1 Friday, 24 November 2000
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, ladies and
7 gentlemen. Good morning to the technical booth, to the interpreters.
8 Good morning to the counsel for the Prosecution, counsel for Defence.
9 Good morning, Witness DE. How do you feel today? Are you
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm fine, thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me remind you that you will
13 continue to testify under an oath, and that you will continue answering
14 questions that counsel for the Prosecution will be asking of you.
15 Mr. McCloskey, your witness.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.
17 WITNESS: WITNESS DE [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Cross-examined by Mr. McCloskey: [Continued]
20 Q. Good morning, Witness.
21 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness the photo, Exhibit
22 807, which was what he was looking at before, followed up immediately by
24 Q. And Witness, this is the building that you looked at briefly
25 yesterday and asked if you could get a wider-angle shot to help perhaps
1 put it in perspective.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: And so if we could now show the witness 178, and
3 if we could put that on the ELMO.
4 Q. And Witness, you may know, but this photo is shot roughly in the
5 area in front of the school looking down towards the intersection, and the
6 building in the previous exhibit should be in the middle of the screen.
7 It's in a set of three buildings.
8 A. Yes, that could be the building in question, the one that I spoke
9 about yesterday.
10 Q. All right. And could you, could you take the pointer and point at
11 the building.
12 A. [Indicates]
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Okay, for the record, it's the building in the
14 centre of the photograph with the red roof, and we can see a white part of
15 the wall.
16 Q. And what building is that or was that in July of 1995?
17 A. I don't know what was in the building while I was on leave, but I
18 could tell you some history of that building. The command quarters, that
19 is the MUP, wanted to have a facility in that area, and they used that
20 building, that facility, only from time to time when they carried certain
21 activities in the area; that is, when MUP carried such activities.
22 So I don't know whether in that period of time the building was
23 occupied or not. However, during the period of time when MUP engaged in
24 certain activities, it was; however, when there were only checkpoints, I
25 don't think that the building was occupied. And I don't know what
1 happened after that period of time.
2 Q. When you got back to Konjevic Polje after returning from Serbia,
3 do you know what that building was used for when you got back? Because
4 you said you spent a couple of days in Konjevic Polje.
5 A. I spent a couple of days in Konjevic Polje, and as to the purpose
6 for which the building was used at the time, I didn't manage to learn, but
7 in view of a longer period of time, I know that the building was used from
8 time to time, occasionally; and the Banja Luka MUP had some training, some
9 kind of training there, and they were placed in the school building that
10 we had talked about yesterday, but that had happened some time ago. At
11 any rate, some representatives of the MUP happened to be there.
12 Q. In the period before you left to Belgrade, what MUP organisation
13 was using that building?
14 A. We referred to it as a MUP building, but its use was not very well
15 defined. It all depended on the activities carried out in the area, and I
16 don't know who decided as to who would be quartered there and when they
17 would leave because that was the responsibility of the MUP. It probably
18 depended on the most senior unit that was engaged in the area. That unit
19 would probably be accommodated in that building. But mostly it was not
20 occupied, so it was occupied only from time to time in peak periods.
21 Q. Now, what was the most senior MUP organisation? Was it MUP
22 Zvornik, MUP Bratunac, Special Army MUP, MUP from Janja? What was the
23 actual MUP organisation that you're talking about?
24 A. All the organisations that you have just numbered passed through
25 Konjevic Polje during that period of time while I was there in one fashion
1 or another. Even when the school was functioning, even when they were
2 there, the minister of MUP came to visit it.
3 Q. So it could have been any of those MUPs that I've mentioned that
4 was using that building?
5 A. Yes. That was quite possible. I personally don't know, because I
6 wasn't there, so I don't know who used it. Any of the MUP organisations
7 could use it. But there must have been a level at which a decision would
8 be reached as to who would use the building, but I don't know about that,
9 just as I told you yesterday when I said that I didn't know who would use
10 the school building, but there must have been someone who decided as to
11 who would use those facilities.
12 Q. Referring you back to the photograph, do you see your command and
13 your communications building in this photograph?
14 A. Yes. These are the two buildings in question.
15 MR. McCLOSKEY: For the record, the witness pointed at the
16 buildings on the far side of the photograph with the trees in front of
18 Q. Witness, the building with the taller roof, which one is that
19 again? Is that command or communications?
20 A. The command.
21 Q. Are you aware of an officer from the 65th Protection Regiment with
22 the nickname of Cica?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you know who the commanding officer for the 65th Protection
25 Regiment was?
1 A. I know the person, but I cannot remember his name. It's just not
2 coming to my mind. I didn't have any special contact with him, but I know
3 him from stories. I cannot remember his name, but I know the individual.
4 Q. Is it Savic or Savcic?
5 A. Savcic, yes. Savcic.
6 Q. Does he have a nickname of Cica?
7 A. I don't know about that nickname. I cannot answer your question.
8 I never heard that the two names were linked, Cica and Savcic, but I don't
10 Q. Does he have a moustache?
11 A. Savcic, you mean?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I don't think he does. I say I don't think that he does because,
14 you know, people sometimes wear a moustache, sometimes not. I knew
15 Savcic, but not very well, and I don't remember seeing him with a
17 Q. Going back to the photograph, this photograph was taken, I
18 believe, a few years after the events. Could you look down towards the
19 intersection? And perhaps if we could move the photograph so we can see
20 the left side. I believe this photograph shows what is now a petrol
22 A. No. No. That photograph doesn't show a petrol station. I told
23 you that I had repaired practically all facilities in Konjevic Polje.
24 This is one of such facilities that I had intention to repair, but the
25 level of destruction was rather high. The petrol station you're talking
1 about is further down, and the facility in question is still as it is, as
2 it is on the photograph. But you cannot see the petrol station because of
3 this building, and the intersection is further down.
4 Q. Did there used to be a warehouse back in July of 1995 on the
5 intersection where there is now a petrol station, right on the banks of
6 the river?
7 A. No. There used to be a very old building, a very old facility
8 there on that spot, but it didn't have any particular function; on the
9 location where the petrol station is. It was an older building, but I
10 don't think that it had any particular purpose or function. All I know is
11 that the right to use the building belonged to the agricultural
12 association, to the cooperative, from Bratunac.
13 Q. Is that the same agricultural cooperation that owned the Kravica
14 warehouse? The agricultural warehouse is in Kravica?
15 A. I really don't know. I never discussed it with anyone. I didn't
16 even know who the head or the chief of the agricultural cooperation was,
17 and I really don't know whether there's any link between the two.
18 Q. All right. You've told us that you were able to talk to people
19 that were in this area at the period of time of July 13th. I want to --
20 and counsel asked you about Witness S. I want to tell you a brief story,
21 and tell me if you have heard any parts of this particular story. It
22 involves Muslim prisoners.
23 Witness S, one particular Muslim prisoner, was taken prisoner in
24 the morning of July 13th near the school that we've referred to earlier in
25 Konjevic Polje, and he was taken to the little brick building that you've
1 identified in front of the school as the reception building. He was
2 placed in that building with other Muslim prisoners and was then taken to
3 the front of your command and communication buildings near those apple
4 trees, where he was interrogated by four men in army uniforms in the
5 presence of police officers.
6 And after his interrogation at your command building and your
7 communications building, he was then taken over to the building you have
8 described as the MUP building, and he was taken inside that building. And
9 there were police officers in there, and one of the Muslims that was in
10 that building with him was beaten by those police officers.
11 Then he was taken with others down to this other building near the
12 intersection that you've described as an old building belonging to the
13 agricultural cooperative whereupon a bus came, and he was put on a bus
14 with 15 other individuals, taken a short trip up the road to the Jadar
15 River where he and others were taken out by soldiers with automatic
16 weapons, taken down by the river, and executed. He was shot in the back
17 and dropped into the river, and was able to be freed because the river
18 took him away.
19 Do you ever hear any stories resembling the story I just told you?
20 A. No. However, I can give it some thought in the context of what I
21 have already spoken about. I don't know who was in the school building.
22 As regards the little building that I identified at the entrance, it was a
23 small building that I had constructed where one of the units of the 65th
24 Protected Regiment was located, but prior to the events that you have
25 described. And that is where people would come, where families of the
1 soldiers would come when they visited them. And I was involved in the
2 construction of that reception.
3 So I'm thinking as a military man. If the capture was carried out
4 by a member of the police, and if the individual was brought to the
5 school, that is, to the vicinity of this building, that means that it was
6 done by the police, that he was in the custody of the police. And I think
7 that in view of that period of time, Simanic was not there because he had
8 gone away with the wounded towards the Vis feature. That happened on the
9 13th of July. So I don't think that any of the commanding officers were
10 there from my unit.
11 So it is possible that the man in question was sitting there or
12 standing in this area. It was a small clearing where one could wait, and
13 that is roughly all I can tell you about this story. I have never heard
14 such a story.
15 Q. On 13 July from Nova Kasaba to Konjevic Polje to Kravica,
16 thousands of Muslim prisoners were taken by forces of the VRS. And you've
17 never heard anything about that from your colleagues in Konjevic Polje?
18 A. I told you yesterday what I heard, and I heard that in the area
19 between Konjevic Polje and Nova Kasaba there had been some fierce fighting
20 with the view of intercepting the column, so that there must have been a
21 smaller blockade because one part of the column was moving towards Cerska,
22 and the other arm of the column went towards another location, so they
23 were sort of surrounding Konjevic Polje.
24 I told your colleague that I had learned about these events in
25 Belgrade, and the first thing that I learned about was through a video
1 clip which could be seen on one of the independent TVs in Belgrade, and it
2 showed some captured people on a football pitch. It was a video footage
3 that I saw in Belgrade in one of the independent TV stations. But as
4 regards your specific question, I really don't know because I didn't see,
5 and I didn't have an opportunity to discuss it.
6 That the whole area was in a state of chaos, yes; everybody was
7 describing that chaotic situation on the road. There were many people
8 moving in columns, that the roads were full, and that took awhile. But as
9 regards the 13th of July, I think that the fighting was still ongoing, and
10 it is not possible that any transfer would have happened during that
11 period of time because the fighting was really fierce at the time.
12 I read the article of your expert, Butler, in a newspaper where a
13 mention is made of three or four elite units of VRS that carried out the
14 blockade and -- so, so it must be that the fighting was very fierce if
15 somebody had to bring in elite units to intercept the column.
16 Q. Did you see any fierce fighting on that video that showed the
17 people on the football pitch?
18 A. No. No, I didn't say that it was on the football pitch. I'm
19 talking about the area where the column was passing and about the attempts
20 to deblock Konjevic Polje and to establish some kind of line towards the
21 depth of the territory. It is perfectly normal and logical for such a
22 formation to have -- to carry out a two-pronged attack.
23 I didn't speak about the football pitch; I only told you that I
24 had seen a video footage that was shown on TV, and where I saw some
25 prisoners, and the cameraman identified that location as being a
2 Q. In around the middle of August in 1995, did you receive additional
3 support in the way of men from the Milici, Bratunac, and Zvornik brigades
4 for construction and engineering projects?
5 A. I don't remember. If you could be more specific and tell me which
6 project you have in mind. I spoke about a number of projects. I don't
7 know exactly which one you have in mind.
8 But let me tell you another thing which is perhaps also -- can be
9 also placed in that context, but I don't remember the exact time when it
10 happened. My unit was substantially reinforced sometime during that
11 period because a major construction work had started in the meantime on
12 the waterworks in Han Pijesak. An infantry unit abandoned a theatre of
13 operation in Krajina out of protest, and they reached Konjevic Polje
14 together with some other units. And that unit was forcibly stopped, and
15 they were handed over to me, and they were supposed to be used for some
16 construction work because they were against war, or something like that.
17 And I don't remember any other unit. And this whole company stayed in Han
18 Pijesak all the time, and it was involved in the construction of the
19 waterworks. I think that the strength of the unit was around 50 or 60
20 soldiers, maybe more. I don't remember the exact figures.
21 Q. Were they from the Zvornik, Milici, and Bratunac brigades?
22 A. I don't know. They may have passed through some kind of documents
23 before they reached me. They were infantry men, according to their
24 speciality, but I don't remember. And anyway, these were people from the
25 Krajina who, together with the people who were withdrawing, were among the
1 first to arrive, and they left the areas out of protest. They had had
2 enough of war, and they reached this area.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Could we now show the witness Exhibit 812.
4 Q. Witness, this is an exhibit that's an order from the Drina Corps,
5 dated 17 August, signed by General Krstic, providing you with additional
6 men from the Milici, Bratunac, and the Zvornik Brigades for various
7 projects, including bricklayers, carpenters, machine operators, things
8 like that. If you could just take a look at it. I don't -- we
9 don't -- the subject matter is not necessarily important, but perhaps this
10 will refresh your recollection.
11 A. That's quite possible. I can comment on it immediately, but let
12 me look at the document first. Because I kept trying to get more people:
13 builders, bricklayers, carpenters. That was our constant request. Now,
14 whether we got them or not is another matter.
15 This has refreshed my memory a little. There were several orders
16 of this kind with respect to my Engineering Unit. I told you that the
17 process of developing the battalion was hard and took some time, so that
18 certain orders had to be executed, and it was difficult to say "I cannot
19 carry it out" for this or that reason. But I do remember this order now.
20 A small section of the Milici Brigade did reach me. From the Vlasenica
21 Brigade, I don't think I got many; one or two bricklayers, one carpenter;
22 and I got nothing from the Zvornik Brigade.
23 I must underline that there were many orders of this kind. Every
24 commander was trying to develop its own Engineers Unit, but without
25 success. It says here "one construction technician, construction
1 engineer, construction technician, plumber," and so on. Apart from my
2 deputy, who was a construction engineer, and he was a reservist, we never
3 had a technical person in the unit who could engage in these activities,
4 so he never actually joined us.
5 Q. It also says you were supposed to get from Zvornik three
6 construction machinery operators and two drivers; and from the Bratunac
7 Brigade, four construction machinery operators, labourers, bricklayers,
8 and other things. So did you ever get those machine operators or was this
9 order not carried out?
10 A. This order was partly carried out. I did receive something from
11 the Milici Brigade. However, there were two operators among them, and I
12 think one electrician, auto electrician - that is the first time I got
13 one - and nothing more than that.
14 Q. You said you went into Srebrenica after the -- shortly after the
15 fall of the enclave. About what month was that that you went in to take
16 care of a problem that was in Srebrenica?
17 A. I didn't go immediately after the fall of the enclave, but upon my
18 return from Belgrade, I told you, I arrived at Konjevic Polje. I stayed
19 there for a day or two, the time it took to transfer what was available to
20 Vis, because I said that was my major assignment. And then at Vis I
21 received an order through the operations officer on duty from the Corps
22 Commander to report in Srebrenica and to help the civilian authorities who
23 were cleaning up the town regarding the problem of the river and all the
24 facilities on it and the collector that I described yesterday. At the
25 same time, there was an order to demine the zone of Srebrenica, primarily
1 removing minefields in front of the former positions of the Skelani
3 Q. And about what month was this?
4 A. And this was around -- it was the month when these events
5 occurred, so I think it was the 27th. That was the first time I went
6 there. I think it could have been the 27th.
7 Q. How many mosques were there in Srebrenica in July of 1995?
8 A. Believe me, I don't know. I went to Srebrenica for the first time
9 in my life then, though I'm born not far from there, but as a young man I
10 went to military schools and I really don't know.
11 Q. Do you know who destroyed the mosques shortly after the fall of
12 the enclave? Was it the military authorities?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. You know that the mosques from Srebrenica were destroyed after the
15 fall of the enclave, though, don't you?
16 A. I do not know that. I did not give the matter much thought, nor
17 was I in a position to do that. I carried out my orders. And believe me,
18 I spent very little time in Srebrenica myself. I may have been there for
19 a day or so, but we were addressing technical problems that we had to deal
20 with. And then another day I spent in the area where we had to do the
21 demining in front of the former positions of the Skelani Battalion, so
22 that really I don't know. I simply don't have that information.
23 Q. Today, is there any mosque standing anywhere in the former Zvornik
24 Brigade or Bratunac Brigade or Skelani Brigade or Milici Brigade areas of
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. I don't know.
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: And could we show the witness Exhibit 646/A.
3 Q. And Witness, while they're getting that, did you learn of any
4 murders of Muslim refugees coming out of Srebrenica or murders of Muslim
5 prisoners taken from the column that left Srebrenica on July 11th, 1995?
6 A. I heard through the media. I told you that I saw that TV clip of
7 some captured soldiers in a football pitch, and that was as much as I was
8 able to hear.
9 Q. Did you hear from any Drina Corps soldiers after you returned from
10 Belgrade about the killings of Muslim prisoners from the column?
11 A. No. You are asking me about the Drina Corps. I have nothing to
12 do with the command of the Drina Corps, nor any possibility to talk to
13 them, because the focus of the activities of the Drina Corps at the time
14 was the Zepa operation and the battles in that area. So I went towards
15 Vis, which is in quite a different direction. So I had -- I was not in a
16 position to have any kind of contact with people from the Drina Corps.
17 Q. Have you ever heard from any VRS soldiers that Muslim people from
18 Srebrenica were murdered by the VRS after the fall of Srebrenica?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Do you believe Muslim soldiers were murdered by the VRS after the
21 fall of Srebrenica as they came out and were captured and collected?
22 A. I said that I was able to hear and read quite a bit about it from
23 the media. And when I was invited by you for an interview, I read up a
24 little more than usual, and those were the sources that I had access to
25 that claimed that something had happened. I had no other specific
1 information. However, the very fact, if it is true, for somebody who did
2 not take part in it, simply avoided discussing it with anybody.
3 Q. Do you believe thousands of Muslim prisoners were slaughtered by
4 the VRS after the fall of Srebrenica?
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Visnjic?
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think that this
7 question has been put to the witness already - it's still on the screen -
8 and that the witness has answered the question. If they were killed, then
9 they were probably slaughtered. I think it's just a question of the use
10 of different words.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. McCloskey.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I don't believe I -- the reason I asked that again
13 is I don't believe he answered the first question about his beliefs.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ask him whether he knows, not
15 whether he believes. You can ask the witness whether he knows, whether he
16 has any knowledge of it. A witness has come to tell us here what he
17 knows, not what he believes, Mr. McCloskey.
18 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe, I believe he
19 has told us that he learned about it from the media, so I think he's
20 answered that question. So I can go on to another area.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please, go on to your next
23 MR. McCLOSKEY: Now, if we could put on this exhibit, 646A, if you
24 could go to the second page on that, and if we could zero in a bit on
25 that. That's fine.
1 Q. Witness, this is a log from the Zvornik Brigade Engineering Unit
2 that shows the digging of an ULT 220, and I just want to ask you a very, I
3 hope, simply question. Could you look down in the bottom of the second
4 page where it says "total used fuel," and it says --
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. -- it says 13.5 times 20, and equals 270. Now, is the 13.5, is
7 that the number of hours that the ULT was working?
8 A. Yes. That can be seen from further up the table --
9 Q. Okay. And the 20 --
10 A. -- where it says "completed." So that is the sum of what is
11 stated up there, to get to the total.
12 Q. Now, the 20 that is noted down at the bottom, is that -- does that
13 refer to 20 litres of diesel fuel?
14 A. Yes, per hour.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. McCLOSKEY: If we could show the witness Exhibit 709/A.
17 Q. And before we get to that next exhibit, Witness, what kind of big
18 dump trucks did the VRS have access to in July of 1995? What were the
19 basic sizes of the kind of a dump truck used for -- normally for carrying
20 sand and gravel, things like that? What size in cubic metres was the
21 usual dump truck that you were able to use or others were able to use for
22 construction purposes?
23 A. I don't know. It varied from one unit to another. I spoke
24 yesterday about the way in which the Engineers Unit of the Drina Corps was
25 formed. The brigade Engineers Units were formed somewhat earlier, and
1 they were supplied by work organisations in the area, war booty, and what
2 other sources they had, so that this differed from one unit to another.
3 In my particular case, I had two trucks with a carrying capacity
4 of four cubic metres, counting the size of the sides. These are FAP 13
5 trucks, F-a-p, very old ones, and in the former JNA they were about to be
6 discarded and put out of use; whereas the other trucks were mostly
7 civilian ones that could be found in the area that the brigade units used.
8 So there were small trucks like mine, the two that I had, and larger ones
9 that could be found in the area.
10 Q. What was the largest capacity in cubic metres that a dump truck in
11 the area would be able to carry?
12 A. If you take into account that in the area there was a bauxite
13 mine, which was a very large mine, which had very large trucks of large
14 carrying capacity; then we had large civilian companies like Romanija
15 Road, Zvornik Putovi; then there were construction companies in each of
16 the towns in the region; and the way in which they were engaged within the
17 brigade or outside the brigade through some sort of representative offices
18 at the level of municipalities that decided how they could be used for the
19 needs of the army, so that the capacity of the area was quite considerable
20 in terms of the availability of such equipment.
21 Q. For one of those big trucks, what would be the capacity in cubic
23 A. The question is rather vague. I mentioned four as a minimum, and
24 you could go up to, shall we say, 20 cubic metres; or if one were to use
25 the mining trucks, they even had a larger carrying capacity than that.
1 MR. McCLOSKEY: Do we have Exhibit 709A?
2 Q. Could you take a brief look at that.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Have you ever seen or heard of this order before?
5 A. No.
6 Q. This order mentions five tonnes of D-2 diesel fuel. Is that five
7 metric tonnes?
8 A. Five tonnes. A tonne is a unit of weight. We know how much that
10 Q. Are there 1.000 litres in a tonne?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I have no further questions of this witness,
13 Mr. President.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. McCloskey.
15 Mr. Petrusic, do you have any additional questions, or
16 Mr. Visnjic?
17 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Judge Fouad Riad, no questions?
19 Madam Judge Wald?
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE WALD: You mentioned that you saw the video of the prisoners
22 on the football pitch in Nova Kasaba while you were in Belgrade. That was
23 the period between the 9th and the 20th; is that right? Sometime in that
24 period you saw it on Belgrade video?
25 A. No.
1 JUDGE WALD: When --
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I think there was an
3 error in the interpretation, Judge Wald. You said "between the 9th and
4 20th of July," and the witness heard "between the 9th and the 12th," so
5 maybe that was why he said no.
6 JUDGE WALD: Well, do you remember approximately when you saw it
7 in Belgrade, when you saw the video?
8 A. I really can't be very definite, but I think it could have been
9 about the 15th, shall we say.
10 JUDGE WALD: That's good. That's fine. You mentioned at one
11 point that during your absence, and when you found out what had happened
12 when you came back, that there was one contingent or unit of soldiers -
13 and I don't remember which one - that came in on the 13th and then left
14 again on the 14th for Zepa; is that right?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Do you know or -- do you know from having your
17 people report to you what that --
18 A. I apologise. I do apologise. I don't know whether it was
19 properly translated. I'm talking about my contingent which returned from
20 Vis. On the 13th, the deputy went to fetch them because he didn't have
21 people to man the guard posts, and they were pulled out of what they were
22 doing on the 13th. They arrived on the 14th, and they left on the 15th.
23 That would be roughly the story.
24 JUDGE WALD: [Previous translation continues] ... You may have
25 answered it, but let me ask it again. That particular unit that was there
1 just for that day that was pulled out, and they were all put on guard post
2 duty? I mean, that was what they did all that day? The day that they
3 were there, the day that they were there, they arrived -- well --
4 A. I said yesterday that my defence was very important, and I had six
5 guard posts, and that three were down to a minimum regarding manning. So
6 that when units were absent, they couldn't be covered. There was only the
7 rear platoon that covered those three posts. So I engaged the guards that
8 I mentioned. They were not real soldiers. They came by bus and held
9 guard duty during the night, so to provide the circular defence that I had
10 organised in the area I was in. So if 15 soldiers returned, roughly -- I
11 can't be absolutely specific. Someone may have been on sick leave or
12 something. But if there was about 15, then there was a possibility to
13 cover four guard posts with them. I still didn't have enough men to cover
14 the whole circle.
15 JUDGE WALD: My last question is: If, as you say, you saw this
16 video of the football pitch and the captured soldiers on it around July
17 15th, when you came back to your post you didn't ask anybody any follow-up
18 questions about that, what happened or what they knew about what happened
19 to those soldiers -- or to those captured Muslim people that you had seen
20 on the video?
21 A. I didn't discuss that with anyone. Simply upon arrival in
22 Konjevic Polje, I made a survey of the situation and then went on to Vis.
23 I simply had no occasion to talk with any responsible person about the
24 subject. That the situation was chaotic, everyone told me that; that
25 there were columns of buses, of vehicles passing by; that at the
1 intersection it was absolutely chaotic. And the people who were there did
2 tell me that, but nothing more specific regarding those soldiers on the
3 football ground, and they couldn't have told me anything. So this general
4 idea what the situation was like in the area was conveyed to me in the
5 sense that it was chaotic, but I never discussed any particulars with
7 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Wald.
9 Witness D, I have a few questions -- DE, I'm sorry. You spoke to
10 us about the handing over of duty, and you told us that troops needed to
11 be lined up to say goodbye to them. And if I understood you correctly,
12 you added "when that was possible." Did I get you correctly? Did I
13 understand that correctly? Is that what you said, that the line-up was
14 made when it was possible?
15 A. The superior officer writes an order, and in the order he
16 specifies how this takeover will take place.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm sorry for interrupting you.
18 I want to know whether I understood well this particular phrase. I
19 remember very well everything that you told us. "To line up the troops to
20 say goodbye, when that was possible." Is that what you said or did I make
21 something up?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I should like to focus on this
24 phrase "when that was possible." What did you mean when you said that?
25 "Line up the troops to say goodbye when possible."
1 A. In wartime conditions, there are situations when that cannot be
2 known, when it's impossible. How can you call a person on guard duty to
3 be lined up? You can't have some people who -- there are always people
4 that you can't line up in wartime conditions.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So all these requirements -
6 lining up the troops, having all the documents, to inspect the facilities,
7 to find the appropriate people - maybe, if somebody -- is justified if
8 somebody is taking over who knows nothing about the unit; am I correct or
10 A. No. No, because this is a formal and legal procedure. It has a
11 legal meaning. When I became head of the engineers - I showed you a
12 document - the people have to know when I come on tour or on a visit who I
13 am for me to be able to go to the command, the command of the Drina Corps,
14 somebody has to introduce me to my colleagues. He must familiarise me
15 with the relationships within the command. I may have known all that, but
16 the Prosecutor asked me yesterday about a document that I signed with a
17 person who took my place. That is why we personally keep those documents,
18 because that man may say, "No, that's not right. I haven't taken over the
19 duty. I haven't signed the document. Show it to me."
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see. You said that this is
21 the legal way to proceed, but when it is possible. Does that legal rule
22 apply? Isn't there a situation when there's a force majeure due to which
23 you cannot proceed normally? You said "when it is possible." What about
24 when there is a contingency situation or an exceptional situation?
25 A. When something like that occurs -- and it is quite possible that
1 the procedure may not be fully observed. But then the question is: Why?
2 What are the conditions when such a situation may occur? For instance, a
3 person can be replaced on the spot, but the question is: Why, and how?
4 What are the circumstances? Even the person who is taking over duty, he
5 may insist on the procedure --
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We're still talking within the
7 frameworks of rules and procedures. But imagine a situation as follows:
8 that someone who is in charge of a unit, and there's an urgent situation,
9 a battle; there's a battle going on. In the meantime, this official in
10 charge of the unit falls sick or is killed in the battlefield. Is his
11 deputy in a position to replace him without having to go through this
12 whole procedure?
13 A. This is called representation. There's a legal situation when you
14 are representing somebody. You don't have all the rights and duties
15 stemming from a formal appointment. Even my appointment was
16 representation. I'll tell you why: Because neither by rank nor by
17 speciality, I hadn't completed the General Staff school, so I was not
18 familiar with the legal procedures and other knowledge to acquire that
19 title. So if you will look at the document, it says he "represents."
20 So I continued to receive all the benefits of a battalion
21 commander. You could see that from the record that I signed with the
22 person who took over from me, my successor.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but imagine your
24 situation. You were responsible for a unit. You were responsible for the
25 unit. You had a deputy who would normally replace you in your absence.
1 You fall sick, and it is absolutely impossible for you to continue to head
2 the unit. And this is a final impossibility, that's what I'm talking
4 This deputy, your deputy, can he immediately assume command of the
5 unit without having to wait this 15-day or 20-day period for the takeover?
6 Just imagine that there's no person to carry that out, anyway. So your
7 deputy, since you are absolutely incapacitated to continue in your
8 position, can he immediately assume command, and then possibly wait for
9 the formalities to take place subsequently? How do things happen in such
10 a situation?
11 A. Perhaps that was the case with myself, due to the fact that I left
12 the unit on the 9th and went to Belgrade. My deputy remained there.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Sorry to interrupt you. I am
14 not talking about the possibility of going to Belgrade and leaving the
15 area. My hypothesis is of another nature, and I'm sorry to have to speak
16 in hypothetical terms. Let's say that you were killed in battle and
17 you -- it is physically impossible for you to come back.
18 I'm sorry to interrupt you. Please continue.
19 A. There is a possibility of being automatically replaced. The
20 commander of the 1st Platoon automatically replaces the commander of the
21 company. The deputy of the battalion commander automatically replaces the
22 battalion commander. But even if he should get killed, there must have
23 been some kind of procedure for that person to assume the command from
24 then on.
25 There is a rule within a platoon, for example. When the platoon
1 commander is killed, he is then replaced by the commander of the 1st
2 Platoon, and then the new structure is immediately in place, and they're
3 all familiar with that.
4 So that exceptional situation must be legally resolved sooner or
5 later. There would be a legal procedure later on. Even if the individual
6 in question gets killed, a commission would be established later on to
7 take care of the procedure, but he would be working all the time.
8 However, the procedure formally speaking must be legally completed. There
9 must be a beginning of the procedure, it is usually an order, and there
10 has to be a record of the handover of duty.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. When you
12 spoke about the handover of duty you mentioned duties of the commander who
13 is leaving, that is, the outgoing commander, who has the duty to transmit
14 everything to the in-coming commander. Have I understood you correctly?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So does he also have to transmit
17 secrets and any other type of confidential information to the in-coming
19 A. There are certain things that even the commander is not aware of,
20 talking about secrets. For example, on several occasions I was in a
21 similar position. There is a service whose duty is to protect the
22 military structure as a whole. And when I left Pale there was a
23 commission that was established for that purpose because the commander
24 thought, his assessment was, that I am not the kind of official who could
25 leave without a commission having to review that procedure. And that was
1 part of the Security Service.
2 (redacted) is leaving, one has to see whether he has taken some
3 documents with him as he left, whether there has been any abuse of office
4 and similar things.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will take care of that. You
6 may continue, Witness DE.
7 A. Whether certain things could have been mishandled, whether it was
8 possible for an abuse to have occurred, and that can also involve the
10 The commander can also erroneously carry out his assignments. You
11 have probably read a lot about espionage during the Second World War.
12 There are commanders who engage in activities which are prohibited to him
13 and which can be lethal for the organisation, so there must be someone who
14 will decide on these matters.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if the commander has the duty
16 to transmit everything to the in-coming commander, it means that he has to
17 transmit to him everything that is likely to be important for that person
18 so as to maintain the level of organisation and command and control of
19 that particular unit?
20 A. Yes.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness DE, let me go back to
22 something that you have perhaps already answered in response to a question
23 to Judge Wald, but let me try to clarify something.
24 Do you know if that video clip that you saw in Belgrade around the
25 15th of July involving captured soldiers on a football pitch, do you know
1 if it was possible to see that programme in the eastern part of Bosnia, in
2 the area of Bratunac, Zvornik, Konjevic Polje, and so on? Was it possible
3 for them to see that programme?
4 A. It would have been very difficult. The programme belonged to one
5 of the independent TV stations, and the official TV station wouldn't show
6 that programme. And those independent TV stations were covering the area
7 of Belgrade.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I have another question
9 involving your travel to Srebrenica. Did you actually enter the centre of
10 the town, or not?
11 A. I am not familiar with the town of Srebrenica. It would be very
12 difficult for me to locate the centre of the town because I really don't
13 know much about it. That was the first time that I entered the town, and
14 I may have gone back on one other occasion, but that's it.
15 My area of activities was towards the border, and I focussed in
16 the area towards Tuzla and Kladanj.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but I should like to know
18 whether you actually entered the town of Srebrenica. Let us leave the
19 word "centre" out of the question.
20 A. Yes, yes, I was in town, in the town of Srebrenica.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did you see any mosques?
22 A. No.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] As far as I understood, you went
24 there on the 27th of July.
25 A. Yes, thereabouts. Most probably on the 27th, but it's very
1 difficult for me to be specific. It's been a while.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The fall of Srebrenica, was it
3 considered as a victory? Was it perceived as a victory by the VRS?
4 A. Well, you know, any facility that is taken possession of is
5 considered as a victory, let alone the town of Srebrenica. But if you're
6 talking about the tragedy that occurred, I must say that it was a very
7 unfortunate event how things turned out, and I am also referring to the
8 International Community as well, because the area was only formally
9 protected, but it actually constituted a military facility because of the
10 problems that we had in the area. I myself, I am from the area of Milici,
11 for example.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Do you know what
13 were the consequences of the fall of Srebrenica within the VRS, and what
14 impact did it have on its soldiers?
15 A. I'm not sure I understand your question.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's a very simple question,
17 Witness. What was the effect on the soldiers of the VRS that the fall of
18 Srebrenica provoked?
19 A. Do you mean morally speaking?
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, that's exactly what I have
21 in mind.
22 A. I'll try and answer your question. As far as I understood things
23 as one of the commanders, I think that the very capture of Srebrenica, if
24 we put aside the fact that it was a protected area, if it had been really
25 a protected area, if it had not constituted, militarily speaking, a
1 problem for us, it wouldn't have been any burden for us. However, we were
2 holding our positions around the area all the time. It was very tiring,
3 and people were very nervous, and every single rotation of the military
4 brigade --
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, sorry to interrupt you
6 once again, but let us streamline the question. Did soldiers talk amongst
7 themselves about the fall of Srebrenica?
8 A. Well, I told you about my soldiers and who participated in what.
9 I practically didn't see them, so I do not have any particular insight in
10 the fall of Srebrenica and the time that followed. But I know that
11 Srebrenica had been a very problematic issue for us. It was a heavy
12 burden for the corps, and we had sustained a number of losses before that.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but it would have been
14 normal for soldiers to talk about a victory amongst themselves.
15 A. There must have been such talks, of course. I am sure about
16 that. Yes, soldiers talked about a victory, and the feeling, the
17 atmosphere was a victorious one. So militarily speaking the fall of
18 Srebrenica was a victorious one.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us move to another area. We
20 have spoken about the VRS soldiers, but I would like to know in follow-up
21 to your question, what was the consequence of the fall of Srebrenica for
22 the population that live in the surrounding area of Srebrenica? What were
23 the consequences of that fall?
24 So now I want you to talk about the population. What I asked you
25 about soldiers I should like to know about the population that lived
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 around the area of the protected zone. What was the effect of what
2 happened on them?
3 A. You're referring to the Serbian population that lived outside the
4 protected area or the Muslim population that lived within the area? Who
5 do you have in mind: the Serb population living around the enclave or the
6 Muslim population living inside the enclave?
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the Serb
8 population, the population of the Republika Srpska, who lived in the
9 vicinity of Srebrenica, around the town of Srebrenica.
10 A. I think that they perceived the fall of Srebrenica as a great
11 victory and final relief of a very heavy burden for them, because there
12 had been a lot of tension on both sides of the line. The population was
13 terrified; both communities were terrified.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us try and simplify things.
15 The people, the residents of the area, talked about the fall of Srebrenica
16 amongst themselves; right?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So was there a follow-up of the
19 fall of Srebrenica, an interest in the follow-up of that fall? Did you
20 hear my question?
21 A. Yes, but again I don't quite understand it.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me try to clarify my
23 question. You told us that the residents of the area perceived the event
24 as a victory and that that had been an objective of some kind. Now, I
25 would like to know what happened with the population after those events.
1 Were residents interested to know what would happen afterwards? Were they
2 following the events that took place after the fall of Srebrenica?
3 A. Well, I assume that there must have been individuals who were
4 interested in that and those who were not. Not many things could be said
5 publicly, in the open. What happened was really ugly, and I don't think
6 that any normal person would take interest in them. I mean, we are all
7 human. I don't think that they would have accepted it. So I don't think
8 that it was really publicly discussed.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us go -- try and go back to
10 my question. Before the fall of Srebrenica and after the fall of
11 Srebrenica, certain events took place. Do you think that those events,
12 those that had taken place before the fall and those that took place after
13 the fall, were they important for that population, for that community?
14 A. I am somewhat confused as to the specificity of your question. I
15 cannot be more specific than I am, or maybe I don't quite understand your
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. Maybe you think that I
18 have actually another question in mind, but no. I just want to know
19 whether the events that had taken place before the fall of Srebrenica and
20 the events that took place after the fall of Srebrenica, do you think that
21 those events were interesting for the population that lived around the
22 area? Do you know -- do you think that they wanted to know whether they
23 had any interest in those events?
24 A. Do you mean whether those events were linked?
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, no, no. I'm referring to
1 the interest of the population in those events.
2 A. Yes. I think I understand your question now. The misfortune of
3 Srebrenica is a misfortune that befell both the Serbian and the Muslim
4 population, and any war as such is a great tragedy. The people who lived
5 there, the people who were divided because of that zone, were under a very
6 heavy burden and fear of the conflict and of war.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I know about that. Let me
8 ask you a specific question: What was the type of relationship between
9 the soldiers and the population?
10 A. That relationship was excellent. The residents of the area were
11 actually soldiers.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. I think that at one
13 point you mentioned something about the cooks in your unit, and you said
14 that they were female.
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Were they soldiers? Were they
17 professional soldiers, members of the army, or civilians who were
18 preparing food for the soldiers?
19 A. No. They were civilians. They came by bus from Milici and they
20 returned home every day.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. You told us that the
22 relationship between the soldiers and the population was excellent. Now I
23 would like to know if it was possible for the population to know what was
24 happening, what kind of manoeuvres were being carried out and what kind of
25 objective the army had in mind.
1 A. I assume if somebody wanted to find out, they would probably
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I'm not talking about military
4 secrets, of course, but what could be seen publicly. So there was a good
5 relationship. You said it was an excellent relationship between the army
6 and the population, which means that the population could see and know.
7 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Was it possible for the
9 population to ask the soldiers, for instance, what happened somewhere in a
10 particular place? Was it possible that the population could ask a soldier
11 a question of that kind?
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it was possible.
14 I have no further questions, Witness DE. Thank you very much for
15 coming here, for coming to testify, and we wish you a safe journey home,
16 and have a good day. The usher is going to pull down the blinds. Please
17 don't move, so that you may leave safely.
18 Usher, please.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Could I please ask when I mentioned
20 my name that it be somehow redacted, when I mentioned my name
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] It's already been regulated.
23 Don't worry. Fine. It's all right. There won't be any problems.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you to Your Honours, and I
25 wish you success in your work.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Visnjic.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I don't know whether
3 we should take advantage of the presence of the witness in order to tender
4 some documents, or can we do that afterwards?
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think the presence of the
6 witness is not necessary. My idea was to have a break now and then come
7 back, as we have many things to deal with.
8 But Mr. McCloskey, what do you think?
9 Mr. Harmon?
10 MR. HARMON: There is one issue, Your Honours, that relates to a
11 specific exhibit that was tendered by -- or presented by this witness, and
12 if I can find the exhibit itself. I believe it's 142, which is an exhibit
13 that appears to have missing from the top part of the exhibit the normal
14 features that we have seen on every other order that has been issued by
15 representative units of the VRS.
16 In respect of this particular exhibit, we would request that the
17 Trial Chamber make an order that the complete document be produced. Since
18 this witness is here and since this witness had access to it, we would ask
19 the Court to direct the Court Order to this witness, as well as to the
20 Defence, that the complete document be submitted to the Trial Chamber and
21 to the Prosecutor before the conclusion of the trial.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Perhaps we haven't finished
23 after all, Witness DE. We have a minor problem to deal with. Do you have
24 the original of this document?
25 A. Yes. Yes, I do. If I may explain very briefly. The document
1 pursuant to which this document was issued, the document of the Superior
2 Command, was submitted to you, and I think you have admitted it, and that
3 is the document on which this document is based. And in the left-hand
4 upper corner there is no information about registration. Those would be
5 the information that my unit would have to put down, that is, where the
6 document was registered. So I must repeat that this document may have not
7 been registered, because these are personal copies. But I can provide an
8 original -- the original document.
9 So in the preamble it says that it is pursuant to another document
10 which is much more important, the document ordering me to go to the place
11 of representation. So this is a document that I need to have should my
12 successor say that something is not in order, or vice versa. But there's
13 no problem. I can provide the original.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I understand correctly, it
15 is possible to get the document of which this is a copy, and you promise
16 to provide this document to us. Have I understood you correctly?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Defence counsel, have you any
19 remarks to make regarding this?
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President. Let us just take
21 upon ourselves the obligation that if the witness provides us the
22 original, we will hand it in to the Registrar.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Is that all right, Mr. Harmon?
24 MR. HARMON: Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Fine.
1 Witness DE, finally, you may leave now and you may go back home,
2 and I think things will work out well for you too.
3 So we're now going to have a 20-minute break.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 --- Recess taken at 11.04 a.m.
6 --- On resuming at 11.25 a.m.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think we now have to address
8 the question of admission into evidence of a series of exhibits. There
9 are the exhibits from the testimony of General Krstic -- I don't know
10 whether I'm wrong -- so from the Defence, as we are talking about the
11 Defence case now, so let us hear the Defence first. Yes, Mr. Petrusic.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your
13 Honours, my learned friends from the Prosecution. During the examination
14 of General Krstic, the Defence used a whole series of documents, and over
15 the past few days, together with the Prosecution, we have come to an
16 agreement which, in brief, is the following.
17 The documents from D25 -- no, I'm sorry, from D27 up to D73 and
18 pursuant to the list marked D135, which has been provided to the Registry,
19 the Defence and the Prosecution have come to an agreement and that is that
20 because of the need to check the authenticity of these documents, which
21 will be done during the continuation of the Defence case, as these are
22 mostly exhibits which are exhibits coming from the army of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, orders of the 2nd Corps and the 28th Division
24 of the BiH army, and we have explained how we have come into the
25 possession of those documents. And in order to remove any ambiguity, we
1 need a little more time to provide evidence of the authenticity of these
2 exhibits, that is, from D27 to D73. I'm sorry, I'm wrong, up to D71. So
3 D27 to D71.
4 Also, through contacts with Mr. Harmon, reservation has been
5 expressed regarding document D74, D74. But it is a document which General
6 Krstic identified as his own document, a document which he dictated the
7 contents of; but it is a fact that the second page of that document is
8 missing, which bears his name and surname, which probably, due to
9 technical reasons, was not photocopied. But the Defence has in its
10 possession the original version of that document so that in the further
11 course of the proceedings, during the next sitting, it will provide the
12 complete document.
13 Between the parties, that is the Defence and the Prosecution,
14 there was no dispute over documents starting from 76 -- 74 through to and
15 including 134, bearing in mind the fact that this is a list marked for
16 identification as D135.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me for interrupting you,
18 Mr. Petrusic. This set of documents over which there is no dispute, the
19 translation I received, that it concerns document D74 to 134, but we know
20 that document -- Defence document 74 was one that the Prosecution
21 expressed reservation over because the second page is missing with his
22 signature, et cetera, so you're going to address that separately. So it
23 would be logical that this set of documents over which there is no dispute
24 should begin with the number 75. That's logical.
25 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes. From 76, you're quite right,
1 Mr. President. The documents from 76 through to 134.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please continue.
3 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] And I have one additional
4 observation to make, Mr. President. With regard to documents from the
5 list D135 that bear the numbers 79, 81, and 109, the Defence would like to
6 note that those documents do not have a revised version of the English
7 translation attached. So those would be the exhibits that the Defence has
8 used during the testimony of General Krstic and the documents on which the
9 parties have agreed.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But Mr. Petrusic, with regard to
11 document 79, 81, and 109, I see on the list document 135. If you look at
12 79, we have 79A, English translation of D -- 79B. The same applies to
13 document 81A, which is the English translation, and the same to document
14 109. We have an English translation. So we have the English translations
15 mentioned, and you are telling us that we don't have an English version of
16 those documents.
17 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] That is the first English version,
18 which did not need revisions at the time.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I see. I
20 understand. Is that all, Mr. Petrusic? Thank you very much.
21 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
23 MR. HARMON: The documents that my colleague has referred to that
24 has a part of the document that has been cut off, and the document to
25 which we objected in our discussions, is not document 74 but
1 Prosecutor's -- Defence Exhibit 97. And if my colleagues refer to Defence
2 Exhibit 97, I'm sure they will see that 97 was the subject of our
3 discussion and our agreement. So when my colleague said that we had an
4 objection to 74, we do not have an objection to 74. It is instead to
5 document 97, which was the document that we had agreed would be not
6 tendered at this point in time, subject to additional clarification on
7 that document.
8 In respect of the other documents my colleague mentioned, that
9 there are English translations attached to all of these documents, those,
10 as Your Honours will recall, were the English translations, unofficial
11 English translations that were submitted by my colleagues. All of those
12 documents have been subsequently submitted to the Language Service Section
13 for official translations, because we all agree that the matter of
14 translation, and accurate translation, is fundamental to assessing the
15 evidence. And we have submitted to the Language Service Section all of
16 the documents that have been submitted by the Defence from Defence Exhibit
17 76 on, and it is my understanding that the revisions, with very few
18 exceptions, have been completed and have been submitted to the Registrar
19 at this point.
20 However, to make it perfectly clear, I have a set of those
21 revisions, as do my colleagues, and those have been renumbered by us and
22 provided to my colleagues as, for example, D76, the revised translation
23 would be D76A bis. But I have a set of these revisions for the Defence
24 exhibits, and I'd be prepared at this point in time to submit these to the
25 Registrar so the record is perfectly clear that they have received
1 revisions as to all of the exhibits, with the exceptions of the ones that
2 my colleague has identified. So I have these here, and if I could make
3 the submission to the Registrar, the record will be perfectly clear on
4 that point.
5 Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, I think that the
7 only point we need to clarify is the Defence document 96 [as interpreted]
8 which is objected to, and not D74.
9 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I should like
10 to first of all thank Mr. Harmon. It is indeed document 97, for which we
11 will provide further evidence of authenticity, and not Exhibit 74.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So it is the original version
13 that you will produce at a future hearing?
14 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Photocopies, a photocopy of that
15 document, yes.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 Madam Registrar, on the part of the Registry, are there any
18 difficulties or are things clear?
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The things are clear, as far as
20 the Registry is concerned, but I would like to know whether the revised
21 translations have been provided to the Defence.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon.
23 MR. HARMON: They certainly have.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Is that the only clarification
25 that was necessary?
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I don't know whether I should
2 touch upon the issue now, because we are talking about evidence for
3 General Krstic, but I would like to know whether the exhibits that were
4 produced during this week have been admitted.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will deal with them now, I
6 think. So Mr. Petrusic, or Mr. Visnjic.
7 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, there were some Prosecution
8 exhibits related to General Krstic which, since we're on the subject of
9 General Krstic, we might want to deal with those also.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. You're right,
11 Mr. McCloskey. I also mentioned it. You are very efficient, obviously,
12 Mr. McCloskey. So please go ahead.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 We have identified those Prosecution exhibits in a three-page
15 document which has been marked as Exhibit 837, which both the Defence and
16 the Registry have. And just to -- so I won't go through all the exhibits,
17 but to clarify one or two points: Apparently I mentioned Exhibit 367,
18 which was a revised or extended version of a video, and I'm told that that
19 was actually -- should have been 367 bis, to clarify the record.
20 And also, we have put in a revised version of the video of General
21 Mladic and others coming through Srebrenica. This is Exhibit 145/1. This
22 is revised to include the various segments in our possession to try to
23 make it as complete as possible.
24 And on the second page of Exhibit 837 we have Exhibit 792A and B.
25 That's the Bratunac Brigade daily combat report dated August 4th that
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 deals with the subject of General Krstic and President Karadzic being in
2 Srebrenica. There has been some discussion over the appropriate
3 translation of that, and Defence counsel and the Prosecution have been in
4 discussions with the Language Services Unit and have been told that they
5 are going to provide a brief memo on that topic to try and clarify the
6 translation of that particular document.
7 So I would offer that material into evidence. I don't believe
8 there's any objections on that particular set of documents.
9 In addition, we are offering the exhibits that were mentioned near
10 the end of the last time we saw General Krstic on the witness stand, and
11 that regarding the statements about the phone book and the mother's death
12 certificate. And the first exhibit in that group is Exhibit 836/1, the
13 memo of Dean Manning regarding the personal property and other property.
14 Then 836/2, the receipt Mr. Manning provided to Christian Rohde regarding
15 that property. Then 836/7, Christian Rohde saying he provided that
16 material to General Krstic. Then 836/6, the complete listing of material
17 obtained from General Krstic at his arrest. Then 836/5 is the group of
18 personal medical documents that were provided to General Krstic shortly
19 after his arrest. Then 836/4, a document in B/C/S regarding a medical
20 instruction. And then 836/3, a copy of more personal medical information.
21 And it is my understanding that the Defence does want to discuss those
22 materials, and Mr. Harmon is prepared to enter in that discussion, and
23 I'll sit down.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. McCloskey. Thank
25 you very much.
1 Mr. Petrusic.
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, from the list 837
3 which contains the documents that my learned friend has referred to ending
4 with document 803A and B, the Defence has no objection regarding those
5 documents. However, when it comes to the whole document 836, which is not
6 on this list and which my learned friend has referred to, the Defence
7 would like to object to this document on the following grounds.
8 When this document was submitted, 836/1, the Defence pointed out
9 that these were personal effects; therefore, things that can have nothing
10 to do with the criminal charges, nor can they have any connection, nor can
11 any criminal or legal conclusions be made regarding participation, aider
12 or abettor, or any other role that may be attributed to General Krstic.
13 If the purpose of this document -- Mr. President, I do apologise
14 for perhaps very briefly entering into an analysis of this. This is
15 certainly something that should be addressed in the closing argument, but
16 allow me to say a couple of sentences about it.
17 If the purpose of tendering document 836/1, that is, the telephone
18 notebook, was to check the credibility of some witnesses whether certain
19 numbers were in the phone book or not, then that aim has been fulfilled
20 because I think there was no dispute regarding those numbers. However, it
21 is my submission that such a document, a personal document, cannot be used
22 for the purpose of verifying the credibility of a witness. Whether it was
23 written in 1991 or maybe dates back to the 1980s, who knows? This is
24 something that was confiscated in 1998. So this is a document that is
25 constantly changed; one adds new numbers and so on. So I would like to
1 retain my position and my objection to this document.
2 Also, when we're talking about 836/2 through to 7, the position of
3 the Defence is that those documents also can only in no way be used as
4 evidence in this case. We had a great deal of discussion over certain
5 things in that connection which really should be a question to be
6 discussed between the Registry, the Prosecution, and Defence counsel,
7 rather than for the trial record. And I'm referring to this particular
9 If we are now discussing these things, and mention has been made
10 many times of this unfortunate death certificate, I will continue to
11 uphold the position that that is something that needs to be resolved by
12 the Prosecution, the Defence, and the Registry amongst themselves. But I
13 would like to underline that as far as I know, that death certificate is
14 not original -- or rather, the original document has not been restored to
15 the owner, but let us leave that aside.
16 The Defence also upholds objection with regard to these documents
17 marked under 836/1 through 7, and that is the only objection that the
18 Defence has regarding this list carrying the number 837.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
20 Mr. Petrusic.
21 Mr. Harmon.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, if I could first comment on the
23 subject of the personal phone book that counsel mentioned. That personal
24 phone book was not amongst the exhibits that I mentioned. It's my
25 understanding and memory that the material from that phone book came in,
1 as we had agreed and -- or as the Court had ordered, if I remember
2 correctly, and that's all we intend to do in that matter based on our
3 previous -- the previous ruling. And of course both sides will be free to
4 argue, so I won't get into the argument here.
5 And on the other material and the death certificate, Mr. Harmon
6 will address that.
7 JUDGE WALD: Just to clarify: Who has the notebook now? The
8 Registry, or who?
9 MR. McCLOSKEY: We gave a copy of the notebook shortly after that
10 to the Defence, and --
11 JUDGE WALD: Who has the notebook?
12 MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe the Evidence Unit actually has it.
13 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Of the -- of yours, of the --
14 MR. McCLOSKEY: Of our Evidence Unit, yes.
15 JUDGE WALD: Do you have a problem with giving it back? I'm just
17 MR. McCLOSKEY: The actual physical notebook?
18 JUDGE WALD: Yes.
19 MR. McCLOSKEY: As an exhibit with people's names in it who may be
20 involved in future cases, it's the kind of thing that the Prosecution
21 would like to keep. However, there's never been any problem with the
22 Defence examining all of these items, as is normal, and getting any kind
23 of copy that they may need in certain --
24 JUDGE WALD: But I gather, or at least I understand that it's a
25 matter that the General wants his notebook back, I think, or -- so I guess
1 that's a question of whether or not your physical custody of it is what's
2 at issue.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: I see Mr. Harmon moving around next to me, so I
4 think I'll let him address that.
5 MR. HARMON: Judge Wald, I can address your concern. Some of the
6 items that were seized from General Krstic have evidential value, and it's
7 our -- and we expect to continue to possess the originals. Most of the
8 items that were seized from General Krstic have no evidential value, and
9 we're prepared to give back the originals of those. But a decision as to
10 what has evidential value will have to be made by the Office of the
11 Prosecutor. There are some items I will not describe on the record, but
12 we intend to keep the originals of those items.
13 In respect of the other issues that were raised by my colleague,
14 specifically, 836/2 through 836/7, I certainly agree with Mr. Petrusic.
15 These are matters that should have been discussed between the Registry,
16 between the Prosecutor's office, and between the Defence, rather than
17 being made part of the trial record.
18 The Prosecutor's office did not make the medical certificate -- or
19 the death certificate part of the trial record. We did not make the
20 medical records of General Krstic part of the trial record. Indeed, that
21 issue was raised by General Krstic himself. And I can refer Your Honours
22 to the transcript of these proceedings, page 6863, lines 20 through 24, in
23 addition to which my colleague Mr. Petrusic raised the issue, prior to
24 General Krstic raising the issue, at page 6856, lines 16 through 25. Both
25 of those transcript cites are the English version of the transcript.
1 So I fully agree with my colleague, Mr. Petrusic, that those
2 should have been matters that were private and could have been regulated,
3 but they weren't. And indeed, the impression that was left on the public
4 who watched these proceedings and on the Office of the Prosecutor was that
5 the Prosecutor's office was intentionally withholding matters from General
6 Krstic despite his request.
7 The record that we have submitted to Your Honours is to clarify
8 that record. It is clear from the information that is contained in
9 Prosecutor's Exhibit 836/2 through 836/7 that within days of the arrest of
10 General Krstic, he had asked for certain items, copies of certain items
11 were provided to him, a complete list of those items was provided to the
12 Registrar. And I will say, I've been on this case for a considerable
13 period of time, and not a single request has been directed to me for the
14 return of any of those items. In fact, I am prepared, having confronted
15 this issue for the first time publicly, and I have told my colleagues very
16 clearly, that if they take the list that was the inventory of items and
17 they highlight that list, we will -- and give that to me as to which items
18 are requested by General Krstic, we will review that list, make a
19 determination as to what of the items have evidential value and which do
20 not, and we will return the original items to General Krstic.
21 I will say now that it's our view that the medical records do not
22 contain evidential value. We will return the originals of that. His
23 mother's death certificate is not of evidential value to us. We are
24 prepared to return that to General Krstic. But he has to tell us which of
25 the originals he wants, and we will act accordingly.
1 It's our position, therefore, that items 836/2 and 836/7 should be
2 admitted into evidence. They are admitted -- and they should be admitted
3 for purposes of clarifying the record that was raised initially by General
4 Krstic and raised initially by his counsel.
5 JUDGE WALD: I'm having problems. If they're admitted into
6 evidence for -- even for the limited purpose you're talking about, then
7 that means he can't get them back.
8 MR. HARMON: These are copies, Judge Wald. What is in the record
9 are, first of all, copies. The originals he can get back. They have been
10 retained by the Evidence Unit of the Prosecutor's office.
11 JUDGE WALD: But you've made your statement, I think, very
12 articulately, as to why he didn't get them back earlier, et cetera, so
13 basically, why do we need them in the record?
14 MR. HARMON: Well, there is one issue that -- the Court can
15 consider this issue, the issue of credibility of General Krstic. General
16 Krstic said that he would like to have returned to him his telephone book,
17 his medical records, including the death certificate of his mother. The
18 inference from that statement is that he didn't get back the medical
19 records or the death certificate of his mother. He did get a copy of them
20 back. Had General Krstic said, "I'd like the original back," had he
21 raised that issue, that would have been one matter. He didn't say that.
22 And we believe that the documents that we have presented are relevant
23 for - and the Court can give them whatever weight it deems appropriate,
24 relevant to the issue of the credibility of General Krstic. Now, the
25 Court -- if the Court does not deem them to have much weight, that's
1 obviously a function the Trial Chamber must apply.
2 JUDGE WALD: That takes away his right to privacy once they're in
3 the record.
4 MR. HARMON: I have no objection to these documents being admitted
5 under seal.
6 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Harmon, with regard to the notebook, the
7 telephone book you mentioned, if I understood rightly, that it has an
8 evidentiary value for you, not only in this case.
9 MR. HARMON: That's correct.
10 JUDGE RIAD: So you'd like to keep it, even if he asks for it.
11 MR. HARMON: We would like to keep the original of that document.
12 JUDGE RIAD: And he can have the copy for his personal use?
13 MR. HARMON: Yes.
14 JUDGE RIAD: That's your stand?
15 MR. HARMON: Yes.
16 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that we can all agree
18 that the issue cannot be decided by the Chamber. It's an issue that has
19 to be solved between the Prosecution and the Defence, and of course the
20 Registry as well.
21 Before we finish, I think that we need to address certain new
22 elements that have arisen in the meantime, but I don't know whether
23 Mr. Petrusic wanted to add anything to this discussion. The issue of
24 personal effects must be resolved between the Registry, the Defence, and
25 the Prosecution. But aside from that, is there anything that you would
1 like to add, Mr. Petrusic?
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Well, nothing in particular,
3 Mr. President, but let me just say that the parties here have difficulties
4 in agreeing. The Prosecutor is saying, "Why not requesting those
5 documents?" and we are saying, "Well, why aren't you giving us that which
6 is considered as personal effects?"
7 The photocopies have been the subject of evidence here, under
8 seal, and they're probably going to be kept as such. However, the
9 original documents, and this is what we're talking about, is something
10 that we believe should be restored, regardless of a possible probative
11 value for this case or for some other case. So obviously we have opposing
12 views in this matter. We are requesting all documents -- we want all the
13 documents to be restored.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but once again, I'm must
15 stress that the issue must be resolved by the Registry, and I hope that
16 the Registrar will take note of our discussion today.
17 Let us go back to the documents. Madam Registrar, is there any
18 problem here for you as regards numbers or similar things?
19 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] No, Mr. President, we don't have
20 any problems with numbers.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Anything else?
22 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] I think that we will need to have
23 a very urgent meeting regarding the issue that has just popped up
24 involving personal effects.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, you will take care of that,
1 thank you.
2 JUDGE WALD: Maybe the Registry and you will have to talk back and
3 forth about the original, but we still have a legal question as to whether
4 we admit, I mean, as to whether certain of these documents are admitted,
5 as I understand it, and the Registry can't solve that for us.
6 So that there seems to be, I think, two debates. One, can they
7 get back certain of the original, physical, tangible objects. That's, I
8 understand your position, not if they're of evidentiary value, but some you
9 don't mind if they're not of evidentiary value. Okay, that can be settled
10 between them.
11 But your position is you want, in order for your argument on
12 credibility, you want certain of the documents to be admitted, and do you
13 oppose their admission? I just want to get that clarified. Leaving aside
14 whether you get them physically back, do you oppose their admission into
16 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] As regards document 836/1 to 7, the
17 Defence objects to the admission of that document in its entirety.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Judge Wald,
19 for clarifying the issue. I was about to consult with you on this matter.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Having heard the arguments, and
22 having considered all of the documents that have been mentioned, the
23 Chamber shall order admission into evidence of several - and I hope things
24 will be clear for the Registrar - documents, that is to say, all of the
25 documents except for document number 97 which will be authenticated
1 through a photocopy of the original document, and Prosecution documents
2 836/1 to 7 which will be subject of a separate ruling. The Chamber will
3 therefore make a decision on this exhibit once it has analysed the whole
4 situation. I hope things are clear for the parties.
5 Mr. Harmon.
6 MR. HARMON: Mr. President, when you say you are admitting all of
7 the documents except 97, does that mean that you are admitting all
8 documents between Defence Exhibits 76B through the end of the list,
9 because I don't believe the Defence has tendered Defence Exhibit D27
10 through Defence exhibit D74. Those were going to be the subject of an
11 additional discussion. I just want to clarify that.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. I think it will be more
13 clear if we leave the decision for all of the documents because I think
14 that there is a need to have another look at the documents.
15 You are quite right, Mr. Harmon, I did not consider that set of
16 documents which remains to be authenticated, I think. So it will be
17 better to leave the decision for next week, including -- because in the
18 meantime, the document 77 will be authenticated, and we hope that the
19 photocopy of the original version will be presented to the Prosecution.
20 So the document will be authenticated and the Chamber will have then an
21 opportunity to reach a decision concerning all of the documents;
22 otherwise, I think we risk leaving aside certain documents.
23 Do you agree with this suggestion, Mr. Harmon?
24 MR. HARMON: Yes.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic?
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So having heard the remark of
3 Mr. Harmon, I think we are all aware of the fact that it is necessary to
4 have a careful look at the documents once again, and the Chamber will make
5 its ruling during the week of the 4th of December.
6 I don't know if there's anything else that you want to be
7 considered at this point. Mr. Harmon?
8 MR. HARMON: Yes, Mr. President, I have three exhibits to
9 regulate. One is Prosecutor's Exhibit 765. Prosecutor's Exhibit 765 was
10 a videotape of a negotiation in Zepa that was occurring with General
11 Mladic, Muslim representatives, certain members of the Main Staff, and
12 Lieutenant Colonel Kosoric. The Defence had entered an objection to it,
13 the objection being they didn't know the source of the document, the date
14 of the document, and when we received it.
15 Well, I have subsequently gone back and I've ascertained that
16 information. I've conveyed that information to my colleagues. The film
17 was made by Republika Srpska Television in Pale. The film was provided to
18 us by the Republika Srpska liaison officer on the 25th of February, 1998,
19 and it depicts events that occurred in Zepa on the 19th of July, 1995.
20 I have informed my -- I have informed my colleagues of this, and I
21 have been informed that they have no objection. We would therefore seek
22 admission of the film itself which is Prosecutor's Exhibit 765, and 765A
23 and B which are the transcripts from that film.
24 I have two additional exhibits which I'd like to regulate, but
25 perhaps my colleagues should be heard on the issue of the admission of 765
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 first, and then I can turn to the next two exhibits.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Petrusic.
3 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Harmon, did you have
5 anything else?
6 MR. HARMON: Yes, I have two additional exhibits, Mr. President
7 and Your Honours. One is Prosecutor's Exhibit 823, and that is an order
8 of the Drina Corps command that is dated the 12th of May, 1995. And in
9 the course of the examination of Witness DB on the 7th of November, he
10 said that the paragraph 3 had been translated incorrectly, and I said to
11 the Chamber that we would submit that to -- for a revision. That has been
12 submitted for revision, and I would like to tender now Prosecutor's
13 Exhibit 823A bis, which is the revised translation.
14 Similarly, Mr. President and Your Honours, Prosecutor's Exhibit
15 830 is a -- was a document dated the 11th of July, 1995, and I had noted
16 in the course of the examination that there was a problem in the signature
17 block, and again I indicated that that would be revised. So that has been
18 revised, and I'm not submitting to Your Honours and to my colleagues
19 Prosecutor's Exhibit 838 bis, the revised translation, and I would now
20 tender to the Court the revisions that I have just described. Thank you.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Petrusic, Exhibits 823A bis
22 and 830, the last exhibits that the Prosecutor has just mentioned, do you
23 have any objection?
24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, if we can just have
25 a quick look at the exhibit, that is exhibit number 830.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So you're not familiar with the
2 exhibits yet.
3 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we perhaps
4 leave the issue of admission of these two exhibits for our next session?
5 We would really like to have a closer look at them.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I was just about to suggest
7 the same thing. Because we have postponed our decision, so you can tell
8 us your position later on.
9 Mr. Harmon, anything else?
10 MR. HARMON: No, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, but I see Mr. McCloskey has
12 something to add.
13 MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. President, we have a couple of Prosecution
14 exhibits for the last witness. I think that the Defence has some exhibits
15 for the last witness also.
16 The Prosecution exhibits are Exhibit 807, which was the photo of
17 the MUP building that was identified by the witness; and then Prosecution
18 812, which was the August order for more men and materials for the 5th
19 Engineering Unit.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. McCloskey, it's my mistake;
21 I should have known that. But did you say 807A and -- 807 to 812, or only
22 the two of them, 807 and 812, or the documents in between as well?
23 No, I think that there is a problem with interpretation. Okay,
24 it's been corrected.
25 So are you tendering Exhibits 807 and 812, or [English] between
1 807 till 812? I think that -- [Interpretation] I think you wish to tender
2 only two exhibits, but I wanted to clarify.
3 MR. McCLOSKEY: Correct, only two exhibits, 807 and 812.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Visnjic.
5 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we do not object to
6 these two exhibits that have been tendered by the Prosecution. However, I
7 should like to take this opportunity and tender some of our exhibits:
8 D137A and B, D138B, 139A and B, D140A and B, 141A and B, 143B, D144, D145,
9 and D146.
10 As regards Exhibit number D142A and B, it is a document for which
11 the Prosecution has requested the original to be provided by the witness,
12 and we will tender this particular exhibit together with the original.
13 At the same time, the translations of documents that have already
14 been tendered, 138 and 143, which have been tendered in their B version,
15 that is, the original version, will be submitted later on, as soon as they
16 are ready.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Have you finished, Mr. Visnjic?
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I have, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. McCloskey, as regards the
20 exhibits that have just been tendered by Mr. Visnjic, 137 to 146, I
21 think -- 148 is also included, but without translation.
22 MR. McCLOSKEY: No objection, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No objection, Mr. McCloskey?
24 Also as regards the late submission of the translation? And you don't
25 have any problem with the original version of the document 142 being
1 tendered later on, once we get the original documents?
2 MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, that's correct. That's our understanding.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We will consider all of these
4 documents together. We're not going to make separate rulings. I think it
5 is perfectly possible to admit documents 807 and 812 into evidence. But
6 there are other things as well, so we will keep all of these documents
7 together and they will be the subject of one decision of the Chamber.
8 From the Defence, is there anything else that you would like to
9 bring up?
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] No, nothing, Mr. President.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Prosecution?
13 MR. HARMON: Nothing further.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. All I can do at this
15 point is to wish you a good weekend and a lot of success in your work, for
16 those who intend to work during the weekend. And we will reconvene on the
17 4th of December, at the usual hour, that is, 20 minutes past 9.00.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.24 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Monday, the 4th day of December,
20 2000, at 9.20 a.m.