1. 1 Wednesday, 16th September 1998

    2 (Open session)

    3 (The accused entered court)

    4 --- Upon commencing at 9.36 a.m.

    5 THE REGISTRAR: Case number IT-95-16-T, the

    6 Prosecutor of the Tribunal versus Zoran Kupreskic,

    7 Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago Josipovic,

    8 Dragan Papic, Vladimir Santic, also known as "Vlado."

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Good morning. I

    10 imagine somebody is taking care of the witness.

    11 (The witness entered court)

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Good morning, Captain

    13 Stevens.

    14 THE WITNESS: Good morning.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Moskowitz?

    16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Mr. President.


    18 Examined by Mr. Moskowitz:

    19 Q. Good morning, Captain Stevens.

    20 A. Good morning.

    21 Q. Yesterday we left off with a description of

    22 your visits to Ahmici at which some burnt bodies were

    23 found in Upper Ahmici, and you ran into someone called

    24 Dragan, and saw shells around the village, and you gave

    25 your view as to what had happened in the village.

  2. 1 I now want to turn to another visit that you

    2 made to Ahmici and ask you whether, in fact, you did

    3 make another visit to Ahmici at a later date where more

    4 bodies were found?

    5 A. I actually visited Ahmici the following day,

    6 the day after that particular day. On this occasion,

    7 we had an ambassador with us who visited the other

    8 house we were talking about yesterday. During that

    9 day, I had occasion to move around the village more

    10 freely, and then toured other buildings where I found

    11 bodies or found remains of bodies and photographed

    12 them.

    13 Q. And again, your estimate on the time of when

    14 this subsequent visit occurred is to the best of your

    15 recollection, with the understanding that you did have

    16 some difficulty in separating days from one another

    17 back then.

    18 A. That's correct.

    19 Q. Could you tell us what information came to

    20 the attention of BRITBAT that prompted this visit to

    21 Ahmici at the later date?

    22 A. We were getting reports from people that had

    23 survived the attack, from the people that fled. We

    24 were given reports back through the International Red

    25 Cross agencies that were already interviewing survivors

  3. 1 and asking us to go and check particular houses.

    2 Q. Was there a particular house that came to the

    3 attention of BRITBAT that needed to be checked?

    4 A. There was a house known as House number 5.

    5 That was the address.

    6 Q. Did you, in fact, accompany BRITBAT to House

    7 number 5?

    8 A. Yes, I did.

    9 Q. Could you take the pointer in front of you,

    10 and referring to the large blow-up of Ahmici behind

    11 you, just show the Court the route you took that day to

    12 House number 5?

    13 A. The route we took that day was in off the

    14 valley road, past the mosque, down into this area here,

    15 and we parked our vehicles up in this area

    16 (indicating).

    17 Q. By "this area," for the record, you're

    18 pointing to an area adjacent to the big white area in

    19 the centre of the map just a little bit towards Upper

    20 Ahmici?

    21 A. That's correct. From here, House number 5 is

    22 situated past this larger structure in this area here

    23 (indicating).

    24 Q. Perhaps to make the record clear on that,

    25 could you refer to Exhibit 163, which has been placed

  4. 1 in the ELMO, or on the ELMO next to you, and if you

    2 could, with your pointer, show us where House number 5

    3 was, and perhaps show us how you reached House number 5

    4 from the road?

    5 A. As I mentioned, we moved through here and

    6 parked vehicles in this area (indicating). We then

    7 made our way down the side of this house here into

    8 House number 5.

    9 Q. Could you take a marker in front of you and

    10 put a circle around House number 5 for us, please?

    11 A. (Marks)

    12 Q. Now, you mention there was another large

    13 structure. What was that large structure that you had

    14 referred to earlier?

    15 A. This was, I believe, slightly to the north of

    16 that, in this area here (indicating).

    17 Q. Could you just put an X perhaps over that

    18 large structure, and do you recall what that large

    19 structure was?

    20 A. It was a taller, taller building, was burnt

    21 out. I couldn't describe it in more detail than that.

    22 Q. Did you, in fact, go inside House number 5?

    23 A. Yes, I did.

    24 Q. Approximately how long did you spend inside

    25 that house on that day?

  5. 1 A. The day I went back with the surgical team,

    2 almost all of the morning.

    3 Q. Could you tell us what you saw when you

    4 entered that house, House number 5?

    5 A. When I entered the building, the building was

    6 totally gutted. The fire damage had reduced the roof

    7 right to the lowest levels. There were red tiles

    8 covering the floor, charred wooden beams; and I saw the

    9 upper body, burnt body, of an adult; and further back

    10 in the room, the other side of the room, what appeared

    11 to be the body of a smaller person, a child maybe.

    12 Q. Now, you mention there were red tiles on the

    13 floor of House number 5. Did you have a sense of what

    14 they were and where they came from?

    15 A. They were the tiles from the roof. In almost

    16 all of these properties, once the fire had burnt

    17 through, the roof collapsed into the lower level.

    18 Q. Did you see any furniture or any items inside

    19 the house other than the tiles and the remains of the

    20 bodies that you've described?

    21 A. The only furniture that was left was the

    22 furniture made out of metal, stoves, refrigerators,

    23 that type of thing.

    24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: At this time, I would ask the

    25 usher to show the witness the next exhibit.

  6. 1 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 164.


    3 Q. Now, Captain Stevens, could you look at what

    4 has been marked Exhibit 164 and tell us if you

    5 recognise that?

    6 A. I recognise this as a plan of House number 5.

    7 Q. Now, you mentioned entering a room where you

    8 saw bones and red roof tiles, or the remains of bodies

    9 and red roof tiles. Could you show us with your

    10 pointer which room you're referring to?

    11 A. This room here, the largest room in the

    12 property (indicating).

    13 Q. When you say "the largest room," did you have

    14 a sense of really how large that room was?

    15 A. It was about 18 feet by 10 feet perhaps.

    16 Q. Do you have a recollection of where these

    17 remains were that you found when you entered House

    18 number 5?

    19 A. Yeah, they were at opposite ends of the big

    20 room. In this area, there was a metal stove. There

    21 was remains in this area (indicating) and near the

    22 stove.

    23 Q. Could you, with your marker, draw a little

    24 square to show where the stove was that you saw when

    25 you entered House number 5?

  7. 1 A. (Marks)

    2 Q. With an X, could you show where the remains

    3 of the bodies were that you found?

    4 A. (Marks)

    5 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Now, at this time, I would

    6 ask the usher to show the witness two exhibits that

    7 have already been entered into evidence, starting with

    8 Exhibit 86 and then followed by Exhibit 87.

    9 If you could keep the schematic, Exhibit 164,

    10 nearby the witness because we will be referring to that

    11 as we talk about these two photographs. Thank you.

    12 They don't both have to go on. They don't both have to

    13 go on the ELMO at the same time but just nearby because

    14 we will be moving back and forth.

    15 Q. Could you look at, Captain Stevens, could you

    16 look at Exhibit 86, this photograph, and tell us what

    17 that shows?

    18 A. This depicts the scene in that room. This is

    19 the metal stove and this is the main doorway into that

    20 room (indicating) and the window at the rear.

    21 Q. Now, you indicated that you found some human

    22 remains in a part of that house. Could you show us

    23 where you think some of those remains were, if it's

    24 depicted in this photograph?

    25 A. The main one isn't, but there's a smaller

  8. 1 area here near the stove and up in this area, maybe

    2 just off of this particular photograph.

    3 Q. Now, referring back to the schematic which is

    4 Exhibit 164, just so we can get our bearings, could you

    5 show us on the schematic where you think the

    6 photographer was in Exhibit 86 when that photograph was

    7 taken, perhaps using a circle and an arrow to show

    8 where the photographer was and the point of view of

    9 that photographer?

    10 A. He would have been in this area here

    11 (indicating), looking that way (marks).

    12 Q. Why do you think so?

    13 A. The stove is on the right-hand side. You can

    14 clearly see the doorway in that photograph, and you can

    15 see out the window.

    16 Q. Now, could you look at formerly admitted

    17 Exhibit 87, please? Could you tell us, Captain

    18 Stevens, what this picture shows?

    19 A. This picture shows the torso of a body that I

    20 mentioned earlier in the other part of the room, the

    21 same room, from the other direction.

    22 Q. Could you refer again to Exhibit 164, the

    23 schematic, and again show us where you think the

    24 photographer was in that photograph, photograph 87,

    25 with an arrow showing as well the point of view of that

  9. 1 photographer?

    2 A. (Marks). That type of position.

    3 Q. Does this photograph confirm your memory or

    4 your impression that the human remains that you saw

    5 that day were, in fact, located where you placed the X?

    6 A. Yes, it does.

    7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you. If you could

    8 possibly leave those three exhibits on the desk in

    9 front of the witness? We may be referring to it a

    10 little bit later.

    11 Q. Now, during your visit to Ahmici and your

    12 visit into House number 5, do you know whether or not a

    13 videotape was taken recording some of that visit?

    14 A. I know a video was taken, yes.

    15 Q. Did you have an opportunity to view that

    16 video before coming to court today?

    17 A. Yes, I did.

    18 Q. Could you show us on that map behind you, so

    19 that when we view the video, we will have a sense of

    20 where we are in Ahmici, where the video camera begins

    21 showing us scenes of Ahmici and where the video camera

    22 takes us until we get to House number 5?

    23 A. I'm pretty sure that the video camera shows

    24 us moving into this area. Apart from the mosque, it

    25 shows the vehicles being parked up, teams being

  10. 1 briefed, and then people moving down towards House

    2 number 5.

    3 Q. Now, during the course of this video, do you

    4 recall whether you observed the video camera operator

    5 actually going into House number 5 and showing the

    6 inside of House number 5?

    7 A. I do recall that, yes.

    8 Q. So that when we view the video, it will be

    9 clear, could you take a look again at that schematic,

    10 164, and, if you could, show us with your pointer how

    11 you remember seeing the video camera operator entering

    12 House number 5 and what route he took inside the house?

    13 A. The video cameraman went in through the main

    14 doorway of House number 5 and took some footage of this

    15 darker area here (indicating) before moving left into

    16 the main building and observing this area and the area

    17 to the right of that.

    18 Q. There is a shot, I believe, at the end of

    19 this videotape, showing that main room. Do you recall,

    20 and can you recall for us, where the video camera

    21 operator was as he video-cameraed or shot a video of

    22 the inside of that main room of House number 5?

    23 A. I believe he was just inside the doorway, in

    24 this general direction, facing this general direction

    25 (indicating).

  11. 1 Q. Perhaps if you could place a small dot with

    2 maybe the green marker and a small arrow to show where

    3 the video camera operator was?

    4 A. (Marks)

    5 Q. Could you also show us with an arrow and a

    6 line the route of the video camera operator into House

    7 number 5, please?

    8 A. (Marks)

    9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: At this time, I would ask

    10 that we play the videotape.

    11 Q. As we play it, if you see anything that you

    12 would like to comment on, Captain, please feel free to

    13 do so, and I will ask the film to be stopped.

    14 May we have the video?

    15 (Videotape played)

    16 A. This shows us moving into Ahmici with the

    17 mosque on the right-hand side. The vehicles contain

    18 medical teams and a few engineers in case we uncovered

    19 mines, et cetera.

    20 Q. Was the purpose of this visit essentially to

    21 remove the bodies from House number 5?

    22 A. Yes, it was.

    23 Q. What do we see coming up on the right?

    24 A. On the right, you can see the mosque and the

    25 damage done to the mosque.

  12. 1 This is the area where we parked the

    2 vehicles. There were some members of the Red Cross

    3 there.

    4 These, I believe, are the imams.

    5 Q. I notice, by the way, that there are a lot of

    6 leaves on the trees during this time period. We have

    7 seen evidence of photographs taken on April 16 where

    8 there were no leaves on the trees. Does this give you

    9 a sense of perhaps the time when this video was taken?

    10 A. This makes me think now that it was later in

    11 the tour, perhaps in May, early May.

    12 Q. What are we seeing here?

    13 A. What you're seeing here is the surgical team

    14 with their equipment ready to extract the bodies from

    15 House number 5. You're also seeing the area where the

    16 vehicles were parked.

    17 Q. Who is that talking to the imam?

    18 A. That's an interpreter known as Dobrila.

    19 Q. What happened to her?

    20 A. She was killed at the end of the tour.

    21 Q. Do you know how she was killed?

    22 A. She was sniped in the head. She was shot in

    23 the head.

    24 Q. By whom? Which side?

    25 A. I'm not sure.

  13. 1 Q. What are we seeing now?

    2 A. You're looking now down towards the entrance

    3 of House number 5. You can note the number of the

    4 house. The imams were taken there first so that they

    5 could see the scene.

    6 This is Claire Podbielski, I believe, who was

    7 the most senior of the Red Cross people in the area.

    8 Q. What is happening now --

    9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecutor please

    10 speak into the microphone?

    11 A. This is a picture of me leading out another

    12 soldier with a blanket containing remains.

    13 Q. Did you have an opinion as to the duty that

    14 your officers and men were required to do that day?

    15 A. This was the reason I was there, personally.

    16 I didn't consider it our particular job to do this. I

    17 didn't like the younger soldiers doing it, and I

    18 thought it might help if I was there personally.

    19 Q. I see we have a dog there.

    20 A. The dog was tied up because it had been

    21 eating at the remains.

    22 Q. What is happening now?

    23 A. Remains are being placed in the armoured

    24 vehicles for transportation. This is the larger

    25 structure that I mentioned earlier, closer to the

  14. 1 road. The man on the right with the glasses is the new

    2 commanding officer of the regiment taking over.

    3 Q. Does that also give you a hint of when this

    4 video may have been taken?

    5 A. This means that the video was taken in May.

    6 Q. And that would be Colonel Stewart?

    7 A. This is Colonel Stewart, yeah.

    8 Q. Is that you?

    9 A. This is me carrying out some smaller

    10 remains. Animals had been in the building and had

    11 removed parts of bodies.

    12 Q. Were your men affected by what they had seen

    13 in House number 5?

    14 A. Yes, they were, yes. They were very

    15 distressed.

    16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: If we can go slowly here,

    17 please?

    18 A. Yes, this shows the entrance to that room.

    19 You're looking at the stove there, a lot of red tiles

    20 about. Again --

    21 MR. MOSKOWITZ: If you could stop there,

    22 please? No, back up and go back into that room.

    23 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot

    24 hear the Prosecutor, I'm sorry.

    25 MR. MOSKOWITZ: If you could please back up

  15. 1 the videotape so that we can see inside the house?

    2 Right there. If we could stop there, please? Thank

    3 you.

    4 Q. Could you tell us what that shows?

    5 A. This shows the shot through the main doorway

    6 looking at the stove.

    7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: If we can then go just a

    8 little bit ahead to show the inside of the main room?

    9 Right there, if we could stop? Thank you.

    10 A. This now shows a shot of the sides of that or

    11 one part of that room. In the bottom left-hand corner,

    12 you can see the stove covered with red tiles and you

    13 can clearly see a charred beam which was the area of a

    14 body. This picture is taken after the bodies had been

    15 extracted.

    16 Q. Does this video give a pretty good idea of

    17 the size of the room from the entrance door to that

    18 room?

    19 A. Yes, it does. This is only one half of the

    20 room, though.

    21 Q. The entrance door as you come into the room

    22 comes in to the --

    23 A. On the right, yes.

    24 Q. So a person walking into a room from the

    25 entrance door would have, essentially, that view?

  16. 1 A. Yes.

    2 Q. Thank you. We can continue. I think this

    3 may be the end of the video or near the end.

    4 That would be you over there?

    5 A. That's me on the left-hand side of the

    6 screen.

    7 Q. Do you recall what you were doing at that

    8 time?

    9 A. We were looking for more remains, really. As

    10 I mentioned earlier, animals had been in the properties

    11 and had removed pieces of the body.

    12 Q. Can you tell us what's happening here?

    13 A. That's exactly what's happening here.

    14 Animals have taken what appear to be remains away with

    15 them. We were unsure of the bones we were finding,

    16 whether they were human or from what was fed to dogs.

    17 So we basically bagged everything.

    18 Q. Here it looks like he's picking up something

    19 that may be a hand grenade. Would that be a weapon of

    20 some sort?

    21 A. No, it wouldn't be. It would be a bone, a

    22 fragment of bone, or something like that.

    23 Q. I take it that a Red Cross person would not

    24 handle things like that?

    25 A. No, not at all.

  17. 1 Q. Now, we've seen images of the body bags being

    2 placed into an armoured ambulance. Do you have any

    3 idea where the bodies were taken from Ahmici, where

    4 they were taken?

    5 A. I have no idea of their exact location.

    6 Q. That would be the armoured ambulance?

    7 A. That's right.

    8 MR. MOSKOWITZ: At this time, I would ask the

    9 usher to show the witness two final exhibits in this

    10 order.

    11 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 166. The

    12 video cassette was marked 165.


    14 Q. The quality of these next two photographs are

    15 not the best because they were taken from the video

    16 that we have just seen, but can you tell us what that

    17 shows?

    18 A. This is a still taken from the video looking

    19 towards the stove in that main room from the doorway.

    20 Q. So this would be a view of someone entering

    21 that main room --

    22 A. Yes, it would.

    23 Q. -- from the hallway or the entranceway of the

    24 house?

    25 A. That's correct.

  18. 1 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Could we then show the next

    2 exhibit, please?

    3 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 167.


    5 Q. Exhibit 167, what does that show?

    6 A. This shows a portion of the room from the

    7 right as you enter that room, the stove being in the

    8 bottom left-hand corner covered with red tiles.

    9 Q. The stove is difficult to see because it's

    10 covered with red tiles. Just to verify this

    11 photograph, which comes from the videotape that we have

    12 just seen, could you look at Exhibit 87, which I'm

    13 hoping is still in front of you in that pile.

    14 Is it possible for you to just help us get

    15 our bearings and compare the two photographs? Because

    16 you have already described that the photographer in

    17 Exhibit 87 was essentially in a very similar place to

    18 the video camera operator in Exhibit 167. It might be

    19 useful if you could show us some landmarks that will

    20 confirm that.

    21 A. You can clearly see the burnt beam in the

    22 centre of the room. The body would have been here

    23 (indicating) before it was removed. You can see in

    24 this area the plaster removed underneath the window,

    25 and above the window, exposed beam. Out of the window

  19. 1 and out the back, you can see a sort of loading-type

    2 ramp.

    3 Q. If you could show us Exhibit 87 and correlate

    4 the video image to the photographic image for us.

    5 Maybe placing them on the ELMO side by side is fine.

    6 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot

    7 hear the Prosecutor.

    8 A. The beam I'm talking about is here and here

    9 (indicating) in both pictures. The area of plaster

    10 under the window removed is here and here

    11 (indicating). Out of the window, you can just make out

    12 in this picture some sort of concrete loading ramp

    13 structure, and above the window an area of plaster

    14 removed and beam, supporting beam.


    16 Q. I notice the beam is placed differently in

    17 the video image than in the photographic image. Why?

    18 A. That would have been removed looking for more

    19 remains.

    20 Q. Would it be fair to say that the video image

    21 was taken after the remains were removed from the room?

    22 A. That's correct.

    23 Q. Now, yesterday, Captain Stevens, you referred

    24 to a person who you know as Dragan who you met in one

    25 of your trips to Ahmici?

  20. 1 A. I did, yes. That's the first time I went

    2 there.

    3 Q. And you had a sort of sign language

    4 conversation with that individual?

    5 A. I did, yes. It's difficult to describe the

    6 way the conversation went, but, yes, that was correct.

    7 Q. You have been in the courtroom here today,

    8 and you were in the courtroom --

    9 JUDGE MAY: Let's consider this. Are you

    10 going to make an application for identification,

    11 Mr. Moskowitz?

    12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I intend to do so, yes, Your

    13 Honour. I will lay the foundation, if you wish.

    14 This morning I spoke to Captain Stevens and

    15 asked him, did he see anyone in the courtroom yesterday

    16 who looked like the man he saw in 1993 whom he had the

    17 conversation with. Captain Stevens told me that, yes,

    18 he did see someone in the courtroom who was very

    19 similar to that person. I asked him, "Where did that

    20 person sit in the courtroom?"

    21 JUDGE MAY: Well, don't say any more.

    22 There's been no previous evidence of identification,

    23 merely that it was somebody called Dragan.

    24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Someone he had -- I mean, he

    25 had a face-to-face conversation, admittedly, five years

  21. 1 ago.

    2 JUDGE MAY: Five years ago.

    3 MR. MOSKOWITZ: I think the quality of the

    4 identification will have to be considered by the Court,

    5 of course.

    6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, but it's a question of

    7 whether, effectively, a dock identification should be

    8 allowed.

    9 Mr. Radovic, I address you merely as counsel,

    10 but there may be others who have objections, but is

    11 there anything the Defence want to say about this

    12 before we rule on it?

    13 MR. RADOVIC: Thank you for having given me

    14 the floor, Your Honour. We oppose this kind of

    15 identification. First of all, we are speaking about

    16 direct identification here in the courtroom, and

    17 previously, the witness was not even asked to give a

    18 description of the person he had talked to.

    19 In addition to that, the witness had an

    20 opportunity of seeing all the accused here yesterday,

    21 and he could have directed his glance at one person

    22 which, to him, may seem similar to that particular

    23 person. He is also talking about similarities. So

    24 pointing a finger at a person who is similar to the

    25 person that the witness had talked to, in principle,

  22. 1 should not mean a thing.

    2 In addition to that, what would that mean?

    3 Identification of a person that the witness spoke to in

    4 sign language? Because the witness was speaking

    5 English, and the person who is being identified,

    6 allegedly the accused, was speaking Croatian or,

    7 rather, Bosnian. So I really do not see what

    8 circumstance this identification should relate to.

    9 At any rate, we are opposed to the

    10 identification because we do not know what count of the

    11 indictment we're talking about and in relation to what

    12 the witness should identify this person. The

    13 Prosecutor is not even saying this. The Prosecutor is

    14 saying, "We want to identify a person who is similar to

    15 the person whom the witness had talked to."

    16 I was a bit taken by surprise by your

    17 question, Your Honour. I wasn't following the

    18 Prosecutor very carefully. I didn't think it was all

    19 that important to us, although this surprise that the

    20 Prosecutor is proposing now on the second day of the

    21 questioning of the witness concerned, the witness has

    22 been watching the accused for two days now, and then

    23 today while he was preparing for the second day, he

    24 decided to opt for identification.

    25 If any identification is necessary, then it

  23. 1 should have taken place straight away. That is what I

    2 wish to say in the roughest possible terms. Nothing

    3 further, Your Honour.

    4 My colleague, Ms. Glumac, is going to say

    5 something to support what I have said, with your

    6 permission, Your Honour.

    7 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Your Honour, this kind

    8 of sight identification in courtrooms is restrictively

    9 applied in our country and are practically prohibited

    10 by our law. In other places, whether applied, they are

    11 done in a very restrictive manner. So this would mean

    12 a violation of such rules.

    13 This kind of behaviour by the Prosecutor

    14 violates these rules. It is not only a question of the

    15 witness being here yesterday, but also he said earlier

    16 on in his statement, he did not mention a single person

    17 who would come -- not a single person was mentioned who

    18 would be subjected to identification here.

    19 Also, the fact remains that this process has

    20 been going on for quite some time now, that these

    21 proceedings have been going on for quite some time now,

    22 and the Captain probably had an opportunity of seeing

    23 these people in pictures on a number of occasions,

    24 because these are persons whose pictures are appearing

    25 in newspapers. So even if this identification were to

  24. 1 be carried out, it has no value whatsoever.

    2 This kind of procedure, allowing this kind of

    3 thing, trying to recognise a person who would only be

    4 similar to someone who was seen such a long time ago, I

    5 think this should not be allowed. Thank you.

    6 MR. MOSKOWITZ: May I respond to that?

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, please, Counsel

    8 Puliselic.

    9 MR. PULISELIC: Your Honour, I fully concur

    10 with what my colleagues, Mr. Radovic and Ms. Glumac,

    11 said. I believe that such a way of identification is

    12 unacceptable. At the least, from time to time, the

    13 places where the accused are sitting should be changed

    14 from time to time if one intends to do this in the

    15 future. Thank you.

    16 JUDGE MAY: The danger of the dock

    17 identification, of course, is that the witness will

    18 look at the dock, see the man in the dock, and then

    19 identify him as the person he's seen before.

    20 This case is rather different. This witness

    21 did have an opportunity of observing the man he spoke

    22 to. There are six defendants, not one. This is not a

    23 national court. As is being observed often, national

    24 courts, of course, do not allow dock identifications.

    25 But in this case, the Chamber feels that it's

  25. 1 in a position to weigh any identification which is made

    2 and decide what weight to give it. Of course, it's not

    3 a precedent for dock identifications generally, but

    4 merely deals with this particular instance.

    5 We propose to allow the Prosecutor to

    6 proceed.


    8 Q. Captain Stevens, have --

    9 JUDGE MAY: Perhaps, Mr. Moskowitz, you could

    10 briefly deal with the point that was made. Which

    11 count, counsel asks, is this relevant to?

    12 MR. MOSKOWITZ: This would be relevant, Your

    13 Honour, to Count 1, having to do with persecution, and

    14 it connects a defendant or an accused to that count

    15 through his statements to this witness regarding

    16 admissions of killings. That would go to the

    17 persecution count and a particular defendant.

    18 So I propose to ask this witness whether he

    19 has an opportunity to observe the people in this

    20 courtroom and whether he has an ability to identify,

    21 with some degree of certainty, an individual in this

    22 courtroom who matches the person whom he saw and spoke

    23 with in 1993.

    24 Q. I put it to you, Captain Stevens, have you

    25 had an opportunity, during the last few days, to look

  26. 1 around the courtroom, and do you see anyone in this

    2 courtroom who you can say resembles the person you

    3 spoke to in 1993 and who identified himself as Dragan?

    4 A. Yes, I can.

    5 Q. Can you tell us where that person is sitting?

    6 A. The person is sitting at the rear right, as I

    7 look at him.

    8 Q. Would you describe whether or not he has

    9 facial hair?

    10 A. He didn't then. He does now.

    11 Q. How certain are you that this is the person

    12 you spoke with?

    13 A. I'm 99 per cent certain. When someone tells

    14 you they've killed 32 people, you don't forget their

    15 face in a hurry.

    16 MR. MOSKOWITZ: At this point, that would end

    17 my direct examination. We would tender Exhibits 160

    18 through 167.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: If I may make a comment, I

    20 think Counsel Radovic was right in saying that, in

    21 future, before asking a witness to identify one of the

    22 accused, you should ask the witness to describe the

    23 person. Please do so in future. Thank you.

    24 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Mr. President, excuse me, I

    25 probably should make clear for the record that the

  27. 1 person identified by the witness is, in fact, Dragan

    2 Papic so that the record is clear on that. Thank you.

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Have you finished?

    4 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Yes.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I was not clear

    6 on that. May I now turn to Counsel Pavkovic and ask

    7 whether he is in a position to tell us who is going to

    8 cross-examine the witness?

    9 MR. PAVKOVIC: Good morning, Your Honour. I

    10 don't know whether the time would be right now to take

    11 a break, and then, perhaps, after the break, we could

    12 tell you the order of the attorneys who intend to

    13 question the witness.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: All right.

    15 MR. PAVKOVIC: Because we would also like to

    16 agree amongst ourselves on the order in which questions

    17 should be put.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. Of course, in principle

    19 and according to your own standards, Counsel Puliselic

    20 should start, but if he's not prepared to do so, we can

    21 wait until after the coffee break.

    22 It will be a 30-minute break.

    23 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.

    24 --- On resuming at 10.58 a.m.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic.

  28. 1 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I can inform

    2 you that the witness will, first of all, be

    3 cross-examined by Counsel Petar Pulisevic, then I will

    4 have some questions, and then Counsel Ranko Radovic,

    5 and Mrs. Jadranka Slokovic-Glumac after that. Thank

    6 you.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Puliselic?

    8 Cross-examined by Mr. Puliselic:

    9 Q. Mr. Stevens, good morning to you.

    10 A. Good morning.

    11 Q. You said that in Ahmici, in 1993, you met a

    12 man by the name of Dragan and that he told you that he

    13 alone or with somebody else had killed 32 Muslim men;

    14 is that correct?

    15 A. I got the impression that he alone killed 32

    16 men, and that he was proud of it.

    17 Q. Can you describe to us what that individual

    18 looked like on the occasion?

    19 A. That individual was wearing a camouflage

    20 jacket with darker civilian trousers and something like

    21 Wellington's on his feet. He had no head-dress but he

    22 was carrying an AK-47 rifle.

    23 Q. AK-47.

    24 A. That's correct.

    25 Q. You said that that individual did not have a

  29. 1 beard; is that not so?

    2 A. That's correct, he didn't have a beard at

    3 that time.

    4 Q. Can you tell us whether you noticed anything

    5 else particular on that individual?

    6 A. I can't tell anything other than that apart

    7 from he appeared tired. He was a strongly built man

    8 and he was fairly tall. That was it.

    9 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry, I didn't get the

    10 question.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you repeat your

    12 question, please?


    14 Q. Can the witness tell us how tall Dragan was

    15 more or less in centimetres, approximately how tall in

    16 centimetres?

    17 A. In centimetres, 180 to 190. One metre 80 to

    18 one metre 90.

    19 Q. Can you tell us, at that time, what kind of

    20 hair did he have? Did he have short hair,

    21 medium-length hair, longer hair? What was his hair

    22 like?

    23 A. Medium length to long, medium to long.

    24 Q. Did you perhaps remember the colour of his

    25 eyes when you recall events so exactly, events that

  30. 1 took place five years ago?

    2 A. I don't remember the colour of his eyes, no.

    3 Q. You said that you talked to the individual by

    4 using sign language, as far as I recall; is that true?

    5 Yes?

    6 A. That's correct.

    7 Q. Can you explain to us how you talked by using

    8 signs? What signs did he use to explain that he had

    9 killed 32 Muslims?

    10 A. He made a movement across his throat, he kept

    11 repeating the word "Muslim man," and because I couldn't

    12 get an idea of how many people he was referring to, he

    13 drew it in the ground, "32."

    14 Q. How were you able to conclude that he was

    15 talking about 32 Muslims? Could he not have said that

    16 in a neighbouring village, 32 Croats, for example, had

    17 been killed?

    18 A. No, he kept saying the word "Muslim man,"

    19 "Muslim man," throughout the conversation.

    20 Q. All right. But how were you able to conclude

    21 that he -- he was the one who did it? Perhaps he was

    22 describing the killings done by somebody else. How can

    23 you know precisely on the basis of sign language that

    24 that was actually what happened?

    25 A. I don't know. All I know is that the

  31. 1 impression he gave me was that he was indicating to me

    2 that he personally has killed 32 people, either that

    3 day or prior to that day, and he was pleased with it.

    4 Q. Very well. You said that that is your

    5 impression. But can you be absolutely precise and

    6 definite in saying that it was the case that he had

    7 killed 32 Muslims? Can you be absolutely definite on

    8 that point and that your conclusion is the right one on

    9 the basis of the signs that he used to converse with

    10 you?

    11 A. I travelled a lot through Central Bosnia and

    12 on occasions met soldiers who, when more relaxed,

    13 boasted and bragged about their achievements. I am

    14 quite comfortable with the fact that this man was

    15 telling me that he had killed 32 people himself. I

    16 have no doubt about that.

    17 Q. You said yesterday, and that was recorded in

    18 the transcript, that you concluded that he or his

    19 friends had killed 32 Muslims. Now you claim that it

    20 was him.

    21 A. I stick with what I said yesterday, either he

    22 or his friends.

    23 Q. However, today you said that it was him and

    24 not his friends.

    25 A. That's a mistake.

  32. 1 Q. What is a mistake? What was said yesterday

    2 or what was said today?

    3 A. Today was a mistake. I felt that either he

    4 and his friends had done this.

    5 Q. When was that exactly, the day and time that

    6 you met this Dragan?

    7 A. I have no recollection of the time, and as I

    8 mentioned earlier, the days were difficult to

    9 identify. I personally feel that it was the next day,

    10 the day after the village was attacked.

    11 Q. Therefore, the time of the day, can you tell

    12 us that?

    13 A. In the afternoon.

    14 Q. You can't tell the time exactly. You just

    15 say that it was in the afternoon; is that correct?

    16 A. That's correct.

    17 Q. How come you can note these various details

    18 about the man, you remember that and that you had been

    19 shown signs, and from that you conclude that, according

    20 to your opinion, you conclude very precise conclusions,

    21 whereas you cannot state the time?

    22 A. At this particular period in our tour of

    23 duty, we were travelling everywhere to every conflict

    24 in every village to try and stop what was happening.

    25 It was extremely difficult to try and keep track of

  33. 1 time and days.

    2 Q. During your stay in the area, you met many

    3 people, and I find it a little strange that you

    4 remember so well faces and can describe a man after a

    5 time lapse of five and a half years.

    6 A. As I mentioned earlier, you don't forget the

    7 face of someone who says they've killed so many people

    8 or suggest they've killed so many people. No one else

    9 that I had met during that tour had admitted to

    10 something as big as that.

    11 Q. During this contact of yours, was anybody

    12 else present, that is to say, your meeting?

    13 A. I believe there was someone with me, but I

    14 have no other recollection of that. I didn't walk off

    15 to find this man on my own. I wouldn't have done that.

    16 Q. Did you happen to see this man, Dragan,

    17 previously?

    18 A. No, not at all.

    19 Q. Did you see him afterwards, after the event?

    20 A. I never saw him again after that day.

    21 Q. So you only saw him once in your entire life?

    22 A. I saw him once on that day for approximately

    23 20 minutes.

    24 Q. How come yesterday, in this courtroom, when

    25 speaking about Dragan, you did not mention that you

  34. 1 would be able to recognise him and how come you did not

    2 say yesterday that he was present in the courtroom?

    3 A. I didn't know at what stage and who to inform

    4 that I recognised this man, and I spent most of

    5 yesterday looking at the screen in front of me rather

    6 than the people in the court.

    7 Q. Let me go back to the question I asked a

    8 moment ago. How come you don't know who was with you

    9 at that time whereas you know many other details

    10 connected with the talk you had through sign language

    11 with Dragan?

    12 A. All the soldiers in my regiment are known to

    13 me. I'm comfortable with them. If I needed some

    14 protection or someone to move with me, I would pick

    15 someone nearby. I wouldn't have a particular person

    16 with me. I wouldn't really notice who the person was.

    17 Q. Is it not strange to you that after so much

    18 time has gone by that you recognise an individual and

    19 describe these details and the details of your talk?

    20 It seems to me not quite acceptable, these kind of

    21 impressions on your part.

    22 A. When I left the courtroom yesterday at the

    23 end of the day, I realised that I had seen the man that

    24 I saw that day, and I mentioned this to Mr. Moskowitz

    25 this morning.

  35. 1 Q. You said a moment ago that you didn't look

    2 around the courtroom yesterday because your attention

    3 was taken up with other things, the screen and so on.

    4 Now this is contrary to that.

    5 A. I actually said that most of the time

    6 yesterday I was looking at the screen.

    7 Q. Can you really be so sure that that Dragan is

    8 precisely this individual sitting here whom you pointed

    9 out, because it is a serious matter?

    10 A. I understand the seriousness of it, and I'm

    11 99 per cent sure that that's the man I saw that day.

    12 Q. That means that you do allow for the

    13 possibility that it is not him if you are 99 per cent

    14 sure.

    15 A. The beard. As I mentioned before, he didn't

    16 have a beard. That's the small percentage. I didn't

    17 see him with a beard. He has a beard now.

    18 MR. PULISELIC: Your Honours, I have no

    19 further questions. I would just like to express my

    20 displeasure at this type of identification process

    21 because I think that this type of identification is

    22 unacceptable and that the Prosecutor should at least,

    23 before identification, tell the witness to describe an

    24 individual, what he looks like, and to give other

    25 details which are important for identification.

  36. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel

    2 Pavkovic?

    3 Cross-examined by Mr. Pavkovic:

    4 Q. Captain, I am Counsel Petar Pavkovic. You

    5 said yesterday that in May 1993 you came to Bosnia.

    6 Can you be more precise?

    7 A. In May 1993, I left Bosnia. I arrived in

    8 November 1992.

    9 Q. Tell me, how many times were you in Ahmici?

    10 A. Three times that I recall.

    11 Q. Can you set the time of your sojourn in

    12 Ahmici? When was that?

    13 A. The first time we were operating in another

    14 village and got there later in the day. That's why I

    15 know it was in the afternoon. We were running out of

    16 daylight, so we returned to the base and came back I

    17 think the following day.

    18 Q. You said yesterday that during your first day

    19 in Ahmici, in Upper Ahmici, Gornji Ahmici, in a house,

    20 that you saw the burnt body of a child and of an older

    21 man; is that correct?

    22 A. That's correct.

    23 Q. You then said that in the basement of that

    24 same house, you saw at least one male and several

    25 children and that they were all burnt.

  37. 1 A. I don't believe I said a male. Another adult

    2 and several children, yeah. That's correct.

    3 Q. Yes, I agree with what you say now. Tell me,

    4 please, was that recorded at the time? Was it filmed?

    5 Yes. Are the photographs which were shown by the

    6 Prosecution yesterday and which show the burnt

    7 bodies -- let us suppose that it was of a child and an

    8 adult -- are those the photographs in question?

    9 A. They are photographs from that building, yes.

    10 Q. The photographs that the Prosecution

    11 presented yesterday, are those the photographs?

    12 A. They are, yes.

    13 Q. Can you explain how come that not everything

    14 was filmed then on location? We saw on the photographs

    15 only one body, the dead burnt body of a man, and

    16 something which would correspond to the burnt body of a

    17 child, and according to your description, we see that

    18 there are several individuals. How come the others

    19 were not filmed? Can you explain this to us, please?

    20 A. The others were filmed and, in fact, a

    21 picture of that I took myself shows the adult male in

    22 the doorway and a child on the doorstep. There are

    23 many pictures of this particular scene.

    24 Q. Tell me, please, you yesterday had previously

    25 discussed these events with somebody.

  38. 1 A. I previously discussed them? I don't

    2 understand that.

    3 Q. Did you talk to the Prosecution's

    4 investigator about the events in Ahmici during your

    5 time of service there?

    6 A. I'm not sure who you mean by that, what

    7 person.

    8 Q. Not a person, but I am thinking of the

    9 investigators from the Prosecution's office. Did

    10 somebody from the side of the Prosecution and the

    11 Prosecution's investigators talk to you about these

    12 events? Did you tell anybody about these events?

    13 A. Yes, I did, yes.

    14 Q. When was that?

    15 A. That was about four or five months ago in

    16 England.

    17 Q. Let us now go back to one detail of your

    18 first visit to Ahmici and what you have just said about

    19 the burnt bodies.

    20 Do you remember what you said then on the

    21 occasion?

    22 A. Exactly?

    23 Q. Yes, exactly. Did you say what you told the

    24 Court yesterday and what you told me and all of us here

    25 today?

  39. 1 A. I don't really understand the question. I

    2 described a scene --

    3 MR. PAVKOVIC: Yes. Your Honours, if I may,

    4 can I present the witness with this portion of his

    5 statement because this is important for us?

    6 Q. You said, Captain, on the occasion, and this

    7 was on the 25th and 28th of November, 1996, you said

    8 the following --

    9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Could we have the page,

    10 please?

    11 MR. PAVKOVIC: I have the Croatian

    12 translation, and it is page 10 of the Croatian

    13 translation.

    14 Mr. President, may I present this?

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, please.

    16 MR. PAVKOVIC:

    17 Q. "I went towards the house and looked at the

    18 basement and saw the bodies of an adult and two

    19 children. They were burnt. On the way to the door,

    20 there was a man and a boy from that house. They were

    21 also burnt."

    22 That is what you said about that event. Do

    23 you see the difference now? You are talking about an

    24 adult body and two children's bodies and then you say

    25 another adult man and a boy from the house, and here

  40. 1 you have been speaking about several children,

    2 particularly in the basement of the house, and then you

    3 speak of another child and an adult.

    4 A. There were bodies in two areas of the house,

    5 an adult male and a child on the -- in the doorway.

    6 Q. Yes, that's exact.

    7 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Just for the information of

    8 the Court, Your Honour, page 8 and 9.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Eight and 9. Yes, yes.

    10 Thank you.

    11 THE WITNESS: There was a male and a child on

    12 the doorsteps and in the doorway of that house, and in

    13 the basement or cellar of the same house, another adult

    14 and children, several children.

    15 MR. PAVKOVIC:

    16 Q. Yes, but what I have just shown you as having

    17 stated to the investigators is different from what you

    18 told the Court today in answer to my question today and

    19 when you were speaking freely yesterday. It is not a

    20 question of the fact that the bodies were located in

    21 different places in the same house but that there are a

    22 different number of individuals whom you saw; that is

    23 to say, the bodies you saw and the bodies that were

    24 burnt.

    25 A. The way you phrase the questions about houses

  41. 1 and burnt bodies, there were many houses with burnt

    2 bodies in them. At times I get confused what house

    3 you're referring to, what --

    4 Q. No. No, no, no. You could not have become

    5 confused because I said exactly what I have in mind. I

    6 just have in mind your first visit and this particular

    7 house, and you only spoke about that and you were

    8 precise in determining how many individuals and which

    9 individuals in your opinion. But never mind. You said

    10 that you became confused.

    11 I don't want to dwell, Mr. President, on that

    12 question any longer --

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Moskowitz?

    14 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Mr. President, I'm frankly

    15 confused as to what the distinction is between the

    16 statement in the written form and the testimony given

    17 by this witness, and perhaps if Defence counsel,

    18 Mr. Pavkovic, could be a little more precise on where

    19 he sees the distinction, it may make it easier for the

    20 witness to respond.

    21 MR. PAVKOVIC: Your Honour, I don't know

    22 whether you have, perhaps, been misled by my questions,

    23 so if necessary I can repeat all of this, if you deem

    24 this necessary. If you wish, I can ask the witness

    25 once again, but I feel that there is no need for doing

  42. 1 that. The differences are obvious, and there is no

    2 need to go back into all of that.

    3 Moreover, we showed just now where all of

    4 this is stated, actually, in the written statements

    5 that you have as well. So this can clearly be

    6 interrelated, and one can see whether the difference

    7 that I'm referring to does exist or does not exist and

    8 whether I'm justified in showing how substantially

    9 different these statements are, the ones he made

    10 yesterday and today, and the one he made previously

    11 that is recorded in writing.

    12 If you feel that it is unnecessary for me to

    13 go back to all of this, I may proceed.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Let me put it

    15 right, just for the record. In the original of his

    16 written statement, the witness said, and I quote at the

    17 bottom of page 8: "I went over to the side of the

    18 house and looked into a cellar and saw the bodies of an

    19 adult and two children," two children. And then at

    20 page 9: "They were burnt. There was a man and a boy

    21 in the doorway of this house as well. They were burnt

    22 as well. Either me or somebody in the group told

    23 Colonel Stewart and I took the Colonel to have a look.

    24 From the position of the bodies of the children, it

    25 looked as if they had been burnt alive."

  43. 1 So I see there's only one discrepancy here.

    2 In the statement, mention is made of two children in

    3 the cellar, whereas here, in court, the witness spoke

    4 of a basement where there was the body of an adult and

    5 children.

    6 MR. PAVKOVIC: And several children.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Several children, yes, not

    8 two, but several children, yes, just to put the record

    9 straight. Let us move on.

    10 MR. PAVKOVIC:

    11 Q. Captain, yesterday, in response to a question

    12 that was leading, to quite an extent, and the

    13 transcript is here, and I would like you to clarify

    14 what you said, the Prosecutor asked whether you saw

    15 some examples of ethnic cleansing. That is literally

    16 the question that the Prosecutor put to you yesterday.

    17 First of all, could you please explain what

    18 you mean by that? How did you understand that?

    19 A. I mean by that the burning of people out of

    20 their houses, the burning of their property.

    21 Q. Who? Who is burning people? How? In which

    22 way? It is not clear. Could you give me a more

    23 detailed answer as to what you mean by that, but not in

    24 such general terms. I mean, specifically, in terms of

    25 a specific area, a specific period, on the basis of

  44. 1 what you saw, you're saying that that, for you, was an

    2 example of ethnic cleansing.

    3 So if you know about this, could you give me

    4 some examples from the area where you were, which, in

    5 your opinion, would be cases that justify this, what

    6 you call, ethnic cleansing.

    7 A. I think I referred to Ahmici as being the

    8 worst case that I'd seen. The reason I say that is

    9 because almost every house in the village, every Muslim

    10 house, had been burnt down. At this time, from Easter

    11 through to early May, in the valleys that were near our

    12 main base, this was happening all the time. It

    13 happened on both sides, but more so by the Croatian

    14 army, and this was the worst case of it that I'd seen.

    15 Q. So that is what you mean by ethnic

    16 cleansing. May I remind you, also, of your statement,

    17 the one I presented to you a few minutes ago when we

    18 were talking about the burned bodies, may I remind you

    19 what you said about ethnic cleansing on that occasion.

    20 You also said it yesterday in the trial, so could you

    21 please clarify that a bit for me.

    22 MR. PAVKOVIC: With your permission,

    23 Mr. President, this is page 8 of the translation,

    24 again, where the witness says the following: "I

    25 remember towards the end of my tour of duty, ethnic

  45. 1 cleansing was carried out around the BRITBAT camp at

    2 Novi Bila. There were Bosnian Muslim occupied houses

    3 around the camp. The officers' mess for BRITBAT was

    4 just outside the parameter of the camp amongst these

    5 Bosnian Muslim houses. I remember that when this

    6 ethnic cleansing commenced, members of the HVO actually

    7 entered the officers' mess and officers' quarters.

    8 Captains David Sherlock and Richard Waltier of BRITBAT

    9 had to go into the officers' mess and rescue the

    10 regimental colours. I remember that they saw the HVO

    11 soldiers in the officers' accommodation. Things in our

    12 base were very tense, and all of the BRITBAT soldiers

    13 in the camp were stood to. The Bosnian soldiers

    14 appeared to regroup."

    15 So I have pointed out a part of this

    16 witness's statement which is supposed to explain his

    17 views on ethnic cleansing, his perception of ethnic

    18 cleansing. So that is why I went back to this

    19 question. I also wanted to show him what he said on

    20 that occasion. Could he kindly now comment upon what I

    21 just read out?

    22 A. Any comment that I would like to make is that

    23 ethnic cleansing, as far as I understand it, is the

    24 driving out of occupants from their property and then

    25 setting fire to it, so that they have nowhere to return

  46. 1 to.

    2 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I wish to put

    3 another question to the witness, and that will be

    4 related to his claims concerning a person named

    5 Dragan. And, of course, I shall not be repeating what

    6 my colleague Puliselic asked.

    7 Q. Tell me, Captain, did you communicate with

    8 this person in sign language only, as you said?

    9 A. No. I did know a few words in

    10 Serbo-Croatian, just like "dobar dan," "puska," that

    11 type of thing.

    12 Q. Did he know the English language?

    13 A. I'm pretty sure that he knew a few English

    14 words, but that was about it.

    15 Q. On the basis of what were you sure that he

    16 knew some English?

    17 A. Well, he did say a few English words, like

    18 "hello," and that's about it. I can't remember other

    19 English words that he said. He couldn't put a sentence

    20 together, but he could say a few words.

    21 Q. Can you remember some other words that you

    22 heard from him on that occasion?

    23 A. No, I can't, no.

    24 Q. So that's it.

    25 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I wish to draw

  47. 1 the witness's attention to his statement once again,

    2 and in it, he claimed that this Dragan spoke a bit of

    3 English.

    4 Q. What do you say to that? On that occasion,

    5 you told the investigator that he did speak a bit of

    6 English, that he spoke a little English. So you agree

    7 with me that it was more or less saying "hello" and

    8 things like that?

    9 A. I agree with that. "A bit" means he could

    10 say "hello" and a few other English words. That's it.

    11 That's what I mean by "a bit."

    12 Q. And you do not remember them today?

    13 A. I didn't remember them then, and I don't

    14 remember them now.

    15 Q. In response to the questions put by my

    16 colleague, Attorney Puliselic, you said that you never

    17 saw this person again after that day when he showed

    18 this to you in sign language, what he and/or his

    19 friends did. After that, until the present day, did

    20 you ever see a photograph of his?

    21 A. No, never.

    22 Q. Not in the newspapers, or did someone point

    23 him out to you?

    24 A. Nobody pointed him out to me, and I have

    25 never seen any photographs in newspapers.

  48. 1 MR. PAVKOVIC: No further questions, Your

    2 Honour.

    3 Thank you, Captain.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel Radovic?

    5 Cross-examined by Mr. Radovic:

    6 Q. Captain, I shall start with a somewhat easier

    7 question. My first question would be the following:

    8 In your assessment, how good is your memory in terms of

    9 faces? Let us forget this Dragan for the time being.

    10 Do you remember in your everyday life persons you

    11 encounter, their faces? Could you please give me a

    12 "yes" or "no" answer?

    13 A. No, not everybody.

    14 Q. Do you remember when you were in Bosnia

    15 whether you attended an event on the 20th of December,

    16 '92 in Novi Bila? These were folk dances, so I wish

    17 to remind you of that.

    18 A. Do I remember that I attended an event? Is

    19 that what you're saying?

    20 Q. Did you attend it? Yes. That's what I'm

    21 asking.

    22 A. I don't remember attending an event, no, but

    23 I probably did. I attended several events in the

    24 company of Colonel Stewart.

    25 Q. All right. Were you ever present when a folk

  49. 1 dance group performed, a group performing folk dances?

    2 A. I believe there might have been an occasion,

    3 yes.

    4 Q. Can you tell us where these events took

    5 place?

    6 A. No, I couldn't.

    7 Q. When these events took place, the ones that

    8 you believe did take place, do you remember what kind

    9 of folk dances were shown? Were there only Croatian

    10 dances or was it a mixture of Croatian and Muslim and

    11 Serb dances and folk songs?

    12 A. I could not tell you anything about folk

    13 dancing or anything like that. I wouldn't have been

    14 concerned with any of that.

    15 Q. I know, but if you were present, then you

    16 watched it and listened to it, right, if nothing else?

    17 A. If I was present, I was more concerned with

    18 the safety of Colonel Stewart than anything else.

    19 Q. If you were concerned with the safety of

    20 Colonel Stewart, you also had to watch the faces of the

    21 persons who were present. So could you please look at

    22 the accused and tell me whether you remembered any face

    23 that performed at these events or was present at these

    24 events? Let us see how good your memory of persons

    25 is.

  50. 1 MR. RADOVIC: Your Honours, could you please

    2 ask the Captain to get up, to walk up to the dock, to

    3 look at each and every one of the individuals who are

    4 accused, and to say whether he recognises any one of

    5 them as having been present at these folk dance

    6 performances?

    7 One moment, please.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Radovic?

    9 MR. RADOVIC: Actually, there are two persons

    10 who are accused and who performed on that occasion, and

    11 I think that we will be able to prove this by showing a

    12 videotape later. This would be a good opportunity to

    13 see how good the Captain's memory is.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Captain, can you see all of

    15 the defendants from the place where you're sitting?

    16 There are six defendants.

    17 THE WITNESS: There's one just around the

    18 pillar there.

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you please stand and

    20 move a little bit so that you can see all of them?

    21 Can you answer the question put by the

    22 Defence counsel? You may sit.

    23 MR. RADOVIC:

    24 Q. Can you recognise anyone here as a person who

    25 performed on that occasion or not?

  51. 1 A. No, I can't.

    2 Q. We have completed that part, and now we shall

    3 be moving on to Zenica. During your stay in Bosnia,

    4 you were a noncommissioned officer, to the best of my

    5 understanding; is that correct?

    6 A. That's correct.

    7 Q. Did your knowledge include ballistics, as you

    8 were a noncommissioned officer?

    9 A. It depends what you refer to as "ballistics."

    10 I know firearms pretty well.

    11 Q. I'm referring to the properties of artillery

    12 and the possibilities offered by artillery. So I'm

    13 talking about cannons, guns, not infantry arms, not

    14 small arms, but artillery pieces?

    15 A. I'm not an expert in that field, no.

    16 Q. Some time ago, you said here that you were

    17 sure that Serbs were not in a position to be shelling

    18 Zenica with their artillery. Do you know, at that

    19 time, when Zenica was being attacked, how many

    20 kilometres away were the Serbian artillery positions?

    21 A. I know where they were sited on the ground,

    22 but I think it was probably something in the region

    23 of --

    24 Q. How many kilometres away from Zenica?

    25 A. Twenty-six to twenty-eight, something like

  52. 1 that. It depended at what point on the feature they

    2 were.

    3 Q. Were there 130-millimetre guns within the

    4 Serbian artillery?

    5 A. There might well have been. I didn't see

    6 any.

    7 Q. Could a 130-millimetre-calibre gun, from a

    8 Serb position, actually fire at Zenica and reach

    9 Zenica?

    10 A. Possibly, depending on the charges. I'm not

    11 an artillery man.

    12 Q. Oh, I see. I'm asking you this because you

    13 were saying that it was not possible to hit Zenica from

    14 the Serbian positions. And I know that it is possible,

    15 not only because of what you said, the charges, I mean,

    16 but also because of the difference in altitude. Do you

    17 agree with what I said? Because Zenica is at a lower

    18 altitude than the place where the artillery pieces

    19 were. Am I saying all of this correctly?

    20 A. I presume so.

    21 Q. So we have agreed, as far as military matters

    22 are concerned.

    23 A. We've agreed on what?

    24 Q. On how far a gun can hit, how far a cannon, a

    25 gun, can hit. On how far, a cannon, a gun, can hit.

  53. 1 A. I said I'm a non-artillery officer. I'm an

    2 infantry man.

    3 Q. I know that you're an infantry man. But

    4 since you made a statement in the domain of artillery,

    5 I had to ask you these things related to artillery.

    6 But I did say, before I started questioning you, that

    7 you were an infantry man.

    8 MR. RADOVIC: That would be all, Your

    9 Honours. Thank you.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel

    11 Slokovic-Glumac?

    12 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you.

    13 Cross-examined by Ms. Slokovic-Glumac:

    14 Q. Good day, Captain Stevens. I'm going to ask

    15 you about the house that you entered with this group of

    16 people. This was House number 5 you said, and that two

    17 bodies were found in it, one of an adult and one of a

    18 child, and that you assumed it was a child. Tell me,

    19 the body of the adult was near the window; right? We

    20 can, perhaps --

    21 A. I'll probably need the pictures to point it

    22 out.

    23 Q. Yes. I need it too.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Is it Prosecution Exhibit

    25 164?

  54. 1 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Yes, thank you.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.


    4 Q. Please show us where the body of the adult

    5 was, that is, of the person who you say was an adult.

    6 A. In this area here (indicating).

    7 Q. The place that has been marked. So that is

    8 to the right of the door?

    9 A. That's correct.

    10 Q. The remains of that body, I mean, we saw on

    11 the picture that these were parts of a skeleton. That

    12 is the part we saw here.

    13 A. That's correct, yes.

    14 Q. Please tell us, this other part where the

    15 body of the child was, what was there? We didn't see

    16 this on the recording. Were there bones there? Of

    17 course, these are very unpleasant questions, but we

    18 would like to know, what is it that you found there?

    19 A. There was a skull there of a small size.

    20 That's all that was there.

    21 Q. Thank you. These two rooms that were behind,

    22 you didn't go there because there was nothing there;

    23 right? Did you search them at all?

    24 A. We searched quickly through with sticks,

    25 through the rubble, but we didn't spend any time in

  55. 1 there.

    2 Q. Can you, perhaps, tell us how big this room

    3 is? Actually, you've spoken in terms of feet, but I'm

    4 not very good at that. Could you please tell us in

    5 terms of metres how big the room was?

    6 A. I think it was about -- I'm not sure. I'm

    7 not very good with metres. Nine metres by four metres,

    8 five metres, something like that. Nine by five. It

    9 was about eighteen feet and ten feet wide, something

    10 like that.

    11 Q. All right. Thank you. The stove that was

    12 against the wall, it was actually in the middle of this

    13 wall, in the central part, was it, the stove that we

    14 saw on the photograph?

    15 A. As you saw it on the photograph is as it was.

    16 Q. We cannot tell because the perspective is not

    17 very accurate, so I'm asking you because you were

    18 actually there. It was somewhere towards the central

    19 part, wasn't it?

    20 A. Yes. Yes, it was, yeah.

    21 Q. The door here, the entrance to the room that

    22 leads to the upper room, that is the room on the

    23 left-hand side, how far away was this door from the

    24 stove; can you tell that?

    25 A. The door from the stove?

  56. 1 Q. Yes, the door from the stove.

    2 A. Perhaps 7 or 8 feet, two metres something.

    3 Q. Did you perhaps notice a pipe going towards

    4 the chimney from this stove because this is usually a

    5 stove fired by wood? So was there a pipe there? I

    6 mean, we can't see it in the photograph, but do you

    7 perhaps remember seeing this kind of a pipe?

    8 A. I don't remember seeing a pipe, no.

    9 Q. On this side, you said that the only thing

    10 that was left were metal objects, like the stove. Did

    11 you see any other things made of metal in the house?

    12 Did you perhaps see springs from a bed mattress or

    13 something?

    14 A. I may well have done, but I don't recollect

    15 them.

    16 Q. All right. Thank you. Tell me, we heard

    17 that you cannot remember the exact date when you

    18 arrived in Ahmici.

    19 A. That's correct, I can't remember the date.

    20 Q. But from the statement you made to the

    21 investigator, it may be concluded that this was

    22 immediately after the operations in Ahmici. You said

    23 at one point that the fighting had subsided and that

    24 you had heard about the events in Ahmici beforehand.

    25 A. Yes, we were operating in another village

  57. 1 when reports came through about a massacre in Ahmici,

    2 so we moved from that village to Ahmici, and I believe

    3 that to be the day after it was attacked.

    4 Q. Were the houses still on fire in Ahmici?

    5 Were they still burning?

    6 A. No, there was no burning, there was no fires

    7 burning, some smouldering, some smoke, and some firing

    8 still going on -- some shooting, rather.

    9 Q. You mean firearms were being fired?

    10 A. Yes, I do, yeah.

    11 Q. Ahmici or around Ahmici? In which area?

    12 A. From the higher ground overlooking Upper

    13 Ahmici down into the valley.

    14 Q. You said that you took this road twice as you

    15 went through Ahmici and you passed Upper Ahmici and you

    16 passed the upper mosque and you probably came to the

    17 end of Ahmici; right?

    18 A. That's correct.

    19 Q. In your assessment, how big is this village?

    20 How many houses are there in this village?

    21 A. In my assessment?

    22 Q. Yes.

    23 A. Fifty to 70.

    24 Q. How many houses were burned down at the point

    25 where you were looking at the village?

  58. 1 A. I would say about 30 of them or -- yeah.

    2 Q. All right.

    3 A. Three-quarters of them.

    4 Q. Did you notice anything that showed that

    5 artillery had been operating before that?

    6 A. There were no signs that artillery had been

    7 used in that attack.

    8 Q. All right. You also said -- actually,

    9 sorry. Could you please tell me who are the people who

    10 were with you that day when you discovered those two

    11 bodies in House number 5? There was Colonel Stewart,

    12 Ambassador --

    13 A. On the first day?

    14 Q. Second.

    15 A. Second day? This is the day -- do you mean

    16 the day we went to get the bodies out of that building,

    17 of House number 5? I don't remember the names of the

    18 surgical team, but Colonel Stewart was there and

    19 Colonel Alastair Duncan, who was going to replace him.

    20 That's it.

    21 Q. You also mentioned Ambassador Thebault. Was

    22 he there too that day?

    23 A. No, he had been there earlier.

    24 Q. The day before that?

    25 A. No, I don't think it was the day before

  59. 1 that. It was a few days before that.

    2 Q. So it is impossible that you were there one

    3 day after the actual fighting.

    4 A. That may appear to be the case.

    5 Q. Yes. Tell me, in relation to the photograph

    6 that you took, that is Exhibit 161, and that is the

    7 photograph of an explosive device or something, you

    8 said that you found an RPG-7 in the mosque. It was

    9 some device that you couldn't recognise --

    10 A. That's correct.

    11 Q. -- you said that it was similar to -- that

    12 you had never seen anything like it, rather.

    13 A. I hadn't seen something like that, yeah.

    14 Q. What do you mean, you had never seen anything

    15 like it? Does it mean that it is something very

    16 sophisticated, a new weapon, or why had you never seen

    17 anything like it before that, or is it very old,

    18 obsolete?

    19 A. It could be either. It could be either very

    20 old or very new. I had never seen it. I photographed

    21 it so that I could maybe find out what it was. I

    22 didn't bother trying to find out what it was.

    23 Q. All right. Thank you. Just one more

    24 question. I'm interested in the following: When did

    25 you tell the Prosecutor that one of the persons here

  60. 1 resembles the person that you spoke of earlier in your

    2 statement? When did you tell the Prosecutor that?

    3 A. This morning when I arrived back here.

    4 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you very much. I

    5 have concluded my questioning, but I kindly ask the

    6 Tribunal to look into our proposal which we shall

    7 submit in writing. I believe, and my colleagues are

    8 going to support me, that the Prosecutor should be

    9 prohibited from seeing the witnesses and being in

    10 contact with witnesses during examination-in-chief, and

    11 that doesn't mean only contacts here in the court

    12 during examination-in-chief but also the contacts that

    13 he has during the breaks. The breaks include the break

    14 like the one we mentioned. Because in this way, we see

    15 that various things can work to our detriment, and we

    16 believe that the examination-in-chief should be

    17 comprehensive and that the Prosecutor should not

    18 intervene with the witness in any way.

    19 This is the second time that this has

    20 happened. It has already happened once when there was

    21 that problem with the flag. So this is the second time

    22 this has taken place, and to prevent this from

    23 happening in the future, I kindly ask the Trial Chamber

    24 to look into this and to forbid it. Thank you.

    25 THE WITNESS: Can I say something else?

  61. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, please.

    2 THE WITNESS: I was asked by Mr. Moskowitz to

    3 look through photographs. He took me to show me some

    4 photographs and then put the book down because he

    5 didn't think it would be of benefit, and I agreed with

    6 him. I didn't see any pictures of any faces prior to

    7 arriving in this court.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. As for the matter

    9 which -- yes, Mr. Susak? Counsel Susak?

    10 MR. SUSAK: Mr. President, I just have one

    11 question.

    12 Cross-examined by Mr. Susak:

    13 Q. On page 11 of the translation -- or on the

    14 one-but-last-page in the English version, it states:

    15 "I saw a man and moved towards him to talk

    16 to him. I remember that he was called Dragan. He

    17 spoke a little English and I remember him saying to

    18 me," and in inverted commas, a quotation, "'I killed 32

    19 Muslim men.'"

    20 Now, I ask the witness to tell me where this

    21 difference comes from because today, before the court,

    22 he said that Dragan -- he only used sign language, and,

    23 on the other hand, here -- this is a quotation, namely,

    24 that he spoke in English and that he said, "I killed 32

    25 Muslim men." That is under quotation.

  62. 1 A. He did not say, "I killed 32 Muslim men." He

    2 did not say that. He could not speak that much

    3 English.

    4 Q. I know, but in the statement, that is how it

    5 stands, that you said that that is what he said.

    6 Also today you said that you did not conclude

    7 whether he alone or with somebody else had killed 32

    8 Muslim men whereas in your statement here it says that

    9 he himself killed 32 Muslim men. That is another

    10 difference.

    11 A. He gave me the impression that he and friends

    12 perhaps killed 32 Muslim men.

    13 MR. SUSAK: One further question,

    14 Mr. President, if I may ask the witness?

    15 Q. Did you conclude that Muslims were killed on

    16 the battlefield or not?

    17 A. Muslims were killed on the battlefield,

    18 mainly on the frontlines. At this particular time,

    19 they were being killed by their neighbours.

    20 Q. No, I asked you -- I did not ask you whether

    21 they were neighbours but whether they were killed on

    22 the battlefield.

    23 A. Whether who was killed on the battlefield?

    24 What are you regarding --

    25 Q. You said that 32 Muslim men were killed. How

  63. 1 come you didn't conclude whether these Muslim men were

    2 killed on the battlefield, not in Ahmici but somewhere

    3 else? I'm talking about the talk you had with Dragan

    4 and not what you had seen.

    5 A. I didn't conclude anything other than he and

    6 perhaps his friends had killed 32 Muslim men. I'm not

    7 saying that he was referring to Ahmici, I'm saying

    8 that's what he said. That's the impression he gave me.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. All right?

    10 MR. SUSAK: Thank you. That is all.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I was saying that

    12 as for the question just raised by Counsel

    13 Slokovic-Glumac, we had already started discussing, the

    14 members of the Trial Chamber, this particular issue,

    15 and we may decide to issue an order on this matter. We

    16 will see whether or not to do so and at what stage.

    17 I forgot. I apologise. I forgot that you

    18 are entitled to re-examine the witness. I apologise.

    19 MR. MOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Mr. President.

    20 Just a couple of questions, if I may?

    21 Re-examined by Mr. Moskowitz:

    22 Q. Captain Stevens, do you have any training in

    23 medicine or in pathology?

    24 A. None at all.

    25 Q. Do you have a clear idea of exactly how many

  64. 1 bodies were removed from that House number 5?

    2 A. I don't have a clear idea of how many bodies,

    3 no.

    4 Q. Ms. Glumac referred to the body or the

    5 remains of a child. Do you know for a fact whether the

    6 remains you saw near the stove were the remains of a

    7 child or the remains of perhaps a small adult?

    8 A. A child or a small adult, a small skull.

    9 MR. MOSKOWITZ: That's all the questions I

    10 have.

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Mr. Moskowitz,

    12 are you tendering the witness statement in evidence

    13 because Defence counsel made quite a few references to

    14 it? I wonder.

    15 MR. MOSKOWITZ: We will tender the statement

    16 into evidence.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. I assume the Defence

    18 counsel agree because they did rely upon it many

    19 times. Thank you.

    20 I have one or two questions for Captain

    21 Stevens.

    22 Captain Stevens, I'm sorry, I'm not very

    23 clear about one particular point. When did you have

    24 the bodies lying in House number 5 removed? I mean,

    25 was it a few days after the, what you call the

  65. 1 massacre?

    2 A. I think it was about, thinking back now,

    3 perhaps four to five days afterwards.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: After. So probably around

    5 the 20th of April. Probably.

    6 A. Yeah.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: And then I understand you

    8 went back to Ahmici, you said in early May.

    9 A. Yeah. That was the --

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: When you were examined by the

    11 Prosecutor, you said early May.

    12 A. That was the same time.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Oh, the same time.

    14 A. Yeah, as shown in the video clip.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: I see. So probably -- all

    16 right. So it was -- all right. So it was towards the

    17 end of April and the beginning of May.

    18 Now, my question is as follows: When you

    19 were there, did you see people living in Ahmici in this

    20 particular village? Were there inhabitants? Did you

    21 come across any?

    22 A. No, I didn't come across any inhabitants at

    23 all.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: So did you have the

    25 impression of a sort of ghost town?

  66. 1 A. Absolutely.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Now, you had those bodies

    3 removed a few days after the so-called massacre. Did

    4 you ask yourself why the people there had not removed

    5 bodies? I mean, probably there was a stench of corpses

    6 and so on, and you said to us that animals were even

    7 taking away some parts of the remains of people. So

    8 did you ask yourself why people had not provided -- I

    9 mean the locals, or was it obvious to you because you

    10 said there were no inhabitants left.

    11 A. I think the -- some people may have wanted to

    12 come back but were frightened. Once the U.N. were in

    13 the village, I think some of the local people wanted

    14 the place sort of preserved for sort of evidence-type,

    15 legal-type procedures. Already they had started to

    16 identify that.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: But when you were there again

    18 to remove the bodies lying in House number 5, was there

    19 a stench, a smell of burning and --

    20 A. No, no, no.

    21 JUDGE CASSESE: -- decomposition of bodies?

    22 A. No.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. All right. I

    24 assume there is no objection to the witness being

    25 released? No objection?

  67. 1 Thank you so much for giving evidence,

    2 Captain Stevens. You may now be released.

    3 (The witness withdrew)

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: And we probably could now --

    5 do you want us to take a break now? It's better, and

    6 we start -- because we have 20 minutes.

    7 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour, if we may

    8 have a break now, if that's appropriate?

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, we will go on now. If

    10 you could call your next witness?

    11 While we are waiting for our next witness,

    12 may I raise one issue? I wonder whether the

    13 Prosecution is in a position to give us a rough

    14 estimate of when they may wind up their case, in

    15 matters of weeks?

    16 I will tell you why. First of all, because

    17 we have got to do some planning. Also because it is

    18 now likely, it seems likely, that if security is

    19 provided, we may go to Ahmici after the closure of the

    20 case by the Prosecution. So therefore, as I say, I

    21 wonder whether you have a rough idea of when you may

    22 close?

    23 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, at the beginning

    24 of the week, we have tried to assess the number of

    25 witnesses who will be appearing in the weeks to come,

  68. 1 but it is very difficult, of course, to try to make any

    2 type of definite plans, but today, it is very difficult

    3 for us to determine whether we will go to the 9th of

    4 October, but we may perhaps need an additional week

    5 after the 9th of October.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: So that means we may go on to

    7 the 16th of October in principle?

    8 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour, in principle.

    9 JUDGE CASSESE: Therefore then, at the very

    10 latest, to the 16th of October.

    11 MR. TERRIER: Yes, the 16th, Your Honour.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: It's because Mr. Radovic said

    13 that it is becoming cold, so it is best that we visit

    14 the village as soon as possible, so perhaps around the

    15 19th or the 20th of October.

    16 (The witness entered court)

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: So now I would like to turn

    18 to the Defence. The Defence asked for four weeks'

    19 break, if I understood correctly.

    20 So we have the witness. I apologise to the

    21 witness for this time delay.

    22 Yes, could you please stand and make the

    23 solemn declaration?

    24 THE WITNESS: I declare that I will speak the

    25 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


    2 Examined by Mr. Terrier:

    3 Q. Witness, will you please give this Tribunal

    4 your name, your first name and your date of birth?

    5 A. My name is Hendrikus Prudon, my family name

    6 is Prudon, born on the 26th of August.

    7 Q. Will you please give us your background, your

    8 professional background and your experience?

    9 A. I've worked since 1978 as an expert in the

    10 Police Department in The Hague in the area of

    11 investigations, and in the last four years, I have

    12 worked in the area of crime scene investigations

    13 dealing with bomb explosions and also gunshot residues.

    14 Q. Have you carried out -- have you been trained

    15 in this area?

    16 A. Yes. In the Netherlands, we have various

    17 types of professional training, and I have undergone

    18 most of them.

    19 Q. Mr. Prudon, the Prosecution has called you as

    20 a witness because you have undertaken a mission in

    21 Bosnia-Herzegovina at the request of the Prosecution.

    22 What I am requesting is that you state for this

    23 Tribunal what your mission was and in what

    24 circumstances you carried this out.

    25 A. The mission was to collect information from

  70. 1 two housing units. This was in Bosnia. And we were

    2 there on the 7th and 8th of July of this year.

    3 Q. Is it true that you established a report

    4 regarding this mission?

    5 A. Yes, it's true.

    6 Q. And that this report has three annexes which

    7 were established by other departments other than your

    8 own on various particular subjects at your request?

    9 A. Yes, indeed. Our investigations were

    10 divided. There was one investigation that was carried

    11 out on the crime scene itself, and a number of

    12 investigations, additional investigation stages, which

    13 were carried out by a number of experts.

    14 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, at this moment I

    15 would request that the document be tendered as a

    16 Prosecution Exhibit, this being the report established

    17 by Mr. Prudon, upon which he will make some commentary,

    18 of course, as well as the three annexes attached to

    19 that report. Two of these annexes were made by

    20 pathology or forensic laboratories and the last one is

    21 a ballistics report.

    22 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 169.

    23 MR. TERRIER: It is understood, of course,

    24 that the Defence and, of course, the Tribunal has

    25 copies of this report in English, as well its annexes.

  71. 1 Q. Mr. Prudon, will you please tell us how this

    2 mission was conducted? Was this mission similar to

    3 other missions which you are accustomed to conducting

    4 in these countries, I'm speaking of Holland in

    5 particular?

    6 A. Yes, of course, there are considerable

    7 differences in this mission compared to the work that I

    8 usually carry out. This mission was limited by a

    9 number of factors. The first and the most important

    10 was the lack of time. We were given two days to carry

    11 out our investigations. A second factor was the

    12 difference in time between the time of the incident and

    13 the investigation on the site. There were some five

    14 years that had elapsed. Another factor was the

    15 demining, which also limited our time.

    16 Q. Were you able to finalise the mission which

    17 you were interested in or did you need more time to

    18 carry out this mission?

    19 A. Yes, we definitely needed more time. We were

    20 not able to carry out all of the investigation due to

    21 the lack of time.

    22 Q. Behind you, Mr. Prudon, there is an aerial

    23 photograph of the village of Ahmici where you carried

    24 out your investigation or mission. With the pointer,

    25 which I believe is located on the table before you,

  72. 1 would you please indicate for us where the houses in

    2 which the investigations took place are located?

    3 THE WITNESS: This area over here.

    4 A. (Translation) It is approximately here.

    5 Q. Mr. Prudon, you may now be seated. I ask

    6 that you take a look at your report, and I recommend

    7 that we begin with your investigations in the house

    8 which you refer to as House 42. Will you please tell

    9 us about the conditions of that house, the state of

    10 that house, but first, what do you know about what

    11 happened there? What was said to you about what

    12 happened in that house before you began your

    13 investigations?

    14 A. Well, before I began with my investigations,

    15 we had some information that there had been some

    16 gunfire in that house on the ground floor. There was

    17 also a basement and also a tile roof, and so we mainly

    18 concentrated on the ground floor of that house, on that

    19 part of the house, so we looked at the kitchen, the

    20 hallway, and the living room.

    21 Q. What was the state of the premises? Can you

    22 please describe what you saw when you arrived at that

    23 house?

    24 A. The first investigations show that the house

    25 had fallen into ruins, at least for the most part.

  73. 1 Most of the external walls were no longer there, the

    2 roof had completely disappeared, and within the house,

    3 on the ground, there was debris and earth or soil,

    4 there was a layer of dirt of a certain thickness.

    5 Q. Let us now turn to the layouts or the ground

    6 plan. I believe it is on page 18 of your report, at

    7 least in the English version.

    8 THE WITNESS: Okay. You can see the area

    9 that --

    10 A. (Translation) There it is. Our own

    11 investigations were conducted in the area in which you

    12 see this cross. So here was the original entrance and

    13 then you had a hallway. That wall had disappeared and

    14 that one was also gone, a large part of that wall was

    15 gone, and also for these other two interior walls. The

    16 floors in those two rooms are also gone (indicating).

    17 Q. Just look now at the photograph of these

    18 locations.

    19 A. You see here a photograph of the outside of

    20 the house. This is the entrance, the original

    21 entrance, to this house.

    22 MR. TERRIER: The photograph is found in the

    23 report, Your Honours, on page --

    24 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Terrier, let me confirm which

    25 house we are dealing with, because we need to know.

  74. 1 Which house is this that we are dealing with?

    2 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour.

    3 A. The investigation was conducted in two

    4 houses, Your Honour. There was House 42, the Crime

    5 Scene 42, and then there was House 43, Crime Scene 43.

    6 At this moment, I'm talking about Crime Scene 42.

    7 Q. You mean House 42, Witness?

    8 A. Yes, indeed, that is House 42.

    9 Q. Would you please give this Tribunal the name

    10 of its owner or of its occupants?

    11 A. I do not know. During the course of our

    12 investigations, we always used numbers 42 and 43.

    13 MR. TERRIER: Yes, very well. Since the

    14 Prosecution is in charge of this investigation, we can

    15 inform this courtroom that House 42 belonged to Sakib

    16 Ahmic.

    17 Q. Witness, can we now get back to the

    18 photograph located on the ELMO at this moment, on the

    19 overhead projector? You have two photographs. What do

    20 these represent? What do they show us?

    21 A. As I just stated, the first photograph shows

    22 the entrance of the house. That part of the external

    23 wall has been destroyed; you can see, therefore,

    24 directly into the living room, and this tree grew in

    25 the middle of the living room.

  75. 1 Here is a photograph which shows the outside

    2 of the house, and this was taken from the direction of

    3 the entrance of the house. Here, you can see one of

    4 the external walls of the house which was taken from

    5 the outside (indicating). Here, it is clear that that

    6 part of the external wall had collapsed. The

    7 vegetation and the plants are, indeed, growing within

    8 the house.

    9 Here is another photograph of the external

    10 part of the house, and this is the basement

    11 (indicating).

    12 Q. This basement, did the foundation of the

    13 basement area cover the entire layout of the house?

    14 A. Yes. On this photograph, you see another

    15 view of the outside of the house. These two crawl

    16 spaces are, indeed, a part of the basement.

    17 Here is the same photograph you saw but taken

    18 from another view, from the other side.

    19 Here is a photograph taken from the view of

    20 the entrance, the front door, which is located

    21 approximately here (indicating), and here you can see a

    22 part of the external wall which had collapsed

    23 (indicating).

    24 Here is a photograph which was taken from the

    25 entrance through the corridor.

  76. 1 Q. Once again, would you please show us on the

    2 floor plan from which angle these photographs were

    3 taken?

    4 A. I do not have the floor plan in front of me.

    5 All I have is this one here. Is that good enough?

    6 Q. Yes. Look on this floor plan and show us

    7 where these photographs were taken.

    8 A. Here, once again, you can see the photograph

    9 of the front door looking into the corridor, and the

    10 photograph was taken from that position there

    11 (indicating).

    12 Q. Photograph, I believe, number 10 was taken at

    13 what location?

    14 A. Here is photograph number 10 which was taken

    15 from this location (indicating), in that direction.

    16 Q. Photograph 11?

    17 A. Here it is. It was taken in this direction

    18 (indicating). It represents this section of the

    19 house.

    20 This is photograph number 12, and this was

    21 taken from this position (indicating) and includes that

    22 part of the house. What I could add is that what you

    23 are seeing now on this photograph, it shows that there

    24 was a wooden construction, and this was part of the

    25 roofing.

  77. 1 Q. All of these photographs demonstrate the

    2 state in which you found the house when you arrived at

    3 the scene and not the state of the house after the

    4 investigations you yourself undertook. This is how you

    5 found the house?

    6 A. Yes. That's right.

    7 Q. Photograph 13?

    8 A. This is a photograph which was taken inside

    9 of the house, so you see all of these plants are

    10 growing inside of the house (indicating). This

    11 photograph was taken in this direction (indicating) and

    12 covers this section of the house.

    13 Q. Going on to photograph 14?

    14 A. Once again, you see here a photograph from

    15 the outside of the house. Here is the entrance

    16 (indicating), the original front entrance, and you can

    17 see here a part of the external wall which had

    18 collapsed. This photograph was taken from this

    19 position with this section of the house (indicating).

    20 Q. Let us now go on to photograph 15.

    21 A. Photograph 15 represents a part of the

    22 external wall and the plants and vegetation growing

    23 inside of the house, and this photograph was taken in

    24 this direction here (indicating).

    25 Q. Now, Mr. Prudon --

  78. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: Excuse me. I see that there

    2 are quite a few photographs.

    3 MR. TERRIER: Yes, Your Honour.

    4 JUDGE CASSESE: Perhaps we might now stand

    5 adjourned, and we will resume at 2.00.

    6 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.35 p.m.




















  79. 1 --- On resuming at 2.00 p.m.

    2 (The accused entered court)

    3 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon. I would like

    4 to speak to you, Mr. Terrier, on behalf of the Trial

    5 Chamber. We have reflected on the problems relating to

    6 this witness. We were wondering whether it's really

    7 necessary to go into so many details. For those of us

    8 who work here, you're showing us pictures. I believe

    9 that the Defence is not contesting the fact that people

    10 were killed in these houses or that the houses were

    11 burned. The Defence is simply objecting that those killings may not be

    12 attributed or ascribed to some of the accused. If there

    13 is no objection on technical points, can we move a

    14 little more quickly, and then you may tender in evidence what

    15 you consider to have been accepted, if there is no

    16 challenge from the Defence. If there isn't, then we

    17 can move more quickly.

    18 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, not to waste time

    19 in the Tribunal is one of my most important thoughts,

    20 and I like to move quickly, as much as I can. However,

    21 it seemed to me that when Sakib Ahmic, the witness,

    22 when he was heard during the cross-examination and the

    23 questions that you yourselves asked, it seemed to me

    24 that the major question which he was testifying to was

    25 about his credibility as a witness. Much of what he

  80. 1 said was challenged, naturally, of course, by the

    2 Defence.

    3 It seems to me that it would be important for

    4 us today at the Tribunal to demonstrate, if that is the

    5 case, to demonstrate to what extent the technical

    6 investigations that were carried out in Houses 42 and

    7 43 could or could not confirm the testimony of what he

    8 said. Of course, the expert cannot say who was holding

    9 the weapon that killed the individual, but he's giving

    10 information which, I think, might be useful for the

    11 Court.

    12 Of course, we'll go as quickly as we can

    13 without wasting any time, but I think that it is

    14 necessary to look into all of the investigations that

    15 were carried out by the witness in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

    16 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Prudon. This morning, we

    17 stopped when we were talking about Sakib Ahmic's house

    18 as you found it when you began your work.

    19 For everything to be clear and for everyone

    20 here to understand what kind of transformations take

    21 place over the course of five years in a house which is

    22 exposed to all of the elements, I would like you to go

    23 back to the drawing of the house, the one that you

    24 yourself drew, and to state, very clearly, which were

    25 the walls that were still there when you were carrying

  81. 1 out your investigations last July and which are the

    2 ones which were completely gone. Perhaps you could put

    3 it on the ELMO for us to see.

    4 MR. TERRIER: Could we have the ELMO lit,

    5 please?

    6 A. When we began our work, a large part of this

    7 wall had fallen apart (indicating), had collapsed.

    8 This wall was gone, this one was gone, and this one was

    9 completely gone (indicating). During our

    10 investigations, we found some basic remains of the

    11 walls which would have been there.

    12 Q. On this drawing, you showed the area where

    13 you did your work. Each of us can see that this area

    14 does not cover the entire house. Why is that?

    15 A. The part that we worked on, as you can see in

    16 this square, this is a part of the living room in the

    17 back. You can see that's in the back. We didn't

    18 investigate that, the back part, that is, because we

    19 didn't have enough time, nor were we looking for

    20 explosives. What we had to do was to -- we would have

    21 had to investigate whether explosives were there or

    22 not. The floors were gone, and this is why we didn't

    23 do any work there.

    24 Q. Mr. Prudon, in regards to House 42, would you

    25 tell us what you found?

  82. 1 Perhaps the usher could put the chart that

    2 was prepared for this presentation on the easel.

    3 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 170.

    4 MR. TERRIER: (No translation). I'll say it

    5 again. What I was saying for the Trial Chamber, so

    6 that everybody can be really clear, is that on this

    7 chart were put pages 19 to 24 in the English version of

    8 the report, as well as pages 26 and 27 of the same

    9 report. The Chamber can follow Mr. Prudon's

    10 explanations by referring to the chart or by referring

    11 to the documents that it has.

    12 Q. Mr. Prudon, could you tell us what, during

    13 your investigations, you discovered in that area of

    14 research that you were carrying out in House number

    15 42?

    16 A. I would like to make a short comment. The

    17 investigation began by looking into explosive

    18 materials, and during the de-mining, some parts of

    19 ammunitions were secured. I'll show them to you. I've

    20 numbered them so that the numbers begin at 42.

    21 Here you can see a cartridge case. 42-002 is

    22 a cartridge case.

    23 Q. Please indicate the approximate place, as

    24 indicated on the drawing showing where it was

    25 discovered?

  83. 1 A. The munitions fragments that we secured during

    2 our de-mining operation were secured in this part of

    3 the house. When we were able to take out all of the

    4 debris and all of the vegetation from the floor, we

    5 secured these exhibits, 42-010.

    6 Q. As regards 42-009, which is a very large

    7 object which we can see on the top part of the drawing

    8 or in the report, could you say what this was?

    9 A. It was a projectile which is used for

    10 anti-aircraft projectiles.

    11 Q. Could you assert that this object had been

    12 used, in fact, had been projected, had been fired on

    13 the day of the events, that is, on the 16th of April,

    14 1993, that is, given the point that you found it?

    15 A. No. I could not say anything for sure about

    16 that.

    17 Q. Could you give us a brief comment about those

    18 exhibits which have anything to do with 42-010? What

    19 is that?

    20 A. 42-010, as you can see here, is a cartridge

    21 case which we found in this part of the house and, like

    22 the other numbers, are also part of munitions that we

    23 found, as well as 42-011, 42-012.

    24 42-013 was found in this part of the house

    25 (indicating). 42-014 is a fire sample which we pulled

  84. 1 out of what was left of the floor after we had removed

    2 the debris from the front part of the house.

    3 42-015 and 42-016 are also cartridge cases

    4 which we found in this part of the house on the ground

    5 after we cleared it out of vegetation and debris.

    6 42-017 is part of a cartridge case which we

    7 found in a wall, this wall (indicating).

    8 42-018 is also a cartridge which we found in

    9 this part of the house (indicating).

    10 42-019 and 42-020 are cartridge cases that we

    11 found in this part of the house (indicating) on the

    12 ground after we cleared it of debris and vegetation.

    13 42-021 is a bullet which we found on the

    14 ground in this part of the house (indicating).

    15 42-022 and 42-023, these are cartridge cases

    16 which we found in this part of the house.

    17 Q. As regards all of these objects, essentially,

    18 they were cartridge cases and bullets.

    19 Without even speaking about that part of the

    20 house that you were not able to investigate, do you

    21 have the feeling, or can you say for sure, that you

    22 discovered everything that was there, given the

    23 condition that the house was in at that time? Was your

    24 research as complete as it might have been?

    25 A. My investigation had to be limited to that

  85. 1 part that I mentioned to you at the beginning. I think

    2 that we worked as carefully and as accurately as we

    3 could, and that in that part that we did not

    4 investigate, there might have been other pieces of

    5 ammunition.

    6 Q. As regards these objects that you found on

    7 the floor, for example, or the fire samples that you

    8 took, what did you do with them?

    9 A. In four places in the room, we did, in fact,

    10 find fire samples; two here, one here, and one other

    11 one over here (indicating). The fire samples were sent

    12 to Rijswijk where they could be investigated more

    13 thoroughly. They were examined, especially as it had

    14 to do with fire-enhancing materials.

    15 Q. Could you tell us what the result of this

    16 investigation was?

    17 A. None of the samples showed any fire-enhancing

    18 materials.

    19 Q. Could you give us an idea of how much time

    20 was necessary, if there was any, how long it would have

    21 taken to put in combustion-enhancing materials in the

    22 house that you investigated?

    23 A. I couldn't give you a very certain answer.

    24 I'm not a chemical expert.

    25 Q. Let's move now to the last series of objects

  86. 1 that you found in the room which you find on page 24 of

    2 your report. What is this about?

    3 A. 42-024, these are pieces of material,

    4 textile, which we found in this area (indicating).

    5 42-025, these are bone fragments, a group of

    6 bone fragments, that we found in this part

    7 (indicating).

    8 Q. Did you examine the bone fragments?

    9 A. I didn't do it myself. Initially, the bone

    10 fragments were sent to the Rijswijk Laboratory, and

    11 then they were examined in Leiden by Mr. Maat.

    12 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, may the witness

    13 explain the results of what he had seen? Although we

    14 don't want to go into too many details, I do think it

    15 is necessary, and it might be better and easier, if we

    16 simply asked the witness to tell us what the results of

    17 all the investigations were.

    18 MR. RADOVIC: Mr. President, this is an

    19 expert opinion. That is to say, every expert speaks

    20 about his own sector of work. So if we're talking

    21 about an expert on explosives, and if we are talking

    22 about an expert on ballistics, then he cannot state his

    23 views on things that a forensic expert should be

    24 speaking about.

    25 Therefore, we oppose having a chimney man

  87. 1 asked about what a tailor does. Thank you.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: We wonder whether the witness

    3 could simply report, in general terms, on what he was

    4 told by Mr. Maat. This would be, of course, not an

    5 expert opinion, because he would not be here acting as

    6 an expert. He would simply report to the Court on

    7 those comments, in general terms. Then we will see

    8 whether we will need, also, to call Mr. Maat as an

    9 expert witness, so that we can -- because I think the

    10 proposal by the Prosecutor was designed to save time

    11 and to move on quickly. Let us see to what extent the

    12 matter is relevant.

    13 Counsel Radovic?

    14 MR. RADOVIC: Your Honour, please, you have

    15 taken the view that a witness should not be heard on

    16 things that other people told him about. So we're not

    17 relying on hearsay. Now we're supposed to have an

    18 expert witness who is going to say what he was told by

    19 another expert witness, a forensic expert, and this

    20 expert has nothing to do with forensic medicine.

    21 As a rule, if you have both kinds of

    22 expertise, then we would speak of joint findings, where

    23 these two different kinds of experts try to reach a

    24 common conclusion proceeding from where it was fired

    25 from, how this firing was conducted, what was the

  88. 1 position of the victim, was the victim reclining, was

    2 the victim kneeling, how was the victim hit, et cetera,

    3 et cetera.

    4 Now, what have we been objecting to all

    5 along, that we do not want to admit hearsay. Now, all

    6 of a sudden, we change our view as far as expert

    7 witnesses are concerned. So we're going to ask an

    8 expert witness in ballistics what he was told by a

    9 forensic expert. This is not logical to me. I hope

    10 you won't mind my saying so, but I simply have to make

    11 my position clear.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you.

    13 MR. TERRIER: I would just like to make a

    14 comment, Mr. President, as regards to the comment that

    15 was made, which I do understand. What I wanted to do,

    16 as I already said, in order to save some time for the

    17 Trial Chamber, since we don't have all the time in the

    18 world, as everybody knows, I wanted to ask the witness

    19 who gave certain objects which he found in

    20 Bosnia-Herzegovina to the laboratory, and which then

    21 came to the conclusion that it would be to give us the

    22 conclusions that he received back.

    23 Of course, if these are going to be

    24 challenged by the Defence, which might ask for

    25 additional explanations, the Defence can not only call

  89. 1 Mr. Maat, who is the witness, but I can also say that I

    2 commit myself to have him brought in as a Prosecution

    3 witness in order to please the Defence.

    4 I think, in this way, his rights will have

    5 been perfectly respected.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: I fully agree. Let me just

    7 point out to Counsel Radovic that there may be a

    8 misunderstanding. The hearsay rule does not apply

    9 here, the rule whereby hearsay evidence cannot be

    10 heard. We tend to exclude it, but hearsay evidence may be

    11 acceptable. First point.

    12 Second point, the present witness would not

    13 be acting, as I said before, as an expert. He would

    14 simply, as I say, report on the views which he was

    15 given by Mr. Maat; and as the Prosecutor has just

    16 pointed out, if you are going to challenge whatever he

    17 is now going to say, you are most welcome to call

    18 Mr. Maat as an expert witness, or ask the Prosecutor, through

    19 the Court, to call Mr. Maat as an expert witness.

    20 You may proceed.

    21 MR. TERRIER:

    22 Q. Mr. Prudon, so you gave to Mr. Maat, who is

    23 an anatomist, and Dr. Maat at the University of Leiden,

    24 a certain number of bones that were found in that

    25 house. Could you merely tell the Trial Chamber what

  90. 1 the conclusions reached by Mr. Maat were, which is in

    2 an annex to your report?

    3 A. Yes, that's correct. Mr. Maat's conclusion

    4 in the report was that the bone fragments come from a

    5 child between 10 and 11 years of age, and that among

    6 the bones, there was no annealed bone fragment residues

    7 that had been subjected to charring temperatures.

    8 Q. What temperature was that?

    9 A. From 1.000 to 1.630 degrees Celsius.

    10 Q. I'm speaking to you as a specialist in your

    11 area of investigation, criminal investigation. You did

    12 research on burn sites. Do you consider that a

    13 temperature of 1.000 to 1.630 degrees centigrade is a

    14 very high temperature when we come to burning a house?

    15 A. Yes.

    16 Q. This is a question which arises under these

    17 questions: What would the very high temperature depend

    18 upon? Would it be due to some kind of a flammable

    19 material or would it be explained by other

    20 circumstances?

    21 A. I can only speak through my own experience,

    22 not as a chemist but as an investigator. In cases of

    23 fires, there are always different elements that come

    24 into play. You've got the amount of oxygen, there are

    25 flammable materials. You could think of all kinds of

  91. 1 other factors that might come into play. And all of

    2 these factors are reasons for rises in temperatures.

    3 Q. I would like us to go back to your report and

    4 to photograph number T16 and the following numbers.

    5 Could you tell us what 16 shows?

    6 A. Photograph number 16 is one which was taken

    7 after we had taken away the debris and the earth. It

    8 is a photograph that was taken in the direction of the

    9 back of the house, so the direction that I'm showing

    10 you (indicating).

    11 Photograph number 17 shows that part of the

    12 floor, same shot as you see in number 16, and on this

    13 photograph you can see the remains of an intermediary

    14 wall that was between the living room and the hallway,

    15 and the photograph shows this part of the living room

    16 taken in the direction that you see.

    17 Q. These remains of floor, a wooden floor that

    18 we see in the photograph, that is photographs number 16

    19 and 17, would you say that these traces were everywhere

    20 throughout the area that was cleared away?

    21 A. Do you mean what we found here, that is, this

    22 image here that we see?

    23 Q. Was this everywhere? Did you see the same

    24 configuration everywhere?

    25 A. On the part of the floor that had been

  92. 1 cleared out, yes. This is what one would ordinarily

    2 see.

    3 Q. In the area that you cleared out, did you

    4 find any place where the floor itself had burnt?

    5 A. Over here, you have to imagine that the floor

    6 had been made out of wood, you can see some of the wood

    7 that still remains, at least some of it. Logically, at

    8 this place where I'm showing you, there were also parts

    9 that were made of wood of the different points that I'm

    10 showing you. But those parts of the floor most likely

    11 burned.

    12 Q. When you look at the drawing of the house,

    13 can you show us the places where the floor itself was

    14 completely gone?

    15 A. There are different sectors in the front part

    16 of the house where a large part of the floor was gone

    17 as a result of the fire, and here, where the

    18 intermediary wall did exist, there was an entire part

    19 of the floor which was gone, and in this part that I'm

    20 showing you, there was a large part that was consumed

    21 and there were small parts here and there (indicating).

    22 Q. On this drawing which we have on the ELMO,

    23 using a pencil, could you show us the main areas where

    24 the floor itself was gone, where there was no more

    25 floor left at all as a result of the fire?

  93. 1 A. More or less in these areas that I've

    2 indicated.

    3 Q. Therefore, as a specialist in the area of

    4 fire, explosions, do you draw any conclusions from the

    5 fact that some parts of the floor were gone whereas

    6 other parts the floor was not gone at all?

    7 A. There were differences in areas you can think

    8 about. The first possibility would be that there was a

    9 concentration of fire in those parts where the floor

    10 had been burned away. You also have to remember that

    11 in this type of situation, when you have a wooden

    12 frame, the burning frame falls down on the floor, and

    13 therefore different points on the floor, this

    14 burning -- the burning frame will ignite fires.

    15 Q. Now, Mr. Prudon, if we could ask you to look

    16 at photograph number 18 and tell us what it is?

    17 A. Photograph 18, here you can see part of the

    18 wooden floor which has been cleared away --

    19 JUDGE CASSESE: We do not have 18 to 20,

    20 it seems.

    21 MR. RADOVIC: We don't have 18 and 19.

    22 MR. TERRIER: I'm not sure what happened

    23 here, but here's 18 and 19. Am I the only one who has

    24 18 and 19? I'm sorry. I don't know how it happened.

    25 Perhaps we could then go on to photograph number 20.

  94. 1 Does everybody have it?

    2 A. In photo 20, you can see the ground floor of

    3 the house. I can show it to you on the drawing. This

    4 is the wall that you see on the left, corresponds to

    5 this part of the photograph (indicating); the window

    6 that you see on the left of the photograph corresponds

    7 to the lower left part of the drawing; and the right

    8 window in the photograph matches or corresponds to the

    9 upper part of the drawing.

    10 Q. I hope that everybody has number 20. Now we

    11 look at 21, you see a double metal frame. What is

    12 this?

    13 A. This was a burned mattress, or what remains

    14 of the mattress, which we found after we removed the

    15 debris and the earth that was there, so on the original

    16 surface.

    17 Q. Photograph 21, on the right, we can see that

    18 there's earth. Does this mean that the springs were

    19 not -- or the mattress was not completely uncovered?

    20 THE INTERPRETER: The springs, rather.

    21 Excuse me.

    22 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I don't understand.

    23 MR. TERRIER:

    24 Q. On photograph 21, you can see earth on the

    25 right side of the photograph, and coming out of the

  95. 1 earth are these metal objects. Does this mean that you

    2 did not have enough time in order to clear out the

    3 entire spring?

    4 A. On the right side, you can see there's a

    5 layer of earth and debris. You should see -- at that

    6 part of the house, but, you see, this was not a part

    7 that we really examined.

    8 Q. Photograph number 21 shows where you found

    9 the bones or parts of the bones; is that correct?

    10 A. Yes, that's correct.

    11 Q. In what position were the bones found; could

    12 you tell us that exactly?

    13 A. Well, the bones were located on the surface

    14 of the first floor and were located, I would say,

    15 beneath the bedsprings, if you will, between the

    16 bedsprings and the original floor.

    17 Q. Can you please indicate for us on the floor

    18 plan the exact location where this bedspring/mattress

    19 was located when you discovered it?

    20 A. Over here (indicating).

    21 Q. Can you please try to mark that with a felt

    22 pen, a coloured felt pen?

    23 A. (Marks). This dotted line indicates the

    24 border, if you will, the limit of our area of

    25 investigation, and it was at that location that we

  96. 1 found the bedsprings.

    2 Q. Does photograph 22 and 23 require any

    3 particular comments?

    4 A. Photograph 22 and 23, both of them, in fact,

    5 show you the bedsprings, as we found them. On

    6 photograph 23, you can still see the part of the metal

    7 frame, or the hinge, rather. This is a hinge which we

    8 found in the immediate vicinity of the metal

    9 bedsprings.

    10 Q. What conclusion did you draw from the

    11 presence of this hinge?

    12 A. Not only due to the presence of the hinge but

    13 also due to the position in which the bed was found, we

    14 were able to conclude that the bed had been unfolded.

    15 Q. So this was a convertible type of couch

    16 or ...

    17 A. Yes, that's the hypothesis that we had, yes.

    18 Q. Would you please look at photograph 24?

    19 Please tell us at what location, first of all, and from

    20 what direction this photograph was taken?

    21 A. The photograph number 24 shows you a general

    22 overall view of the original floor and the ground floor

    23 of the plan here represents this area here

    24 (indicating).

    25 Q. Can we see on this photograph, as well as on

  97. 1 photograph 25, the area in which the floor completely

    2 was gone, as you indicated before?

    3 A. Yes, this photograph gives you the same

    4 indications that I mentioned before. You can see there

    5 are areas, in the first case, where the floor had

    6 completely disappeared, and in the second case, almost

    7 completely.

    8 Q. You mentioned also in photograph -- can you

    9 mention about photograph 26 where it was taken and from

    10 which direction? I'm referring to photograph 26.

    11 A. Photograph 26 was taken after we had cleared

    12 the rubble and also the earth, and it was taken from

    13 this part of the floor (indicating), and the photograph

    14 was taken from this direction as I'm indicating here on

    15 the floor plan (indicating).

    16 Q. Now, in the middle of the photograph, just

    17 outside of the rubble, we see a wall. Is this a

    18 separation between the hallway and the living room

    19 from, your own interpretation?

    20 A. Yes, that's right.

    21 Q. Would you please look at photographs 27 and

    22 28 and tell us what they show?

    23 A. Photograph 27 is a part of a wall with a

    24 bullet impact and there's a hole. This is the wall

    25 that I am showing you now on the floor plan, the ground

  98. 1 floor (indicating).

    2 Q. I see. Now please go on to photograph 28.

    3 A. In photograph 28, we see a close-up of that

    4 bullet impact.

    5 Q. Let's now then move on to House 23 very

    6 quickly -- 43, correction. Give me more information

    7 about that house.

    8 I would indicate to this Tribunal now that

    9 the investigation also included House 43, which is very

    10 close to the preceding house. It is the house in which

    11 Witness H and his family lived.

    12 Mr. Prudon, would you please inform this

    13 Tribunal about the investigations you conducted in

    14 House number 43?

    15 A. In House 43, the investigation we conducted

    16 was quite limited. Our task was to establish a floor

    17 plan of the house using both the photographs and also

    18 drawings. The de-mining team cleared a hallway or a

    19 passage, if you will, or a path into the house. This

    20 path was very restricted because of the lack of time.

    21 During the de-mining operation, two pieces of

    22 ordinance were found in that house. You can see it

    23 here on this floor plan, 43-001 is indicated as the

    24 number, and now I am going on to photograph 33. I am

    25 pointing at now where we found these two pieces of

  99. 1 ordinance, and those were the results of the

    2 investigation of House 43.

    3 Q. You attach to your report a number of

    4 photographs, from 32 to 50 -- or 48, rather. Were

    5 these indeed all of the photographs of that house that

    6 you took?

    7 A. Yes, that's right.

    8 Q. Some of these photographs have already been

    9 seen by this Tribunal during the examination of

    10 Witness H. I will not go into too much detail on this

    11 issue, however, simply to underline that the witness

    12 did look at -- I would ask the witness now to look at

    13 photograph 34 and to comment on what this photograph

    14 shows us.

    15 A. Photograph 34 gives you an overall view of

    16 the front part of the house. This is a close-up,

    17 close-up of the house. This is the front door and also

    18 the hallway which follows therein, and the munitions

    19 that we found there and were found on the fourth

    20 stairway or step of that entrance hall.

    21 MR. TERRIER: Thank you, Mr. Prudon.

    22 Mr. President, I have no further questions

    23 for this witness.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel --

    25 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, before you

  100. 1 begin, I would like for the papers or the documents on

    2 which the witness has indicated a certain number of

    3 precessions be entered as evidence.

    4 Mr. Prudon, you have indicated certain areas

    5 outlining places where, for example, the couch is

    6 located and the frame is located.

    7 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 171.

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Pavkovic, are you in

    9 a position to tell us who is going to cross-examine the

    10 witness?

    11 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, Counsel Radovic

    12 is going to cross-examine the witness. Thank you.

    13 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Counsel Radovic?

    14 Cross-examined by Mr. Radovic:

    15 Q. I would kindly ask the expert witness to say

    16 the following: To the best of my understanding, you

    17 are an expert in explosion, fire, and ballistics; is

    18 that correct?

    19 A. No, that's not correct.

    20 Q. Could you please then tell us exactly what

    21 you're an expert in?

    22 A. The organisation within the Dutch Police is

    23 such that you must understand, there are a number of

    24 levels which exist. The first level within this

    25 hierarchy concerns technical operations, general

  101. 1 technical operations; and the second level very often

    2 involves a specialisation in investigation work; and

    3 the third level concerns work conducted by the

    4 laboratories or the work of experts.

    5 Q. I am interested in your exact field of

    6 expertise. What is it, or your field of

    7 specialisation?

    8 A. My expertise lies in investigations, crime

    9 scene investigations, and in particular, crime scene

    10 investigations in which there has been gunfire and

    11 where there has been fire or there has been explosives.

    12 Q. So you do not take part in the process of

    13 expertise or not? Sorry I have to ask all these

    14 questions, but obviously we have different systems and

    15 different institutions, so I really have to familiarise

    16 myself with the situation in your country. I'm more or

    17 less familiar with the situation in my country, of

    18 course.

    19 A. Yes, I understand. You should understand

    20 that in Holland, the execution of work in the crime

    21 scene --

    22 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Radovic is not

    23 receiving the interpretation, it seems.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: I wonder whether the

    25 interpreters could ensure that the witness is being

  102. 1 translated into Croatian? Let us try again. Could you

    2 ask again your question -- actually, it was the witness

    3 who was speaking. You didn't get what he was saying,

    4 yes. So maybe -- I will ask --

    5 MR. RADOVIC: It was the witness, yes.

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Could you please start

    7 again?

    8 A. What I was saying is that I understand the

    9 question Mr. Radovic has asked. Indeed, in Holland,

    10 when one carries out crime scene investigations, these

    11 investigations are conducted by detectives in a case of

    12 a general assignment, and within that you have

    13 specialised investigators; and above that, you have

    14 laboratory work or laboratories.

    15 I work as a specialised investigator at that

    16 level, so I am specialised in crime scene

    17 investigations, and particularly with three areas:

    18 with gunfire and explosives and fire.

    19 MR. RADOVIC:

    20 Q. If I have understood you correctly, you

    21 collect evidence and then you give it to a laboratory,

    22 to a higher level, so to speak; is my understanding

    23 correct?

    24 A. Yes, that's correct.

    25 Q. That is the way it is more or less in our

  103. 1 country too.

    2 You were responding to the Prosecutor's

    3 question on the house which was owned, and is owned, by

    4 Sakib Ahmic. You said that there is a basement

    5 underneath the ground floor, all of the ground floor;

    6 is that correct?

    7 A. As far as we were able to see, and I'd like

    8 to repeat that we were limited by the possible presence

    9 of explosives, yes. So a very large part of the house

    10 had a basement.

    11 Q. Yes. But one may conclude on the basis of

    12 Sakib Ahmic's statement that there was a basement only

    13 underneath half of the house, which is in contradiction

    14 to your statement because the house was built into a

    15 hillock, part of it was underneath a hillock, so there

    16 was an upper floor and a lower floor and there was no

    17 basement underneath half of the house. Do you allow

    18 that possibility of that which Sakib Ahmic said being

    19 true?

    20 A. I did not say that half of the house had a

    21 basement, I said a very large part of the house had a

    22 basement. However, we were not able to show this

    23 basement because we ourselves were not able to visit it

    24 during the course of our investigation.

    25 Q. So we agree that there was not a basement

  104. 1 underneath the entire ground floor?

    2 A. I cannot tell you "Yes" or "No" because I did

    3 not have the possibility of examining the remaining

    4 parts of the house.

    5 Q. Well, never mind. Yes. Let us move on to

    6 the cartridge cases, from photographs 42-001,

    7 et cetera.

    8 You know that this event, you know that this

    9 event on which you presented your expert opinion

    10 occurred on the 16th of April, 1993. You were told

    11 that when you went to Ahmici; is that right?

    12 A. I did not receive the exact date. What I was

    13 told was that the event took place in the month of

    14 April.

    15 Q. All right. Never mind. Regardless of

    16 whether it was in the month of April or an exact date

    17 in April. But can you tell me the exact date when

    18 these cartridge cases were found, when these cartridge

    19 cases were found?

    20 A. This is an issue which one should deal using

    21 references numbers because we spent two days

    22 investigating each of the houses, and in House 42, on

    23 the end of the first day, we stopped our work to

    24 continue the following day.

    25 Q. The exact date is not important for me. It

  105. 1 is important for you to tell me the month and the year,

    2 in general terms.

    3 A. I understand. The 7th and 8th of July of

    4 this year.

    5 Q. Can you claim, with certainty, that every

    6 cartridge case that you found on the scene was on that

    7 scene from the 16th of April, 1993?

    8 A. No. I cannot confirm that for sure.

    9 Q. In addition to this date, the 16th of April,

    10 1993, could those cartridge cases have come there in a

    11 different way? For example, could they have been

    12 brought by animals or could they have been thrown there

    13 by children or various other ways?

    14 A. (No translation).

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry. There is no

    16 translation into English.

    17 MR. RADOVIC: I have interpretation.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Radovic has

    19 interpretation. You're lucky.

    20 A. I was saying that one should make a

    21 distinction between the different physical pieces of

    22 evidence that were found at that location.

    23 In the house, House 42, we found nine

    24 pieces. That was during the de-mining operation.

    25 Similar in theory, this means that these pieces were

  106. 1 found in the debris in the upper levels, and this

    2 thickness went from 40 to 70 centimetres in thickness.

    3 So you can imagine, then, that in this layer, there

    4 must have been animals that would come and change the

    5 composition of that layer. And also plants grew, so,

    6 of course, that could change a number of details.

    7 The second part about the evidence, which

    8 begins with 42-010 in number, these were found on the

    9 original floor. Now, in these five years that separate

    10 that event and the investigation, in this time, of

    11 course, there has been rubble, there has been earth,

    12 which has accumulated on that spot. So one then can

    13 hypothesise that the munitions on that level had not

    14 been brought in recently.

    15 Q. All right. Not recently, but this is a

    16 period of seven years -- no, I'm sorry, five years. I

    17 got a bit confused with my math. I'm sorry. Five

    18 years is not that short of a period either.

    19 In addition, I wish to ask the following: Do

    20 you exactly know when the roof and the roofing fell,

    21 whether it was immediately on the 16th of April or was

    22 it later? Because the depth of the layer, the

    23 thickness of the layer depends on that and the extent

    24 to which the upper layer protected the floor layer, the

    25 bottom layer, if you agree with me.

  107. 1 A. I'm sorry, but I cannot give you a direct

    2 response to the date in which the roof frame had

    3 collapsed. Perhaps you might repeat the second part of

    4 your question.

    5 Q. The protection of the cartridge cases depends

    6 on what has been happening above it, namely, when and

    7 how the roof fell. I'm sorry. I mean, the protection

    8 of this material from the roof depends on the day on

    9 which the roof fell on the cartridges that were found

    10 and the rest of the evidence.

    11 A. It's not only the roof frame that one has to

    12 deal with. You must also take into account the fact

    13 that the walls also collapsed. The walls fell.

    14 Q. But we don't know when the walls fell either,

    15 and the state of the evidence depends on that too, or,

    16 rather, whether this is original evidence found on that

    17 spot. Do you agree with me?

    18 A. Yes, but I think it is impossible to specify

    19 an exact date.

    20 Q. As regards the cartridge cases themselves, is

    21 it possible that after the 16th of April, 1993, a

    22 person came into the remains of the house, shot from

    23 that house, and that those cartridge cases remained

    24 there from that person or part of these cartridge cases

    25 remained from that person?

  108. 1 A. If you take into account the fact that our

    2 investigation took place five years later after the

    3 16th of April, it's true that the location was not

    4 protected or covered. So I really cannot make any

    5 statement on that particular issue.

    6 Q. Well, may I say that I'm not questioning the

    7 accuracy of your findings, but I'm just trying to see

    8 how valid this is in relation to the actual event that

    9 took place on the 16th of April, 1993. So I agree with

    10 everything that you said, but I'm just trying to relate

    11 it to this date.

    12 42-004, can we state when this bullet was

    13 found, and how did this occur, actually, because of

    14 shooting that took place in the house or outside of the

    15 house? Can that be ascertained?

    16 A. 42-004?

    17 Q. 42-004.

    18 A. Yes. This is a bullet that we found in the

    19 house, and I am not able to respond to your question

    20 about whether or not it was fired outside of the house

    21 or within the house. I cannot answer that question.

    22 Q. Were all the cartridge cases that were found

    23 of the same calibre weapon? I mean, you wrote this in

    24 your report, but I would just like to have it heard in

    25 this courtroom.

  109. 1 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, we are going to

    2 have a witness in a moment who will speak about the

    3 ballistics aspect. Indeed, that will address the

    4 question raised by Mr. Radovic. So perhaps it is not

    5 appropriate or useful to ask this witness this type of

    6 question.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes. I think the Prosecutor

    8 is right. Mr. Kerkhoff will be coming.

    9 MR. RADOVIC:

    10 Q. Now we are going to move on to fire. On the

    11 basis of the traces that you found during your inquiry,

    12 did you manage to ascertain the place where the fire

    13 actually broke out, started? And did the fire move

    14 from lower parts to upper parts or was it the other way

    15 around, from upper to lower?

    16 A. In my summary of my crime scene investigation

    17 in House 42, I specified very clearly that in the

    18 floor, there was a certain amount of traces of fire

    19 that were visible. These burn marks seemed to show the

    20 presence of some sort of fire, and this means a strong

    21 concentration of fire. I have not drawn any further

    22 conclusions, because it was not easy to find the

    23 possible cause of the fire. Not only is it not easy to

    24 do so, but it is quite impossible in such a situation

    25 and in the place mentioned to determine the exact start

  110. 1 of the fire.

    2 Q. All right. I am satisfied with that answer.

    3 Finally, there's just one thing that is not clear to

    4 us. Why was your entire investigation restricted only

    5 to this part that you marked on page 1? Why didn't you

    6 go to the other two auxiliary rooms or whatever, the

    7 other two rooms that are adjacent?

    8 A. You mean that in these parts of the house

    9 there was no investigation?

    10 Q. Yes.

    11 A. This can be explained as follows: We arrived

    12 at the crime scene. We had to set up some kind of a

    13 procedure which will allow us to carry out our

    14 investigation. This means that the direct perimeter of

    15 the house was investigated for the presence of

    16 explosives. Then you carry out the same type of search

    17 inside the house, which means that first we had to

    18 clear out between 40 to 70 centimetres of rubble and

    19 earth that was in the house.

    20 You also have to remember the time frame that

    21 we were given to carry out our investigations. When

    22 confronted with this, we had to make a choice, that is,

    23 should we choose to study the flooring so far as it was

    24 accessible, that is, the ground floor. And we were

    25 unable to study other parts of the house, because we

  111. 1 didn't have enough time.

    2 Q. Another question, and I really don't know the

    3 answer to this question, and you will probably know

    4 it: If a house was set on fire by gasoline which was

    5 spilled on the floor, after such a long period of time,

    6 when analysing the material found or, rather, the fire

    7 samples that you brought to The Netherlands, could you

    8 find traces of that?

    9 A. Not personally, because I'm not an expert in

    10 that field. However, the possibilities of detecting

    11 that, theoretically, do exist.

    12 MR. RADOVIC: Thank you. No further

    13 questions.

    14 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. Any

    15 re-examination?

    16 MR. TERRIER: One question. I would like

    17 Exhibit 86 to be given to the witness. I want to give

    18 some information to the Tribunal, who is probably

    19 wondering, why this mission was limited to two days.

    20 The Trial Chamber, when it goes to Bosnia-Herzegovina,

    21 will realise very quickly how difficult it is to work

    22 there.

    23 We needed to have support from the SFOR

    24 battalions, that is, the DUTCHBAT. We were given that

    25 support very willingly, but we were limited to two

  112. 1 days, which means we were able to go to Ahmici only

    2 during those two days. In addition, much of the time

    3 was occupied by de-mining work before the

    4 investigation, which explains why our research was only

    5 partially carried out, even though we would have liked

    6 it to have been more complete.

    7 MR. RADOVIC: Mr. President?

    8 JUDGE CASSESE: Counsel Radovic?

    9 MR. RADOVIC: I take the liberty of saying

    10 that the de-mining was quite unnecessary, because I

    11 went to that place myself, and I even walked. I went

    12 on foot, and I risked being blown up. And obviously

    13 since I'm here, it wasn't mined. I went there before

    14 them, and I walked around the place and I walked inside

    15 too.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: You are very brave, indeed.

    17 MR. TERRIER: I confirm that, in fact, no

    18 mines were discovered. Nonetheless, we wanted this to

    19 be done without running risks.

    20 Q. Mr. Prudon, I would like you to look at this

    21 photograph. This is a photograph which was already

    22 submitted to the Tribunal which was taken, as

    23 indicated, to the Trial Chamber on the 22nd of April,

    24 1993. You can see on the floor of Sakib Ahmic's house

    25 that there are tiles. My question is, of course, not

  113. 1 asking you what the date was that the tiles fell down,

    2 but, rather, to know whether these objects, 42 and 43,

    3 were found above or under the tiles that you see on the

    4 photograph?

    5 A. I didn't quite catch the reference numbers

    6 that you had mentioned.

    7 Q. The exhibit that you see on the screen, 86,

    8 it was taken on the 22nd of April, 1993. My question

    9 is to know whether these cartridge cases, which have

    10 been numbered 42-010 and following, were discovered by

    11 you above or under the tiles?

    12 A. As I have told you, these objects were found

    13 on the original floor plan, that is, under the layer

    14 you see here in the picture.

    15 MR. TERRIER: Thank you. I have no further

    16 questions.

    17 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. I assume there's

    18 no objection to the witness being released.

    19 Mr. Prudon, thank you so much for giving --

    20 MR. TERRIER: Excuse me. I think that I

    21 forgot that Exhibits 170 and 171 be tendered as

    22 evidence.

    23 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you for coming to give

    24 evidence. You may now be released.

    25 (The witness withdrew)

  114. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: If your next witness is close

    2 at hand, we could probably start. It's Mr. Kerkhoff?

    3 Would you care to take a break now?

    4 MR. TERRIER: This, of course, is the

    5 decision of the Trial Chamber. We could take a break

    6 now.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: If he's here, we could

    8 begin.

    9 MR. TERRIER: As you like, Your Honour.

    10 JUDGE CASSESE: All right. We are going to

    11 take our break now for 30 minutes, but perhaps when we

    12 resume, the witness could already be in the room.

    13 --- Recess taken at 3.20 p.m.

    14 --- On resuming at 3.49 p.m.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Good afternoon,

    16 Mr. Kerkhoff. Could you please make the solemn

    17 declaration?

    18 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will

    19 tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the

    20 truth.


    22 Examined by Mr. Terrier:

    23 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, to begin, would you tell us

    24 your name, your given names, and the date of your

    25 birth?

  115. 1 A. My name is Wim Kerkhoff. I was born on

    2 August 1st, 1966.

    3 Q. Your profession, please?

    4 A. I work at the forensic laboratory and I work

    5 in the ...

    6 Q. Tell me, what is the status of that

    7 laboratory? Is it part of the Ministry of Justice or

    8 of the Interior?

    9 A. The laboratory falls under the authority of

    10 the Ministry of Justice.

    11 Q. Could you tell us what your experience is in

    12 the field of weapons?

    13 A. I have worked for the last eight years as an

    14 investigator into weapons, and most of the cases that I

    15 have dealt with had to do with comparative research of

    16 bullets and cartridge cases. In most of the cases, I

    17 was trying to find out whether the bullets and the

    18 cartridge cases came from the same firearm or from

    19 several firearms. Should it be a firearm that is

    20 there, we have to investigate to see what bullets or

    21 what cartridge cases go with that particular firearm.

    22 Q. Thank you. The Prosecution has called you to

    23 the Tribunal because you were part of a mission done at

    24 the request of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal, that is,

    25 a mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the beginning of

  116. 1 July of this year. During the mission, a certain

    2 number of objects were discovered in a house. Were you

    3 a participant in the team that worked on finding those

    4 objects?

    5 A. Yes, I was.

    6 Q. And the different locations in the -- we've

    7 got the location of the different houses. Is it true

    8 that after you had returned to the Netherlands, you

    9 were made responsible for examining those particular

    10 objects?

    11 A. After the fact, I did research into the

    12 firearms and into the cartridge cases and the bullets.

    13 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber how many

    14 objects you examined?

    15 A. I examined 17 cartridge cases, three bullets,

    16 part of a bullet, a firearm with a firing pin.

    17 Q. As regards the cartridge cases that were

    18 found in that house in Bosnia, can you specifically

    19 tell us where these cartridge cases were discovered?

    20 A. All in all, we visited two different houses.

    21 At the entrance to one of them, we found a cartridge

    22 case and a bullet, and in the other, we found 16

    23 cartridge cases and two bullets and one part of a

    24 bullet.

    25 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, first of all, I would like you

  117. 1 to tell the Tribunal what the results of your research

    2 were, and after that, perhaps explain to the Tribunal

    3 how it was that you reached those conclusions so that

    4 would confirm the basis of the results.

    5 On the basis of your conclusions, first of

    6 all, as regards the calibre of the weapon that was used

    7 in order to fire the bullets which left the cartridge

    8 cases, did you reach any conclusions as to the calibre

    9 of the weapon?

    10 A. Yes. There were 15 to 17 of the cartridges

    11 for which we could determine the calibre, and that was

    12 7.62 millimetres.

    13 Q. What kind of weapon uses that calibre?

    14 A. There are several types of weapons. There

    15 are the Kalashnikov weapons and those weapons which

    16 derive from that; there are also semi-automatic weapons

    17 and rifles.

    18 Q. In the house, what you discovered, did that,

    19 in fact, correspond to actual firing?

    20 A. The 17 cartridge cases that we found were

    21 fired from a firearm.

    22 Q. Do you have an idea as to the origin of this

    23 ordinance; for example, the place of production?

    24 A. A certain number of the cartridge cases were

    25 those for which we could establish the country of

  118. 1 origin as well as the date of production. Would you

    2 like me to be more specific? The place of production

    3 as well as the date?

    4 Q. Yes, please.

    5 A. Six of the cartridge cases were made in the

    6 former Yugoslavia, probably in 1971; four were produced

    7 probably in Russia, that is, the former Soviet Union,

    8 in 1981; and the other cartridge cases did not allow us

    9 to establish dates.

    10 Q. You, of course, compared all of them, that

    11 is, all of those cartridge cases you found in the two

    12 houses. Were you able to draw any conclusions from the

    13 comparisons you made?

    14 A. Yes. The traces of the firearms were

    15 compared. Insofar as they were there, insofar as they

    16 were visible, they were the same -- or similar. There

    17 were four cartridge cases which showed a large number

    18 of traces than the others, and we can therefore say

    19 that they came from the same firearm.

    20 Q. On the chart that is behind you, using one of

    21 the felt pens that you have, could you draw a circle

    22 around the four cartridge cases about which you could

    23 say that they came from the same firearm?

    24 A. (Marks)

    25 Q. Of the three that were found in one house and

  119. 1 the one that was in the other, can you say that they

    2 came from the same weapon?

    3 A. That cannot be said for sure. The number of

    4 traces or the quantity of traces were not sufficient.

    5 They may possibly have come from the same firearm.

    6 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, as regards the other cartridge

    7 cases, the others that you examined, did you find any

    8 indication which would say that several firearms had

    9 been used? Do you have any proof that several firearms

    10 had been used in one or in both of the houses?

    11 A. No, we have no proof to substantiate our

    12 saying that.

    13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Kerkhoff. Now I would like

    14 you to show the Trial Chamber how you worked in order

    15 to reach the results. What were the examinations that

    16 you carried out? I asked you to bring in a weapon, a

    17 Kalashnikov-type weapon, so you can show the Trial

    18 Chamber the different parts which allowed you to reach

    19 the conclusions that you reached?

    20 A. Would you agree that I could quickly start --

    21 should I give you a quick demonstration of the weapon?

    22 Q. It has no relationship specifically to what

    23 we're doing, but it's a firearm that comes from the

    24 Dutch police, and the witness can take it and show us

    25 how it worked.

  120. 1 A. This is an AK-M type weapon. It comes from

    2 the AK-47 or is related to the AK-47. This weapon has

    3 a special side part. There are other weapons which

    4 have set side parts or longer barrels, but otherwise,

    5 all of these weapons are more or less the same.

    6 In order to fire it, the firing pin has to be

    7 in the right position. The cartridge can be put into

    8 the weapon, and the weapon, in that way, can be loaded

    9 (demonstrating). On the side, there is a clip which

    10 can be put into three positions. The first position is

    11 the safety position, which prevents the weapon from

    12 being fired. Then there's another position which

    13 allows you to fire semi-automatically, and that means

    14 that each time you pull the trigger, one shot is

    15 fired.

    16 The other positions allow you to fire in

    17 automatic mode, so that the weapon doesn't stop firing

    18 as long as you are pulling the trigger.

    19 Q. How many bullets does the clip hold, in

    20 general?

    21 A. This weapon can hold 30.

    22 Q. Do all the different types of the AK-47 have,

    23 more or less, the same features that this one that

    24 you're showing does?

    25 A. There are some slight differences, but from a

  121. 1 technical point of view, they are very similar.

    2 Q. About this weapon, I have two questions:

    3 When you fire in volleys in the automatic position, you

    4 said that so long as you are pulling on the trigger,

    5 you're firing. But is it customary -- actually,

    6 ordinarily, how many bullets does one fire when you do

    7 pull the trigger? In the automatic position, how many

    8 bullets come out?

    9 A. In the training of many armies --

    10 Q. A short burst represents about how many

    11 bullets?

    12 A. Two, three, or four bullets.

    13 Q. So if the magazine is open, you can fire a

    14 great many bullets then with that?

    15 A. Yes. You could fire out 30 bullets, in fact,

    16 in one volley.

    17 Q. And you could have five of these volleys if

    18 you wanted to. That could be possible; correct?

    19 A. Yes, that's correct. That's possible.

    20 Q. Whatever mode is being used to fire, the

    21 cartridge cases that come out, those that correspond

    22 with the bullets, how do they come out? Can you show

    23 us that?

    24 A. Ordinarily, when the weapon is in a

    25 vertical (sic) position, the cartridge cases are

  122. 1 ejected to the right and a little bit in front of the

    2 person firing.

    3 Q. Could you give us a demonstration or show

    4 us -- for example, if you are firing from where you

    5 are, could you show us where the bullets or the

    6 cartridges would fall, not exactly, but more or less

    7 where would they fall?

    8 A. I will get up. If I am in this position and

    9 I fire in this direction, the cartridge cases are

    10 ejected between where this woman is sitting and the end

    11 of this piece of furniture (indicating). The distance

    12 would be between one and ten metres.

    13 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: We can't see. We

    14 couldn't see that.

    15 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes.

    16 THE WITNESS: Let me demonstrate it in the

    17 other direction then. If I'm in a horizontal position

    18 and firing in this direction, the cartridge cases will

    19 land between this angle and this empty chair in front

    20 of me or the one next to me. It's in that angle, from

    21 one to ten metres.

    22 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Thank you.

    23 MR. TERRIER:

    24 Q. Could you now show us what parts you use in

    25 order to make fire comparisons between a bullet and a

  123. 1 weapon? How do you determine whether this or that

    2 weapon fired this or that bullet? What are the things

    3 that you use in order to do that?

    4 A. Once a cartridge case has been ejected from

    5 the firearm, you find traces on certain parts of the

    6 weapon. There is the firing pin, the ejector, and then

    7 the hook of the cartridge.

    8 Q. The weapon you have here, could you show us,

    9 more or less, where these different parts are found,

    10 the ones that you use in order to make comparisons?

    11 A. They are very, very small parts that are very

    12 difficult to see with the naked eye.

    13 Q. When the Office of the Prosecutor asked you

    14 to go on that mission, when it gave you that

    15 assignment, it also gave you a weapon and asked you to

    16 see whether the weapon had fired one of the cartridge

    17 cases that were found in House 42 and in House 43. You

    18 carried out that investigation.

    19 First of all, do you know what the origin of

    20 the weapon was and what was the result of the

    21 research?

    22 A. We received an AK-M with a magazine from the

    23 Tribunal. We did some test firing, and we compared the

    24 traces on the bullets and on the cartridge cases with

    25 those that we found at the crime scene.

  124. 1 Q. What was the conclusion of that research?

    2 A. Of the four cartridge cases which showed the

    3 best traces for us to see, they did not come from the

    4 rifle that we had received.

    5 Q. That was not used, then, in those two houses,

    6 at least, according to the traces that you saw?

    7 A. That's correct.

    8 Q. We will give you this weapon in order to be

    9 sure -- perhaps the usher can show you the weapon, and

    10 then you can show it to the Judges.

    11 MR. TERRIER: It's in the box over there.

    12 THE REGISTRAR: Prosecution Exhibit 172.

    13 MR. TERRIER:

    14 Q. Perhaps we can take it out of the box so it

    15 can be visible for the Judges, first of all, and also

    16 for us. The question I asked you is whether this is

    17 the weapon that you had an opportunity to examine.

    18 A. Yes. This is the weapon itself.

    19 MR. TERRIER: I'd like to inform the

    20 Tribunal, and I've already informed the Defence of this

    21 yesterday evening, but I'd like to inform the Tribunal

    22 that this is the weapon that was given to us by the

    23 SFOR battalion or the SFOR unit. This was found,

    24 indeed, in the hands of an individual at the time of

    25 his arrest by the SFOR. This is Mr. Vlatko Kupreskic

  125. 1 I'm referring to. Of course, if the weapon is not

    2 shown to be the weapon that was used in firing these

    3 bullets, then this, of course, could be used as

    4 exculpatory evidence.

    5 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, we were referring to --

    6 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Terrier, I'm sorry.

    7 Mr. Krajina?

    8 MR. KRAJINA: Excuse me just a minute,

    9 please. What the Prosecutor said is true. We wish to

    10 corroborate that, indeed, it is the same weapon as the

    11 one that was found in the Kupreskic house, Vlatko

    12 Kupreskic's house. I mean, it is the same type of

    13 weapon. Neither we, nor our client, can say that it is

    14 exactly the same rifle, but it is exactly the same

    15 type. Thank you.

    16 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you, Mr. Krajina.

    17 MR. TERRIER:

    18 Q. Yes. I have one last question to ask you,

    19 Mr. Kerkhoff, with regards to the comparison of the

    20 various cartridge cases themselves. First of all, if

    21 you could explain for us what a cartridge case is.

    22 Secondly, I would ask that you explain to us how you

    23 carried out your examination. What kind of traces do

    24 you look for to see whether or not two cartridge cases

    25 come from the same weapon or were fired from the same

  126. 1 weapon?

    2 A. Yes. A cartridge case is ejected from the

    3 side of a firearm after it has been fired. The

    4 cartridge cases that were found in Ahmici were very

    5 corroded, and so the research began by cleaning these

    6 cartridge cases. Then we used a certain number of

    7 acids in a special type of acid bath, and then we

    8 looked for all possible traces that were left on the

    9 surface of the object. It was shown that on the bottom

    10 part of the cartridge cases, these traces were more

    11 visible.

    12 On the bottom part of the cartridge cases, we

    13 saw traces, and these were traces that were made, quite

    14 probably, by the particular characteristics of that

    15 firearm. This is something that we found on four of

    16 the seventeen cartridge cases, and we compared these

    17 using a microscope.

    18 Q. Now, on the board behind you --

    19 THE INTERPRETER: I'm sorry. The interpreter

    20 did not hear the beginning of that question.

    21 MR. TERRIER:

    22 Q. Behind you, there are four cartridge cases.

    23 Three of them were discovered in House 42 and one of

    24 them was discovered in House 43; is that correct?

    25 A. Yes, that's right.

  127. 1 Q. We have now talked about the bullets which

    2 were discovered in House 42. Would you please say a

    3 few words about those, what type of calibre they were?

    4 A. We found three bullets in one house and one

    5 bullet in another house, and of the three bullets that

    6 we -- for the first three, we were able to determine

    7 the calibre, and one was secured in House 42, and the

    8 calibre was not able to be determined with -- we're not

    9 sure about the calibre from that bullet.

    10 But as for the other three, we determined

    11 that it came from a magazine which had the same calibre

    12 as the cartridge cases. On one of the bullets, I found

    13 it did not have any traces. It was a bullet that

    14 probably had not been fired from a firearm. As for the

    15 other three, those indeed had been fired.

    16 Now, on these bullets, there were indeed

    17 grooves left from the rifling of the firearm, and the

    18 number of striations were similar or the same.

    19 However, this does not say a great deal because this is

    20 an element one finds in most all firearms.

    21 As regards the individual traces where one

    22 might find traces left from a single weapon, we did not

    23 find anything like that.

    24 Q. Because you took part in the research in

    25 House 42 in particular, did you have the assessment or

  128. 1 feeling that one can be sure that all of the bullets

    2 and cartridge cases that were discovered (translation

    3 discontinues)

    4 A. I do not understand the question.

    5 Q. Are you sure that in the house research,

    6 every shell, every full metal jacket, were found?

    7 A. I think it is quite possible that some of the

    8 cartridge cases and bullets were not found.

    9 MR. TERRIER: One last question and then I

    10 will have no further questions after that,

    11 Mr. President.

    12 Q. You have brought with you a photograph,

    13 several photographs, which show quite clearly the

    14 comparisons that you use in order to determine whether

    15 or not a bullet comes from the same weapon, the same

    16 firearm. Here, this is a cartridge case. Can you

    17 please comment on this photograph?

    18 A. Yes. Here we can see a close-up of these two

    19 photographs on the left. All right. That's fine.

    20 Thank you.

    21 It's still not very clear, but the photograph

    22 below, here we see a part of the traces left behind by

    23 the firing pin. This was located on the cartridge case

    24 that we found in House 43. And on the other part, here

    25 you see traces left behind by the firing pin on the

  129. 1 cartridge case left in House 42.

    2 Now, in the upper photograph, you have the

    3 same thing; however, this was located in another

    4 location. Here you can see the traces of the firing

    5 pin again. Here we see better on the photograph, a

    6 little less on the screen, is that the two photographs

    7 match. The best, most visible continuation of the

    8 trace -- thank you for that close-up. Now it's a

    9 little clearer, more in focus. Here you can see a

    10 certain number of traces, which is an extension one of

    11 the other. Here you can see a vertical line and also

    12 another line on the left. What you see on the left is

    13 one cartridge case, on the left of the line, and this

    14 was a cartridge case which was located in House 42; and

    15 on the right, this is a part of the cartridge case

    16 located in House 43. Here you can see that most of the

    17 traces correspond to one another and extend from one to

    18 the next. These were the only traces which were usable

    19 in either of those two cartridge cases, and it cannot

    20 be ruled out that these come from two different

    21 firearms.

    22 Q. Now, in this comparative analysis of the

    23 cartridge case on the right which was found on the

    24 floor of House 43 and that one on the left found in

    25 House 42, what were the conclusions of your comparative

  130. 1 analysis of these two?

    2 A. (Delay in translation) The two came from the

    3 same gun. That is the conclusion we would reach on

    4 that.

    5 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, I have no

    6 further questions.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: (No translation)

    8 MR. TERRIER:

    9 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, my question was the following:

    10 On the screen, you see part of the cartridge case found

    11 on the threshold of the House 43 on the right side of

    12 the screen, and on the left of the screen, we see a

    13 part of the cartridge case located in House 43. From

    14 this analysis, from this comparative analysis, what

    15 could one conclude, as a specialist, as a ballistics

    16 specialist that you are, what would you have concluded?

    17 A. That the two cartridge cases probably come

    18 from the same firearm.

    19 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, I have no

    20 further questions, if the answer has been translated --

    21 yes, in French at least. Yes, in French, we did

    22 receive the answer. I don't think it came in English.

    23 Nonetheless, I would like for these exhibits to be

    24 tendered and also I would like to make available to the

    25 Court and also to the Defence copies of those exhibits

  131. 1 displayed there.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Very well. Thank you. I now

    3 turn to Counsel Pavkovic for the usual question.

    4 MR. PAVKOVIC: Mr. President, I can assume

    5 that you have by now assumed who is going to be putting

    6 the questions: Counsel Ranko Radovic.

    7 MR. RADOVIC: So that is my sad fate, you

    8 see?

    9 Cross-examined by Mr. Radovic:

    10 Q. Mr. Kerkhoff, first of all, could you tell me

    11 the following: You said that this one cartridge case

    12 that was found separately in front of one house and the

    13 cartridge cases that were found in the other house were

    14 probably from the same firearm; did I understand you

    15 correctly?

    16 A. Yes, that's correct.

    17 Q. What is the percentage of this probability?

    18 A. It cannot be expressed in a percentage.

    19 Q. I know, but when you say "in all

    20 probability," that is not for sure, that is not

    21 certainty; right? So it may be so, but then, on the

    22 other hand, it need not be so, if I understand it

    23 correctly. Is that true?

    24 A. It cannot be ruled out that these two

    25 cartridge cases come from two separate firearms. It is

  132. 1 true.

    2 Q. I'm satisfied with that answer. Now my next

    3 question would be as follows: In view of the time that

    4 elapsed from the events that occurred on the 16th of

    5 April, 1993, until the point in time when you and your

    6 team carried out your investigation and found these

    7 cartridge cases, can you say with certainty that the

    8 fourth cartridge case that was found separately was

    9 lying in that particular place from the 16th of April,

    10 1993, or was it possible that it could have, by some

    11 kind of manipulation, come there from some other place

    12 subsequently? I'm not trying to say that someone did

    13 this intentionally, lest I be misunderstood.

    14 A. I do not know how long this cartridge case

    15 was there. I do not have any information to really

    16 make a judgement on that matter.

    17 Q. So you cannot rule out the possibility that

    18 this cartridge case reached that separate place after

    19 the 16th of April and that it was lying there until the

    20 moment it was found; do you agree with me on that?

    21 A. I cannot rule that out. That is possible.

    22 Q. All right. Now we have taken care of that

    23 part, and I'm just going to ask you, in passing,

    24 whether you are familiar with the automatic rifle that

    25 is manufactured in Slovenia, it's called MGV?

  133. 1 A. Yes, I know that weapon.

    2 Q. Do you know the calibre of that weapon?

    3 A. Yes. The calibre is .28.

    4 Q. Yes. And my last question --

    5 A. No, I'm sorry, there was an error in the

    6 interpretation of the calibre. The calibre is .22,

    7 long rifle.

    8 MR. RADOVIC: I don't understand that. It

    9 says ".22 long rifle." That is what I heard in the

    10 interpretation. It doesn't really mean a thing to me.

    11 A. It is the name of the cartridge cases which

    12 are used in that weapon.

    13 Q. I don't know. All right. Ultimately, I am

    14 not very interested in that now. Can you hear me?

    15 Ultimately, I am more interested in the following:

    16 When this Slovenian-made rifle throws out cartridge

    17 cases, ejects them, how and where does it eject them?

    18 On the side or down, by the feet of the man who is

    19 firing the rifle?

    20 A. The weapon ejects the cartridges right at the

    21 foot of the person firing the gun.

    22 MR. RADOVIC: Front? Thank you. Otherwise,

    23 we are going to bring an extensive paper from Zagreb,

    24 but I wanted to avail myself of this opportunity in the

    25 presence of this expert witness here.

  134. 1 Thank you. I have no further questions.

    2 JUDGE CASSESE: Any re-examination?

    3 MR. TERRIER: Yes, just one aspect about the

    4 characteristics of this MGV weapon which Mr. Radovic

    5 has mentioned, with good cause.

    6 Re-examined by Mr. Terrier:

    7 Q. I would like for Mr. Kerkhoff to tell us what

    8 the calibre of a .22 long rifle, whether that is

    9 smaller or larger than that of an AK-47 rifle or the

    10 same?

    11 A. No, this is definitely a much smaller

    12 cartridge case than the one we found in Ahmici.

    13 Q. What are the characteristics of this weapon?

    14 A. This weapon has a round magazine which can

    15 contain 70 rounds.

    16 THE INTERPRETER: Correction. 170, not 70,

    17 as was stated in English, 170 rounds.

    18 A. And this weapon also is able to go from

    19 semi-automatic to automatic mode. This weapon has a

    20 firing speed which is very fast in automatic mode.

    21 Once you pull the trigger, you fire some 20 rounds.

    22 Q. Is this a weapon which is very specialised

    23 for a particular type of activity, or could it be used

    24 by a generalist, someone who could simply use it --

    25 A. I'm not exactly -- I don't exactly understand

  135. 1 what was the purpose of the provocation of this arm, or

    2 when it was used, or for what purpose.

    3 MR. TERRIER: No further questions,

    4 Mr. President.

    5 Thank you, Mr. Kerkhoff.

    6 Mr. President, simply one observation. With

    7 regards to the photograph which is on the ELMO, we

    8 request that it be tendered as a Prosecution Exhibit to

    9 this Tribunal. However, the witness does not have any

    10 other copies, so we request a short delay so that we

    11 can have this reproduced for the Tribunal. We must

    12 make photocopies of this.

    13 JUDGE MAY: One question. Mr. Kerkhoff,

    14 could you please, for the record, tell us the numbers

    15 of the similar cartridge cases? You marked them up

    16 there, but could you just tell us what the numbers are.

    17 THE WITNESS (in English): The exhibit

    18 numbers, you mean?

    19 JUDGE MAY: Yes, underneath the cartridge

    20 cases.

    21 THE WITNESS: Well, with regards to those

    22 located above, there's 42-005, and then you have one

    23 just below, 42-012, then below that, 42-015, and then

    24 at the very bottom, 43-002.

    25 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.

  136. 1 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you. I assume there is

    2 no objection to the witness being released.

    3 Mr. Kerkhoff, thank you. You are now

    4 released.

    5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone to the

    6 President.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: Sorry. There was no

    8 microphone on. You may now be released. Thank you for

    9 testifying in court.

    10 (The witness withdrew)

    11 JUDGE CASSESE: Mr. Terrier, can we go on to

    12 your next witness, please?

    13 MR. TERRIER: Your Honour, I regret to say

    14 that my next witness cannot appear immediately. With

    15 your permission, may I request that we adjourn until

    16 tomorrow morning? Your Honour, may I make a very brief

    17 statement before we do so?

    18 This morning, Counsel Glumac made a statement

    19 that the Defence intends to submit to this Tribunal a

    20 request for the Prosecution to have no contact with its

    21 witnesses or from the moment at which the

    22 examination-in-chief begins. I am not going to talk

    23 about the substance of this argument, but if the

    24 Tribunal intends to assume it's in order, of course,

    25 I'm going to request that the Prosecution be allowed to

  137. 1 also make its own statement about this very important

    2 procedure which will, of course, have an impact on the

    3 work of the members of the Office of the Prosecutor. I

    4 simply wish to make that statement.

    5 JUDGE CASSESE: Yes, indeed, I would like to

    6 inform you that we ourselves have discussed this

    7 matter, and, first of all -- Ms. Glumac, you would like

    8 to take the floor?

    9 MS. SLOKOVIC-GLUMAC: Mr. President, I said

    10 that during the examination-in-chief which is underway,

    11 that is to say, it can go on for two days and there are

    12 breaks during the break or it goes on for two days, we

    13 don't want them to have contact with the witnesses

    14 during that time, and also after the

    15 examination-in-chief has been completed, before the

    16 cross-examination starts, we don't want them to have

    17 any contact with the witnesses either.

    18 I simply wanted to say that because indeed by

    19 now we have had two cases when, during the

    20 examination-in-chief, the Prosecutor was in touch with

    21 the witnesses and that at that point in time, certain

    22 things did happen and that certain additional questions

    23 were raised, even after cross-examination. Thank you.

    24 JUDGE CASSESE: Thank you so much. I was

    25 about to say that we have discussed this matter today,

  138. 1 and we have come to the conclusion that it is now for

    2 the parties to argue this point, and I was about to ask

    3 both parties to argue this point tomorrow. Of course,

    4 since now we have 20 minutes, if one of the parties is

    5 prepared to put forward a few comments on this point,

    6 then we would be very happy to hear those points or

    7 comments. As I say, we would like to give both parties

    8 the opportunity to discuss this matter and to present

    9 their views to us so that tomorrow or Friday we may

    10 issue a ruling on this matter.

    11 I wonder whether the Prosecution are ready

    12 to -- because I think -- I don't know whether Counsel

    13 Glumac is prepared to set out her views on this matter

    14 now. By and large, you have already stated your

    15 position. Probably we don't need to hear more from

    16 you. It's the Prosecution which should state their


    18 MR. TERRIER: Mr. President, for any debate

    19 on this issue, of course, I am at the disposition of

    20 this Tribunal, but I would like -- I hesitate to give

    21 you the position of the Office of the Prosecutor

    22 without having consulted first with the Office of the

    23 Prosecutor. I could, of course, give you any personal

    24 opinion on this issue. I could, of course, give you

    25 such a presentation tomorrow, but nonetheless, I would

  139. 1 like to say now, speaking on a personal basis, that

    2 once again, my own personal professional experience is

    3 different from many of us here with regards to

    4 procedure in this Tribunal, but in my experience, it is

    5 impossible for a Prosecutor to have contact with a

    6 witness before that witness testifies before the

    7 Tribunal.

    8 So, in substance, the request by Ms. Glumac

    9 does not shock me at all. However, we are here in a

    10 system which is altogether different, and the spirit of

    11 this system allows the Prosecution to accompany the

    12 witness from the time at which it decides to call upon

    13 this witness to testify up and to the point of its

    14 appearance in court, and it allows also for the witness

    15 to respond to the needs of the Prosecutor who calls

    16 upon him to appear in such a way in which the Tribunal

    17 does not waste its time with witnesses who are not

    18 prepared for such an exercise which involves testifying

    19 before a criminal tribunal.

    20 In such a case, what Ms. Glumac proposes is

    21 to introduce into this particular or special type of

    22 procedure that we practice here a civil law tradition,

    23 or a civil law procedure, which I myself am very

    24 familiar with in its various aspects. She is seeking

    25 to introduce, therefore, into a system which has its

  140. 1 own logic, aspects from a different system which has

    2 its own logic.

    3 Now, I understand that we all come from

    4 different systems and that we are in a very mixed

    5 system here, but, nonetheless, I am -- in the mission

    6 the Tribunal has here, I would like to refer, first of

    7 all, to the Rules. I understand that the Tribunal both

    8 must hear the arguments from the Prosecution and also

    9 from the Defence, but also to ascertain the truth. And

    10 the truth will be derived from both of these missions

    11 which, of course, are stated in the Rules of Procedures

    12 and Evidence.

    13 My own personal views on this issue is that

    14 the request by Ms. Glumac does not shock me at all,

    15 because it comes from a system that I, myself, am

    16 familiar with. However, I think that with regard to

    17 the mission that the Tribunal has, it will draw more

    18 information and more benefit from the procedure that we

    19 are following now.

    20 If you allow me, Mr. President, while I am

    21 stating this position now, I still request permission

    22 to be able to discuss this matter with the Office of

    23 the Prosecutor, but I simply wish to express my own

    24 personal views on this issue at this moment.

    25 JUDGE CASSESE: Are you prepared to discuss

  141. 1 this issue tomorrow morning or do you require more

    2 time? Tomorrow morning, perhaps, because we,

    3 ourselves, are also going to look at this issue and

    4 examine it.

    5 MR. TERRIER: I will make an effort to do so,

    6 Your Honours, so that tomorrow morning at 8.30, we are

    7 able to make a statement on this issue. However, Your

    8 Honour, we are going to be meeting with witnesses this

    9 evening who are going to be testifying tomorrow, so

    10 perhaps we will not have the time to look over this

    11 more general issue.

    12 JUDGE CASSESE: Make an effort, nonetheless.

    13 I personally wish to underline two points: First of

    14 all, if I understood correctly the points made by

    15 Ms. Glumac, she does not propose the procedure that we

    16 practice in our own civil law traditions. She is not

    17 asking to prevent the Prosecutor from contacting the

    18 witness. What she is suggesting is that once the

    19 examination-in-chief has begun, that the Prosecution or

    20 the Defence, of course, if it is a Defence witness, not

    21 have the right to contact the witness. So this is

    22 something that takes into account our very particular

    23 and more general procedures practised here.

    24 As far as I am concerned, I must look into the issue

    25 a little more in-depth. The system that we have here

  142. 1 is, more or less, the American system, as far as I

    2 know, because in the British system, I believe it is

    3 provided that such a procedure be followed, such a

    4 procedure suggested by Ms. Glumac, which is that once

    5 the examination-in-chief has begun at the Tribunal,

    6 then the Prosecution should not contact the witness.

    7 So as you understand, it is not in all common

    8 law systems that we adopt the procedure that we have

    9 come to adopt here in this Tribunal. There are

    10 different solutions found in different traditions.

    11 However, I think we should draw inspiration from

    12 our own Statute and our own Rules of Procedures and

    13 Evidence.

    14 As regards the Statute, I'm going to look

    15 at that issue this evening with my colleagues. I do

    16 not believe there are any particular guidelines or

    17 directives in that regard, but I believe when it comes

    18 to the Rules of Procedures and Evidence, you must go to

    19 Rule 90, in particular, Rule 90(G), which states that the

    20 Trial Chamber does have control over

    21 the procedures concerning the presentation of evidence

    22 and also the order in which these may be presented in

    23 order to, and this is point "i," to make the

    24 interrogation and the presentation effective for the

    25 ascertainment of the truth. And I think that this is

  143. 1 the important point at hand, the presentation of

    2 evidence for the ascertainment of the truth. And we

    3 must find, therefore, what is the most effective way of

    4 doing so to avoid needless consumption of time.

    5 I believe that we could try to see whether

    6 there are other provisions within our Rules of

    7 Procedures and Evidence that we might use in this case

    8 and, perhaps, we might rely upon. But, nonetheless, we

    9 must try to find a solution which will be consistent

    10 with the general principles of our trial, which is

    11 atypical, completely atypical. This International

    12 Tribunal is practising a system which has nothing to do

    13 with common law or civil law. This is, if you wish, a

    14 strange animal.

    15 Let us do our best or utmost to resolve this

    16 problem. Please try to make an effort to present the

    17 position of the Office of the Prosecutor. If you can, tomorrow,

    18 then all the better. If not, then we can delay this

    19 until Friday morning, because tomorrow afternoon there

    20 will be no session. So perhaps you may take that

    21 opportunity to study this issue further.

    22 I agree with you. This is a very important

    23 issue which does require some in-depth reflection.

    24 Because if we were to make a decision on this problem,

    25 this decision will have an impact on other trials to

  144. 1 come. So this is a very important issue, and I am

    2 thankful to Ms. Glumac for having brought to our

    3 attention this important issue.

    4 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Terrier, as the Presiding

    5 Judge said, in the system I'm familiar with, there is

    6 an absolute rule that nobody speaks to a witness once

    7 they have started giving evidence. I know there are

    8 different rules elsewhere, but that's the rule. The

    9 reason is this: What, of course, is feared is that the

    10 witness's evidence may be affected by somebody speaking

    11 to them, be they counsel or anybody else. So the rule

    12 is absolute; that the witness is not to speak to

    13 anybody about their evidence.

    14 With that said, there may be difficulties, of

    15 course, when a witness, as the situation apparently was

    16 this morning, suddenly wishes to communicate something

    17 of importance with counsel, and, therefore, any rule

    18 which we craft, it seems to me, must take account of

    19 that exceptional circumstance which may occur. I don't

    20 know if that's of any assistance.

    21 JUDGE MUMBA: In addition to what my

    22 colleagues have said, in our system in Zambia, it is

    23 very similar to the British system, but we do have an

    24 investigations officer in charge of every case, and

    25 that is the officer who deals with witnesses when the

  145. 1 trial starts. That is the officer who will report to

    2 the prosecuting counsel anything that the witness

    3 wishes to say, so that the prosecuting counsel has no

    4 contact with the witnesses, but the investigations

    5 officer is the one who deals with the witnesses. Maybe

    6 we can find a procedure halfway in between.

    7 JUDGE CASSESE: This question that we've been

    8 thinking about, in fact, has just been raised by my

    9 colleague, that the witness would be under the

    10 supervision and the protection of the Victims and

    11 Witnesses Unit or any other kind of organ which is

    12 not connected either with the Defence or with the

    13 Prosecution. And if the witness wishes to speak with

    14 the Prosecutor, it can be done through that official in

    15 the Victims and Witnesses Unit, but with the

    16 authorisation of the Trial Chamber. This is

    17 an essential point. The official from the Victims and

    18 Witnesses Unit must turn to the Trial Chamber and ask

    19 that it authorise him to establish a contact between

    20 the witness and the party who called the witness.

    21 As my colleague Judge May has just said, once

    22 the witness comes to The Hague and starts speaking, he

    23 becomes, if you like, a " truth witness". I don't know

    24 if you use that expression in your country, but it denotes a

    25 witness who is speaking in the interests of justice,

  146. 1 who is removed from the control of that party that

    2 called him, and that's the basic idea.

    3 MR. TERRIER: This is an expression which is

    4 one that I know, and I understand it very well.

    5 However, tomorrow, we will try to bring out the

    6 Prosecutor's point of view. But in order to say things

    7 clear, the spirit in which this request was made, it

    8 seems to me, is a criticism of the way that the

    9 Prosecutors work, which, it seems to me, is stating

    10 that the Prosecutor had guided witnesses into clearer

    11 fashion. I would not like the Tribunal to take its

    12 decision under that spirit, but that we have been

    13 working with complete loyalty to the spirit of this

    14 Tribunal and its work.

    15 Another comment I would like to make, I did

    16 forget to ask the Tribunal to tender as evidence the

    17 AK-M rifle which was shown to the witness.

    18 JUDGE CASSESE: You're talking about the

    19 rifle that belonged to the accused. Very well.

    20 Judge May just pointed out that, of course,

    21 the same rules would apply to the Defence. It goes

    22 without saying. I'm sure the Defence will agree.

    23 We will rise now, and tomorrow, as you may

    24 remember, we start at 8.30 to 1.30 and on Friday from

    25 8.30 to 12.30. I hope that we will finish with the two

  147. 1 witnesses, and maybe if you even have a reserve

    2 witness -- no, you don't.

    3 MR. TERRIER: Not for this week.

    4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

    5 4.55 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

    6 the 17th day of September, 1998 at

    7 8.30 a.m.