1 Monday, 30
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.30 a.m.
5 JUDGE HUNT: Call the case, please.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The case number IT-97-25-T,
7 the Prosecutor versus Milorad Krnojelac.
8 JUDGE HUNT: Appearances, please. The Prosecution?
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: The Prosecution is represented by Ms. Kuo,
10 Mr. Smith, Ms. Butler, and my name is Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
12 For the Prosecution -- I'm sorry, for the Defence?
13 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of the
14 accused Milorad Krnojelac is represented by Miroslav Vasic and Mihajlo
15 Bakrac, lawyers.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.
17 Mr. Krnojelac, are you able to hear the proceedings in a language
18 which you understand?
19 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, I can.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. I won't ask you that each
21 morning, but if there's any problem that you have, please don't hesitate
22 to let us know. Yes, sit down, please.
23 Now, there's a motion from the Prosecution here --
24 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thank you.
25 JUDGE HUNT: -- Mr. Bakrac, I assume that there's no objection to
1 that motion being granted, is there?
2 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. No, of course not.
3 We do not have any objection.
4 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE HUNT: Well, the Trial Chamber grants the motion dated the
7 27th of October to withdraw the Article 2 counts.
8 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, what do you suggest we do? File a fresh
9 indictment, or is it sufficient simply to put the -- put a red line
10 through those counts upon which the Prosecution is no longer relying?
11 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we can leave the indictment just as
12 it is, and just drop the counts; that is, we will not speak about the
13 Counts 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, and 17, because the events, as such, remain. So
14 there is no change in, actually, the events.
15 JUDGE HUNT: It may be that on the original we might put a red
16 line through those particular counts. So it doesn't put it through the
17 facts that are stated, merely the counts to show there's no accumulation
18 of charges on the same facts.
19 Are you ready now to proceed?
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Thank you very much.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, my colleague, Peggy Kuo, and I
23 will now present to you the Prosecution case against the accused Milorad
24 Krnojelac. We do not intend to simply restate the contents of our
25 pre-trial brief. We intend instead to outline the framework of our case
1 and highlight some of the contested matters and the material evidence that
2 the Prosecution's witnesses will give. At the end of the trial, we submit
3 that this evidence will leave no doubt in your minds as to the guilt of
4 the accused.
5 Your Honours, during the last couple of months, this Trial Chamber
6 has heard a case in which events in Foca have been presented. It was a
7 trial closely observed by the public dealing with the crimes against the
8 Muslim women and girls in Foca.
9 The case against the accused Milorad Krnojelac is a case about
10 what happened at the same time, in the same place, to the male non-Serb
11 population. The rape camps in Eastern Bosnia, whose uncovering in 1992
12 shocked the world, were in the focus of the world public ever since, while
13 the fate of the male non-Serb population of Foca seems to be forgotten.
14 For the Prosecution, the suffering of the male detainees in Foca
15 was always as important as the suffering of the female, because it is
16 simply the other side of the same brutal policy. The Serb policy of
17 ethnic cleansing throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina caused both female and
18 male civilians to suffer. The assaults on the male and female non-Serb
19 population in Foca and other municipalities are the two faces of the same
20 campaign of ethnic cleansing designed by the Serb leadership to achieve an
21 ethnically pure Serb environment.
22 In this case the Prosecution will show that as part of this
23 campaign, the Muslim and Croat men locked up in the KP Dom prison camp
24 endured unlawful confinement and extreme abuse over prolonged periods of
25 up to two and a half years. They were arrested and detained, then
1 brutalised and dehumanised by the KP Dom prison staff, including this
2 accused here, and soldiers allowed into the prison camp for this purpose.
3 Let me again draw a parallel to the case against the accused
4 Kunarac/Kovac/Vukovic. In that particular case, the perpetrators were at
5 the end of the chain of command, those who did the dirty job themselves,
6 who physically assaulted their victims directly. In the case against the
7 accused Milorad Krnojelac, you will meet the manager behind the
8 evil-doers, the one who does not make his hands dirty. But there can be
9 no doubt that without this manager in the KP Dom the crimes would not have
10 happened as they happened.
11 The victims in this case will testify about what happened to
12 them. They will identify this accused as being among those running the
13 camp. The accused before you today is only one of the individuals to
14 blame for what happened to the detainees in KP Dom; however, he is the
15 most senior one, the camp commander.
16 The Prosecution's case will largely be proven through the
17 testimony of 72 witnesses. More than 50 of them are former detainees who
18 will give compelling accounts of what happened to them personally and to
19 other detainees who disappeared from the camp and were never seen or heard
20 from again. In addition, you will hear relatives of the murdered
21 detainees who will testify about their hopeless and fruitless efforts to
22 locate their beloved ones and the devastating consequences of their
24 Let me now address a few factual issues of this case.
25 The Defence contests that the offences were linked to an armed
1 conflict and were part of a widespread and systematic attack on the
2 non-Serb civilian population.
3 Everyone agrees that there was an armed conflict in Bosnia and
4 Herzegovina at that time, and the origins of that armed conflict are
5 largely irrelevant to this case. Given the disagreement between the
6 Defence and the Prosecution of the link between this armed conflict and
7 the consequences -- the occurrences in KP Dom, it is to a certain extent
8 necessary to demonstrate that these crimes occurred within the context of
9 an armed conflict and were part of a widespread or systematic attack on
10 the non-Serb population in the area.
11 Allow me, therefore, to speak about the context of the crimes
12 charged first.
13 First, I would like to show you where Foca is situated. Can we
14 have on the ELMO the map of Foca -- of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Prior to
15 the 7th of April, 1992, the town of Foca was an ethnically mixed community
16 located on the banks of the Drina River - would you please point out Foca
17 - on the banks of the Drina River in south-eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina.
18 Would you now show a wider scale. You can see that it is close to the
19 Montenegrin border. That's the green line. And on the same map you can
20 also see Gorazde about Foca, yet you can see Gacko below, and you can see
21 Kalinovik. These are actually the locations we will talk about in this
22 trial. Thank you.
23 The inhabitants of Foca appeared to coexist in relatively peaceful
24 harmony until 1990, when various nationalist political parties began
25 fermenting ethnic tension.
1 I will not only show you the map of where Foca was situated, but I
2 will also show you what Foca looked like. Can we now have the photo?
3 This is the panorama of Foca. You can see how this town is stretched
4 along the Drina River and the Cehotina River. Thank you.
5 The population of Foca prior to 7 April 1992, the day of the
6 outbreak of the war in Foca, was predominantly Muslim. In fact, the
7 evidence will disclose that the municipality of Foca had a pre-war
8 population of 40,513 inhabitants, of whom 51.6 per cent were Muslims.
9 We expect the evidence to show that following the disintegration
10 of the former Yugoslavia and the emergence of new states in April 1992, an
11 armed conflict took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the area of
12 Foca city and municipality and its bordering municipalities of Gorazde,
13 Kalinovik, and Gacko. This armed conflict existed throughout the time
14 relevant to the indictment. The armed conflict in Foca cannot be seen as
15 a mere local armed conflict, isolated from the overall armed conflict in
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina. The evidence will show that the parties to this
17 armed conflict were the army of the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina
18 on one side, and on the other side the Bosnian Serb forces, later called
19 VRS, that means army of Republika Srpska, from mid-May onwards.
20 The political and military takeover of the municipality of Foca by
21 the Serb forces started with the first military actions in the town of
22 Foca on 7 April 1992 and was complete by 16 or 17 April 1992. The
23 surrounding villages continued to be attacked until mid-July 1992.
24 After the Serb forces established control over Foca, a widespread
25 and systematic attack on the non-Serb civilian population started
1 including: the arrests of the non-Serb population, especially the Muslim
2 inhabitants in Foca town and municipality; the military attacks on the
3 Muslim villages throughout the municipality with rounding up of civilians;
4 deliberate killing of Muslim civilians; deliberate destruction of Muslim
5 homes and property; deliberate destruction of Muslim sacred sites;
6 prolonged and routine imprisonment and confinement of non-Serbs; imposing
7 restrictive and discriminating measures on the remaining non-Serb
8 population, designed to drive them out of the municipality; depriving the
9 non-Serb population, especially the Muslims, of all means of living and
10 protection and thus creating unbearable living conditions to make them
11 leave the municipality; and finally, deportation and transfer of the
12 remaining non-Serb population.
13 As soon as the Bosnian Serb forces had taken over parts of the
14 city of Foca, military police accompanied by local and non-local soldiers,
15 started arresting non-Serb inhabitants. Until mid-July 1992, they
16 continued to round up and arrest non-Serb villagers from the surrounding
17 villages in the municipality. The Bosnian Serb forces separated men from
18 women and unlawfully confined thousands of non-Serbs in various short- and
19 long-term detention facilities or kept them under constructive house
21 During the military takeover, many civilians were killed, beaten,
22 subjected to sexual assault, or otherwise mistreated. In addition,
23 restrictions were imposed on the non-Serb inhabitants, including
24 restrictions of movement and prohibitions on communicating amongst
25 themselves or with their Serb neighbours. Non-Serbs lost their jobs, were
1 deprived of pension payments, and expelled from their homes.
2 Non-Serb men were primarily detained in the former prison of Foca,
3 the KP Dom, while non-Serb women and children and elderly were detained in
4 houses, apartments, and motels in the town of Foca or in the surrounding
5 villages, or at short- and long-term detention centres, such as Foca High
6 School and Partizan Sports Hall. Many detainees, both men and women, were
7 subjected to humiliating and degrading conditions of life and brutal
8 beatings; the women and girls were also subjected to sexual assaults,
9 including rapes.
10 The attack on the non-Serb population of Foca was not an isolated
11 incident. The evidence will show that similar attacks occurred at the
12 same time throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the municipalities
13 of Kalinovik, Gacko, and Gorazde.
14 The evidence will further show that this attack on the non-Serb
15 population of Foca was part of an organised and planned campaign and
16 policy of the Bosnian Serb authorities to ethnically cleanse the Foca
17 municipality of non-Serbs. This policy of ethnic cleansing was
18 simultaneously implemented in various municipalities throughout
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina, including Gacko and Kalinovik bordering Foca
21 Most of the witnesses you will hear during the trial became
22 personally and directly involved as victims and not as participants in
23 this armed conflict and widespread and systematic attack on the non-Serb
24 population. They will describe to you how they were persecuted because of
25 their ethnicity.
1 So effective was this systematic attack on the non-Serb attack on
2 the non-Serb inhabitants of Foca, and so thorough was the process of
3 ethnic cleansing, that by the end of the war, Foca was almost exclusively
4 composed of Serb residents.
5 The Muslim culture in Foca was wiped out without a trace. I would
6 have liked to show you a photo of the Aladza mosque, a famous symbol of
7 Muslim culture and Bosnia and Herzegovina before the war. But in June
8 1996, when the Prosecution team visited Foca for the first time, the
9 mosque was gone. There were not even ruins left. All I can show you is
10 the place where it was situated in the centre of Foca. The next one,
11 please. You can see it's an empty spot, not even ruins, and it's now a
12 symbol for the ruthless destruction of the Muslim people and culture in
14 And I can also show you where the rubble of the mosque was
15 disposed of. I would like now a little video sequence to be played.
16 [Videotape played]
17 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: In the background you can see KP Dom, and
18 this is the rubble in front of KP Dom. It is a dump place, these ruins of
19 mosques, not only of the Aladza mosque, but other mosques as well. You
20 see the Drina River. This is all in front of KP Dom, at a distance of
21 about 50, 60 metres. You can see here columns, parts of columns. In the
22 background you see KP Dom, you see columns, and you can see the ornaments
23 from the mosques. Thank you very much. We can stop it here.
24 Indeed, so effective and so thorough was this ethnic cleansing in
25 Foca that the town of Foca was renamed Srbinje during the war, referring
1 to its new entirely Serb composition. And Srbinje means, "Serbian town."
2 The Defence contests that the crimes charged in the indictment
3 occurred in the KP Dom at all. I will briefly show you the photo of the
4 compound, if you switch over to -- you can see here -- you can see here
5 the KP Dom compound as it was, with the main building for the prisoners in
6 the centre of it is -- will you please point out the main building. Yes,
7 the prisoners' quarters. Thank you.
8 Foca KP Dom, a former prison which was turned into a detention
9 facility for non-Serb male detainees, from April 1992 until October 1994.
10 During the time the Prosecutor holds the accused responsible for,
11 that is, April 1992 until August 1993, more than 1.000 Muslim and Croat
12 men from Foca and surrounding villages were arrested and detained at KP
13 Dom based solely, or primarily, on their membership in those ethnic or
14 religious groups. Because of the continuing arrests during the first
15 months, the prison camp was overcrowded with the number of detainees
16 reaching a peak of more than 700 during spring and early summer 1992.
17 Almost all of the detainees were civilians, including mentally
18 handicapped, physically disabled, seriously ill, and very old persons.
19 Among these detainees were intellectuals, journalists, doctors, and
20 patients of the Foca hospital. These detainees were arrested not on the
21 front lines, they were arrested in their homes and in the streets, and the
22 doctors and patients, even in the Foca hospital. These detainees were
23 neither prisoners of war nor criminals. Most of them were never charged
24 or convicted with crimes while in the KP Dom.
25 Throughout the time relevant to the indictment, the detainees
1 suffered inhumane living conditions. They were denied adequate living
2 space and clothing. They were locked in their cells, and after May 1992
3 had no contact with their families. They were provided with insufficient
4 facilities for bedding and personal hygiene. They were fed with
5 starvation rations. In the winter, the detainees had no heating and no
6 extra clothing, nor blankets, although many of them had summer clothes
7 from the time when they were arrested and arrived in the KP Dom. And let
8 me tell you, in winter Foca is a cold area. It's a mountain area, and in
9 this particular winter, the winter of 1992 to 1993, the temperature was
10 very often below 20 minus.
11 Necessary medical treatment was not provided to them. One
12 detainee with an ulcer perforation was even left to die. Any attempts to
13 alleviate their own suffering, such as giving an extra slice of bread to a
14 detainee who was hungry, or trying to make pants from curtains to keep
15 warm, were met with severe punishment. In addition, collective punishment
16 was meted out for the actions of individual detainees.
17 The detainees were subjected to beatings, arbitrary punishment,
18 torture, forced labour, and in some instances even death. Many detainees
19 simply disappeared after being taken away for interrogation or so-called
20 exchanges and were never heard from again.
21 The evidence of the torture, beatings and killings were visible
22 and audible to the other detainees. These other detainees were forced to
23 endure the sounds of their fellow detainees screaming in agony and saw
24 some of them brought back to the cells battered and bloodied and most of
25 them disappear. These detainees were terrorised and lived with the
1 constant fear that they would be next.
2 Detainees were beaten upon their arrival. They were beaten on
3 their way to and from the canteen. They were beaten as punishment for
4 even minor violations of randomly announced prison rules. They were
5 beaten because they were members of the Muslim party SDA. They were
6 beaten for prior political statements. They were beaten to extract
7 information from them. They were beaten in retaliation of Serb losses on
8 the front line. They were beaten for their pre-war actions unrelated to
9 the conflict. And finally, they were sometimes beaten for no apparent
10 reason at all but simply to intimidate and humiliate them.
11 The most egregious acts of beatings, torture, and murder occurred
12 during the summer of 1992.
13 Detainees were taken primarily in the evening from their cells,
14 were beaten and tortured. They were taken to interrogations to the
15 offices on the ground floor of the administration building and beaten and
16 tortured there. And when I refer to beatings, it is not just slapping,
17 it's hitting them with -- so severely with all sorts of objects and
18 brutally kicking them that they were severely injured. In one instance,
19 several Muslim men were shot and killed after such a beating; their bodies
20 were taken away and never seen again.
21 We will hear the details from witnesses who actually became
22 physical victims of these beatings and torture. However, there are only a
23 very few of them. Most of the victims of these atrocities disappeared
24 from KP Dom without a trace.
25 Some of the witnesses observed what happened to their fellow
1 detainees while in the interrogation offices. Most of the witnesses,
2 however, heard rather than saw what happened. They saw the victims being
3 led to the administration building, heard the sound of beatings and
4 screaming and moaning, and saw a few of the victims return to the cells
5 seriously injured.
6 I would like to show you now a photo. This photo shows the view
7 the detainees in the right wing of the prisoners' quarters had onto the
8 offices of the administration building where the majority of the
9 atrocities occurred. You can see as number 1 a metal door. That was the
10 point where the onlookers saw their fellow detainees for the last time.
11 And you can see the ground floor in both directions. That is where the
12 beatings and the torture occurred.
13 I will show you now another photo. This photo shows how close
14 the offices on the left side in the building with the number 1, where the
15 beatings occurred, was to the prisoners' quarters. This is building
16 number 2. That is where the detainees were. And you can see how close
17 the left wing of the prisoners' quarters were to these administration
18 building offices.
19 I will show you another photo. You will hear a lot of witnesses
20 who were detained in Room 11. Room 11 is pointed out with these arrows.
21 You can see on this photo. This is Room 11. Please, the next
22 two photos.
23 The next photo. This photo and the following photo show to you
24 the view the detainees in Room 11 had onto the offices in the
25 administration building where the atrocities occurred. Thank you.
1 Many detainees, especially the long-term detainees, were subjected
2 to forced labour. Forced labour began in the early summer 1992 with work
3 crews intensifying during autumn and winter 1992. Detainees, even the
4 sick and injured ones, were forced to work without pay. Some worked in
5 the metal and auto repair shops inside the prison camp. Others were also
6 forced to work outside doing such dangerous and strenuous work as driving
7 ahead of soldiers to detect landmines and mining coal in the Miljevina
8 mine. Work crews were even taken to work on the house of the accused
9 Krnojelac and his son's store during autumn and winter 1992. Those who
10 resisted working were punished through means such as solitary
12 Because this case involves multiple victims at various locations
13 within the KP Dom at various times at the hands of multiple perpetrators
14 in various ways, the indictment in this case is especially detailed and
15 accompanied by altogether five schedules which would hopefully assist
16 everyone to keep track of exactly what happened.
17 Schedule A lists altogether 13 incidents of arbitrary beatings,
18 mostly committed by prison guards in the rooms or corridors of the
19 prisoners' quarters against various detainees, among them also
21 Schedule B lists altogether 59 incidents of torture during
22 interrogation in the administration building.
23 Schedule C lists 29 victims of murder.
24 Let me tell you that although this case involves murder, the
25 Prosecution is not in the position to present bodies and exhumation
1 reports. The bodies were never found. However, the Prosecution is
2 confident that the circumstantial evidence surrounding the murder of these
3 29 persons will prove that these people were murdered in four groups
4 during four consecutive nights in June/July 1992. The Prosecution will
5 present evidence of witnesses who saw these detainees being singled out,
6 heard them being beaten, heard gunshots, saw bodies taken out in blankets,
7 heard the roar of a vehicle in the courtyard, and then splashes from the
8 Drina bridge adjacent to the KP Dom. Not even one of these detainees
9 taken out in these four groups were later heard of. Their relatives will
10 testify to this effect.
11 Let me address briefly the murder of one particular person. The
12 victim, Juso Dzamalija, is number 6 on Schedule C, did not die immediately
13 upon being beaten. Rather, he was severely beaten by guards and soldiers,
14 then placed in solitary confinement with the admonition that they would
15 continue beating him the next day. In the meantime, rather than suffering
16 any further beatings, the victim killed himself. Although
17 suicide was the immediate cause of Mr. Djamalija's death, the Prosecution
18 contends that the actions of the prison staff, including the accused, were
19 a substantial cause of his death. Without the brutal beating and the
20 prospect of more suffering at the hands of the same individuals, in
21 addition to being left alone with the means to end this suffering, the
22 victim would not have killed himself. The Prosecution, therefore, submits
23 that Mr. Dzamalija is a victim of murder.
24 Schedule D lists 24 detainees who either died or suffered serious
25 physical and psychological consequences due to the brutal living
1 conditions at KP Dom, most of these victims/witnesses in this trial.
2 These witnesses were healthy and successful people at the time of
3 their arrest and they came out of KP Dom psychologically and physically
4 broken to the present day. Some of the witnesses left KP Dom so fragile
5 that they need support persons to even get to The Hague.
6 Schedule E finally lists 60 detainees who were forced to work
7 during their detention and actually kept in KP Dom for two and a half
8 years because of their working skills.
9 The witnesses in this case will tell you what happened to them and
10 what happened to the other detainees, how they were assaulted and
11 tortured. They will describe to you the unbearable living conditions,
12 their terror, and their feeling of helplessness. The detainees in KP Dom
13 over months and even years were unprotected, captive, and afraid for their
14 lives. The international and national laws available to protect them were
15 constantly violated by the prison staff and this accused. The Serb prison
16 staff had power to do with them what they wanted and they did do so.
17 There was no avenue for the detainees to escape, no entity to protect
19 The Defence does not only contest that all this happened. The
20 Defence, in addition, argues that the accused Krnojelac was not
21 responsible for what happened in the KP Dom and that he did not even know
22 about it.
23 Let me therefore now turn to my colleague, Ms. Kuo, who will
24 explain to you the role of the accused in the camp and the Prosecution's
25 theory of liability.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 MS. KUO: Your Honours, the evidence will show that the accused
2 Milorad Krnojelac was warden of the KP Dom from 18 April 1992 until August
3 of 1993. Before that he was a math teacher at a primary school in Foca.
4 When he returned to that school in 1994, it was to become its headmaster.
5 During the 16 months when he was the head of the KP Dom, all the
6 atrocities that my colleague just outlined occurred. So what exactly did
7 the accused do?
8 First of all, the evidence will show that the accused accepted
9 this high-ranking position and with it all it was privileges and
10 responsibilities. As the number one person in the prison camp, Milorad
11 Krnojelac was no longer an ordinary math teacher, but he had power and
12 authority: Everyone acknowledged his superior authority from the
13 detainees to the guards to the civil and military leaders who often came
14 to visit. The accused was a captain first class in the reserve of the
15 Yugoslav People's Army, and he could often be seen walking around KP Dom
16 in his uniform and carrying a sidearm. Witnesses also saw him showing
17 visitors around and receiving other high-ranking officials in his office.
18 Having accepted this position, the accused also accepted the duty
19 to know everything that was happening at the KP Dom. Like any top person
20 in an organisation, be it a business corporation, a hospital, an army, or
21 a prison camp, it was the duty and the job of the warden, in this case,
22 Mr. Krnojelac, to know what was happening day and night at his
23 institution, and this is what it means to be in charge and this is exactly
24 what the accused did.
25 The evidence will show that the accused knew what was happening at
1 the KP Dom. The results of these nights of terror, as described earlier,
2 were obvious and visible. Prisoners disappeared, leaving their belongings
3 behind. The rooms where the men were beaten and shot were left bloody,
4 and there were bloodstains in the cars that were used to transport the
5 bodies to the bridge where they were dumped into the river. The prison
6 population declined, and that certainly was something that could not have
7 escaped the accused.
8 The accused was also present on a daily basis inspecting the
9 prison camp and meeting with his staff. He could see with his own eyes
10 the inhumane conditions and the suffering of the detainees, and in fact
11 some of the detainees who knew Milorad Krnojelac from before the war and
12 those who request an audience with the warden, who were granted that
13 audience with him, told him about their suffering and described seeing
14 their cellmates being brought back bloodied and bruised.
15 And what did the accused do? The accused did nothing to alleviate
16 their suffering, and the evidence will show that he did that precisely
17 because he wanted these things to continue happening.
18 The Prosecution contends that the accused played an even more
19 active role in the horrors of the KP Dom. He maintained an office in the
20 administration building, and from that office he could hear the sounds of
21 the beatings that occurred nearby in that very same building. He also let
22 his offices -- rather, the offices near his be used for interrogations
23 during the daytime and related beatings. In his office, the accused also
24 approved lists from which the guards called out detainees from their rooms
25 in a gruesome ritual. Very often these lists were death rolls because
1 those names who appeared simply disappeared.
2 The Prosecution contends that by approving the lists, the accused
3 ordered his guards to take out and to beat and torture the detainees;
4 likewise, he ordered the inhumane conditions and the brutal rules whose
5 transgression resulted in severe punishment. He also ordered that the
6 work crews labour in the coal mines, that they drive ahead of the Serb
7 soldiers to detect landmines, and that they dig trenches on the front
8 line, and he was present at times at the work site. He even ordered
9 the detainees be brought to repair the Krnojelac house and store, and
10 while this is not the most egregious example of the suffering that the
11 detainees underwent, it certainly very clearly shows the accused's
12 authority, attitude, and actions.
13 The Prosecution also believes that the accused planned the
14 criminal actions. The KP Dom functioned as an institution which at its
15 peak had 700 detainees and a staff of well over 130 employees, including
16 guards. Without high-level planning at an institutional level, all these
17 crimes could not have occurred.
18 In cases such as this one, where there are multiple crimes
19 occurring over a prolonged period of time, the Appeals Chamber of the
20 Tribunal has also recognised that intentional participation can be in the
21 form of common purpose. And this means that someone who wilfully and
22 knowingly participates in a criminal enterprise can be found to share
23 the intention of all its members and can be held viable for the reasonable
24 and foreseeable actions of all its members. By participating in the
25 hierarchy of the prison camp and, indeed, by functioning at its top, the
1 accused must be held responsible, even if he never smashed a detainee's
2 head with a rifle butt or pulled a trigger.
3 Finally, the accused can be held individually responsible even for
4 inaction or silence. Both this Tribunal and the International Criminal
5 Tribunal for Rwanda recognise that at some point, inaction can become
6 active participation. And this occurs when someone in a leadership
7 person, who might be expected to show disapproval of actions of his
8 subordinates or when crimes are occurring in his presence, does nothing
9 and thereby sends a clear signal of official tolerance which becomes a
10 form of tacit encouragement. This kind of encouragement or moral support
11 can form the basis of individual responsibility.
12 Taken together, this evidence will show that the accused played a
13 pivotal role in determining the fate of the detainees at KP Dom.
14 The accused is charged in the indictment with responsibility under
15 Article 7(1) of the Statute, for individual responsibility, and 7(3) for
16 superior responsibility. The evidence will show that the accused as
17 commander had a duty to prevent and punish the criminal actions of his
18 subordinates. That he failed to do so means he's criminally responsible
19 as a superior.
20 Moreover, by planning, ordering, committing or otherwise aiding
21 and abetting in any phase of the criminal conduct, the accused can be held
22 directly responsible as well. At the very least, the evidence will show
23 that the accused aided and abetted the crimes by providing support and
24 assistance. But the Prosecution contends that a camp commander is not
25 merely an accomplice in the ongoing crimes which occur at the very
1 institution where he is in charge. He must be held accountable as a
3 This case, unfortunately, is not unique. After World War II,
4 commanders of concentration camps were prosecuted and convicted, and in
5 this very Tribunal, we can cite at least the Aleksovski and Celebici cases
6 as examples where camp commanders were held responsible for the crimes
7 that occurred during their watch. While the particular facts of every
8 case are always unique and the Prosecution must prove the facts in each
9 case beyond a reasonable doubt, the theories are the same: The camp
10 commander is ultimately responsible for what happens at the camp. Common
11 sense and the law demand no less. Wilful participation in a system of
12 repression can lead to criminal responsibility.
13 Now, the accused has contended that he was not responsible for
14 what happened simply because he was warden of one part of the KP Dom while
15 the atrocities were occurring in a different part. But the evidence will
16 show that the KP Dom was a single unit and it functioned as a whole, as a
17 single unit, on an administrative level. There was no division between a
18 civil and a military part of KP Dom. This false distinction exists only
19 in the imagination of the accused and it serves very conveniently to
20 shield himself from the responsibility and the inescapable facts.
21 Let me now briefly discuss the specific elements of the crimes and
22 explain how the Prosecution intends to prove them.
23 Count 1 of the indictment charges the accused with persecution as
24 a crime against humanity, and this is composed of six different
25 components. Number 1, unlawful imprisonment or confinement; number 2,
1 torture and beatings; number 3, murders; number 4, forced labour; number
2 5, inhumane conditions; and number 6, deportation.
3 All of these crimes, except deportation, have been charged
4 separately as crimes in and of themselves. Taken together, all these acts
5 constituted the singling out and attacking of individuals on
6 discriminatory grounds, that is, on the basis of race, religion, or
7 politics, by depriving them of fundamental rights enjoyed by other members
8 of wider society. Here, the policy was aimed at driving non-Serbs out of
9 Eastern Bosnia, including the Foca region.
10 The prison camp of KP Dom played a crucial role in this campaign
11 of ethnic cleansing as you have heard discussed by my colleague. It
12 served as a round-up centre for prominent and ordinary members of the
13 Muslim and Croat communities, primarily the Muslim community. None of
14 them had committed or were even accused of committing any crimes. Their
15 only crime, in the eyes of the Serb authorities, was that they were Muslim
16 or Croat. Once deprived of their liberty, they were deprived of other
17 fundamental rights, including freedom from torture, freedom from slavery,
18 and in some instances, even of life itself. The lucky ones were simply
19 deported, exiled from their homes.
20 Counts 2 through 7 involve specific incidents of beatings and
21 severe acts of punishment, such as prolonged solitary confinement, and
22 these are charged in two different categories.
23 Counts 2 and 4 involve torture because severe pain and suffering
24 were inflicted with official involvement for a prohibited purpose. In
25 this case, the beatings and other acts were inflicted to extract
1 information, to punish transgressions of even minor prison rules, to exact
2 revenge for what happened on the battlefront, to humiliate, to intimidate,
3 and to discriminate, and to create an atmosphere of terror that was
4 designed to intimidate all the detainees.
5 Counts 5 and 7 classify these beatings and other forms of
6 punishment as cruel treatment or inhumane acts. And these descriptions of
7 the crimes speak for themselves.
8 Counts 8 and 10 involve murder, and the evidence will show that
9 the 29 individuals listed in Schedule C are dead, and that the accused,
10 his subordinates, or co-perpetrators were the substantial cause of their
11 deaths. And also that they intended to kill these individuals or that
12 they inflicted serious injury in reckless disregard of human life.
13 Count 11 involves imprisonment, defined here as unlawful
14 confinement. The evidence will show that there was no individual basis
15 for the confinement of these individuals and that none of them posed a
16 specific security threat to the state. Men were simply taken off the
17 street or arrested in their homes, in front of their families, taken from
18 their work places by soldiers, or in some cases even taken from their
19 hospital beds. Sons were taken away from mothers; husbands were taken
20 away from wives; and even the grandfathers were not spared. To this day,
21 many of the men who passed through the gates of KP Dom have never been
22 heard from or seen again. Of those who came out alive, at least 58 were
23 detained for two and a half years, of which approximately a year and a
24 half were under the watch of the accused.
25 Counts 13 and 15 involve the inhumane conditions which inflicted
1 not only serious mental or physical suffering, but also constituted a
2 serious attack on human dignity. These were the starvation rations that
3 turned healthy men into skeletons while the guards threw leftovers away,
4 the overcrowding in unheated cells, the seizing of even meager attempts to
5 alleviate their suffering and to stay warm during the cold Balkan winter,
6 the use of human beings as mine detectors and the infliction of terror by
7 the sudden vanishing of cellmates.
8 Finally, in Counts 16 and 18, the Prosecution has charged slavery
9 for the use of detainees for forced labour. This work was unpaid and
10 dangerous, even if some detainees appeared to volunteer for the work in
11 order to get more food. Some detainees were even kept specifically for
12 prolonged periods because of their skills and because they could provide
13 unpaid labour for the financial benefit of the institution while they
14 themselves received not a penny. Forced labour as slavery has not been
15 charged since the trials in Nuremberg after World War II, but we ask that
16 this Trial Chamber consider them in this case.
17 Let me turn very briefly to the jurisdictional elements that the
18 Prosecution must prove in order to show that there was a violation of the
19 laws or customs of war or a crime against humanity.
20 In order to prove that a war crime was committed under Article 3
21 of this Tribunal's Statute, the Prosecution must show that there was an
22 armed conflict and that there was a nexus between the accused's actions
23 and this armed conflict.
24 In order to prove a crime against humanity under Article 5, the
25 Prosecution must show also an armed conflict, but also in that case that
1 the actions of the accused were taken in the context of a widespread and
2 systematic attack on a civilian population. The evidence will prove all
3 of these contextual elements.
4 We anticipate, Your Honours, that this trial will take several
5 months, and we are mindful that this Trial Chamber wishes to move
6 efficiently and quickly. This is also our wish. But we ask you please
7 not to lose the human aspect of these legal proceedings. The testimony
8 will at times be difficult, wrought with feelings of helplessness,
9 betrayal, and grief. Eight years have gone by, but for some of the
10 detainees, the wounds are still fresh.
11 As you hear the evidence, we ask you to keep this in mind: The
12 accused could not have committed all of these crimes all by himself, but
13 neither could these crimes and occurred without the accused. All of us
14 have the ability to make a moral choice between good and evil. That the
15 accused chose to act in the service of evil makes him guilty.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Does that conclude your opening address,
17 Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff?
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Before we proceed, there was one matter you raised
20 which I think it's necessary to deal with at this stage with it because it
21 may affect the witnesses you are calling. You said very early in the
22 piece: "In addition you will hear relatives of the murdered detainees who
23 will testify about their hopeless and fruitless efforts to locate their
24 beloved ones and the devastating consequences of their losses."
25 You will recall that at the Status Conference, as I understood it,
1 the accused was persuaded or counsel for the accused was persuaded to
2 accept the statements from those witnesses so that they did not have to be
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, if we do not need them for
5 proving the death, then we will not call them.
6 JUDGE HUNT: It wasn't a question of needing them for proof. The
7 issue which was raised was that the accused had no knowledge and therefore
8 could not accept them, the fact that they had died, each of these persons
9 identified in the schedule lettered C. And then I said, "Well, then, you
10 will have no objection to the tender of their statements," and as I
11 understood it, there was an assent to that. Unfortunately, the transcript
12 is not available. If that's so, then you will prove that fact merely by
13 the tender of their statements. It will be, strictly speaking, hearsay
14 evidence, but it will prove without the necessity to call a very large
15 number of witnesses. I thought that had been made very clear.
16 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: That's right, Your Honour. But we have a
17 certain problem with tendering statements of these witnesses because these
18 witnesses did not give formal statements. What we intend to do instead is
19 having the investigator who spoke to these witnesses, having him on the
20 stand, let him tell what the witnesses told him about their efforts to
21 find their relatives, and tender the documents. And I think with this one
22 investigator, we could actually complete 20 -- we could complete 20
23 witness statements.
24 JUDGE HUNT: That would be --
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think that's --
1 JUDGE HUNT: -- That would be appropriate, certainly. If would be
2 within the context of what we were discussing at the Pre-Trial
3 Conference. But the way you had put it, you said, "We will hear the
4 devastating consequences of their losses." I really don't think we need
5 to hear that part of it, and if they are not being called as witnesses,
6 then we will not need to hear of their devastating losses. All we will
7 need to know is that they have looked for and have been unable to find
8 their husbands, sons, et cetera.
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour, we will do that, and we
10 will not call these witnesses for sentencing purposes. We think we don't
11 need it.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. Well, now, Mr. Bakrac, at this
13 stage you are entitled to make a statement, or you may defer making that
14 statement until after the Prosecution case. What do you wish to do?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE HUNT: I'm afraid that came through in its original language
17 without any interpretation. Perhaps you better repeat it, if you would,
18 Mr. Bakrac, and this time I hope we'll get the interpretation.
19 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has decided
20 to defer their statement until the Prosecution has completed their case.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Bakrac. And you
22 have considered the terms of Rule 84 bis, have you, about the right of the
23 accused to make a statement at this stage as well?
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. We considered
25 that possibility and we left it open until the Defence has started its
2 JUDGE HUNT: I would not like you to be under any misapprehension.
3 You cannot defer that right. He can give evidence in his case at the
4 conclusion of the Prosecution case, but he would not be able to exercise
5 his rights under Rule 84 bis unless he does so at this stage.
6 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. We have decided
7 that the accused would testify but after evidence has been presented by
8 the Defence.
9 JUDGE HUNT: By the Prosecution, you mean.
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] By the Prosecution, yes, that's what
11 I meant. I don't know -- I'm not sure we understood each other, Your
13 JUDGE HUNT: What I said to you, Mr. Bakrac, was that the accused
14 may give evidence at the end of the Prosecution case. If he wishes to
15 make a statement in accordance with that Rule, he has to do so now. But
16 if he does not exercise that right, he has the right to give evidence in
17 the usual way, at the conclusion of the Prosecution case.
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes. He will not exercise this
19 right. He will testify in the usual manner, at the end of the Prosecution
21 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much, indeed.
22 Well, now, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, are you ready for your first
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. And the first witness will
25 be Ms. Thapa.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE HUNT: Would you make the solemn declaration, please,
3 Ms. Thapa.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes. I solemnly declare that I will speak the
5 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
6 WITNESS: TEJSHREE THAPA
7 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
9 Examined by Ms. Kuo:
10 Q. Good morning, would you please state your name for the record.
11 A. Yes. My name is Tejshree Thapa.
12 Q. How are you employed?
13 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers please pause between question
14 and answer so we can translate what they're saying?
15 JUDGE HUNT: Did you get that message, Ms. Kuo?
16 MS. KUO: Yes, I did, Your Honour.
17 A. I'm a research officer in the OTP.
18 Q. In that capacity, have you been involved in investigation into
19 possible war crimes in the Foca region?
20 A. Yes, I have, since 1995.
21 Q. Could you briefly describe what your role has been?
22 A. I've been involved in different aspects of the investigation:
23 recording witness interviews; collecting documentation, video, news clips,
24 things relative to the investigation.
25 Q. In your role, are you familiar with maps and documents connected
1 with this case?
2 A. Yes, I am.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slightly pause before
4 answering the question.
5 THE WITNESS: Yes.
6 MS. KUO:
7 Q. Now, I'd like to turn your attention to what's been marked, for
8 identification, as item 10. Could you please put that on the ELMO and
9 tell us what it is?
10 A. Is the ELMO on? Thank you. I actually -- I have just my copy. I
11 wonder if I could get the clean copy. Thank you.
12 Q. Could you tell us, please, what ID item 10 is?
13 A. Yes. This is a map of the former Yugoslavia before the breakup of
14 the former Yugoslavia. It shows the six republics, Slovenia, Croatia,
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro and Macedonia, and the two
16 autonomous provinces of Vojvodina and Kosovo.
17 Q. Could you please show identification number 11, please.
18 A. This is a similar map. The only difference between this and the
19 former map is that Foca is shown on this one. You can see it south-east
20 of Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
21 Q. Turning your attention now to item 11 -- I'm sorry, item 12.
22 A. This is a close-up of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. What
23 we've highlighted here are: first, the municipality of Foca; to the north,
24 the municipality of Gorazde; to the east, Kalinovik; and to the south of
25 Foca is Gacko. On Montenegro we've highlighted Podgorica and the town of
1 Miksic. These are the towns that the witnesses will be talking about
2 during the trial.
3 Q. Now, looking at identification item 13, what is this?
4 A. This is a map of Bosnia-Herzegovina. And what it shows, the
5 coloured areas are what was declared by the Bosnian Serb Assembly to be
6 Serb-autonomous region. The declaration was made by the Assembly of
7 Serbian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina in November of 1991. You can see
8 that Foca was claimed as part of the Serb-autonomous region of
10 Q. Could you just briefly explain what a Serb-autonomous region was
11 meant to be?
12 A. These are areas which the Bosnian Serb Assembly defined as areas
13 which it would, in time, administratively rule -- areas which the Bosnian
14 Serb Assembly would rule rather than have the republic assembly rule, if
15 that's clear. The main purpose was that these areas would remain a part
16 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia rather than secede from the
18 Q. Turning now to item -- identification number 14.
19 A. This is -- again, it's the map of Bosnia-Herzegovina based on the
20 census results of 1991. The blue areas are Serb; the green are Muslim;
21 the rose-coloured areas are Croat. You can see Foca, it's not very
22 clearly marked here, but it's this area. Roughly you can see that the
23 larger part of it is green. It is surrounded on -- here and here, by Serb
25 Q. Turning now to item number 15, would you explain what that is?
1 A. These are the census results from 1991 for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 The chart is a little bit difficult to read. The results for the
3 municipality of Foca appear on pages 102 and 103, line 24. The total
4 population of the municipality in 1991, which is on page -- the results
5 are on page 103, the total number of the municipality persons is 40.513;
6 94 Croats, 20,790 Muslims; 18,315 Serbs; 463 Yugoslavs; and 851 unknown or
8 Q. And this is for Foca municipality or town?
9 A. Foca municipality.
10 Q. Could you show us the figures for Foca town, please?
11 A. Yes. Foca town, the results appear on pages 104 and 105, line
12 14. The total number for the town -- persons living in the town is 14,
13 335; 74 Croats, 5,526 Muslim; 7,901 Serb; 312 Yugoslav; and 522 unknown
14 or other.
15 Q. Just for comparison's sake, could you indicate what the numbers
16 were for the town of Jelec, also in Foca municipality?
17 A. You can see the statistics for Jelec up here on line 29 of the
18 same page. A total population of 619; 1 Croat; the majority, that is 535
19 persons, in Jelec were Muslim; 67 were Serb.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Kuo, it might be a good idea if we had her other
21 microphone turned on because at times we're quite losing her voice as she
22 leans over to point out documents on the ELMO.
23 THE WITNESS: I believe it is on.
24 JUDGE HUNT: It is now. Thank you.
25 MS. KUO:
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Q. And I would also like to direct your attention to the village of
2 Mjesaja. Could you tell us the census results for that village?
3 A. The results for Mjesaja appear on pages 106, 107, at line 5. The
4 total number for the village was 328; 161 of that number were Muslim; 166
5 for Serbs. So almost 50/50.
6 Q. And I won't ask you to point out any of the other figures that
7 might be relevant, but are the municipalities of Gacko and Kalinovik also
8 included in this exhibit?
9 A. I believe this is just Foca. I'm sorry. Gacko is here.
10 Q. So just Gacko in addition to Foca.
11 A. Gacko and Foca.
12 Q. Very well. Turning your attention to what's been marked for
13 identification as item 15/1. Actually, in the trial binders, it's not
14 marked that way and we apologise for it. It's a map that's entitled
15 "Ethnic composition of settlements in Foca municipality." So if we could
16 ask those of you who are following to mark that as identification 15/1.
17 Can you explain what that item is?
18 A. This is just a broad outline of Foca municipality based upon the
19 1991 census. We've done a percentage breakdown based upon the 1991 census
20 results. You can see that this pie up here represents the total
21 percentage of persons in the municipality: 52 per cent were Muslim; 45 per
22 cent were Serb; the blue-purple indicates other. On the map itself, the
23 town of Foca shows 55 per cent Serb; 36 per cent Muslim. Jelec, which I
24 read the results out on earlier, is 88 per cent Muslim; 11 per cent Serb.
25 And Mjesaja is 50/50, that's here.
1 Q. Was this map based on what was marked for identification as number
2 15, the figures there?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, turning to item number 16, can you identify that, please?
5 A. Yes. This is a road map. I thought I would put it on an easel if
6 we could get one.
7 Q. Yes. We've requested an easel. If we could have that brought in,
8 that would be helpful.
9 A. This is a road map based upon an UNPROFOR road map series. It's
10 just a segment of Bosnia-Herzegovina showing Sarajevo, Foca, and part of
11 the neighbouring areas of Montenegro and Serbia.
12 JUDGE HUNT: If the witness is going to point out things on it,
13 we're going to have a microphone close to her, I'm afraid.
14 A. Shall I go ahead and point out --
15 MS. KUO:
16 Q. Yes, please.
17 A. The town of Foca is here, the border with Serbia-Montenegro is
18 here. This is Croatia. Foca, as you can see, is on -- there are four
19 main roads that come through Foca, and this, we believe, makes it a
20 strategic place. One road comes in from Serbia, through Usice, which is
21 where the Usice corp of the former JNA was headquartered. These are
22 direct routes through Gorazde following the Drina river to the town.
23 There's a direct road up through Kalinovik, Donje Polje, Novo Rogoj, up to
24 Sarajevo. A road south to the Croatian coast at Dubrovnik here, and
25 another road south to Montenegro, through Niksic, Podgorica, again to the
1 Montenegrin coast.
2 Q. And Foca, as you pointed out, is at the intersection of all these
4 A. Yes, it's right here.
5 Q. Thank you. If you could turn now to item number 17 for
7 MS. KUO: I should indicate to the Court that what we have here is
8 a map that is in a somewhat unreadable form. The original is much larger
9 and clearer. Unfortunately, we did not have time to produce it for today,
10 and we ask that this be used as a stand-in at the moment, and when we get
11 the original which is more legible, that we be permitted to introduce that
12 instead. I would just like this witness to identify what it is and what
13 it eventually will become.
14 A. Yes. This is a map. It's a 1:100.000 scale map showing four
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please speak into the microphone.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 A. Showing four areas, Sarajevo, Gorazde, then down to Foca, and this
19 is Kalinovik and Gacko, this quadrant here. The map has a lot of --
20 contains the names of villages and hamlets and smaller places that
21 witnesses will be talking about, so it's quite difficult to read on this
22 version, but later on we will introduce the larger version of this.
23 MS. KUO:
24 Q. So this map is different than the previous one in that it shows
25 more detail; is that right?
1 A. It shows more detail and a larger -- there's less of Montenegro
2 and Serbia on this map than on the previous one. So this is more Bosnia.
3 Q. And also shows the names of the smaller hamlets.
4 A. Yes, hamlets and villages.
5 Q. Thank you. I'd like to turn your attention now to identification
6 number 9.
7 A. Yes. 9 and 9/1 are town maps of Foca, scale 1:10.000. 9/1 was
8 prepared for the Kunarac/Kovac/Vukovic trial and is already marked.
9 Q. Just so we can deal with 9 first, can you show us what 9 is --
10 what it is?
11 A. This can go on the ELMO.
12 Q. I think it's sideways.
13 A. Yes. This is the town map of Foca. Again, scale 1:10.000. It
14 shows you the centre of town, the river Drina, the Cehotina coming in to
15 meet it right at the centre of the town itself.
16 Q. And now let's turn to item 9/1.
17 A. 9/1 is a slightly enlarged version of that same map. We've marked
18 out places that witnesses will be referring to during the course of the
19 trial. In particular, what I can point to here is -- this is the KP Dom
21 Q. It's marked -- or there's an arrow pointing to it with the number
23 A. Number 7. The area -- the building marked number 10 is the Livade
24 barracks which was the warehouse for the former Territorial Defence but
25 was taken over and used as a short-term detention facility at the
1 beginning of the war. The other places of -- the other places where
2 people were detained are marked. You can see Partizan Sports Hall at
3 number 1, Ulica Osmana Djikica at number 8. The larger neighbourhood is -
4 sorry, this is a bit large. It's this area here.
5 Q. Excuse me. While you're in the Aladza neighbourhood, could you
6 point out where the mosque would have been?
7 A. Yes. The mosque would have been here. There's a small green
8 circle with a dot in its centre.
9 Q. And that is right under the word "Park"; is that right?
10 A. Yes, that's right. There is a park there at the moment, actually
11 where the mosque used to be. Velecevo, which is where the Brigade Command
12 for the Foca Tactical Brigade is, is not on the map, but we've marked it
13 as being 1.5 kilometres following the Cehotina River towards Montenegro.
14 Q. And other places that are off the map are also shown with
15 directional arrows and approximate distances; is that right?
16 A. Yes, Mjesaja, Trnovace, and Montenegro, and up to the north
17 Gorazde, Miljevina, and Kalinovik going east.
18 Q. Could you also point out the neighbourhoods that are pointed out
19 and described by name?
20 A. This is the Donje Polje neighbourhood. I mentioned Aladza. This
21 is the Cohodor Mahal neighbourhood. This is Gornja Polje. Sukovac is on
22 the other side of the river. The Focatrans which is not a neighbourhood,
23 but which is where the former bus company was, well, it's up here.
24 Q. If witnesses mention the centre of town, what area are they
25 referring to?
1 A. The centre of town is roughly this area. It's where the
2 municipality and the administrative offices, the police, are located.
3 Q. That's --
4 A. Sort of cafes, apartments.
5 Q. That's approximately where the two rivers meet.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. We'll turn now to a few documents, and I'll ask you to
8 look at what's been marked for identification as 1. And the original, I
9 believe, is in Serbian and therefore the English translation is marked as
10 1A. So could you please explain to us what that document is?
11 A. Yes. Document 1 and 1A are -- sorry. Would you like this on the
12 ELMO also?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. This is 1A, the English translation. 1A is a letter from the
15 Minister of Justice of Republika Srpska, Petko Cancar, submitting to the
16 ICTY liaison officer, Mrs. Branka Milosevic, documents which we, the
17 Office of the Prosecutor, had requested from the Republika Srpska
18 government. The documents were given to us on the 27th of October, 1998,
19 and as you can see four items are listed.
20 The first is a memorandum, dated the 26th of October, 1998. The
21 second actually consists of two documents: requests for taking over
22 of the premises and a response to the request. Number 3 is a list of
23 persons who were employed -- who were working at the Srbinje KP Dom, and
24 the fourth is a sketch of the KP Dom. Srbinje is, of course, the new name
25 for Foca, so any reference to Srbinje KP Dom is a reference to the Foca KP
2 Q. And are those four items that you pointed out marked for
3 identification as separate items in this case?
4 A. Yes. They're marked as items 2 through 6.
5 Q. Very well. Let's turn now to item 2. Again, following the
6 convention, item 2 is the original Serbian and the translation is
7 therefore item 2A.
8 A. Item 2A is a letter from Zoran Sekulovic who was in October 1998
9 the warden of the Foca KP Dom, the Srbinje KP Dom. And in the letter he
10 simply writes that he's submitting the list of employees as we requested
11 who were under compulsory work service at the KP Dom from the 18th of
12 April until the 31st of October. He also mentioned that he's submitting
13 the plan or the blueprint of the prison.
14 Further down, in the third paragraph, he refers to the two
15 requests, one for taking over the facility and the other making it
17 Q. Very well. Let's turn to Exhibit -- I'm sorry, to item marked for
18 identification as 3 and 3A. I understand that there was a translation
19 error on the first page which you noticed.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you tell us about that? Because I think that everybody has
22 the old version.
23 A. Yes. I believe we now have the new, corrected version which we
24 can distribute. The mistake was -- this is a list of persons who were
25 under work obligation at the Srbinje penal and correctional facility
1 between April 1992 and the end of October 1994. The mistake is in line 3
2 where Mr. Krnojelac is listed. The translation error is that it should
3 say that he worked until 8 September 1994, but in the original version
4 which we submitted last week, the translation read 8 September 1992. The
5 new version has that correction. This is the old version.
6 Q. And you noticed that error based on your review of the original in
7 the original language; is that right?
8 A. Yes. You can see it in the original document. This is the
9 corrected version.
10 Q. So could you please give us an overview of what item 3 is and how
11 it's arranged?
12 A. As I said, it's a list of persons who were under work obligation
13 at the prison from April 1992 until the end of October 1994. It appears
14 to be arranged chronologically, that is, beginning with the date that the
15 people were assigned the work obligation. So the first date is the 18th
16 of April; as you go down the list, you get the 20th April, 21st April, to
17 September, and then it goes on to people who were assigned in 1993 and so
18 forth. It's not alphabetical.
19 Q. Is this the list that was attached to the Sekulovic letter which
20 was identification 2 and 2A?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Now, at line 3, could you just go across that line and explain
23 what is there?
24 A. Line 3 lists Krnojelac, Milorad, son of Bogdan, who was born on
25 the 25th of July, 1940. It shows that he was obligated to work at the
1 prison from the 18th of April, 1992 until the 8th of September, 1994.
2 That's the correction. The last column here lists his position:
3 Temporary acting warden from the 18th of April to the 17th of July, 1992,
4 according to a Ministry of Defence decision.
5 Q. Was there any other information listed on that line regarding the
6 accused? That's it, right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, could you look at number --
9 JUDGE HUNT: Is that a convenient time, Ms. Kuo?
10 MS. KUO: Yes, that's fine, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: We'll adjourn now until 11.30. You will be putting
12 all these in or tendering them all as evidence in one lot, will you?
13 MS. KUO: That's correct.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Have you had any discussion as to whether there's
15 going to be any objection to any of them?
16 MS. KUO: We have not had time, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE HUNT: You might find a little bit of time during the
18 morning tea adjournment so we can save some time taking them each
19 individually, you see. Thank you. Eleven-thirty, then.
20 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
22 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Thapa, can I please ask you, that when you are
23 answering the question that you speak more slowly. There is a problem
24 with the transcription and the translation of it.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, I've been told that at the break.
1 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
2 MS. KUO:
3 Q. Ms. Thapa, before the break we were talking about item
4 3A. I would direct your attention now to line 11. Could you please tell
5 us who is indicated there and what that person's role at the KP Dom was,
6 and the dates
7 A. Yes. Line 11 shows Tolovic, Savo, son of Vladimir, born the 11th
8 of February, 1952, working at the KP Dom from 20th April, 1992 until the
9 31st of October, 1994. He is listed as the assistant warden for legal and
10 financial affairs since the 1st of July, 1993.
11 Q. Now I would ask you to look at line 46 and describe what is
13 A. Yes. Line 46 shows Obrenovic, Dragomir, son of Milosav, born the
14 7th of August, 1957, working at the KP Dom from the 26th of April, 1992 to
15 the 30th of September, 1992, and then again from the 2nd of September,
16 1993 until the 31st of October, 1994. He is listed as security. His task
17 is listed as being security which means that he was a guard at the KP Dom.
18 Q. I would ask you to look at line 53 and describe that.
19 A. 53 is on the same page.
20 Q. I think the page needs to be moved up a little bit, if possible.
21 A. Yes, but I'll end up covering the -- thank you. Number 53 is
22 Rasevic Mitar, son of Djordje, born the 15th of November, 1949. He worked
23 from the 28th of April, 1992 until the 31st of October, 1994, with some
24 breaks in between which are listed. He is listed as the chief of
25 security, that is, the chief of guards, and the assistant warden for
2 Q. Looking at line 56, which is on the next page at the top.
3 A. Yes. Line 56 lists Burilo, Milenko, son of Sedan, born 14th
4 March, 1950. His work obligation began on the 28th of April, 1992 until
5 the 31st of October, 1994, again with a break in between. He's listed as
6 a security officer.
7 Q. And that means he was a guard?
8 A. He was a guard.
9 Q. I'll ask you now to turn to page 5, line 129.
10 A. 129 lists Zoran Sekulovic, the son of Vojislav, born the 25th of
11 May, 1961. He started his work obligation on the 9th of August, 1993
12 until the 31st of October, 1994. He's listed as the warden of KP Dom.
13 This is the man who submitted this list to us, item number 2.
14 Q. When he submitted the item, he signed the letter as warden of KP
16 A. As warden, yes.
17 Q. And that was in 1998?
18 A. That was in 1998.
19 Q. And finally, I turn your attention to line 133.
20 A. 133 lists Tijanic, Milutin, son of Vladimir, born the 21st of
21 July, 1948. He worked from the 1st of September, 1993 until the 31st of
22 October, 1994. Again, there's a gap of a few -- it looks like about a
23 month in between the two dates. And he's listed as the deputy warden of
24 KP Dom.
25 Q. Do you happen to know what Mr. Tijanic's function at the KP Dom
1 was before the war?
2 A. He was employed at the KP Dom before the war as the warden.
3 Q. Now, Ms. Thapa, you've had a chance to review item 3 and 3A; is
4 that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Aside from the names that you've pointed out where the people are
7 listed as being acting warden, assistant warden, or warden, are there any
8 other names on the list that indicate that any of these individuals acted
9 in those capacities?
10 A. Acted in the capacities specifically of warden, acting warden --
11 Q. Or assistant or deputy warden.
12 A. No. Just those that I've read.
13 Q. Thank you. Now let's move to item number 4 and 4A.
14 A. 4A is the translation of item 4, and it's -- this is a request
15 from the Commander of the Foca Tactical Group, Miro Stanic. The date of
16 the document is the 8th of May, 1992, and it's a request for the takeover
17 of the Foca penal and correctional facility to accommodate prisoners of
18 war. On the original you can see -- I'll put the original document on.
19 You have the stamp, the official stamp of the Republika Srpska army.
20 Q. Thank you. Let's look at item number 5 and 5A for
22 A. This is a decision. It's signed by, as you can see, the acting
23 warden, Milorad Krnojelac, and it's a decision in response to the request
24 from Miro Stanic, that is, the earlier document, stating that the premises
25 of the KP Dom can be made available to accommodate prisoners of war and
1 detained persons.
2 Q. Would you tell us the date on the document, please?
3 A. The 10th of May, 1992.
4 Q. And does the original also have a stamp of the KP Dom, as well as
5 the signature of Krnojelac?
6 A. Yes, it does. The signature is not particularly legible, but it's
7 the best copy we have. And that's the stamp of the KP Dom.
8 Q. Thank you. Let's look at item number 7 marked for identification,
9 and the translation is provided at 7A.
10 A. Sorry. You did not want number 6?
11 Q. I'm sorry. I did skip that. Let's look that.
12 A. Number 6 is the last document submitted in this set of documents.
13 We have the original blueprint here that was submitted to us with the
14 translation. I also have a smaller copy for the ELMO which may be easier
15 for the audiovisual booth to focus in on.
16 Q. I think it is easier on the ELMO. So if you could indicate on the
17 ELMO. But the copy on the ELMO is a smaller version of the large copy
18 that's on the easel; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So, first, can you identify the entire premise?
21 A. Yes. This is the KP Dom. It's stated right at the top of the
22 document, KP Dom Foca. You can see the River Drina here. There's an
23 arrow indicating the flow of the river which is from south to north, and
24 the bridge in front of the KP Dom here.
25 Q. Could you start at the entrance of the KP Dom and tell us what
1 each place is?
2 MS. KUO: We apologise to the Court and other members of the staff
3 because we provided in the trial binders the original of the blueprint
4 which only has the B/C/S titles. We have now copies with the English --
5 rather, we have the one copy which is being used, and we can provide
6 afterwards a copy for everybody with the English titles and labels.
7 Q. So if you start at the entrance of the KP Dom, just lead us
8 through where all the buildings are.
9 A. The main entrance to the KP Dom is through -- if I could just
10 start, this is the road that runs in front of the KP Dom. There's an
11 entrance into the building through the guardhouse, which is here. This
12 building is the administrative building, which is where the warden and
13 others had their offices. The guardhouse is where the guards were; it's
14 the security building. Next to the administration building is a building
15 that's listed as the cinema, here, and next to that is a building that is
16 listed as the economics building.
17 The main -- the two main detention --
18 Q. I'm sorry. Just looking at where you pointed to economic
19 building, there's a comment under that that says "For supplies."
20 A. Yes. That's a comment from the interpreter -- from the person who
21 made the translation who was not sure whether or not this building would
22 have been used for a supplies, but it's a possibility.
23 Q. Economic building is the translation of what the label is; is that
25 A. Exactly. The two main detention buildings are listed as building
1 number 1 and building number 2, here. It is where the majority --
2 building number 1 is where the majority of the detainees were housed
3 during the war. The metal workshops are here.
4 Q. Again, there are question marks under them.
5 A. That's because the MP -- this is workshop, "radionica" is
6 workshop. The MP is the interpreter's best guess at what the MP stands
7 for. We know that there were metal workshops at the KP Dom, and I think
8 because of that she let the interpretation -- the translation stand.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. The auto mechanics shop is further off to the left. Then you see
11 other buildings. The coal warehouse here, the boiler room facility, and
12 here the furniture factory where several witnesses were made to work, and
13 we'll hear about that.
14 Q. Thank you. Turning now to item number 7 and 7A.
15 A. Yes. 7 and 7A -- items number 7 and 8 were both found on the
16 accused when he was arrested. They are both identity cards. Document
17 number 7 is the real ID card. It shows -- I'll put the translation of it
18 on the ELMO. You can see that on that identity card, his name is listed
19 correctly, Milorad Krnojelac, son of Bogdan. His date of birth is correct
20 and his place of birth is correct.
21 Q. And the original identification card also has a photograph of the
22 accused; is that right?
23 A. Yes, it does have a photograph of the accused, and a stamp, an
24 official stamp from the issuing authority.
25 Q. Now let's look at item number 8.
1 A. Item number 8, you can see, is almost identical to item number 7.
2 Again, the document looks identical both in the quality of the paper, in
3 the way it's printed, the stamps are similar, and there's also a
4 photograph of the accused on this. The main difference is that it lists
5 him as having a different name. You can see on the translation that he is
6 listed as Marko Kostic, the son of Simo, born the 31st of December, 1942,
7 in the town of Foca. As you said, both these documents were found on him
8 when he was arrested.
9 Q. Do you know where the originals of these are?
10 A. These are in the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor, in
11 our evidence vault.
12 Q. We'll turn now to item number 18 for identification.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Before you go to that, it was described as a false
14 identification document. Does that mean it's an identification document
15 in a false name, or it's a forged document?
16 MS. KUO: It's definitely the first, Your Honour. It has a false
17 name, and we do not know whether it was forged or issued by the official
19 JUDGE HUNT: It does have the same rubber stamp on it.
20 MS. KUO: That's correct. They do, indeed, look very official,
21 even the second one, and if the Court wishes to inspect the documents, we
22 can make them available.
23 Q. Looking at item number 18, which is a photo album of Foca, I would
24 ask you to point out just a few photographs, a few representative
25 photographs. And first, looking at photograph 7238, and all the numbers
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 we refer to will be the last four digits of the numbers listed alongside
2 the photograph.
3 A. Yes. All these photographs were taken by the Office of the
4 Prosecutor in June of 1996. This first one, 7238, is an overview of the
5 town of Foca. It's not a very clear photograph. You can just see the
6 built-up valley and you can see that it's surrounded by mountains. It's
7 difficult to point out much else on this photo.
8 MS. KUO: I'll point out to the people that are following along in
9 the trial binders, the photo album is in a separate binder that has been
10 marked as photo album and identified as number 18.
11 Q. If we can turn next to photograph 7298.
12 A. Yes, 7298 is a photograph of Partizan Sports Hall which is a place
13 where women and girls, primarily women and girls, were detained once the
14 war began in Foca until about the end of 1992. It was a sports building
15 before the war.
16 Q. Look at item 7335 -- photograph.
17 A. This is a photograph of Velecevo -- of the Velecevo complex which
18 was, before the war, a penitentiary for women. It was part of the KP Dom
19 complex but for women. During the war it became the brigade headquarters
20 for the Foca Tactical Brigade Command.
21 Q. We'll look now at photograph 7360. Actually, a few of the
22 photographs after that. It's a set as all of them are.
23 A. These are photographs of the Brioni farm which also contained
24 within it a motel and a restaurant complex. Again, the Brioni farm is
25 part of the KP Dom complex. It is where detainees -- I wonder if the AV
1 director could move to 7361. Maybe not. I'll show you the next one.
2 This is where detainees from -- both before the war and during the war,
3 were taken for labour. Of course, during the war it was the Muslim
4 detainees who were taken there for the forced labour.
5 Q. Can you tell us where the Brioni farm was located?
6 A. Yes. It is approximately 2 to 3 kilometres west of Foca as you
7 follow the road along the Cehotina River, in the direction of Montenegro.
8 Q. Sorry. You said west.
9 A. East. East.
10 Q. I'll ask you now to look at photograph 7389.
11 A. 7389 is a photograph of the site of the -- where the Aladza mosque
12 used to be. As you can see, the mosque is no longer there, but you can
13 see the foundation stones. And on the photograph directly beneath it, you
14 can see where the minaret used to stand.
15 Q. Which is indicated on 7390 with an arrow; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you turn, please, to photograph 7400.
18 A. This is a photograph of the centre of Foca town. This is the
19 bridge over the Cehotina River. It leads into the Aladza neighbourhood
21 Q. You're indicating at the top of the photograph and then to the
23 A. Yes, up here. It's a bit further on. This is the Hotel
24 Zelengora --
25 Q. The red roof?
1 A. -- With the red roof, and this attachment belongs to it. These
2 are apartment blocks, houses in the centre.
3 Q. Let's turn to photograph 7415.
4 A. Sorry, 7495?
5 Q. 1-5.
6 A. 7415 shows the Buk Bijela barracks which is where some --
7 specifically, the women and some elderly men and children were taken after
8 the takeover of Mjesaja and Trosanje villages in July of 1992. It's the
9 site of a former hydroelectric plant, and the Drina River is directly
10 below it. You can't see it on the photograph.
11 Q. Let's turn now to photograph 7418.
12 A. This is the Foca High School, the secondary school. Also a place
13 where Muslim women and some men, primarily women and children, were
14 detained in the summer and fall of 1992.
15 Q. And finally, I would ask you to look at photograph 7441.
16 A. This is a photograph of the KP Dom complex from the other side,
17 the Drina River, from above, on a hill. You can see the two main
18 detention buildings as what earlier on the blueprint was described as
19 building 1 and building 2. The guard and administrative buildings are in
20 front of here, and the furniture factory back here.
21 Q. Just for the sake of perspective, could you look at the next
22 photograph as well, 7442, and that photograph has a bridge on it. If you
23 could show that.
24 A. Yes. This is the bridge. The bridge was bombed by NATO. So at
25 the time when this photograph was taken, the bridge was not yet repaired.
1 It has since been repaired. You can see the top of the detention
2 buildings back here, the windows.
3 Q. Thank you. That's it for item number 18.
4 MS. KUO: And we remind the Court that we ask this witness to be
5 going through some respective photographs, but we will asking later that
6 all these photographs be admitted.
7 Q. Let's turn now, Ms. Thapa, to what's been marked for
8 identification as item number 19. And actually there are several pages to
9 it, so perhaps you can explain to us what that is.
10 A. These are aerial photographs from the US reconnaissance systems.
11 This particular photograph which is part of the set, it's not the first
12 one on the set, this shows the entire town, the centre of town, of Foca.
13 And marked on it in white boxes are places where mosques used to stand but
14 that have since been destroyed. The picture itself is labelled "Destroyed
15 Mosque. Foca, Bosnia and Herzegovina." The other pictures are before and
16 after photographs, again, the aerial photographs of the sites of these
17 mosques. Would you like me to go through each one?
18 Q. I think it's sufficient to identify what they are and the dates,
19 and then -- that should be enough.
20 A. This is again -- it's a before and after from the 30th of October,
21 1991, the 10th of August, 1992.
22 This is another photograph. It's a little bit difficult to see.
23 For instance, on this one, you can see that there's an empty space here
24 and the before picture shows a mosque here with the minaret. You can see
25 it's no longer there.
1 The same with the others. The before pictures are all the 30th of
2 October, 1992; the after pictures are the 10th of August, 1992. And the
4 Q. Thank you. Now, we have a number of videotapes, and the first one
5 I would ask you to identify has been marked as item number 20. Can you
6 tell us what that is?
7 A. This is a news item from the BBC reported by Martin Bell. It's in
8 April 1992, I don't have an exact date of when it was recorded, but it was
9 towards the beginning of April. The footage shows war and fighting taking
10 place in Foca, and at the end there's a little bit about a funeral in
12 MS. KUO: This should take just a few seconds, and we'll ask the
13 audiovisual director to show the clip, please.
14 [Videotape played]
15 A. We're not getting any sound.
16 THE REGISTRAR: If you would like to have the sound, please just
17 wait for a couple of minutes. We have some technical problems here.
18 MS. KUO: Very well. Thank you. If we could leave this clip and
19 go to the next one. Do we have sound on the next one or should we leave
20 the videos until the end?
21 THE REGISTRAR: It affects all these videotapes.
22 MS. KUO: Very well, then. We'll leave the videotapes until the
23 end and move to the next set of documentary evidence.
24 Q. So the first document we'd like to look at is marked for
25 identification as 24, and the translation, 24A. Would you tell us,
1 please, what this is?
2 A. Yes. I've put on the ELMO the translation of document number 24.
3 This is a request from the President of the Serbian Assembly of Foca,
4 Mr. Milicic, addressed to the JNA General Staff in Belgrade. It's dated
5 the 17th of March, 1992. It's a request for stationing a garrison in
6 Foca. I point out, in particular, the section starting here with
7 "Considering." The document reads: "Considering" -- shall I go ahead
8 and read it?
9 Q. Yes, please. "Considering the prevalent mood of just the Serbian
10 people who make up 50 per cent of all the inhabitants of the municipality,
11 and given the fact that a JNA garrison had been located in Foca until
12 1976, we believe that this request is justified. The JNA owns buildings
13 in the town itself which, according to our estimates, could house units
14 containing up to 400 troops. It is also possible to take over a structure
15 equipped with the most modern facilities built as a women's penitentiary
16 with all auxiliary facilities capable of housing 500 to 600 persons. The
17 facility is about 2 kilometres from the town and inside the territory
18 exclusively inhabited by Serbs."
19 Q. Do you know what facility is being referred to there?
20 A. Yes. The women's penitentiary refers to the Velecevo barracks
21 which was, in fact, taken over by the Foca Tactical Brigade and used as
22 its headquarters during the war.
23 Q. Is there also something in this document regarding the
24 reinforcements of units?
25 A. Yes, the second to last paragraph, the one sentence, it says:
1 "In order to reinforce the unit, we are ready to provide the troops who
2 are at present in training in the Kalinovik garrison."
3 Q. What is the date of this document?
4 A. The 17th of March, 1992.
5 Q. And in the original, is there also a stamp and signature?
6 A. Yes, there is, at the -- down at the bottom of the document.
7 Q. Thank you. Let's go now to item number 25 and 25A.
8 A. Document number 25 is an order from the Foca Tactical Group
9 Commander, dated the 7th of July, 1992. It's signed by the Commander,
10 Colonel Marko Kovac, and it is a directive to break the Gorazde siege.
11 Q. Could you read paragraph 2 for us, please?
12 A. Yes. Paragraph 2 is here, it says: "With one brigade reinforced
13 by artillery, the Foca Tactical Group shall attack in the general
14 Ustikolina-Gorazde direction with a task of maximally engaging the enemy
15 forces on the front line from Osanice village, from the confluence into
16 the Drina River, to Ilovaca village. The remaining force are to be used
17 to secure the territory, liberate it in the wider Foca region, and to
18 prevent the enemy from possibly breaking through towards Foca."
19 Q. And I would also ask you to look at page 2 of the English
20 translation, third paragraph under item 4 regarding combat disposition.
21 A. Yes. It says: "Combat Disposition: Offensive forces, defensive
22 forces, forces for securing the territory, artillery support, and the
23 reserves. Readiness to attack at 0500 hours on 9 July 1992."
24 Q. Then looking at page 3 of the English translation, about halfway
25 down the page, the paragraph or so that begins "Guard units under the
1 staff command."
2 A. "Guard units under the Staff command shall organise the defence of
3 the town of Foca and villages from Ustasha forces breaches and shall
4 secure communications axes transfers in that territory."
5 Q. Finally, looking at page 4 of the English translation, again
6 halfway down the page, does it say anything in the order about captives?
7 A. Yes. It says: "All captives shall be taken to the Ustikolina
8 barracks for processing and other measures."
9 Q. Is there also something on that same page about identification of
10 soldiers, under uniforms?
11 A. Yes, it says: "In order to avoid friendly fire, each soldier
12 shall wear a tricoloured ribbon on his left shoulder."
13 Q. Thank you. That's all for item number 25.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Kuo, is the Ustikolina barracks the one, the KP
15 Dom, or is it some other barracks?
16 MS. KUO: It's some other barracks, Your Honour. They will be
17 mentioned by other witnesses.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
19 MS. KUO:
20 Q. Turning now to identification item number 26 and 26A.
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter would like to ask you to slow
22 down a little. Thank you very much.
23 A. This is document 26A, and this is an order signed by the Prime
24 Minister of the Serbian Republic of Herzegovina who at that time was
25 Professor Branko Ceric. It's an order, particularly under paragraph 1,
1 ordering, "All those liable for military service, members of civil
2 protection units, and individuals subject to compulsory work are
3 prohibited from leaving the Serbian municipalities and the territory of
4 the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, except for the purpose of
5 medical treatment."
6 Q. Does it say what the consequences are if people leave?
7 A. Yes, that is at paragraph 2, and it reads: "Appropriate legal
8 measures shall be taken against all individuals liable for military
9 service who fail to abide by the provisions of Paragraph 1 of this order
10 from the day the order comes into force."
11 Q. And the date of the document is?
12 A. The 21st of May, 1992.
13 Q. Turning now to item number 27 and 27A.
14 A. Yes. 27A is -- this is an order from the Commander of the
15 Tactical Group of Kalinovik, Colonel Ratko Bundalo, dated the 4th of June,
16 and it's order for continued combat activities.
17 Q. To whom is this addressed?
18 A. It's addressed to all commanders and commands of the Trnovo
19 Tactical Group.
20 Q. Could you just read the first sentence?
21 A. Paragraph 1, first sentence: "Following the destruction of enemy
22 forces in Trnovo and the taking of town, the enemy forces and populace
23 fled to Muslim villages to the east and west of the Trnovo-Rogatici
25 Q. Thank you. The next item is marked 28 and 28A for
2 A. Yes. 28A is -- again, it's an order from the Commander of the
3 Kalinovik Tactical Group Command, Colonel Ratko Bundalo, dated the 6th of
4 June, 1992, and it's directed to the Trnovo Territorial Defence Commander,
5 ordering disciplinary action to be taken against a particular soldier.
6 Q. Let's look now at identification item 29 and 29A.
7 A. 29A is another order from the Commander of the Tactical Group
8 Kalinovik, Colonel Ratko Bundalo, and this particular order is dated the
9 11th of June, 1992. Under paragraph 1, he specifically orders that "The
10 territory of the municipalities of Kalinovik and Trnovo is declared a war
12 Q. Thank you. Item number 30 and 30A.
13 A. 30 and 30A, 30 is -- sorry, 30A which I have on the ELMO is the
14 translation. It's also from the Command of the Tactical Group Kalinovik,
15 again signed by Colonel Ratko Bundalo. It's dated the 13th of June,
16 1992. It's directed to the battalion commander of Trnovo.
17 Q. And it's an order for further activities; is that right?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. Could you read just the very short sections that describe the
20 enemy forces?
21 A. Paragraph 1, the third full paragraph under item 1, reads: "Also
22 fleeing with the enemy forces were women, children, and the elderly.
23 According to information at our disposal, the enemy does not
24 have an organised system of defence."
25 Further down it says, "So far they," referring to the enemy, "have
1 not been successful in their attacks. The enemy has great problems. He
2 is short of weapons, ammunition, and food. As a result of the success of
3 our forces, the large number of dead and the organisation in enemy
4 ranks, great panic and fear prevail amongst the Muslim people. They don't
5 see a way out of the crisis. The Muslim authorities are being
6 increasingly criticised."
7 The end of that section says: "Irrespective of all problems, the
8 most extreme elements are attempting to boost the troops' morale, and easy
9 resistance and surrender should not be expected."
10 Q. Thank you. Turning now to items 31 and 31A.
11 A. This is a task ordering further -- it's a task of units for
12 further action. It's an order from the Tactical Group Command Kalinovik,
13 another document signed by Colonel Ratko Bundalo, dated the 21st of June,
14 directed to all commanders of basic units and the Command of the Trnovo
16 Q. I would like to direct your attention in particular to the last
17 paragraph on page 2 of the English translation. Would you read the
18 paragraph on maintaining morale?
19 A. It's at the bottom of page 2. "Maintaining morale. On 22nd June,
20 the assistant commanders for morale, the president of the Kalinovik
21 municipality, the president of the Kalinovik executive board, and the
22 president of the Trnovo crisis staff will visit the units, in particular,
23 the infantry, explain the purpose and the objectives of the forthcoming
24 operations and motivate the troops for carrying out the forthcoming
1 Q. Finally, in this set of military documents, I would like to turn
2 your attention to item 32 and 32A.
3 A. Item 32A is -- it's a request from the Commander of the
4 1st Battalion, Lieutenant Milos Tomovic, directed to the Foca Tactical
5 Group Commander, asking that fighters who have left the battalion be
6 returned to the battalion. It's dated the 24th of November, 1992. As you
7 can see, there are a list of names of people who have deserted or have
8 left the battalion to join other units.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 MS. KUO: I'd like to ask whether the audiovisual people are
12 THE REGISTRAR: We need ten minutes' break if you want to play
13 this audio system.
14 MS. KUO: Very well. We'll move on to some other documents.
15 Q. I'll turn the witness' attention now to item 33 for
16 identification. It appears to be a set of different pages. Can you
17 explain what the entire document is?
18 A. Yes. This is -- these are excerpts from the Serb -- from the
19 military information newspaper of Srbinje, which is the military
20 information newspaper of the Foca Garrison Command of the VRS, the army of
21 Republika Srpska. We have translations of parts of the articles contained
22 in this particular edition of this newspaper. This particular paper
23 itself dates from St. Vitus's Day 1995. That's the 28th of June 1995.
24 The majority of the articles in this set are interviews with members of
25 various units or commemorative articles on soldiers who have died during
2 Q. I would like to turn your attention just to the first article
3 which has the headline "We Shall Defend," on page -- well, it's on page 1
4 of the English translation of that article. Just read for us, please, the
5 first paragraph.
6 A. Yes. This is an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Paprica, this
7 Srbinje Garrison Commander in the Republika Srpska army, and it he says at
8 paragraph 1 --
9 Q. You'll need to read slowly for the interpreters.
10 A. Okay. "We formed the first major tactical unit of our Army in
11 this area on St. Vitus Day 1992. Our unit was called First Foca Brigade
12 at the time. The unit's first parade and inspection took place at
13 Previla. This makes St. Vitus Day a double holiday for us: anniversary of
14 the Srbinje Garrison units and birthday of the VRS, the Republika Srpska
15 army. Members of the army from Srbinje have already done many things for
16 which they will go down in history of the Republika Srpska. The way our
17 people organised themselves made it possible for us to take control of the
18 found of Foca as early as April 1992. In the course of the next two
19 months, Serbian armed units formed at that time managed to take over the
20 territory of the entire municipality. When the process of the formation
21 of VRS units was completed in June that year, the general military
22 situation in this area was largely under our control. Since that time, we
23 have constantly expanded the free Serbian territory so that it now
24 corresponds to the Garrison's zone of responsibility, which is larger than
25 some European countries."
1 Q. Thank you.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. We're ready for the audio.
3 MS. KUO: Very well. Let's start with what was identified earlier
4 as item 20, the BBC
5 news item. Could we have this played with sound, please?
6 [Videotape played]
7 MS. KUO: This will be the end of the exhibit. Thank you.
8 Q. We'll turn now to item number 21. Can you explain that, please?
9 A. Yes. This is a short clip from parliamentary exchange between
10 Radovan Karadzic and Alija Izetbegovic. It's taken from the "Death of
11 Yugoslavia" series produced by the BBC.
12 MS. KUO: Could we have the audiovisual director show this clip,
13 please, with sound.
14 [Videotape played]
15 MS. KUO: That would end this exhibit. That's the end, please.
16 Thank you.
17 Q. Now item 22.
18 A. Yes. Item 22 is a news item from CBS, which is -- it's a news
19 programme based in the United States, and it's a news item from August
20 1992 about the conditions in the KP Dom.
21 Q. And the exact dates, do you know?
22 A. The reporting was done on the 12th and 13th of August, 1992.
23 MS. KUO: Can we have the audiovisual director please show this
24 video, please.
25 [Videotape played]
1 MS. KUO: Thank you.
2 Q. Ms. Thapa, I'd like to turn your attention now to item 23 which
3 is, again, a videotape.
4 A. Item 23 is a videotape of an interview with Miroslav Stanic, who
5 was the first war commander of the Foca Brigade. We have a transcript
6 that accompanies the video because it's quite a lengthy interview. The
7 interview was recorded in April -- probably April 1995, because Stanic, at
8 the beginning, says that the recording is done on the third anniversary of
9 the liberation of Srbinje.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Have you been kind enough to give the translation to
11 the interpreters, Ms. Kuo?
12 MS. KUO: I believe we have, Your Honour. Yes. I would like the
13 audiovisual director to play the cued portion, and direct everyone who is
14 following in the English translation to page 4, and it's the paragraph
15 that starts with Stanic saying, "You asked me what my orders were."
16 THE REGISTRAR: There is not a cued videotape in the video booth.
17 So he can only play from the beginning.
18 MS. KUO: All right. Perhaps we can put this to the very end and
19 have a short break rather than playing from the beginning, because it is
20 quite lengthy. Or alternatively, we could just ask everybody to note
21 special attention to page 4. Perhaps I could ask the witness to read the
22 paragraph rather than playing the videotape.
23 A. At page 4, I'll read the excerpt that begins with Stanic's answer,
24 saying, "You asked me what my orders were," but just a bit further down
25 the paragraph where it begins: "We liberated the town in six days. By 25
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 April, we managed to liberate the whole of Foca municipality, the largest
2 municipality in Republika Srpska. I submitted my war report to the
3 Ministerial Council as it was called then. At that time, at the beginning
4 of June, we were active in the Crisis Committee and later in the Army
5 Command. I turned over the command to eleven officers, headed by Colonel
6 Marko Kovac. Our organisation changed names; it was called Tactical Group
7 Drina, then the garrison. It changed names several tiles, but the
8 structure of the battalion remained the same until a year ago. It was
9 very efficient, as everyone knows, in the whole of the Republika Srpska
11 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like to turn your attention to a set of
12 documents which have been marked for identification as 34, 35, 36, and 37,
13 and also 38. Could you tell us what they are?
14 A. Yes. This is a group of documents having to do with an indictment
15 and prosecution of a man called Veselin Cancar, who was -- is a Serb from
16 the town of Foca, and who was arrested in 1996 in Sarajevo following the
17 Dayton Agreement.
18 The first document, number 34, is the indictment. The translation
19 of it is 34A.
20 Q. Who issued the indictment?
21 A. Yes. The indictment was issued by the senior public prosecutor of
22 Sarajevo, on the 29th of November, 1996.
23 Q. And what does the indictment charge Veselin Cancar with?
24 A. He is charged with war crimes, specifically for taking part in
25 what is termed the aggression on the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, for
1 organising the transport and detention of Muslim persons. He is charged
2 with violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention on protection of civilians
3 during the time of war, and the violations of the Additional Protocol on
4 the protection of victims of international armed conflict.
5 Q. Was there a particular institution or place for which he is held
6 responsible in this indictment?
7 A. Yes, he was the first commander of the Livade camp, which used to
8 be the Territorial Defence warehouse but was used to detain Muslim
9 civilians at the beginning of the war, before people were moved into
10 longer-term detention facilities like the KP Dom.
11 Q. Do you know what the rank of Cancar was at the beginning?
12 A. At the beginning of the war?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. He was --
15 Q. It's on the same page that you have on the ELMO, at the top. In
16 mid-March 1992.
17 A. Reserve captain of the JNA.
18 Q. Thank you. Can you explain what item 35 is?
19 A. 35 is a set of three documents which are orders issued by the High
20 Court of Sarajevo. They are three orders extending the period of Cancar's
21 detention for the duration of the trial.
22 Q. So these documents order his detention so that the investigation
23 and trial can continue; is that right?
24 A. Yes, that's right. And each of these orders -- an extension of
25 two months each, for a total of six months of detention.
1 Q. Turning now to item 36 and 36A, can you tell us what that is?
2 A. Yes. If I could explain, items 36 and 37 are actually both parts
3 of the statement that Cancar gave to the investigating magistrate in
4 Sarajevo. The first interview, which is item 36, was done on the 5th of
5 June; and the second interview, item 37, was on the 10th of June, 1996.
6 The translation of both of these interviews, the 5th of June interview and
7 the 10th of June interview, are on 36A.
8 Q. So if you refer to 36A, that is the translation, you will get the
9 complete statement that was taken on both days, the 10th and the 5th of
10 June, 1996?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. Could you tell us what the circumstances were for this record of
13 the questioning of the accused? Who conducted it and who was present?
14 A. Yes. It was conducted by -- in the office of the investigating
15 judge of the High Court of Sarajevo, in front of the investigating judge.
16 There was a recording clerk, the public prosecutor, and the accused.
17 On the second page, you can see that it states that the request
18 for an investigation was read to the accused, who confirmed that he had
19 understood the request for investigation and that he would present his
20 defence in the presence of his defence counsel.
21 Q. Who was present during the taking of this statement; is that
22 right? Or is that what appears to be on the document?
23 A. That appears to be what is stated.
24 Q. And then what follows, is that the statement of the accused in
25 that case, Veselin Cancar?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. I'd like for you to point out a few places to the Trial Chamber,
3 and the first is what Mr. Cancar says was his military training.
4 A. On that same page, which is 2378, he says he joined the JNA in
5 1983, in Sarajevo, where he attended the reserve officers' school and had
6 the rank of reserve lieutenant.
7 Q. Next, I would like to turn your attention to the page 2380. In
8 the English translation, it should be at the very bottom. And it looks
9 like a description of the early days of the fighting in Foca. Can you
10 just read a part of that last paragraph, please?
11 A. Yes. The paragraph beginning:
12 "The next day gunfire could be heard coming from Foca, but it was
13 not so intense and I went home that evening. However, around 10-11 p.m.,
14 5-6 soldiers came to my door, and I recognised Rajko Cicnil among them.
15 They brought a doctor with them, Avdo Sadinlija, who was the Chief of the
16 Medical Centre in Foca, and Dr. Ibro Karovic. They both had their hands
17 tied and together with them was also Dr. Bilja Mijovic. She was not tied.
18 When I asked why these people were tied and brought here, they replied
19 that they had been unable to withdraw from the Medical Centre so they used
20 them as human shield. I ordered them to be untied and these soldiers
22 Q. I turn your attention to the next page, that is, 2381, and in the
23 middle of the first paragraph, the sentence that starts: "Either that
24 night or the next day ..."
25 A. "Either that night or the next day they brought Ivan Soldan whom I
1 knew from Foca. I knew that he used to work in KP Dom in Foca and that he
2 had poor kidneys."
3 Q. And then skip to the next paragraph that starts: "The same
4 evening ..."
5 A. "The same evening they brought several more captives, among whom I
6 recognised the Konjo brothers, Munib Veis and a few others, like Avdo
7 Vukovic. Actually, it was Aco Vukovic who brought them. They had been
8 beaten and when I asked why they had beaten them they answered it was
9 because they had been armed. I called another phone number to ask what to
10 do, because I had suggested that they take the prisoners either to
11 Velecevo or to KP Dom, but they told me to manage somehow until the
12 morning when everything would be solved."
13 Shall I continue into the next paragraph?
14 Q. Why don't we skip that paragraph and go to the last one, "Three
15 days and three nights later ..." Could you just summarise what happens in
16 the middle?
17 A. Yes. More persons are brought to the warehouse at Livade, either
18 Muslims or Croats. Some Serbs come in and start physically abusing the
19 prisoners. Cancar says that he tried to call his commander to protest
20 against the abuses, but he was told by his commander that it was only for
21 a short time and to let it be.
22 Q. All right. Then the last paragraph.
23 A. To read the last paragraph?
24 Q. Yes.
25 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please put the passage that you're
1 reading on the ELMO? Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is on the ELMO, but it's -- it's the bottom
3 of the page.
4 A. "Three days and three nights later, at 11 p.m. two trucks arrived
5 to take all the prisoners to Foca KP Dom. In the morning, I was still at
6 these warehouses when Miro Stanic and Slavko Todovic, who were members of
7 the SDS Crisis Committee, tried to talk me into taking up the post of the
8 KP Dom director. I refused and even had an argument because I told them
9 of the events at Livade, saying that I did not agree with that, and they
10 said, 'Why are you in a lather over that?' The next day I left with my
11 parents for the village of Orahove, where I stayed for 5-6 days. When I
12 returned to Foca, Lazo Kunarac had a talk with me. When I gave him my
13 reasons, he told me I did not have to be the director but that I was going
14 to be taken to the field as a quartermaster, to which I agreed. From then
15 until 15 May 1992, I worked in my company, wearing civilian clothes. Then
16 Lazo Kunarac called me one night at 3 or 4 a.m. and told me to come to
17 the ..." the shorthand here, "SC," which seems to stand for "school." "A
18 battalion was formed there and we all went to Previla in 5-6 buses,
19 towards Ustikolina. My task was to provide quartermaster support and I
20 did not take part in the fighting which took place on 4 June 1992, when we
21 were attacked and 5-6 of our soldiers were killed ..."
22 Q. Then the last sentence of the next paragraph where Cancar
23 describes his demotion in rank.
24 A. He says: "At the beginning of August of 1992," that's here, "the
25 military police came to summon me for interrogation. They asked me where
1 I'd been and why I had not reported to my unit. In the end they ordered
2 me to return to my unit at Previla as a private."
3 Q. And then finally, the paragraph that starts: "Since then ..."
4 A. Further down on the same page?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. "Since then, I have been called up as a reservist like everybody
7 else from time to time and engaged in various tasks. People like myself
8 were always mobilised for Christmas and other holidays; I thus went to
9 front lines in Okoliste, Previla, Presjek, and Treskavica - that was my
10 last task in October 1995."
11 Q. Thank you. Finally, could you explain item number 38 and what the
12 finding of the court in Sarajevo was?
13 A. Yes. Item 38 is the finding of the court in Sarajevo in the case
14 against Veselin Cancar; 38A is a summary translation of that judgement.
15 It's dated the 19th of January, 1998. On the second page of the draft
16 translation, you can see that the accused was found guilty of violations
17 of international humanitarian law, and his actions amounted to a war crime
18 against the civilian population. The court sentenced him to 11 years'
20 Q. And that was for his part in the detention of unarmed civilians at
21 Livade; is that right?
22 A. Yes. As well as for organising and preparing transports of
23 detainees to the KP Dom in Foca.
24 Q. Finally, Ms. Thapa, I'd like to turn your attention to what has
25 been marked for identification as item 39.
1 A. Yes. Document 39 is a list prepared in-house based upon
2 information that we have in the Office of the Prosecutor. It's a list of
3 persons who are known to have been detained at the Foca KP Dom and who
4 were registered with the ICRC as missing. The source of information that
5 these people were detained at the KP Dom comes either from ICTY
6 statements, in which persons giving the statement mentioned seeing these
7 accused in the prison, and/or from a list that was given to the ICRC by
8 the Republika Srpska army acknowledging that certain persons had been
9 detained in the Foca KP Dom. If these same people were registered with
10 the ICRC as missing, I put them on the list. It's a total of 145 names.
11 Q. When did you last update this list?
12 A. In 1997, that was the last update. If I could just say, it's a
13 conservative estimate simply because not every person who was detained was
14 registered with the ICRC as missing.
15 MS. KUO: Your Honours, that concludes our description of the
16 items marked for identification as 1 through 39. At this point we would
17 ask that these items all be admitted in evidence.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, are you able to give us a global answer?
19 Do you object to them being admitted as evidence, or are you happy for
20 them to go into evidence?
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since you first asked me
22 whether I objected or not, I will specifically mention the documents --
23 which documents we object and we object as their being accepted as
24 evidence. These are documents marked for identification 34 to 38, and I
25 think they have been discussed just now. Those are judgements of the
1 cantonal court in Sarajevo, the verdicts of that court, and the Defence
2 objects as them being accepted as evidence because those are decisions of
3 lower courts, different courts which are not bound in any way to
4 international courts, and they are not binding to international courts.
5 So we suggest that these documents, in our view, should not be admitted as
7 Besides, if we look at them, if we look at it closely, we see that
8 in the indictments and in the judgements, there are featured terms such as
9 terrorist organisation, et cetera, which also makes the credibility of
10 such documents questionable. And if you allow me to ask some questions,
11 we have information that the accused and the condemned man Cancar was
12 released despite the eleven-year sentence. So these would be the reasons
13 for which we object these documents being admitted as evidence.
14 JUDGE HUNT: I think the first thing we have to sort out, though,
15 is are you objecting to them going in as evidence of what they state, or
16 are you objecting to them that they have not been proved as the documents
17 they say they are?
18 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] We object for both reasons.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Have you got any basis for saying that the documents
20 themselves are not the documents they purport to be?
21 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your
22 Honours, it was a misunderstanding. We do not question the authenticity
23 of these documents; we don't question that they are what they purport to
24 be. We do not contest their authenticity, but we do contest their
25 substance and the accuracy of what they say, and that is why we object to
1 their going in as evidence.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Are those the only ones of the documents that have
3 been referred to this morning that you are objecting to?
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, those are the only
5 ones, with a proviso that we would have just a couple of questions for
6 this witness.
7 JUDGE HUNT: Well, those are questions that could be asked at the
8 time of cross-examination. All I'm worried about at the moment is the
9 admissibility of the documents and videos themselves. Is there something
10 you want to ask the witness relating to their admissibility?
11 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, the documents from 1 to 33, or to 33A, I
13 suppose, will be admitted into evidence as exhibits.
14 Now, Ms. Kuo, the objection taken to 34 to 38, to what issue do
15 they go, first of all?
16 MS. KUO: Your Honours, there are -- if we consider the set as a
17 whole, there are two things that we wish this to be admitted for. First,
18 we believe that the statement given by the accused in that case, Veselin
19 Cancar, which was given before an official magistrate and recorded, is
20 relevant regarding the circumstances of what was happening in Foca at the
21 time, corroborating what some of our witnesses will describe about people
22 being taken to Livade before being taken to KP Dom, and they were beaten
23 there; and also, perhaps more importantly, the statement in the Cancar
24 statement that he was asked to be the director of KP Dom, and he names the
25 individuals who asked him and that he refused, and the consequences that
1 flowed from it and the fact that he was able to refuse.
2 We believe it's reliable given the circumstances under which the
3 statement was taken and that it should be given weight by this Court in
4 whatever manner the Court wishes, but in any event it's relevant.
5 The second reason is -- I understand the objection that this is
6 not a final appeal. We can certainly find out what has happened to this
7 case subsequently. Frankly, we didn't look into that at the moment. But
8 we think it would be relevant in the case of sentencing in terms of what
9 someone in a very similar situation to this accused received as a
10 sentence. He received 11 years. Of course, the Court can give that
11 whatever weight it chooses, but again we think it's relevant.
12 JUDGE HUNT: I understand that. But I would suggest that perhaps
13 we have all the material relating to sentence at some other stage. What
14 is the relevance of the indictment and of the judgement?
15 MS. KUO: Those are to give the context, Your Honours. If they
16 are left out, the Prosecution, frankly, would not be terribly upset
17 because we think the important thing is the statement. But we thought it
18 was necessary to give this Court some context for the statement;
19 otherwise, it's a little bit puzzling, perhaps.
20 JUDGE HUNT: Well, you don't need them to go in as evidence of the
21 truth of what is stated, then, that is, the indictment and the judgement.
22 MS. KUO: It's --
23 JUDGE HUNT: It's merely to show what is the nature of the charge
24 against him. And if the judgement itself adds something to that context,
25 it goes in as a version given by a court in Sarajevo but not as anything
1 that goes to truth of what is said in the judgement.
2 MS. KUO: That's correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Well, Mr. Bakrac, what do you want to say about
4 that? The really important part of it is the statement which the accused
5 made, and that is the only part of it which is sought to be put forward
6 by the Prosecution as evidence of the truth of what was said. It would be
7 a hearsay statement, of course, but that does not mean it is
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is a statement
10 given under certain circumstances, and we believe that it cannot be
11 admitted as a statement -- as a relevant statement which should be used as
12 evidence in this case, especially in view of the fact that the accused
13 Cancar is in prison. It is easy for him to be brought here and testify.
14 On the other hand, if he's a free man, it is even easier to be -- for him
15 to be proposed as a witness and brought here.
16 The Defence cannot agree for certain statements given under
17 certain circumstances to be admitted here as credible statements,
18 especially since the Prosecution themselves admit that the exclusion of
19 this judgement would not hurt the body of evidence they have at their
21 JUDGE HUNT: We're not worried about the judgement. It's only the
22 statement which the accused person before the court made, and it would go
23 in, if it goes in at all, as simply having some probative value. The
24 particular weight to be given to it is a matter for the Tribunal to
25 determine later. The absence of any opportunity to cross-examine would be
1 a very substantial issue to be considered in relation to the weight to be
2 given to it.
3 But the Prosecution is not seeking to have the judgement or
4 the indictment tendered as evidence for the truth of what they state.
5 They are there to give us the circumstances that the accused person
6 there gave to the investigating judge.
7 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not argue that a
8 certain person has, indeed, given this statement to the investigative
9 judge. But we believe that the context could lead to an incorrect
10 understanding of the ability of the accused here.
11 The very beginning of the indictment and the judgement where it
12 says that the accused is charged with and later convicted for
13 participation of the terrorist Serb political party, that in itself makes
14 questionable the substance of this text and all that follows from it.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, I'm sorry to bring you back to the
16 particular document we're concerned with. It's the statement made by this
17 man before the investigating judge. What the indictment might have said
18 about terrorist organisations has got nothing to do with us. It's not
19 being put forward as any evidence that the Serbian forces were terrorist
20 organisations. We are simply concerned with the statements that have been
21 made by the person who was being examined by the investigating judge, and
22 what weight we would give to those statements, as I say, is a matter which
23 would have to be determined later on. The fact that you are unable to
24 cross-examine him would have a considerable bearing on the weight to be
25 given to those statements.
1 The only question here is whether it should be admitted into
2 evidence as having some weight, because if it has no weight at all, then
3 clearly it would not be admissible. Now, that's the issue that I'm asking
4 you to apply your mind to. We understand the fact that you dispute what
5 is said and we understand that you do not accept the descriptions given,
6 the colourful descriptions given, in the indictment, or even in the
7 judgement. We're not concerned with those.
8 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I stand by my opinion
9 that this document should not be included -- admitted as evidence because,
10 for the reasons I have already mentioned, we believe it to have no weight,
11 no probative value, and we think it would be superfluous for the Trial
12 Chamber to consider it at all for the purpose of establishing facts.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Do you want to say anything in reply,
14 Ms. Kuo?
15 MS. KUO: No, Your Honour. I think I've stated the Prosecution's
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE HUNT: The Trial Chamber proposes to admit the material into
19 evidence. The only one of these documents which will have any bearing as
20 to the truth of what was said would be the statement made by Mr. -- what
21 was his name, Cancar?
22 MS. KUO: Cancar.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you. Cancar. To the investigating judge. The
24 Trial Chamber believes that that may have some weight from that particular
1 But it does want to emphasise that we are not terribly interested
2 in hearsay statements where a witness could be called and has not been
3 called, and it has not been established that he could not be called. So
4 it's a matter for the Prosecution to bear in mind if there are any other
5 statements that are going to be tendered as simple hearsay statements from
6 people who could have been called as witnesses.
7 MS. KUO: Your Honour, we have tried to bring this person in and
8 he refuses to speak with us.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that's a matter you're saying from the bar
10 table. Now, if there's going to be any dispute about it, this would have
11 to be established.
12 MS. KUO: Yes, Your Honour. We could, perhaps, ask this very
13 witness about her efforts to locate this person and have him talk to us.
14 There may be a point at which the Prosecution asks this Court to issue a
15 subpoena for this person.
16 JUDGE HUNT: I was going to say, there is nothing to stop you. I
17 know the Prosecution, perhaps wisely, does not like calling unfriendly
18 witnesses, but nevertheless, if you want to use their evidence, you have
19 to call them.
20 Now, we have decided that it has the possibility of some weight
21 from the circumstances in which it was given. I thought that it was
22 proper, however, to add the warning that we're not terribly interested in
23 hearsay material unless there can be a real case shown for your inability
24 to call the witness. But it's in evidence, or at least those documents
25 are in evidence to the limited extent which we've indicated. Perhaps at
1 2.30 we can come back and you can obtain that evidence from Ms. Thapa.
2 MS. KUO: Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. We'll adjourn now until 2.30.
4 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honour ...
5 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
2 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
3 JUDGE HUNT: The numbers which will be given to the exhibits that
4 were tendered and admitted into evidence just before lunch will be the
5 same as those numbers which were given to the documents for identification
6 but with the addition of the letter P for Prosecution before it.
7 Yes, Ms. Kuo.
8 MS. KUO: Thank you, Your Honour. I just have a few questions
9 left for this witness with regard to Veselin Cancar.
10 Q. Ms. Thapa, did you in your employment with the Office of the
11 Prosecution ever attempt to contact Mr. Cancar?
12 A. Yes, we did. We made three attempts to interview Mr. Cancar after
13 he was taken into custody in Sarajevo. The first attempt was in 1996 when
14 he was detained and being held in the cantonal prison in Sarajevo. We met
15 with him in person; I was present. He himself seemed willing to give us
16 an interview, to talk to us, but his attorney at that point advised him
17 against it. So we were unable to take an interview.
18 We tried again after that when the trial was over, after he was
19 sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. Same thing. He seemed willing to
20 talk to us; his attorney advised him against it.
21 The third attempt was made last year when we were informed that he
22 had actually been transferred from the prison in Sarajevo, where he was
23 serving his prison sentence, to a prison in the Republika Srpska. We were
24 unable to get any further information about his whereabouts, at least from
25 the public prosecutor of Sarajevo to whom we put the request.
1 Q. Are you able to ascertain where Veselin Cancar is now or where he
2 can be reached?
3 A. We don't know where he is. We think he's serving his sentence in
4 Republika Srpska, in a prison there. I don't know any more about it. We
5 could approach the Republika Srpska government and ask them, but our
6 cooperation with that government has not been particularly good.
7 MS. KUO: Those are all my questions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE HUNT: You may have to take that further if you want greater
9 weight to be placed upon the hearsay material that's before us. We have
10 to know, for example, when he's going to be released. From what
11 Mr. Bakrac says, he has already been released. You won't have an answer
12 to that now, but you may have to deal with it a little bit further at some
13 later stage.
14 MS. KUO: Yes, Your Honour, that's a question that this particular
15 witness cannot answer, and at this point we're not asking for anything
16 specific from the Trial Chamber, bearing in mind that we may have further
17 evidence or information as the trial progresses.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
19 Yes, Mr. Bakrac.
20 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I should like to ask
21 this witness several questions.
22 Cross-examined by Mr. Bakrac:
23 Q. Ms. Thapa, will you please go back to the document marked 3, that
24 is, P3, with the added "P."
25 A. This is the list of persons under "work obligation"?
1 Q. That is correct.
2 JUDGE HUNT: It is also the amended version of it, I assume, that
3 we're talking about. Have you got that there, Ms. Thapa?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the document be placed on the ELMO,
7 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm retrieving it from the file.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
9 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Have you found it?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. Then will you please be so kind and look at this line after number
13 3. It is Krnojelac, Milorad. Here it says that he spent under work
14 obligation between the 18th of April, 1992 until the 8th of September,
15 1994, according to the amended document. Next to it, it says that he was
16 a temporary warden between the 18th of April and the 17th of July, 1992,
17 pursuant to the certificate of the Ministry of Defence.
18 So my question is: Do you have in your possession, or did you see
19 that certificate or that decision of the Ministry of Defence which is
20 referred to here?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. My next question has to do with the same fact, and that is, are
23 you -- do you know what the accused did after the 17th of July, 1992?
24 Because here it says that he was the provisional, temporary warden between
25 the 18th of April and the 17th of July. Now, after the 17th of July,
1 there is absolutely nothing to indicate whatever so ...
2 A. You want me to tell you whether I believe that Mr. Krnojelac
3 remained as the acting warded of the prison until 1994? That is what I
4 believe on the basis of witness statements and Mr. Krnojelac's own
5 statement to the Prosecutor's Office, that he was present for much longer
6 than the 17th of July, 1992 at the KP Dom.
7 Q. I'm quite satisfied with that answer, when you told us that you
8 believe that he was there longer. I'm asking about whether there is any
9 other evidence about his further work, further duties.
10 A. We have evidence by way of witness statements. I believe -- are
11 you asking me specifically whether we have regulations or
12 officially-issued gazette declarations about his role?
13 Q. No. The Defence is quite satisfied with your answer that you
14 believe it to be so and that it is based on witness statements; that is,
15 there is no other relevant proof which would confirm his further presence
16 in the penitentiary, in KP Dom, and his role there. Thank you.
17 And another question having to do with the same exhibit, Exhibit
18 3. When asked by the Prosecution, you said that in the list you could not
19 identify any other of the former wardens of the penitentiary. But will
20 you please look at the line after number 72.
21 A. Yes. Radojica Tesevic.
22 Q. Radojica Tesevic, yes. Are you aware, what was Radojica Tesevic,
23 and did he work for the KP Dom before the date indicated here, the 8th of
24 May, 1992? Did he work for that penitentiary before that?
25 A. Yes, I believe he did. The question that was asked me by Peggy
1 Kuo was whether, on this list, anyone else was indicated as warden or
2 acting warden, and according to this list, Mr. Tesevic is listed as
3 director of the farm unit from August 1993 onwards. Our information was
4 that he was an employee at the KP Dom before the war.
5 Q. Excuse me. I don't know if it is a translation or interpretation
6 mistake. But he is not the director of the farm, he is the director of a
7 business, of an economic facility, as of August 1993. Is that correct?
8 A. The translation that I have, that is, document 3A, line 72, lists
9 him as the director of the farm unit from August 1993. That may be a
10 translation -- a question of translation.
11 Q. Yes, it could be the translation, because in the original it says
12 "From August 1993, appointed director of business unit," or an economic
14 My question is whether this period of time, that is, August 1993,
15 coincides with the period of time when, according to the indictment, the
16 accused had already left the penitentiary
17 A. Yes, it does.
18 Q. And another question to do with Exhibit 3, and that is, in this
19 list did you see a director or a manager of a business unit or an economic
20 unit during the period relevant to the indictment -- during the relevant
21 period of time, that is, between the 8th of May, 1992 and 1993, that is,
22 the period covered by the indictment?
23 A. On the list, you mean is someone listed as being the director of
24 the economic enterprises?
25 THE INTERPRETER: We could not hear the counsel. We are sorry.
1 JUDGE HUNT: I don't think there was any further question. They
2 just nodded at each other.
3 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I do apologise. My answer was, "Yes,
4 correct." What the witness asked me, my answer was, "Correct."
5 A. I don't see anybody listed with that specific title. The closest
6 approximation to that is at number 4, where Krnojelac, Momir is listed as
7 not necessarily in charge of, but simply working in procurement security
8 and is the manager of a furniture factory, which is an economic
9 enterprise. There are several other people listed as working at some of
10 the economic enterprises. For instance, at the fish pond, Simovic, Josip,
11 number 42; director of the farm unit. That may be the problem.
12 Q. You are talking -- you are talking about parts of that economic
13 enterprise. I'm asking you if anyone here is mentioned as a manager, as a
14 person who ran that particular economic enterprise?
15 A. Not in document 3A.
16 Q. Thank you. My next question relates to Exhibit 20, and that was a
17 videotape. Perhaps we could view it once again; perhaps you could answer
18 my question without having another look at the tape. My question is
19 whether you are aware that in the early days of the conflict some Serb
20 houses were set fire to and burnt down.
21 A. I believe there was destruction of various neighbourhoods in Foca,
22 and certainly Serb houses could have been among those that were
24 Q. Are you aware that in the early days of the war, the conflict, the
25 house which belonged to the accused Milorad Krnojelac burned down?
1 A. Mr. Krnojelac has told us that in his interview, and his house was
2 in Donje Polje which was largely a Muslim settlement, so that would not be
4 Q. Did any of the witnesses that you will be calling here and who
5 have already testified in the Kunarac case point at that particular --
6 identify that house?
7 A. We do have witnesses who worked on Mr. Krnojelac's house during
8 the time of their detention at the KP Dom and they will be testifying to
9 the fact that his house was destroyed and they were forced to rebuild it,
10 parts of it.
11 Q. Let me be more precise. Did Witness 33 mention the fact that
12 Milorad Krnojelac's house burned down in a fire in the early days of the
14 A. I believe she did, yes.
15 Q. And my last question to do with Exhibit 20 is: Can you identify
16 the houses that we see on the tape burning? Whose are they?
17 A. I'm not able to do that myself. I'm not that familiar with Foca.
18 Q. Thank you very much. My next question relates to a set of
19 exhibits, and I do not know whether I can cover them all with one
20 question. If need be, I shall be more specific. These are the exhibits
21 marked 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
22 A. The first number was?
23 Q. Twenty-seven. Have you found the documents?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So tell us, these are some decisions, orders, correspondence,
1 between the Tactical Group Kalinovik and Trnovo. Are these two
2 municipalities or are they part of the Foca municipality?
3 A. These are different -- they are certainly not part of the Foca
4 municipality. Kalinovik borders Foca.
5 Q. What I should like to know, if you know, can you tell us what is
6 the relationship between these documents which have been admitted as
7 exhibits and the nature of the charges against my client?
8 MS. KUO: Your Honour, I believe that this witness is being asked
9 to make a legal argument and that's not appropriate.
10 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, if you had wanted to object to them at
11 the time of their tender, that was the time. If you want to now know what
12 the purpose of them was, you really can't ask a witness to make
13 admissions, especially about matters of relevance. It's up to the counsel
14 to deal with it.
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not object to the
16 admission of these documents. There is nothing that we are challenging
17 here. But the question is whether the investigator was aware of the
18 relationship between these documents and the nature of charges. We're not
19 objecting against their admission. We simply want -- since the witness
20 investigated the case, I simply wanted to hear the opinion of the witness
21 and whether she could tell us what was the relationship between, what is
22 the connection between these documents and the nature of the charges. If
23 she cannot do that, then the Defence, of course, will not insist on this.
24 JUDGE HUNT: It's not a question of whether the witness can do it,
25 the question is whether it's appropriate for her to do it. She is not
1 conducting the case and her opinion, frankly, with all due respect to her,
2 is quite irrelevant on the issue. If you want to know what the relevance
3 is, I suggest you ask counsel later on. But let's get on with what is
5 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I withdraw
6 the question, then.
7 Q. Just one question more about the document marked 24. This is a
8 request to have a garrison stationed in Foca. Do you know if that JNA
9 garrison was, indeed, stationed in Foca, pursuant to this request?
10 A. The request states that the women's penitentiary, with all its
11 facilities, can be used as a garrison. We know that during the war this
12 penitentiary was used to house the Foca Tactical Brigade Command. I think
13 a reasonable inference can be made based on this document and the fact
14 that the penitentiary was used to station a brigade command -- sorry, an
15 inference can be made between the two. There's a relation.
16 Q. You are talking about the Tactical Group of Foca, that is, a part
17 of the army of Republika Srpska; however, this is a garrison of the
18 Yugoslav People's Army, and whether the establishment of the army of
19 Republika Srpska before, whether there was this JNA garrison stationed
20 here before the army of Republika Srpska came into being.
21 A. Our information is that it was used by the VRS as a brigade
22 command rather than by the JNA.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. Excuse
25 me. Excuse me, Your Honours, may I, with your leave, just one more
2 Q. And it is document 36, which was admitted as an exhibit. Do you
3 have any knowledge if this statement was taken pursuant to the Criminal
4 Proceedings Act?
5 A. I believe that it was, yes. The first paragraph states that the
6 record of the questioning of the accused is being carried out by the
7 investigating magistrate, investigating judge, following the Criminal Code
8 of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And further down on the page
9 there's reference to the Law of Criminal Procedure, Article 218, under
10 which he gave the following information, the information that's
11 subsequent -- on the subsequent pages.
12 Q. And do you know that under this same Law on Criminal Procedure of
13 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the accused may defend himself by
14 remaining silent, by making a statement, or by not telling the truth?
15 A. I'm aware that he has the right to remain silent. I'm not aware
16 of the fact that he has the right not to tell the truth.
17 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] I do not have any further questions.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Anything in re-examination, Ms. Kuo?
20 MS. KUO: No, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much, Ms. Thapa. You may leave now.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE HUNT: Who is your next witness, Ms. Kuo?
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the next witness is the witness
25 number 12, and he was granted to use a pseudonym during the proceedings,
1 and he is in-house of course.
2 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE HUNT: While the witness is coming, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, what
5 do you suggest we do about the numbering of any further exhibits at this
6 stage so we don't interrupt the order of the documents that will be
8 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think we'll just give it new numbers -- an
9 additional number to the -- that it would be 394. I would leave the
10 numbering as it is in the entire binders and just add the next number.
11 JUDGE HUNT: But the numbering I see goes up to 393 in the
12 documents I've got here. There isn't anything else that you have numbered
13 at the present time?
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour.
15 [The witness entered court]
16 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Take the solemn declaration, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. I solemnly declare
18 that I will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: WITNESS FWS-12
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE HUNT: Sit down, please sir.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 Examined by Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff:
24 Q. Good afternoon, Witness.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. Witness, the Court has granted your request for using a pseudonym
2 during these proceedings, and you will be referred in these proceedings as
3 Witness 12.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Would the usher please ...
5 Q. Witness, when you look at the sheet now in front of you, you see
6 the number 12, and below is a name. Is that your name?
7 A. Yes, that is my name.
8 Q. And the date under your name, is that your birthday?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. What is your ethnicity?
11 A. I'm a Muslim.
12 Q. Are you married?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Do you have children?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. How many?
17 A. Five.
18 Q. Where did you live before the war?
19 A. Before the war I lived in Foca, on the left bank of the Drina, the
20 area of Sukovac.
21 Q. Sukovac, was that a mixed neighbourhood or a Muslim neighbourhood
22 or a Serb?
23 A. Only Muslims lived there.
24 Q. Did you own a house in Sukovac?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you only own one house, or did you have more property than
3 A. In addition to the house which I built myself, because I used to
4 sail in the Adriatic, I also had a family house inhabited by my mother and
5 my brother with his family, whereas I lived in my own separate house which
6 I built myself.
7 Q. Immediately before the war and during the war, what was your
9 A. I used to be a sailor on a liner which sailed from Dubrovnik, in
10 the Adriatic Sea.
11 Q. Did you ever work in KP Dom?
12 A. I worked for almost five years in the penal and correctional
13 facility, in the KP Dom.
14 Q. Can you tell us when that was?
15 A. That was from October 1972 to the 7th of July, 1987 -- sorry,
17 Q. What kind of an institution was KP Dom?
18 A. It was a penal and correctional facility. People who were
19 convicted to severe prison sentences came there. Because it was a closed
20 prison, the sentences were from six months to 20 years.
21 Q. When you say "closed prison," you mean the security standard was
23 A. Yes, the degree of security was very high. The prison was
24 fenced with a wall about 18 metres high, I think, and while I served there
25 on staff, barbed wire was put up in addition.
1 In the evening hours and during the night, dogs were let to roam
2 along the wall, inside the walls. In addition to that, while I served,
3 there were bunkers on towers where we worked. We kept guard duty taking
4 care that none of the convicts, convicted persons, escaped, and we were
6 Q. Witness, let me clarify a matter. In the English it said 18
7 metres high. Is that a mistake? The wall, was it 18 metres high?
8 A. No, really, it wasn't.
9 Q. So what was it? How high was it?
10 A. The wall, as I said a moment ago, was about 8 metres, I think.
11 Q. And what was the capacity of the prison?
12 A. Usually, we would have about 1.100 to 1.200 prisoners inside.
13 Q. Were they all male prisoners?
14 A. Yes. This prison where I worked had only male prisoners.
15 Q. What about female convicts? Where were they kept?
16 A. I don't know. At that time, women were not placed in that prison.
17 I don't know about later, when I became a sailor. But while I served
18 there, female convicts did not serve their sentences in that prison.
19 Q. Were there any other facilities outside of the prison compound
20 that were part of the KP Dom?
21 A. Yes, there were.
22 Q. Can you tell us which facilities those were?
23 A. There were auxiliary facilities in Miljevina where there was a
24 mine; convicts used to work there. Then there was Brioni. There was a
25 restaurant with bungalows for overnight stay. Then we had another
1 facility where the convicts did their work obligation, the metal
3 Q. Was there a prison farm?
4 A. Yes. We kept chickens there, hens, a production of eggs, and
5 those eggs were sold in the town. We had our own shop.
6 Q. Where was the prison farm situated?
7 A. The prison farm was located in Jelec, close to Brioni. It was
8 called Ekonomija, economics.
9 Q. And Brioni, is that in the direction of Velecevo?
10 A. Yes, precisely. That is one and the same area. Brioni was more
11 famous, though, because that was a place where civilian guests would come
12 to visit, come to our restaurant, visit overnight, have business and
13 private talks.
14 Q. Does that mean when you say the prison farm, Brioni, that that's
15 not only a farm but a hotel and restaurant facility?
16 A. Yes. Brioni was a sort of hotel where many people from Foca used
17 to come to have a good time, enjoying their company, socialising.
18 Q. Witness, what did you do in KP Dom? What was your job?
19 A. I did almost all jobs in the KP Dom. We rotated in various work
20 places, but I spent most of the time working on censorship of letters and
21 packages, and I also was a senior supervisor supervising solitary cells
22 and the highest security cells. I took those prisoners out for walks.
23 Q. The high security part, how many isolation cells were there? Also
24 the solitary confinement cells.
25 A. At the time when I worked, there were four solitary cells. Then
1 there was section C and there was a room which also served for isolation.
2 Q. When you say "section C," what do you mean by "section C?"
3 A. That was a section which required a higher degree of control by
4 the guards.
5 Q. Can you tell us how big the solitary confinement cells were?
6 A. The solitary cells were 2 by 3, 3.5 metres perhaps.
7 Q. Were there also other sorts of high security cells there? Let's
8 say isolation cells.
9 A. Yes. That was not a cell like the previous four I mentioned. It
10 was a room where a convict also had a cot with a mattress, his own kit
11 with him. He could smoke, write, draw. The only discomfort, so to speak,
12 was that he was alone.
13 Q. What were the conditions in these solitary confinement cells?
14 A. Well, at the time when I served there, when I worked there,
15 convicts would end up in solitary confinement by punishment meted out by
16 the warden or their own supervisor. They were locked up in solitary
17 cells. They received three meals a day, regularly. According to the
18 rules of the penal and correctional facility, of the KP Dom, they were
19 entitled to daily walks outdoors. Visits were forbidden while in solitary
20 confinement. They received mail and also newspapers.
21 Q. Witness, you were interviewed in May 1995. Do you recall this?
22 A. Yes, I remember.
23 Q. Do you recall that you made drawings when you were interviewed?
24 A. Yes, I remember this distinctly.
25 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: With the help of the usher, I would like to
1 give the drawings to the witness. First of all, we use the drawing,
2 document number 88 in the trial binders. However, the witness gets a
3 redacted version because the original that we have in the trial binder has
4 the name of the witness on it. And in this version, the witness will now
5 put on the ELMO and explain to us, we have redacted the name and put
6 instead the witness number on it.
7 Q. Witness, is this -- this drawing that is now on the ELMO, is that
8 a drawing that you did?
9 A. Yes, this is my drawing.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to
11 enter this drawing, with the identification number 88, into evidence.
12 JUDGE HUNT: That's the redacted version.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, the redacted version.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Mr. Bakrac, any objection?
15 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you very much. Well, that will be Exhibit P88.
17 And while we're about it, the document which contains the witness' name
18 and date of birth will be Exhibit P394.
19 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. It also came to
20 my mind that I forgot to enter it into evidence.
21 Q. Witness, would you now go through this drawing number by number
22 and tell us what is in the drawing? Would you please first explain to us
23 the building number 1, and what is number 19?
24 Witness, you have to use the pointer and point it out -- Witness,
25 you have to use the pointer and you have to point everything out on the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 ELMO next to you.
2 A. Number 1 is the administrative building. The guard service was
3 there and coaches of the penal and correctional facilities. There was
4 also the administrator, the second man -- second most important man in the
5 KP Dom.
6 Q. Number 19, what is it?
7 A. Number 19 is the entryway for civilians and convicts into the
8 building, and from there into the compound. This is the main entrance of
9 the KP Dom for civilians. While civilians would follow the corridor to
10 the right or to the left, convicts would continue forward and exit through
11 the opposite door, through the door across the hall, they would enter the
13 Q. What was on the ground floor of building 1?
14 A. Here on the ground floor of building number 1, if you entered
15 through this door and went to the left, there is the room of the KP Dom,
16 the guard on duty whose -- and the guards are taking shifts every 24
18 Q. And what else was on the ground floor?
19 A. Behind that room there were two smaller rooms where we, the
20 guards, would change, and we had our lockers where we would leave our
21 personal weapons.
22 Q. Were there other offices on the ground floor facing also the
24 A. Yes. If you went inside through this door and entered this main
25 corridor which goes the length of this building, to this side towards me,
1 are the rooms I told you about, and on the opposite side are the rooms
2 facing the yard. There was one bathroom and toilet. Behind it was
3 a switchboard manned by a woman named Dara, who was almost blind. Next to
4 that was the archive where the files on all the convicted persons inside
5 KP Dom were kept.
6 Q. What was on the first floor, above ground?
7 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, do we have a plan of this
9 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, we don't. Therefore, we need to use the
10 drawings and the description of this witness, and therefore -- that's also
11 the reason why I go into details. We will not have any other so detailed
12 description of the building.
13 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
14 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
15 Q. Yes. Please continue. What was on the first floor?
16 A. On the first floor, there was the corridor identical to the one on
17 the ground floor. On the left-hand side, there were offices of the guard
18 service, staffed by two commanders, their secretary, and the guards'
20 Q. The guards' commander, where exactly was he in the building? In
21 which room on the first floor?
22 A. He was on the first floor, the last two windows on the left-hand
24 Q. Was his room facing the street or was it facing the yard?
25 A. His office faced the street which led to the hospital. Across
1 that street, across the road, there was the Drina River.
2 Q. What was on the second floor?
3 A. On the second floor, there were supervisors' rooms, the chief's
4 room, and the chief at the time when I worked there was one Tesevic.
5 Q. We are speaking -- to clarify that, we are speaking about the
6 building number 1. Are you sure that the warden's room was in building
7 number 1, on the second floor?
8 A. The warden was not in the building number 1, just the
9 administrator. I said he was a man number 2 in the KP Dom. The warden is
10 something different. He was man number 1. He didn't have offices in this
12 Q. When you say "man number 2," the administrator, what do you mean?
13 What exactly was the function of this person, this person number 2?
14 A. Well, the administrator dealt with the reintegration into society
15 of the convicts. He would often meet with the supervisors or tutors. He
16 would decide which of the prisoners were to be granted early release,
17 which of them would be granted special benefits. He was in charge of such
18 decisions, but in agreement with the tutors or the supervisors; they
19 decided it together.
20 Q. Is that what you call in your own language "vaspitac"?
21 A. He was a level above ordinary vaspitac, tutor.
22 Q. Thank you. Would you please show us the exact position of the
23 room of the administrator? Do you recall?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. We are talking about the second person, you mentioned the second
1 person. The second most important person, in building 1, where was his
3 A. I can't answer this question with any precision. I'm sorry.
4 Q. Let's now move on to the building number 2. What was on the
5 ground floor of the building number 2?
6 A. On the ground floor of building number 2 was a passage, on this
7 side that we can see which ran the length of the building. Here, at this
8 spot which I am pointing to now, was a room. It was on the left-hand side
9 of the passage. And we called that particular office "Censorship". That
10 was, practically, a room where visits were announced, where the mail was
11 received and then distributed, where parcels were distributed, and such
12 small services that we could render to the convicted persons, or possibly
13 give them some information or other.
14 Q. Were there also visitors' rooms on that same corridor?
15 A. Yes. As you -- after this room, next to that particular room,
16 there were two bedrooms and the convicts could use them when their wives
17 would come to visit them. They could -- they were allowed four hours in
18 the building, within the building, which meant that they could use one of
19 those bedrooms if their spouse had come or fiance or girlfriend.
20 Q. These rooms you just mentioned, and for the record the witness is
21 pointing in this building from the left to the right, were these rooms
22 facing the prison yard?
23 A. As the passage along this building, as you walk through this main
24 door and then turn right, this passage was right behind these windows
25 and those offices. Those rooms for visits and all that, their windows
1 faced the interior of the compound.
2 Q. The staircase in this building, was it at the right or the left
3 side of the building number 2?
4 A. The staircase for this building here, number 2, if you take this
5 passage, at the end of this passage there were stairs on the right-hand
6 side, and those stairs led upstairs.
7 Q. What was on the first floor?
8 A. On the first floor were clerks, people who had to deal with
9 business matters, production, such like.
10 Q. What was on the second floor?
11 A. And on the second floor was our warden -- rather, in the left wing
12 of the building, and the rest were heads of individual production units of
13 the furniture factory called Drina.
14 Q. And does that mean the warden's room was at the end of the
15 corridor when you come from a staircase on the right-hand side of the
16 building? The warden's room would be at the end of the corridor, on the
17 left-hand side, of building number 2?
18 A. The -- here, where I am showing, this was the end of the passage,
19 and then you open a door and you enter the warden's office. But it looked
20 more like a reception room.
21 Q. So you are pointing -- for the record, you are pointing at the
22 last two windows in your drawing.
23 A. Yes, correct. I can't really recall how many windows there were,
24 but I do remember that the passage came to an end quite abruptly. And
25 then there was a door in continuation of that passage, and you would enter
1 his offices.
2 Q. Actually, behind this warden's room there would be, then building
4 A. Quite so.
5 Q. And when -- how would the warden -- if the warden wants to go to
6 his room, coming from the entrance 19, where would he pass through?
7 A. Every morning the warden arrives for work, and all the other
8 clerks and officials; some went to the left and some to the right. But he
9 would have to take this passage, go up the stairs to the first floor, and
10 then another floor, and then again turn left down the passage and would
11 eventually fetch up at the door to his office.
12 Q. You said the warden's office was kind of a reception. Does that
13 mean that it was a big room and a comfortable room?
14 A. It was some strange looking, large room with expensive furniture.
15 His office looked more like a good hotel room or a suite. There were
16 many -- there was plenty of light with windows on both sides.
17 Q. So he had windows on both sides, that means facing the street and
18 facing the yard?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let's now move on to building number 3. What was in building
21 number 3?
22 A. Building number 3 contained a cinema hall where the convicts could
23 see films every week; that is, films that were shown in the town would
24 also be shown in the prison. Now, below the cinema hall was the mess, the
25 canteen, for the convicts.
1 Q. What was in building number 4?
2 A. And building number 4 housed the school. The convicts could
3 complete there the elementary school or a trade, and when their punishment
4 would expire, they would be able to find jobs easier as a skilled
5 individual, as people with secondary, vocational education. But below
6 this was -- below the school was the second part of the canteen. That is
7 where I'm showing now.
8 Q. And number 20, is that an entrance that the convicts used, or what
9 is it?
10 A. Number 20, you're asking me about number 20?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. Here? This is the entrance into the cinema, and this entrance was
13 used only by civilians. Because many concerts that perhaps would take
14 place in my town, we did not have any concert hall or a theatre, and this
15 hall was quite suitable. So that people, citizens, could come and use it,
16 attend various events. So this entrance was used only for civilians, that
17 is, free citizens.
18 Q. And number 6 and number 5, can you tell us what this is?
19 A. Number 6, this is the main gate used by cars or vans bringing in
20 or taking away various production materials or taking out finished
21 products, that is, specifically, the furniture which was made by
22 prisoners. So this gate is a metal one, and they also have wheels, the
23 doors had wheels. So the guards had to push them to one side, to the
24 right one to be precise.
25 Q. Yes. And number 5?
1 A. Number 5, this was the shop that -- the selling outlet for the
2 penitentiary where we sold the furniture.
3 Q. Can you tell us what number 7 is, this big building within the
5 A. Number 7 is the furniture factory. Where I'm pointing at now,
6 this is where production materials would arrive, that is, either boards or
7 logs --
8 Q. Witness, we don't need the details. It's enough that you tell us,
9 "This is the furniture factory." Thank you.
10 Building number 8, what is it?
11 A. Number 8, this is the building which housed the convicts when
12 serving their terms of imprisonment, and this is the building marked as A,
13 B, and this lateral building. But they were all connected inside.
14 Q. Can you tell us, if you recall, the positions of the rooms of the
15 prisoners within the -- within this building number 8? Would you please
16 start in block A? Can you tell us where the rooms were and point it out
17 to us?
18 A. In building A, there was always one guard; likewise, building B.
19 And the were designed very -- they're very similar. In building A, on
20 this side as you enter, there was a room called 11, which we have marked,
21 and to the right was Room 12 which we cannot see because it is hidden by
22 this part of the building.
23 Q. Just to clarify. Room 11 is on -- what do you call it, the ground
24 floor of the building, or was there something below that Room 11?
25 A. If you look at this part here, it is a lawn, there are some
1 flowers growing there, and it was on the ground floor. But this part here
2 is dug in and that is where we had storage space, storage for the
3 convicts' belongings, their clothes and their footwear and all that was
4 stored down there.
5 Q. When you point at the little door which would be the storage room
6 in the basement, and when I look at block A, there are no windows on the
7 front. Is that correct?
8 A. It escapes me now. I can't remember.
9 Q. So Room 11 would be immediately above the storage room, and what
10 room would be above that?
11 A. Above number 11?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. It was Room 13.
14 Q. And above 13?
15 A. Above 13 was a hospital, that is, the premises of the infirmary,
16 of the hospital, where the convicts received treatment and were examined,
17 and they had their beds there like in any regular hospital.
18 Q. You have already pointed out to us Room 12, but I didn't really --
19 but let me clarify. Room 12, would you point at it? Is that -- would
20 that be right from the door?
21 A. Correct. Room 12, it is on the right-hand side as you take -- go
22 through this door, then it is to the right, but we cannot see it because
23 this block hides it.
24 Q. Room 12 is not in block B but hidden beside block B, so to speak?
25 A. Yes, quite.
1 Q. And what was above Room 12 --
2 JUDGE HUNT: I'm sorry to interrupt, Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, if it is
3 important, and I don't know how it could be important, but if it is, we
4 don't know what floor Room 12 was.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
6 Q. Yes. What floor was Room 12?
7 A. Number 12? Ground floor, to the right.
8 Q. And what was -- was there a room above 12?
9 A. Yes, there was.
10 Q. What was the number?
11 A. Fourteen, Room 14. It is on the upper floor, to the right. And
12 to the left was Room 13, on the floor above but on the left-hand side.
13 Q. Were there any more prisoner rooms in building -- in block A?
14 A. Yes. There was Room 15 which was above Room 13, on the right-hand
15 side, viewing from here. And here, on the left -- to the left here were
16 the premises of our hospital.
17 Q. Yes. Will you now please go to block B and tell us which room was
18 on the ground floor of block B?
19 A. Room 16 was on the left-hand side, that is, if you took this door,
20 then to the left, on the left-hand side. And to the right were solitary
21 confinement cells, the C department, and the isolation room. This is
22 where I'm pointing right now.
23 Q. The isolation cells and block C, that's on the right from the
24 door, and the Room 16 is on the left-hand side of the door, and as I
25 understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, it goes through the entire block
1 B, this wing.
2 A. Yes, you are quite right.
3 Q. What was above 16?
4 A. Above 16, it was Room 18. That is on the upper floor. And it
5 also took this whole floor, this part of the floor, whereas to the right,
6 there was Room 19, as we called it, but it was the reception, really; that
7 is, when a sentenced person arrives to the penitentiary to begin to serve
8 his term, it is where they spend a month being trained, being taught
9 various things, and after that they are then assigned to individual other
10 rooms. And that was here.
11 Q. And above 18, on the second floor, what was there? Which room was
12 above 18?
13 A. Above 18, there was Room 20, and it also took the whole breadth of
14 this building.
15 Q. Was there another room above 20?
16 A. Yes, Room 22. And that was the last room in this block, 22. It
17 was to the left.
18 JUDGE HUNT: Ms. Uertz-Retzlaff, we've now spent 30 minutes on
19 this which, if you had had the chance to speak to the witness beforehand,
20 could have been reproduced into a plan and tendered into evidence. I'm
21 not sure -- I've been trying to put all of this into the plan or the
22 document you've now tendered as Exhibit P88. I don't know whether it's
23 right or wrong, frankly. This is the most terrible way of trying to
24 introduce evidence. Now, if we gave you leave to speak to the witness
25 overnight, do you think we might get a plan out of this that we can all
1 rely upon and he can be shown it in the morning and then he can say
2 whether it's correct, and then we've got it with the names in English and
3 B/C/S on it.
4 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: We can try to do that, Your Honour, but we're
5 actually through. I mean, these are the rooms.
6 JUDGE HUNT: But if there is some importance in the geography of
7 this building, and I assume there is, I have little idea, and I have been
8 trying to follow this as best I can from the witness' description and the
9 way he's been pointing with the rod, showing us on the screen. But
10 whether I've got it right or wrong, I'm not sure. And if it's going to be
11 important, don't you think it would have been better to spent this half
12 hour before we started and got the plan out of the witness?
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, we can prepare a plan with the witness
14 together right after this session.
15 JUDGE HUNT: Yes. Well, then, let's get on with something that we
16 don't have to depend upon the description at this stage. It has been a
17 wasted half hour, so far as I'm concerned, I have to say.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
19 Q. When we speak about rooms, does that mean there's actually only
20 one room, or is it a set of rooms consisting of several bedrooms?
21 A. If we talk about Rooms 16, 18, 20, 22, it's not one room, there
22 are four of them; one of them, that is, number 16, for instance, it has
23 four dormitories and that is also how Room 18 was designed, and Room 20
24 and 22. Those rooms to the left are larger, whereas the rooms in the
25 building on the right-hand side are smaller and they were made of two
1 rooms rather than four, as those in the first group.
2 Q. Witness, what is the distance between the administration building
3 and the prisoners' block? Could you say what the distance was?
4 A. Well, it's 15 or maybe 20 metres.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would now like to show the witness another
6 drawing but it's not as -- it will not be detailed, Your Honour. It will
7 be just mentioning a few buildings. And that is actually the drawing that
8 had the identification number 89. We are not going into any details
9 except for pointing at the distance.
10 JUDGE HUNT: It's not one of the three that we've got now. It's a
11 new one, is it?
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, it's actually the drawing with the
13 identification number 89, but it is again with the name of the witness
14 redacted and instead the witness number on it. It's a bridge -- there's a
15 bridge on it.
16 JUDGE HUNT: Well, that one is 300287, is the identification on
17 the bottom of it.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
20 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
21 Q. Witness, did you make this drawing?
22 A. I did, yes.
23 Q. And the bridge, number 18 you have drawn into this drawing, how
24 far away is it from the prison building, from the administration building,
1 A. I should say about 100 to 150 metres.
2 Q. And the building number 15, is that a little restaurant?
3 A. Yes, it is a restaurant which was part of the penitentiary, and
4 during the -- it was the place where officials of the prison had their
5 breakfast. After that it would be open to the public.
6 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I would like now to ask the usher to put on
7 the ELMO the drawing, the next drawing of the witness, and it has the
8 identification number, number 90. The version that the witness has is
9 also again redacted and the number 12 in it.
10 JUDGE HUNT: I believe you have a set of documents, or at least a
11 set of numbering quite different to what we've been given. That one that
12 is now being shown on the ELMO has 287 as the -- 288, I'm sorry.
13 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Number 288. I was referring to the
14 identification numbers of the drawing in the trial binders. I thought it
15 would be easier to point out the identification number to you than the ERN
17 JUDGE HUNT: Thank you.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF:
19 Q. The building number 12, is that the metal factory?
20 A. That's right. This is the metal shop, the metal working shop, in
21 which the convicted persons made some special metal products for export.
22 They also made the frames, the skeletons, for these kiosks, for
23 stands, which they sold then across Yugoslavia. But, yes, those were
24 those metal working shops.
25 Q. The detainees or the prisoners, it's better to say, when they
1 worked in this metal shop, did they have to leave the compound and go
2 through the entrance that has the number 11 on your drawing?
3 A. Yes. This is the entrance that was used by the convicted persons
4 to get to work. They had to go through this main door of building 1, and
5 then would come this way and then work in these buildings here.
6 Q. Yes, thank you.
7 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, the Prosecution would like to
8 enter these drawings as well into evidence.
9 JUDGE HUNT: Any objection, Mr. Bakrac?
10 MR. BAKRAC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE HUNT: Well, they will be Exhibits P88, P89, and P90.
12 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour. I see it's 4.00, and the
13 day should be over now.
14 JUDGE HUNT: Very well. We'll adjourn in a moment. But you have
15 leave to spend some time with the witness. What you should do is speak
16 only about the particular plan and nothing more, as I'm sure that's what
17 you'll do.
18 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I think if I understand you correctly, Your
19 Honour, it would be enough for the witness to simply draw into his drawing
20 he has before him the numbers of the rooms, isn't it?
21 JUDGE HUNT: No. Really, it's -- because of the way in which it's
22 a perspective drawing, we're losing a lot of it. I mean a floor plan. I
23 assume this is going to be of some importance, where all the rooms are.
24 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE HUNT: Well, then, frankly, drawing them on this document is
1 of little assistance. It is of great assistance to have that drawing or
2 those drawings because they give us a perspective and the buildings
3 themselves are identified. But if you want us to understand where
4 particular rooms are within the building, I'm afraid only a floor plan for
5 each floor will assist.
6 Now, you can ask him to do it, I can ask him to do it, but you may
7 want to check some things. That's why I think you should have the leave
8 to do so, so that when we start in the morning we've got something which
9 we can all use and get on with it, as far as we have to.
10 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Your Honour, I will ask him to do it. But I
11 want to point out one thing: It's actually -- the most important point is
12 to make -- to show what view the witnesses -- the detainees in certain
13 rooms had. It's not so much the layout of the room and all these rooms
14 within the building, it's the view. So let's say Room 11, ground floor,
15 would not be able to see the Drina. Room 22, on the top floor, would make
16 it possible for the detainees there to see the bridge over the Drina.
17 That is actually what we want to show through this witness. So it's not
18 so much the layout of the rooms and the set of rooms, it's more their
19 location on the floors.
20 JUDGE HUNT: I can only say that that will not be apparent from
21 anything you've said so far during the half hour you took to take him
22 through room by room and place by place. Now, either you would have to
23 have a non-perspective view of the buildings from above, a plan from above
24 and you could see where the rooms are by comparison to other rooms. But
25 at the moment, and I have been paying attention, I am completely at a
1 loss to know what it is you have been going through those rooms for
2 half an hour, and I'm trying to avoid any further delays like that. I
3 know you've written down three hours for this witness, but if it's going
4 to be like this, it's a wasted three hours.
5 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: No, Your Honour, this is actually -- I'm
6 actually complete with taking the witness through his drawings. But for
7 this -- to assist the Court, we will try to achieve the floor plan you
8 have mentioned. But there's also a possibility, maybe it is a suggestion,
9 to do it at a later stage.
10 JUDGE HUNT: That may be so. But you have put, if I may say so,
11 your finger right on the point: It is surely to assist us. We have to
12 make the decision in the end, and speaking for myself, that half hour has
13 not assisted me. I don't know why you are resisting doing something which
14 seems to me to be so simple and which will certainly assist.
15 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: I'm not resisting, Your Honour. I only tried
16 to avoid to have to talk with the witness again about the floor plan. If
17 he now produces a floor plan, we have to talk about it again. But I will
18 ask him to do it, and I will explain to him what I would like to see on
20 JUDGE HUNT: And once you've seen it, you may want to ask him to
21 add to it.
22 MS. UERTZ-RETZLAFF: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE HUNT: I don't want you doing it in court because I want to
24 use the time in court for more productive reasons.
25 Now, Exhibit 394, which was this witness' name and birthdate, of
1 course, will be under seal.
2 We'll resume at 9.30 in the morning.
3 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.06 p.m.,
4 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 31st day of
5 October, 2000, at 9.30 a.m.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.