordinariat you don't recall any specific person; is that --
22 A. Well, if you look in the appendix to my report, I name my
23 sources. In the case of Doboj, I talked to the parish priest in Doboj
24 town, and also I talked with people at the archdiocese in Sarajevo who
25 showed me additional photos.
1 The book, this is -- this is quoted from -- was published by the
2 Catholic Church authorities in 1997 to document damage to their religious
3 properties during the war.
4 Q. And then in the other one I mentioned, the Roman Catholic parish
5 church of Christ the King. The number I have there is 01181162.
6 A. The one in Cer, yes.
7 Q. Yes, the one in Cer. The source of information there is -- it's
8 just you that's noted as source of information.
9 A. Where it's noted as just me, that means that this was a place I
10 personally visited. And as you can see, I was the one who took the top
11 photo, which shows the rubble of the church and the cross from the top of
12 the church collapsed in the rubble. I also talked to the local parish
13 church -- parish priest there, who was ...
14 Q. And he's identified as an informant and he gives you --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So you're -- here you are, just to get it -- get it straight,
17 you -- you are dependent on that specific information from --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- him.
20 A. I'm simply reporting the information and giving my source with...
21 The parish priest, although, I didn't go into detail here,
22 said -- told me - he was a young man - that he was present when the
23 village was overrun, so ...
24 Q. And which the indictment refers to "Catholic church in the town
25 of Doboj." Which -- which would that be?
1 A. If you look under "town," as opposed to "municipality" -- I will
2 get there in a second. Hold on, sir.
3 The parish church in the town of Doboj is the Roman Catholic
4 Parish Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
5 Q. Oh, yes, that's 01181177.
6 A. And there, as you can see, I had a long interview with the parish
7 priest, who also supplied me with the pre-destruction photos.
8 Q. So in that case, the information was a burning-down in May 1992
9 and then the ruins being mined --
10 A. In 1993.
11 Q. -- in 1993.
12 A. Yes. This is precisely what I was referring to in my earlier
13 comments about how some buildings were destroyed in stages.
14 Q. In this particular case, we don't see a photograph which
15 indicates the state of this church between May 1992 and 1993, do we?
16 A. No. I'm simply relying on the statement of the informant, who --
17 who says that it was burned down.
18 Q. And if we -- can we look at -- it's a mosque this time. It's
19 described as "Grapska mosque."
20 A. Yes, I found it.
21 MS. RICHTEROVA: Can we have the ERN number.
22 MR. STEWART: Yes. It's 01181192.
23 Q. And here your information, you described -- well, you give two
24 source of information. Well, it's yourself, but "based on information and
25 photos from the Islamic community and ICTY photo" -- no, and "and ICTY."
1 When you refer to "and ICTY," what do you mean there by that as a
3 A. Meaning that I have photos from ICTY investigators. And usually
4 if I include the actual photo in the database, I mention that as a source
5 in the captions. And, in fact, the appendix to my report names that as
6 one of the sources.
7 Q. The "Islamic community," is that a general phrase --
8 A. No.
9 Q. -- intended to refer to Muslim residents or --
10 A. No, no. "Islamic community" is a formal term in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is the local association usually based on a
12 municipal basis that refers -- runs the services, the buildings, and the
13 charities of the Muslim community in that area. Unlike the Catholic
14 Church, which is hierarchically organised, the Islamic community is much
15 more akin to congregational churches in that it's very much on the local
17 In almost every community I went to, I was able to talk to these
18 people and ask them, Do you have information? Do you have photographs
19 taken immediately after or even during the war? Do you have people who
20 can guide me to sites? This was very helpful. And, again, it's listed
21 among the sources in my appendix where I discuss the advantages and
22 shortcomings. But no, it's a very specific cite -- thing.
23 In the case of Doboj, I actually talked to the local mufti, who
24 was the administrative head of the local Islamic community. And he gave
25 me several dozen photographs.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Could you go to Foca, the municipality of Foca.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Because, I think to make it clear --
4 A. The --
5 Q. -- there's also a village called Foca in the municipality of
6 Doboj, isn't there?
7 A. Yes. And that's a source of endless confusion.
8 Q. Which I hope we have just cleared up for all time.
9 A. All right. So --
10 Q. I'm talking about Foca municipality.
11 A. Not the town.
12 Q. Well, in fact, town as well, as it happens. I'm looking for the
13 mosque, the Aladza mosque is one way it's described. Is that also the
14 mosque of Hasan Nazir? Is that the same mosque?
15 A. Yes. I tried whenever possible to give every alternate name so
16 in case it comes up in other documents or witness statements, people can
17 identify it as such. Yes.
18 Q. And the number of that one is 01181266. And you describe the
19 damage at that page 2, 66. And this -- would this be the only building
20 which fits the description of Aladza mosque in the town of Foca?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 MR. STEWART: So, Your Honour, that -- that does tie in with 11.1
23 in Schedule D of the indictment, which -- and that is the description
25 Q. You give the -- the damage. And then over the page,
1 under "Informant statements," you say: "The Aladza mosque, among the most
2 beautiful in all of Bosnia, were blown up by Serb extremists in April
3 1992." And your informant there is Mr. Safet Jahic, of the Islamic
4 community and longtime resident of Foca. At this distance of time, do you
5 have any more information --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- as to what extremists were being talked about?
8 A. Okay. Extremists is one of the ways that people have of talking
9 about the people who did violence to them if they want to distinguish the
10 perpetrators from Serbs in general. And so I think Mr. Jahic was trying
11 to be careful not to make an ethnic slur. So he didn't say "Serbs did it"
12 but "Serbs extremists did it." It's ...
13 Q. Well, Mr. Riedlmayer, can we be clear? He did say Serbs did it,
14 didn't he?
15 A. No.
16 Q. He just said it was Serb extremists that did it.
17 A. Yes. The thing is if you say this was done by an ethnic group,
18 you are tarring the entire ethnic group. Whereas, if you say this was
19 done by extremists, you are targeting their political ideology. You're
20 not talking about the ethnic group as a whole.
21 Q. But the distinction here was this, wasn't it, that it's a
22 reference to some --
23 A. To people who -- who blew up a mosque allegedly.
24 Q. Well, we see that. But it's in distinction to, say, JNA forces.
25 A. Presumably.
1 Q. Well, Mr. Riedlmayer, it was you recording this information, and
2 we see in --
3 A. Well --
4 Q. We saw a few moments ago. Excuse me. Just let me finish. A few
5 moments ago, you referred very specifically to shelling, I think it was,
6 by the JNA on a specific date. Here what's being talked about is not JNA,
7 not some specific piece of military activity, but Serb extremists. So
8 it's clear that in the information given to you a -- a real distinction
9 was being drawn between those two situations.
10 A. Well, I would introduce the caveat that you're talking about two
11 different informants. However, it is also a fact that in different parts
12 of Bosnia different force were in action. And, you know, in the case of
13 things like artillery and shelling, one would expect some sort of military
14 or paramilitary forces that have been involved, whereas, in the case of a
15 place being levelled by bulldozer or explosives, it can just as easily
16 have been civilians.
17 Q. Well, you -- Mr. Riedlmayer, you say there are different
18 informants, but there's one recorder, and that's you.
19 A. Yeah.
20 Q. So you -- you have recorded this a couple of years ago. You have
21 recorded this, in this case as "Serb extremists" as opposed to --
22 A. I wrote what the gentleman said.
23 Q. Did you -- when you were interviewing such an informant, then,
24 did you take any steps to explore what he meant, then, by that label,
25 which presumably was translated to you?
1 A. Well, my emphasis really was on, (a), getting a date, which I
2 thought was important; and, (b), trying to figure out was the building
3 destroyed then or was that merely one of its stages. I did not inquire
4 specifically into, you know, who was their commander or what unit did they
5 belong to or whatever. I didn't see that as my role.
6 Q. You were asked about this particular mosque in the course of your
7 evidence in the Milosevic case, and the transcript reference there is
8 23.802. It actually starts at the foot of the previous page, 23.801.
9 It's a very short passage, Mr. Riedlmayer. You won't be handicapped, I
10 think, by not having it in front of you. Your attention was drawn by
11 Mr. Groome, who was examining for the Prosecution, in relation to this
12 particular mosque. And then you were asked: "Can you describe what you
13 found when you visited the site in the course of this study." You
14 said: "The mosque had been completely demolished according to
15 eyewitnesses by explosives I have a series of photographs taken in 1996
16 at my behest by a graduate student and they show explosive damage to the
17 surrounding buildings. It's clear that destruction had been as a result
18 of an explosion." And then you basically --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, you're invited to slow down for the
20 interpreters, especially when you're reading.
21 MR. STEWART: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I'll try and --
22 JUDGE ORIE: For the -- for the transcribers, I should say.
23 MR. STEWART: Yes, I'll try to remember that. Thank you for the
25 Q. Yes, you said: "The mosque had been completely demolished
1 according to eyewitnesses by explosives. I have a series of photographs
2 taken in 1996 at my behest by a graduate student and they show explosive
3 damage to the surrounding buildings. It's clear that the destruction had
4 been the result of an explosion."
5 And then just stopping there, that's consistent, of course, with
6 what you record in the item we've been looking at in your -- attached to
7 your current report or in your database. Though the -- the site was
8 subsequently levelled by bulldozer, as you record. When -- when did that
9 levelling -- well, you say August 1992 it was levelled by bulldozer. So
10 the -- the photographs taken by your graduate student, of course, are --
11 A. Mr. Kello.
12 Q. -- show explosive damage to the surrounding buildings but, of
13 course, by the time he or she --
14 A. I'd say he.
15 Q. You said it was a he, didn't you? Yes, yes. By the time he took
16 those photographs, the levelling by the bulldozer had long been done
18 A. Yes. And as a matter of fact, after I submitted this report,
19 the -- pieces of the mosque were discovered last summer in a mass grave in
20 the river-bed in Foca with many bodies underneath the rubble of this
21 particular mosque. The pieces of mosque were identifiable and they're
22 posted on the website of the Commission of National Monuments of
24 Q. And you were asked in the Milosevic case at page 23.802 at
25 line 14: "And when to the best that you were able to tell was this
1 particular mosque destroyed?"
2 And your answer was: "According to eyewitnesses, the mosque was
3 destroyed in 1992, after the occupation of the town by Bosnian Serb
4 forces." And that's -- then you moved on to another municipality in that
6 So the -- after the occupation of the town by Bosnian Serb
7 forces. You're placing it in time. But it follows from what you've
8 recorded here in your report that you are unable to say whether and, if
9 so, which Bosnian Serb forces properly so-called were responsible for the
10 initial destruction.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And to the extent to which destruction of mosques appears, in
13 your opinion, to have been systematic, you can't say that this particular
14 item was part of any system.
15 A. Could you explain what you mean, sir?
16 Q. Well, you can't say that the people that perpetrated this
17 particular initial destruction of this mosque were operating according to
18 any system or in conjunction with any other people in any system.
19 A. My conclusion about the destruction being systematic is in the
20 main part a conclusion based on what I saw of the pattern of destruction.
21 I certainly don't claim to have copies of orders to destroy mosques or
22 anything of the sort.
23 Q. But in relation -- my question was in relation to this particular
24 mosque. You can't say with any confidence at all that this -- the
25 destruction of this mosque fits into any system at all, can you?
1 A. Yes, I can, sir. The fact that Foca, which is a town that once
2 had 13 mosques, has none left and that of those 13, 11 have been erased
3 from the face of the earth, is -- is clearly an indication of some sort of
4 system at work. The town was not levelled. These particular buildings
5 were singled out. And the destruction, if one can believe the dates,
6 continued over a period of months, so it was not a by-product of a single
8 Q. The destruction of this mosque is -- is entirely consistent with
9 a -- a group of ardent extremists --
10 A. Well, I --
11 Q. -- within the locality going for this particular mosque.
12 A. But it -- one cannot consider this building in isolation. It is
13 within, you know, less than a kilometre of many other similar buildings,
14 mosques and other Islamic monuments, all of which were destroyed within a
15 period of a couple months and most of which were then torn down with, you
16 know, heavy road-moving equipment. And I would argue that both explosives
17 and road-moving equipment are not the kinds of things that can be used in
18 a time of war without some sort of compliance by the local authorities in
19 power. Once maybe yes, but not this many times.
20 Q. In -- in your report at page 13 - it's about eight lines down -
21 you say: "In a number of other cases." Do you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. "In a number of other cases, mosques were reportedly used as
24 detention and torture centres for Muslims and as the scene of killings of
25 Muslim citizens and of Muslim clergymen."
1 Well, we will see, as discussed earlier, your terms of reference.
2 But, Mr. Riedlmayer, this -- this particular comment and this particular
3 point was -- must have been outside the -- the scope of your terms of
4 reference, wasn't it?
5 A. Well, what I did while writing this report was also looked
6 through transcripts of the Tribunal, which after all are posted on the
7 Tribunal's website, and did simple keyword searches for words
8 like "mosque" or "church" and tried to see what witnesses in various
9 trials at the ICTY had to say about particular sites. In the case of the
10 Hadzi Pasha mosque in Brcko, as I recall, there was witness evidence
11 claiming that people were imprisoned and tortured in Hadzi Pasha mosque
12 before it was destroyed.
13 Q. But what was that to do with you in writing this report?
14 A. I was simply trying to get every salient fact about this
15 destruction. I was trying to understand what happened.
16 Q. So how does this tie in with destruction?
17 A. Well, the buildings were singled out. In addition to the actual
18 destruction of the building, there were various symbolic assaults that
19 were connected with it. On the simple and most obvious level, in most
20 places I went to in towns in what is now Republika Srpska, you can
21 identify the site of the former mosque because it's in the middle of town,
22 an empty space, with large overflowing garbage containers all over it. I
23 mean, you know, it's either that or it's full of junk cars. Not the kinds
24 of things that you would expect to see in the centre of a well-kept town.
25 And in some cases, I didn't go out hunting for witnesses. My
1 main impetus was to record physical evidence of destruction. But often I
2 talked to people who would describe having witnessed the actual
3 destruction, and they would say things like, In the municipality of Doboj
4 there was a town called Orasje, a suburb really of Doboj. And this came
5 up actually in the cross-examination with Mr. Milosevic. The witness saw
6 a JNA troop carrier come up into the village. The soldiers went up to the
7 mosque. They came and they strung explosives. And the guy who pushed the
8 explosives lever put on the Imam's fez as he did it. And then when they
9 came down again, he continued wearing it as they exited the village,
10 singing anti-Muslim songs.
11 Now, clearly, given that I was given this information, it was
12 pertinent to record that as well as the simple fact that the mosque had
13 been blown up. I think it goes towards -- it goes some way towards
14 explaining not only how but why it was blown up.
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, during the break I'm going to be shown
16 this -- this other document containing the terms of reference.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STEWART: That might be the right point for the break, Your
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Have you got any idea on how much time you'd
21 still need?
22 MR. STEWART: Not long at all, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Not long.
24 MR. STEWART: Really -- well, 10 minutes or 15 minutes or
25 something like that at the most. I -- as things stand right now.
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll then adjourn until five minutes to 11.00.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, please proceed.
5 MR. STEWART: Your Honour -- Your Honours, Ms. Richterova has
6 kindly obtained and shown to me that document with Mr. Riedlmayer's terms
7 of reference. It's -- it's very concise and it doesn't, in fact, give
8 rise to the need for any questions, Your Honour. In the circumstances, I
9 have no further questions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: No further questions.
11 MR. STEWART: No. I've considered -- well, I've considered it
12 over the break, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, of course.
14 MR. STEWART: And I see no need for any further questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Richterova, is there anything that --
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: There won't be any re-examination.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Since the Bench has also -- the Bench has also no
19 further questions to you, Dr. Riedlmayer, which could be understood as an
20 indication that your report at least has been clear. We have no further
21 questions for you. We'd like to thank you very much for coming to
22 The Hague and to testify in this court, and you're excused.
23 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, we're talking about whether
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 the report was in evidence; yes or no. The report is in evidence due to a
2 decision - let me just find it - there is a written decision dated the 8th
3 of December, 2004. No, I'm now making a mistake. It's the 31st of March,
4 2004, in which the Chamber has decided that the -- the reports and the
5 curriculum vitae of, it was at that time, Christian Nielsen and Andras
6 Riedlmayer are admitted into evidence and that also is admitted into
7 evidence the identified excerpts of Riedlmayer's testimony in the
8 Milosevic case, and that Mr. Riedlmayer would be called for
9 cross-examination. That's the decision of the 31st of March, 2004.
10 No numbers have been assigned to that material, and we also
11 receive now some addition material. Madam Registrar.
12 THE REGISTRAR: The report of 2003 will be Prosecution Exhibit
13 P732. The biography will be P732A. The statistical addendum, P732B. And
14 the transcripts of the testimony in case 54 will be P732C.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
16 Mr. Tieger, what would be next? Does the Prosecution have any
17 witness standby to be examined?
18 MR. TIEGER: Your Honour, the Court may be aware of the
19 logistical efforts involved in getting the next witness here. The result
20 of that is that he would be ready to proceed at 12.00. However, I have
21 been advised that Mr. Stewart would not be ready to proceed with
22 cross-examination today, and of course that's the substance of this
23 witness's appearance. I may have that information wrong, but I -- yeah.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. In what way would this influence the schedule
25 this week? Because if finally at the end of the week we would have dealt
1 with the same programme, whether we start today or tomorrow, then of
2 course the Chamber could be more flexible. If, on the other hand, we
3 would end up by the end of this week with witnesses waiting, staying over
4 the weekend, then of course it would be different.
5 Could the parties inform the Chamber about the consequences of a
6 start only tomorrow with the cross-examination of the next witness?
7 MR. TIEGER: Well, it -- starting tomorrow actually fits with the
8 projected schedule, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it would --
10 Mr. Stewart.
11 MR. STEWART: Well, my understanding, Your Honour, was that --
12 that we would get through the scheduled witnesses this week on the basis
13 that this next witness was starting tomorrow.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then there's no need to say that the deadline
15 for closing the Prosecution case stands, and until now I haven't heard,
16 but that the Prosecution is confident that it will finish its case by
17 then. And, of course, these kind of -- these kind of -- of breaks in
18 presenting evidence might have some impact. But I leave it entirely to
19 you, Mr. Tieger, to -- to see whether this would cause you any problem at
20 a later stage.
21 MR. TIEGER: I appreciate that, Your Honour. As I say, the --
22 the projected schedule as discussed last week, if not earlier, was to have
23 this witness begin his testimony tomorrow.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 MR. STEWART: Could I say, Your Honour, the -- we understand the
1 position here, and there is in this area, as in some other areas, a
2 considerable degree of cooperation between Prosecution and Defence.
3 If at any point the Prosecution wish to suggest to us that
4 proceeding the way we have today with finishing a witness relatively early
5 in the day and then not starting the next witness till the next day, if in
6 advance the Prosecution wish at any point to indicate to us that that will
7 have an effect on scheduling and therefore it is particularly important
8 that Witness 2 follows on from Witness 1, then if they inform us about
9 that, then we would have a -- an opportunity, well, either to be ready -
10 for example, this morning to have proceeded straight away with that
11 witness - or alternatively, of course, to say to the Trial Chamber with
12 whatever reasons that we cannot be ready --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
14 MR. STEWART: -- in the circumstances. So we make that -- that
15 offer as to how to proceed from a practical point of view.
16 Your Honour, may I add one more point, which is this:
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 MR. STEWART: That Your Honour has indicated that the Prosecution
19 case should finish by the 22nd of July. We have received indications,
20 sometimes woven into other documents --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Well, the exact position is that it should not
22 finish its case any later than the 22nd of July, which is not exactly the
24 MR. STEWART: As a matter of fact, Your Honour, it is exactly the
25 same. It's not phrased exactly the same; but to say the Prosecution case
1 should finish by the 22nd July does, with respect, Your Honour, mean
2 exactly the same thing. And this was going to be my point, Your Honour --
3 well, it does, Ms. Richterova, who is not English, shakes her head. But,
4 Your Honour, it does mean the same. It was intended to mean the same.
5 And this is my point, Your Honour.
6 The -- by the 22nd July means when, when I use that phrase, on or
7 before 22nd July. That's what the phrase actually means. It may come as
8 news to people in the court, but that's what it means. And that is what I
10 Your Honour, the point of substance here, departing from the
11 linguistics here, the point of substance is that on any footing -- well,
12 what I was going to say is -- before that slight digression was that from
13 time to time in documents it's -- it's mentioned by the Prosecution that
14 they are confident that they will come well within the time allocated to
15 them and therefore it seems they might finish early.
16 Mr. Harmon is to give me as soon as he can conveniently manage
17 information as to how many hours are left of the Prosecution case, and so
18 on. We're in communication about that, and I'm awaiting some information
19 as soon as that can conveniently come.
20 But it's -- it is this, Your Honour: That while reserving the
21 position as to whether it is possible at all for the Defence reasonably,
22 consistently with a fair trial, to attempt to finish the Prosecution case
23 earlier than the 22nd of July is getting beyond impossible, Your Honour.
24 But it is this, that is it -- if it is not essential to finish before the
25 22nd of July, then the request from the Defence is that we do not attempt
1 to compress the remainder of the Prosecution case into an even shorter
2 period; that if there is any spare time, if there are any spare days
3 available as a result of the progress of the Prosecution case between now
4 and the 22nd of July, that the Trial Chamber please should allow those
5 spare days to the Defence, that those days should be then allocated to
6 occasional breaks in the hearing so that we do not try to chop off a week.
7 Because this is a hard enough programme anyway, Your Honour, reserving the
8 position of the Defence as to whether it is not so hard as to be
10 So that is my request, Your Honour, that it is not -- I started
11 by expressing it exactly in terms of "by" meaning on or before the 22nd of
12 July. But I am asking Your Honour that if we see that there is any spare
13 capacity or any spare time available that it should be made available to
14 the Defence in that way.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Your point is on the record, Mr. Stewart.
16 There are, of course, several issues at stake here; that is, whether
17 that -- if any days are left over, whether they should be properly
18 scheduled so that everyone can concentrate on the time available,
19 including the Chamber, of course, who has to deal with other matters as
20 well and not just with this -- with this case.
21 But your point is clearly on the record now, and we'll keep that
22 in mind whenever scheduling is to be considered.
23 If there's no other issue, I still -- yes, Ms. Richterova.
24 MS. RICHTEROVA: I'm sorry. Your Honour, I prepared a list of
25 names which was in the witness statement KRAJ 270 without diacritics.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MS. RICHTEROVA: So we discussed it with Mr. Stewart. And he
3 agreed the way I prepared it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Chamber said whatever way you resolve it,
5 if you agree on it, it's fine, as far as the Chamber is concerned.
6 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, my position is I completely
7 accept the list that Ms. Richterova has given me.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 MR. STEWART: She's checked it, assures me that it's complete.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar, that should get a number I
11 think related to the witness statement to which this one -- this list
12 relates. Perhaps we could provide it with an A number or ...
13 THE REGISTRAR: Does the Prosecution have the exhibit number, the
14 main exhibit number for this witness, please?
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MS. RICHTEROVA: I have to apologise. We do not have the exhibit
17 number with us.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: While Madam Registrar is trying to find the exhibit
20 number to which the list relates, I'll deliver a decision which was still
21 pending since -- well, since quite some time but which I intended to
22 deliver last Friday, when we could find no time to do it.
24 MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: This is a decision concerning the lifting of the
1 confidentiality of excerpts from the testimony of Mr. Mandic.
2 On the 1st and the 2nd December 2004, Mr. Mandic was heard in
3 open session. After his testimony was finished and the witness had left
4 the courtroom, a number of procedural issues were discussed in closed
5 session for reasons of investigative confidentiality and witness security.
6 On the 2nd of December, 2004 the Defence requested that confidentiality be
7 lifted on these private sessions. The Chamber invited the parties to
8 discuss which passages of the record could be made public. And on the
9 27th of April of this year, the parties reported back to the Chamber that
10 the discussion between the parties related to five passages, and the
11 Chamber invited the parties to make further written submissions on the
13 On the 5th of May, the Prosecution sent an e-mail to the Defence
14 and to the Chamber in which it states that the Prosecution is in general
15 opposed to reconsideration of the confidentiality of the record, since
16 such a practice may undermine the very purpose of a closed session, which,
17 according to the Prosecution, is to ensure that the best information
18 reaches the Chamber, uncompromised by concerns that the session may not
19 finally be confidential. The Prosecution nevertheless offered for reasons
20 of efficiency to lift the confidentiality on the private session except
21 for five passages. For each of these passages, the Prosecution explained
22 why confidentiality should not be lifted.
23 The Defence responded by e-mail on the 7th of May. The Defence
24 does not share the view that retrospective examination of the record
25 should not take place. The Defence argues that the right to a public
1 trial entails that the record should be examined after the hearing, since
2 the Chamber is then better equipped to make its decisions -- its decision
3 on the question of confidentiality. According to the Defence, the
4 original reasons for granting a closed session should be taken into
5 account only insofar as they still apply and are not outweighed by other
6 matters. The Defence considers it irrelevant that the original decision
7 was well founded at the time, since that's no longer the issue. Moreover,
8 the Defence disagrees with the Prosecution's specific arguments relating
9 to the five passages under discussion.
10 There is wide acceptance of the proposition that a criminal trial
11 must be held in public. Therefore, the standards for granting measures
12 infringing upon the basic principle are high. However, once the Chamber,
13 prior to hearing a witness, decides that the criteria for granting
14 protective measures have been met, the starting point should be that those
15 measures are actually upheld.
16 However, this does not preclude the Defence from later
17 identifying passages in the report and requesting that confidentiality be
18 lifted in relation to them if those passages do not undermine the purpose
19 which moved the Chamber to grant the measures in the first place. If -
20 and only if - that condition is met, these passages may be public -- may
21 be made public. The Chamber does not see why - and again, under these
22 conditions - this compromises the process of delivering the best
23 information to the Chamber. The Chamber therefore does not oppose a form
24 of retrospective evaluation as such if a party for good reasons considers
25 the matter important enough to undertake that evaluation.
1 Now I come to the facts of the present case. I recall that the
2 proceedings turned into closed session not as a result of a decision that
3 closed session was required but in order to hear arguments about the need
4 for closed session. In the course of the closed session, the Chamber
5 decided, as further explained below, that part of that session would
6 remain closed. However, the Chamber never gave a decision on whether the
7 rest of the session should also remain closed. Therefore, given that this
8 application by the Defence is not a request to review an earlier
9 considered decision of the Chamber, the Chamber's starting point in
10 relation to the status of the transcript is that it should be made public
11 unless there is a reason to maintain the closed session status of the
13 As I have already said, the Prosecution and the Defence are in
14 dispute about only five portions of that closed session. The Chamber has
15 examined the remaining portions of the closed session and finds that they
16 may be safely released to the public.
17 The Chamber will now assess whether in relation to the five
18 relevant passages there are reasons to continue to maintain
20 The first item runs from transcript page 9142, line 19, to
21 page 9149, line 12.
22 This part of the record relates the discussion of whether or not
23 Mr. Mandic should be instructed not to speak to anyone about the testimony
24 he has just given since he may still be called back for cross-examination.
25 The Prosecution requested to be allowed to argue in closed session firstly
1 why these instructions should not be given to this particular witness and,
2 secondly, why this argument should be given in closed session. During the
3 closed session, having heard the arguments of the Prosecution and the
4 Defence, the Chamber rendered a decision stating that this part of the
5 record should not be made public. That oral decision can be found on
6 transcript page 9146, line 13 to 16. Since the Chamber has already given
7 a considered decision on the confidentiality of that passage of the
8 record, it sees no reason to reopen that issue.
9 That passage shall therefore remain confidential.
10 The remaining passages about which, as I said earlier, no
11 considered decision has yet been given, all revolve around the same
12 disagreement between the Prosecutor and the Defence and will therefore be
13 dealt with at the same time.
14 The first excerpt runs from page 9158, line 16, to page 9159,
15 line 10. The next runs from page 9160, line 3 to line 16. The next runs
16 from page 9161, line 15, to page 9162, line 14. And the last runs from
17 page 9168, line 20, to page 9170, line 3.
18 The Chamber considers that, given the high-level position of
19 Mr. Mandic and the inside knowledge that goes with that kind of position,
20 the disclosure of the content of the discussions in these passages may
21 pose a real threat to the safety of Mr. Mandic. The fact that this danger
22 has not yet materialised is no reason to disclose the records at this
23 stage, since it may very well be that the threat has not materialised
24 because these passages were not disclosed.
25 These passages shall remain confidential therefore.
1 And this concludes the Chamber's decision on the matter of the
2 confidentiality of Mr. Mandic's private session.
3 Madam Registrar, the list.
4 THE REGISTRAR: The list of the added diacritics will be
5 Prosecution Exhibit P724A, under seal.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
7 Is there any other issue to be raised at this point?
8 MR. STEWART: Well, there is, Your Honour. It's a, well,
9 relatively minor matter. Your Honour, there were times last week in the
10 course of evidence when I wonder whether Mr. Krajisnik should have had his
11 dentist rather than his lawyer in court. But just to remind --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. STEWART: -- ourselves, Your Honour, that Mr. Krajisnik has a
14 dental appointment tomorrow and Thursday -- or dental appointments.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stewart, the matter will be finalised this
19 afternoon, but do you happen to have information on at what time
20 Mr. Krajisnik could arrive tomorrow, assuming that the dentist will not
21 take more time than expected?
22 MR. STEWART: Well, I've got a pretty good idea, but I could
23 double-check with Mr. Krajisnik from his experience of being brought
24 backwards and forwards, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Also in exceptional circumstances because, of
1 course, this is not in the normal schedule where accused are --
2 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour --
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you can get any further information. Yes.
4 MR. STEWART: I've got an idea of how long it takes. But I'll
5 just check that, Your Honour.
6 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, the -- I understand the
9 appointment is likely to take one hour, and I'm -- I'm told by
10 Mr. Krajisnik - and that fits my impression - that from the point where he
11 is -- he is picked up within the -- the unit to come to court to being in
12 the building here is -- is usually no more than about 20 minutes, 15, 20
13 minutes, something like that.
14 So -- so, Your Honour, well, may I respectfully suggest, Your
15 Honour, that if we're looking at a -- a dental appointment of one hour,
16 that perhaps it might be sensible to build in 15 minutes or so on that and
17 then make an allowance. So would Your Honours consider that something
18 like 9.45 or 10.00 or something would be suitable?
19 JUDGE ORIE: We have not finally made up our mind. The two
20 options -- well, the one was have a late start and the other one is to sit
21 in the afternoon, to see if there's any --
22 MR. STEWART: No, Your Honour. The Defence has no particular
23 problem. We're in Your Honours' hands on that.
24 JUDGE ORIE: That would cause no problems as far as the
25 Prosecution is concerned?
1 MR. TIEGER: None I'm aware of, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We'll make the final inquiries and let the
3 parties know as soon as possible. Of course we'll try to give you the
4 solution by 2.00. That also means that -- I could say that if there are
5 no other matters, that we'll adjourn but not until when.
6 The parties will be informed about it, whether it will be
7 tomorrow morning or tomorrow in the afternoon.
8 We are adjourned.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.34 a.m.,
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of
11 May, 2005, sine die