1 Friday, 6 October 2000
2 [Open session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
4 [The accused entered court]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
6 Good morning to you all; good morning to the Office of the
7 Prosecutor, the Defence counsel, the accused. We're going to resume our
8 case today.
9 Before doing that, there is a decision that we need to render in
10 connection with the document marked 3/156.
11 Yesterday, on the 5th of October, 2000, the Defence objected to
12 the admission of document 3/156 tendered by the Prosecution on the grounds
13 that this document had been disclosed to the Defence in English on the
14 29th of September, 2000, but was not translated into the language of the
16 The Chamber notes that this document is, in fact, a list of --
17 compilation of lists, which are all identical in form, relating to
18 43 persons who were imprisoned in Keraterm or Omarska. This document
19 consists of notes by the Prosecution which a witness, who is an
20 investigator of the OTP, would use in his testimony in court.
21 The Chamber wishes to make three observations. The use of those
22 notes by the witness is clearly of such a nature as to significantly
23 accelerate the proceedings. What is even more important is that, as a
24 result, we have come to the end of the Prosecution case. And globally, on
25 the whole, what is even more important, is that we have come to the end of
1 the Prosecution case in the main part of the proceedings and that it is,
2 therefore, without any doubt, of benefit for the Defence to have at its
3 disposal as much time as possible to prepare for the beginning of its case
4 for which the date has already been fixed at the beginning of December.
5 Regarding these documents, no excessive or additional burden has
6 been imposed. Let me repeat that. Regarding the notes, no excessive
7 burden has been imposed nor is it imposed upon the Defence as a result of
8 the absence of a translation. Each of the Defence teams has one member
9 who has a command of the English language and, therefore, does not suffer
10 any prejudice.
11 This document is, without any doubt, relevant, and it has
12 probative value. It is only once the parties have presented all their
13 arguments and submissions in this connection that the Chamber will decide
14 as to the weight it will attach to this document. The Defence can present
15 all elements that it considers to be useful for the evaluation of this
17 Prosecution Exhibit 3/156 is, therefore, admitted.
18 JUDGE WALD: Let me just, if I may, add one word there. I concur
19 in the Chamber's decision but would like to add a little bit of my own
21 It seems to me that this witness can come in and can testify as a
22 live witness to everything that he participated in, and that's what he's
23 in the process of doing. These reports were prepared by him as a
24 shorthand, more easily accessible method of his investigation, of
25 reporting his investigation. If he were to read out every one of those
1 reports, I think there could be no question raised about his being here.
2 Therefore -- I do take cognisance. I've read the Delalic
3 decision. I understand it does speak in absolute terms. It is a decision
4 of another Trial Chamber. As such, it is not, at this point, binding, but
5 we are in an area that is not crystal clear in Tribunal jurisprudence.
6 Nonetheless, I think that the thing we look at is whether or not, in fact,
7 there's been any prejudice to the Defence, and it seems to me that having
8 English-speaking lawyers, having gotten it a week ahead of time, they all
9 being in a form and relatively simple, that there has not been that
10 prejudice. So I myself don't think there's an absolute requirement in
11 every condition where there's no prejudice that the documents be
12 translated. If he had come in here without those documents and just given
13 all that testimony, there couldn't be any question raised about it.
14 I just wanted to add those as my particular reasons for
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Before beginning, I should like
17 to consider a presentation made to us by Ms. Hollis, and that was the
18 motion filed the 4th of October for the testimony of Emir Zjakic. I
19 should like to hear very briefly from the Prosecutor what are the real
20 reasons, because I can already give an indication of what I think. It is
21 not the position of the Chamber but the position of the President.
22 I see that the only person incriminated here is Dragan Lukic.
23 Dragan Lukic is not an accused in this case. Furthermore, you learnt, on
24 the 21st of September, that this witness cannot come, and it was only on
25 the 4th of October, two days prior to the ending of your case, that you
1 filed this motion and requested this deposition statement.
2 The question is whether this will really be the end of the
3 Prosecution case so that we can begin the Defence case. Also, there is
4 some logistical difficulties. To hear this witness, it is necessary to
5 move several people; a presiding officer, a member of the Prosecution, the
6 Defence, translators, technicians.
7 So the question is whether it is really important for you to hear
8 this witness, Ms. Hollis. I would really like to hear your reasons
9 because, from my point of view, at least, I do not see what is the
10 importance of calling this witness to the witness box to testify about
11 facts prior to arrest. We have had many witnesses about that, then
12 incidents in the Prijedor hospital, and I speak by memory, we had the same
13 names; Zjakic, Ganic, et cetera.
14 So I would like to hear from you, Ms. Hollis, what is the real
15 importance of calling this witness. I'm sure that you are aware of the
16 great quantity of resources that need to be involved in this. So please
17 let us hear you, Ms. Hollis, because we have to make a ruling about it.
18 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, as we set out
19 in the motion, this witness was originally scheduled to testify very early
20 on in our case when we were attempting to do our case more chronologically
21 than it turned out we were able to do. The witness did have an automobile
22 accident and, throughout the course of this case, we have rescheduled and
23 pushed back his testimony.
24 We did learn about his inability to come the 21st of September.
25 We continued to be in contact with him, hoping that somehow, perhaps, his
1 condition would improve to allow us to call him this last week of October,
2 the last week of our case. Ultimately, we learned that we would not be
3 able to call him for our case that was to conclude on the 6th of October
4 because, for health reasons, he was not able to travel.
5 The significance of this witness to us and why we have him in our
6 case-in-chief is that he does identify a person Lukic as the one who was
7 engaged in shootings upon his arrival at the Omarska camp. Of
8 significance to us is that, according to what was said by a Serb camp
9 personnel in the ambulance with him, this Lukic was supposedly a guard at
10 the camp, so that this is an incident of a shooting by a person who was a
11 guard at the camp that occurred in May, which would have relevance for the
12 Kvocka case in particular.
13 So that is the significance of that. His brother did, in fact,
14 testify here about what he had heard about the incident, and he was
15 speaking about Emir Zjakic. That was the brother of whom he spoke. So we
16 believe it is relevant to our case-in-chief because it is an incident
17 where, according to the evidence we believe he would lead, it appears that
18 a guard from the camp engaged in shooting detainees as they arrived at the
19 camp during the period of time that Kvocka, in our submission, was in a
20 position of overall authority in the camp.
21 Secondly, Your Honour, we attempted to call him in our
22 case-in-chief so that we could combine the second aspect of his testimony
23 as well. We believe his testimony, when it is taken in toto with other
24 evidence, will contradict the testimony that was given by the accused
25 Kvocka about a shooting incident where he supposedly tried to intervene,
1 and the shooting incident was supposedly carried out by a person who was
2 not a camp personnel.
3 Now, in the latter regard, had it only been for that purpose, we
4 could call him in our rebuttal case. And if we are allowed some leeway,
5 which we believe Rule 85 would allow us, then we could still call him in
6 rebuttal. But our point is that it is also a case-in-chief evidence
7 because it is evidence which incriminates, it would be our submission,
8 incriminates the accused Kvocka in liability for this crime. So we wanted
9 to be sure that we were not precluded from using it, both as proof in our
10 case-in-chief and as contradictory evidence for the examination of the
11 accused Kvocka.
12 Now, we did move for a deposition. Had we moved for a deposition
13 earlier, we would not have been able to have the deposition before our
14 case closed. So we believe that it is not -- there's no prejudice by the
15 filing of it on the 4th. And as I said, the reason that we waited that
16 long is we kept hoping we would be able to find a solution to bring him
17 here to testify before the close of our case on the 6th of October.
18 But those are the reasons why we believe he is relevant to our
19 case-in-chief, although we also agree that he would be relevant to a
20 rebuttal case.
21 JUDGE RIAD: May I just ask you to tell us, would he be able to
22 come here himself if we ask him to come on rebuttal?
23 MS. HOLLIS: Well, we don't know, Your Honour, because we had
24 thought throughout the course of our case we would tentatively reschedule
25 him for later, thinking that his physical therapy and his recovery would
1 proceed, and each time it turned out that it had not. As more time
2 passes, it may be possible that he could come, but we have no assurance of
3 that because of our past experience.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
5 MS. HOLLIS: So we thought perhaps a deposition would be the best
6 way to ensure we got the evidence.
7 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.
8 JUDGE WALD: So if you used him for rebuttal, you might end up
9 using a deposition -- or you might end up attempting to introduce a
10 deposition as part of the rebuttal.
11 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE WALD: And is your theory -- I know the business about
13 contradicting the description of the particular incident, but in terms of
14 your first point about identifying Lukic as a guard, you don't think
15 that -- wouldn't that automatically come in under the rebuttal part?
16 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we think so, but we're not confident --
17 JUDGE WALD: I mean, even if you used it for the second purpose,
18 if you used it to contradict a particular incident or a particular
19 description of the incident, wouldn't it be inevitable that that would
20 involve identifying a person involved?
21 MS. HOLLIS: We think so, Your Honour. We think we could use it
22 for both purposes, but we're not confident that those who made the
23 decision would rule it that way, so we wanted to be sure that we could use
24 it in a way that we would have it for both purposes. But our position is
25 whatever we put in, in rebuttal, or, indeed, are able to elicit through
1 cross-examination, can go to proof of guilt as well as contradict.
2 JUDGE WALD: And are you reasonably confident that the time
3 scenario is such that we wouldn't run into the same thing in rebuttal?
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Judge Wald and
5 Ms. Hollis, you are speaking the same language. It's always the same
6 problem. We have to make pauses; otherwise, you can continue your
7 discussion and I can go out. The same occurs when Defence counsel talk
8 with witnesses, and the interpreters are having a lot of difficulty in
9 following you. So I'm sorry for interrupting.
10 MS. HOLLIS: I apologise, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE WALD: I apologise.
12 MS. HOLLIS: And I will have my colleague here grab my arm to slow
13 me down between the question and response.
14 JUDGE WALD: I only wondered whether or not, given the
15 uncertainties about the health of the witness, you'd go ahead and schedule
16 the deposition, even if it were going to be used in rebuttal, so that you
17 wouldn't run into the problem at the end in the same way, that's all.
18 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. And we would prefer to do it that
19 way to be sure that we were able to get the evidence.
20 Our concern, of course, is not to be limited in how we could use
21 it, and that's why we would ask that we be allowed to use it as part of
22 our case-in-chief to remove any sort of question about the full use of the
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I understood well your whole
25 discussion, you are not considering -- no, never mind.
1 Taking into account the trial in its entirety, the global case,
2 and taking into account the need for us to finish with the Prosecution
3 case, do you not see any possibility of calling this witness in the
4 rebuttal case?
5 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we believe that perhaps even in the
6 rebuttal case we may have to depose the witness, so that, if it is a
7 deposition, it would be a question of for what purposes the evidence can
8 be used. Our position would be, even if we put it in in our rebuttal
9 case, we could use it to prove guilt as well as to contradict the accused.
10 Should Your Honours believe that is incorrect or rule that we
11 would be limited to contradicting the accused, then, of course, we would
12 wish to put it in in our case-in-chief. But whenever we present the
13 evidence, we believe that it is possible, because of the continuing
14 problems, health problems this witness is having, that we may have to have
15 a deposition of the witness.
16 Another option that could be considered, perhaps, would be
17 videolink testimony. That still requires some technical assistance, and
18 so we proposed a deposition.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But if by any chance you decide
20 to call him in the rebuttal, we have plenty of time to plan that, and we
21 can declare closed your case-in-chief.
22 As you know, we struggled hard to reach this point today. I'm a
23 little bit disappointed if we cannot close the case-in-chief. Last week
24 even, the Prosecutor lost three hours, from 1.00 until 2.30, we planned
25 one afternoon of hearing. We suggested to the Prosecutor to call the
1 witness that we're listening now, Tariq Malik, and you lost three hours
2 last week. We come today with this enormous disappointment of not being
3 able to close the Prosecution case-in-chief.
4 But anyway, I will give you the floor for a comment, if you wish,
5 but I'm just telling you that if you're planning to call this witness in
6 the rebuttal case, we would have a lot of time, plenty of time to
7 programme this. I'm afraid this is a bit of a last minute.
8 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, I feel I must note for the record
9 several things. First of all, Your Honour, we have no control over this
10 witness' health. That is beyond our control. We attempted to put off his
11 testimony as long as we could. It turned out that we could not bring him
12 here because of his health. That is not because of anything we did or
13 failed to do.
14 Secondly, Your Honour, we have discussed time many times in this
15 courtroom. We had a discussion about how much time was left to the
16 Prosecution, counting up the hours that we estimated for our witnesses.
17 We had that discussion, I think, perhaps in June. At that time, we gave
18 our understanding based on counting up our estimates that had been
19 submitted about how many hours of direct testimony we needed to put on our
20 case, and those were hours of direct testimony. Now, our submission --
21 and we took into account the three days we had lost because we failed to
22 make timely disclosure. So our estimate was based on losing those three
24 Since that time, it is the Prosecution's position that we have not
25 exceeded our scheduled time. In fact, we have provided less time. We
1 have cut out witnesses to try to expedite things.
2 But Your Honour mentioned the other day, and we certainly believe
3 that it is true, and you believe it, that these proceedings must be fair
4 to all, and the Prosecution must be able to put on its case. So three
5 hours last week, if we count the three hours when we didn't proceed with
6 the witness, we more than exceeded that yesterday in all of the discussion
7 and objections, and we have lost more than three hours in the last two
8 sessions with things other than the testimony of our witnesses.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Would counsel slow down, please.
10 MS. HOLLIS: So the Prosecution is a little concerned that we are
11 not being given a fair and total picture of why we find ourselves in this
12 position. I hesitate to say this, but at the end of today, hopefully,
13 there are three other witnesses about whom the Prosecution has concerns,
14 witnesses we would have called but, again for conditions beyond us we have
15 been unable to call, and I wish to raise that with the Court as well.
16 So the only concern the Prosecution has is that since the
17 unfortunate beginning of this case, we have proceeded as diligently as we
18 could to put on our evidence. We have had considerable difficulties with
19 witnesses. We have had other issues that we've had to face. Certainly
20 the Court can say we did not best use our time. We have, in our opinion,
21 certainly not unduly delayed these proceedings by any dilatory or
22 negligent action on our part after the beginning. We accept
23 responsibility for that. But we find ourselves in a position where there
24 are matters that are outstanding. This deposition is one.
25 But in all fairness and respect to the Court, this is an issue
1 that has nothing to do with our action or our failures to act. We are
2 faced with a witness we believe is important. If Your Honours tell us
3 that we call him on rebuttal and we can use his evidence in any way that's
4 relevant, we will do that because, we agree, we would have more time. So
5 we have no problem with that. That is a good suggestion, and we would
6 certainly do that.
7 JUDGE RIAD: May I just ask you, Ms. Hollis --
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE RIAD: You are speaking of his health. Well, just if you
10 are sufficiently acquainted with this problem, is he in some kind of
11 terminal disease where you can risk not to have him at all or his health
12 is improving and there is no danger on postponing for the rebuttal, since
13 you accept either for rebuttal or for examination-in-chief?
14 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, he doesn't have a
15 terminal condition. He was, as we have noted, was in an automobile
16 accident. As a result of that, he still has problems with a shoulder
17 injury, and if he travels far, then he experiences dizziness and some
18 disorientation. So it is not a terminal disease, that we are concerned
19 about the witness dying; it is simply, for whatever reasons, he has not
20 rehabilitated in the fashion and as timely as the medical doctors had
21 hoped he would.
22 JUDGE RIAD: So he can still wait for rebuttal. Thank you.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ms. Hollis, we have to end this
25 debate. Otherwise, we keep discussing about not having enough time and
1 losing time in the process. But I must tell you that you could have
2 gained a lot of time. You mentioned three days, but you forgot two days.
3 We pardoned you two days and we sanctioned you with three. But in any
4 event, the matter is closed.
5 I would like to hear the point of view of the Defence, to hear
6 whether the Defence has any objection for this witness to be called in the
7 rebuttal case with two objectives in mind, those that Ms. Hollis has
8 suggested, either to contradict or to accuse the accused.
9 I think, Mr. Krstan Simic, you are most specifically affected.
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. Due to
11 circumstances, this witness does affect the Defence of Mr. Kvocka.
12 Mr. Kvocka's Defence will address these facts and circumstances and will
13 be calling certain witnesses, and should there be a contradiction, we
14 would have no objection to this witness appearing because we are also
15 interested in establishing the truth. However, I must make another
16 remark. In the document disclosed to us, no mention is made anywhere -- I
17 don't have it here in front of me but I know it well -- that Mr. Dragan
18 Lukic was a guard. There is just a sentence saying "Who did that?" The
19 answer, "Dragan Lukic."
20 Therefore, we have heard a large number of witnesses. This
21 witness' name was never mentioned on the 30th of May. That was the second
22 day of the existence of the camp. So it really is highly dubious to
23 establish whether somebody was a guard or not. There's just this sentence
24 saying that this was done by Dragan Lukic. No intimation he was a guard.
25 We are even trying to have an affidavit statement from this witness
1 regarding this event, this incident.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I've understood you
3 correctly, you do not object to this witness coming back for the rebuttal
4 case of the Prosecutor regarding guilt and contradiction of previous
5 evidence. I think that you said also that you were interested in the
6 truth. Did I understand you correctly?
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, if necessary. If that is
8 necessary for the Prosecution.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So I think we've
10 discussed this sufficiently now, and we're going to make the best of the
11 rest of the time.
12 Mr. Fila. I'm sorry.
13 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I wish to draw the attention of the
14 Court to two points. We're already, in a sense, in the rebuttal stage
15 because Mr. Kvocka and Mr. Mladjo Radic have already testified. So we've
16 changed the order of things a little. So each witness being called by
17 Ms. Hollis is a kind of response or rebuttal to the testimony we have
18 heard because, in a sense, we are already in the rebuttal stage.
19 Another point that I would like to make is I think that this
20 should be allowed only for this witness, that we mustn't allow the
21 Prosecutor to call new witnesses in his rebuttal case, apart from this
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, of course. It is the only
24 witness. This is the only witness who is part of the presentation of
25 evidence by the Prosecutor. So this is really an exception.
1 I see Ms. Hollis seems to want to say something. I can see it on
2 her face.
3 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honour, we're not in our rebuttal case. We
4 don't have to be restricted in our rebuttal case to one witness, and
5 that's what I understood on the transcript that Defence counsel was
6 saying. So we want to put on the record that we don't agree with that.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that we understood what
8 Mr. Fila was trying to say. Can we proceed with the witness now?
9 Mr. Saxon, the Prosecution, are you ready?
10 MR. SAXON: We're ready, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Usher, please
12 have the witness brought in.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, just before the witness comes in, we
14 never received that motion of the 4th of October, and we're now at the
15 6th. So perhaps the Registry could be a little more prompt in giving us
16 the filings.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, what's happened
19 to that motion that has not been sent to the parties?
20 THE REGISTRAR: I think all the documents are here now. The usher
21 can distribute all these filed motions.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, I am speaking
23 about the motion by the Prosecutor for Emir Zjakic. Is that what you're
24 talking about, her deposition?
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes. We only received this one on the 5th of
1 October. Is it the motion for the report of Tariq Malik?
2 Can the Court excuse the registrar for a few minutes so we can
3 make some investigation on this regard?
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, not for the time being. You
5 can go into that during the break.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that in
8 order to accelerate matters, we can conclude that the witness who is the
9 object of the motion of -- in the deposition, is going to come in the
10 rebuttal, and that is the best way to accelerate matters.
11 So, Madam Hollis, you have the ruling and the decision, and let us
12 now proceed to the testimony.
13 Good morning, Mr. Tariq Malik.
14 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You have had to wait quite a
16 while. Are you feeling nervous at all?
17 THE WITNESS: No, Your Honours. It's all part of the job.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I was not getting the
19 interpretation. Ah, yes, I see. Yes, very well.
20 We are going to try and economise. We're all a little nervous
21 because, as you know, we are into our last day in this part of the trial,
22 so we're going to try and make good use of our time. Mr. Saxon has been
23 with us from the beginning and is fully aware of that. Everybody is fully
24 aware of that.
25 Mr. Saxon, without further ado, your witness.
1 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: TARIQ MALIK [Resumed]
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. Mr. Malik, yesterday you described two gravesites that were
5 exhumed in Bosnia. Could you please turn your mind to the mass gravesite
6 known as Jama Lisac, and can you describe the physical location of the
7 Jama Lisac mass gravesite?
8 A. This site is a cave which is located in a sinkhole on top of a
9 mountain known as Jama Lisac in Donji Dubovik village near Bosanski Krupa.
10 Q. How deep is that cave, approximately?
11 A. About 18 metres.
12 Q. Were you present during parts of the exhumation?
13 A. I was.
14 Q. Did you go into the cave yourself?
15 A. Yes. I went down on each of the days when bodies were removed
16 from the cave.
17 Q. Now, how did the position of the human remains inside that cave
18 differ from the remains found at Kevljani?
19 A. At Kevljani, bodies had been buried in the soil. Holes had been
20 dug and bodies had been buried and then covered over. In the cave, bodies
21 had simply been thrown down so they were lying on the top of a pile in the
22 middle of the cave.
23 Q. And who directed the exhumation at the cave called Jama Lisac?
24 A. Dr. Eva Klonowski is a forensic anthropologist who works for the
25 Bosnian State Commission for tracing missing persons. She was the one who
1 directed and oversaw the recovery of the bodies from the cave.
2 Q. What kinds of evidence were removed from the cave at Jama Lisac?
3 A. Complete or nearly complete bodies, some body parts, disassociated
4 bones, clothing, shell cases, bank card, wallet, et cetera, et cetera.
5 Q. You mentioned shell cases. Were any bullets also found and
7 A. Yes, some bullets as well as shell cases were found in the cave.
8 Q. How were individual items of evidence marked and kept in order
9 during this exhumation process at Jama Lisac?
10 A. Each of the bodies or human remains were assigned a serial number
11 that was unique to that particular body or body part, and the same
12 procedure was followed for the artefacts. So each bank card, shell case,
13 et cetera, that was found was allotted a unique number so that particular
14 evidence could be traced and spotted later on.
15 Q. I'd like you to look at two photographs, and they should be on the
16 desk by you. They've been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 3/164 and 3/165.
17 I see the usher is going to give them to you now. If you could place them
18 on the ELMO, please.
19 If you could please look at that photograph now that's marked as
20 3/164. Do you recognise that photograph?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. What does it show?
23 A. It shows body number 25 inside the cave, which was lying in sector
24 D, as well as parts of it perhaps were in sector C.
25 Q. Approximately when and where was it taken?
1 A. This photograph was taken in June this year.
2 Q. What do the numbers and letters mean that have been placed next to
3 these remains?
4 A. This number 25 shows that this was the 25 -- sorry, the 25th body
5 identified from this case. Sector D represents a part of the cave, the
6 sector where -- the cave was divided from -- between sectors A to G. This
7 is sector C, and this is sector D. This is body number 25 as the number
8 was given inside the cave. These remains have not yet been removed from
9 the cave.
10 Q. They had not yet been removed from the cave at the time the
11 photograph was taken?
12 A. Yes. This is as they were found at that time, and you can see
13 this is the head of the body, and other parts are visible as well.
14 Q. Mr. Malik, have you been informed of the sex of the human remains
15 depicted in this photograph?
16 A. Yes. The two, the two experts who were doing the recovery in the
17 cave informed me that this person was a female, based on their knowledge
18 of the human anatomy.
19 Q. Now, you have the pointer in front of you. To the left of the
20 number marked 25, there seems to be a white object, somewhat circular in
21 shape. Can you point to that, please?
22 A. [Indicates].
23 Q. What is that object, or what was that object as you saw it?
24 A. That was a necklace worn by the victim.
25 Q. Now, could you turn to the next photograph, which has been marked
1 as 3/165, and place that on the ELMO, please. Do you recognise this
3 A. I do.
4 Q. Approximately when and where was it taken?
5 A. This photograph was taken on the 26th of June, year 2000, outside
6 the cave.
7 Q. What is depicted in this photograph?
8 A. These are the remains of body number 42 after they have been
9 exhumed from the cave and laid out in a body bag.
10 Q. And what do the numbers and letters mean that have been placed
11 next to these remains, Mr. Malik?
12 A. This number 42 shows that this was the 42nd body exhumed from the
13 cave. Donji Dubovik is the place where this cave is located, Jama Lisac
14 is the name given to this site, and this is the date on the top.
15 Q. Were you informed of the sex of the human remains depicted in this
17 A. Yes. This victim was a female as well.
18 Q. What were done with the human remains after they were removed from
19 the cave?
20 A. Initially, they were removed to a makeshift morgue in Sanski Most,
21 and, from there, they were transferred to the ICTY mortuary in Visoko.
22 Q. And what was done with the remains at the mortuary at Visoko?
23 A. A team of pathologists, led by Dr. John Clark, performed autopsies
24 on these remains.
25 Q. Was there a numbering system used at the mortuary to identify the
1 bodies taken from Jama Lisac?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Can you describe that system, please?
4 A. The body number that had been assigned at the cave was retained
5 while the remains were being examined in the mortuary at Visoko.
6 Therefore, this body continued to be referred to as body number 42 while
7 it was examined at the mortuary.
8 Q. Did some of the bodies found in Jama Lisac still have clothing on
10 A. Yes. Many of the bodies had fairly well-preserved clothing.
11 Q. What was done with some of the clothing worn by the bodies that
12 were exhumed from Jama Lisac?
13 A. For most of the victims, the clothing was, the clothing was kept
14 on the bones; it was not removed. However, for two victims, clothing was
15 removed at the makeshift morgue in Sanski Most, and it was washed.
16 Q. Was this clothing used to identify any of the bodies?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And were you personally involved in efforts to identify clothing
19 and other items found with these two bodies?
20 A. I was.
21 Q. Who, if anyone, did you ask to view clothing that was found with
22 the body in the cave at Jama Lisac?
23 A. I asked Witness J to come and look at the clothes that were found
24 on body number 25.
25 Q. Was Prosecution Witness J able to identify any of the clothing?
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 A. Yes. She identified the red sweater found with body number 25.
2 Q. When you say she identified that sweater, in what context did she
3 identify it?
4 A. She said that this was the sweater that she remembered of a woman
5 named Sadeta Medunjanin wearing while Sadeta was at the camp in Omarska.
6 Q. Mr. Malik, did the identification of the red sweater worn by
7 Sadeta Medunjanin provide you with any clues as to the identity of the
8 second female found in the cave at Jama Lisac?
9 A. During my investigations, I had become aware that sometime in July
10 a bus had left Omarska on which approximately 50 prisoners had been
11 placed, and two of them were women. So when the body number 25 was
12 identified, tentatively identified as Sadeta Medunjanin, I thought that it
13 might be logical that the second body would be that of the other known
15 Q. What was the name of the other known female, according to your
17 A. Edna Dautovic.
18 Q. Mr. Malik, I believe you have some video footage of the exhumation
19 work at Jama Lisac. Can we view the remainder of that video now. I
20 should only like to ask you that, in the interests of time, if you do need
21 to stop the video to narrate certain portions, that you only do them at
22 the most important parts.
23 A. I will try. Is the system on?
24 Q. Yes. You need to press the video button.
25 [Videotape played]
1 A. The first 45 seconds of this tape are of the shots that I showed
2 yesterday which relate to Kevljani mass gravesite. I will skip over
3 that. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be possible. Please bear with
4 me while these 40 seconds are replayed.
5 Q. Is there a way you can fast forward?
6 A. I tried to do that, but it seems to not go forward while the video
7 is still being played.
8 This is the Donji Dubovik site, and this is the view from the
9 hill. This is the sinkhole that I described, and this is the mouth of the
11 This is the opening, and you can still see the weed around it.
12 The area surrounding it was scanned for mines, and several pieces of wire
13 which appeared to be ligature were found.
14 These are the shots from the camera from the top of the cave
15 before any person had gone down, and what is on the screen is a foot with
16 a bone still in it.
17 These are the first shots, and these were made by the climber who
18 went down on the first day that we discovered the cave, and indeed this
19 was the foot that was visible from the top, with the sock, as well as the
20 bone clearly visible now.
21 I will fast forward this. There is Dr. Klonowski, and this is the
22 first time that she entered the cave and actually had a look at the
24 I'd like to explain that, in this shot, in the foreground you can
25 see the top of the pile. As I explained, bodies were probably thrown down
1 from the top of the cave, and they all piled in the centre. So the area
2 in the immediate foreground is the higher part where you had a relatively
3 high mound, and then as the bodies disarticulated over a period, some of
4 the body parts slipped and moved over to the sides where Dr. Klonowski is
5 right now standing.
6 As I explained, the cave was divided into various sectors. In
7 this shot, you can clearly see that sectors D as well as C and B are
8 visible. And the sector closest to me is E. This system was used by
9 Dr. Klonowski in order to keep track of the articles as they were found in
10 the cave.
11 This is the first body, body number 1. After each remain was
12 identified, they were photographed in situ and then placed in a black
13 bag. It was not possible to lay out the remains inside the cave.
14 Therefore, they were put in these black bags and then hauled outside the
15 cave through a rope.
16 Q. Can we fast forward a bit now, please.
17 A. I wanted to show the number, that this is the -- that the number
18 of the body travelled with the bag as the body was taken outside.
19 After the bodies had been taken out, they were placed outside and
20 put in regular body bags.
21 This is the body with the two shoes.
22 This is a spoon. You can see in this shot a spoon that was with
23 the detainee at the time of his death. That can be seen here.
24 This is the pathologist on the site. He is showing the bullet
25 hole in the hipbone and demonstrating the direction of the bullet, the
1 entry wound and the exit wound.
2 This is body number 25 that we saw in the photograph, and that's a
3 lot clearer. This is the head that you're looking at, and then to the top
4 left is the necklace. This body was later identified as Sadeta
5 Medunjanin. The body has been photographed with the particular number and
6 now it will be removed.
7 Q. Can we move forward a bit, please.
8 A. This is the same body laid outside. This is the necklace, and
9 these are the clothes found on the body. This is the red sweater that I
10 mentioned a few moments ago. You can see that the bones of the arms are
11 still in the sweater.
12 Q. Can we move forward a bit, please.
13 A. This shot shows a bullet lodged in the vertebra.
14 At the morgue, the makeshift morgue, clothes of body number 25
15 were washed.
16 This is Dr. Sarajlic, one of the two experts, and this is Dr. Eva
18 Q. Could we fast forward a bit, please.
19 A. This is the red sweater that Witness J recognised as being that
20 worn by Sadeta Medunjanin at the camp.
21 Six bullets were recovered from this body number 19.
22 This is the footage showing the second female body, number 42.
23 Q. Could we fast forward a bit, please.
24 A. This is Dr. Sarajlic explaining that these bones show that they
25 belong to a young female, a relatively young female.
1 This is body number 42 laid out.
2 Q. Was body number 42 subsequently identified?
3 A. Yes. This was examined through DNA comparative analysis as being
4 Edna Dautovic.
5 Q. Can we fast forward now, please.
6 A. This is one of the identification documents. This is a bank card
7 found in the cave, and you can read the name "Besim Alic" fairly clearly,
8 "Besim Alic."
9 Q. According to your investigations, was a man with that name
10 detained at the Omarska camp?
11 A. Yes, there was such a man. Although we have not yet confirmed the
12 identification, but it does appear that there are many witnesses who saw
13 this person in Omarska in 1992.
14 Q. Can we fast forward now, please, to the end.
15 A. This is the last day. After the exhumations were over, samples
16 were taken from body 42 and body number 25 for comparative analysis at the
17 National Institute of Toxicology in Madrid. This shows the bone sample
18 taken from body number 42. This is the sample from body number 25.
19 That's all.
20 Q. Thank you. Mr. Malik, could you please turn your mind to the
21 subject of what the Prosecution has referred to as proof of death evidence
22 and the efforts made by yourself and other members of the Office of the
23 Prosecution to obtain this kind of evidence.
24 You mentioned yesterday that the Prosecution has submitted a
25 schedule of additional particulars for each of the accused in this case,
1 and each schedule of additional particulars contains the name of persons
2 who allegedly died at the Omarska and Keraterm camps. To your knowledge,
3 has anyone listed as killed or dead in those schedules submitted by the
4 Prosecution been identified through other means, such as recognition of
5 the body, of an exhumed body, or clothing on a body, by relatives?
6 A. Yes, Husein Crnkic and Ismet Hodzic were recognised by their
7 respective family members through clothes as being those particular
9 Q. Do you know when that occurred?
10 A. In summer of 1999.
11 Q. Was this during a procedure called a clothing display?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Can you describe how that procedure takes place?
14 A. A clothing display is held to show to the public clothes that have
15 been found on or near the exhumed bodies. The idea is that friends or
16 family members may be able to recognise the clothing and, therefore, help
17 identify the victims.
18 The way it's done is that, after the autopsies are over, all the
19 clothes found on or near the bodies are washed and they are displayed at
20 the morgue or in a hall. The local authorities make announcements on the
21 local media, inviting people to come and, on those particular days,
22 representatives of the police, et cetera, are present to receive any new
23 information that the visitors might have or to answer questions, and this
24 procedure, in the end, usually leads to a few identifications.
25 Q. Mr. Malik, you mentioned that in the summer of 1999, the families
1 of Husein Crnkic and Ismet Hodzic identified the clothing of two bodies as
2 being their relatives. Do you know where those bodies were exhumed from
3 or where they were found?
4 A. Yes. Both those bodies were exhumed from the Kevljani mass
6 Q. In addition, Mr. Malik, have you searched the records of the
7 Office of the Prosecutor for information relating to the issue of proof of
9 A. Yes, I did that.
10 Q. Can you give an example of the kinds of information you looked at?
11 A. I was looking for any available information which could shed
12 light, if there were witnesses or other records available which could
13 prove or disprove whether a particular person named in the Prosecution's
14 schedule was alive.
15 Q. Would you give an example of how a Prosecution witness statement
16 might have assisted your work in this regard.
17 A. Yes. When I was looking for information on Miroslav Solaja, I
18 came across a statement given by a witness in 1994, Ermin Strikovic, who
19 had stated that he saw the dead body of Miroslav Solaja and that he knew
20 the victim before the war. So that enabled me to conclude that the victim
21 was probably dead, or at least that was one of the factors I considered
22 when I was trying to determine whether or not the victim was dead.
23 Q. Mr. Malik, have you reviewed the publication called the Register
24 Of Missing Persons on the Territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina, published by
25 the International Committee of the Red Cross, to see if any of the named
1 victims of the Omarska and Keraterm camps have been reported missing since
3 A. I have.
4 Q. And which edition of that register did you review?
5 A. I reviewed the latest edition available, and that was published in
6 June 1998.
7 Q. What is the mandate of the ICRC with respect to missing persons?
8 Do you know?
9 A. Whenever a conflict breaks out, ICRC has the mandate from the
10 Geneva Conventions to help trace the missing persons so their families can
11 know what happened to them, and in the case of Bosnia-Herzegovina, this
12 role was specifically confirmed in the Dayton Accords.
13 Q. Are you aware how many requests for information concerning missing
14 persons have been received by the ICRC in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
16 A. Yes. It's over 20.000.
17 Q. Mr. Malik, if you know, how many persons listed among the
18 Prosecution's schedules of particulars as dying at the Omarska or Keraterm
19 camps are listed in the 1998 Register of Missing Persons on the Territory
20 of Bosnia-Herzegovina published by the International Committee of the Red
22 A. There are 14 people who are reported missing, and an additional
23 person with regards to which it is stated that there is information
24 available that the person has died.
25 Q. So 14 persons listed in the Prosecution schedules are mentioned in
1 the register?
2 A. Fifteen are mentioned.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Mr. Saxon, for
4 interrupting you, but we don't have the transcript.
5 I see that Madam Registrar, that her transcript is functioning,
6 but ours is not. Could you inquire what's happening, please?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour.
8 Your Honour, we have someone coming up to the courtroom. It's
9 very unusual because all these monitors should be in the same system, and
10 I don't know why my monitor is working.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Because you are a very privileged person.
12 THE REGISTRAR: May I also take advantage of this one to explain
13 the situation of the document?
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Yes, you can.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Because we received the motion for that deposition
16 on 1st of October only in English, pursuant to the Court's ruling, we
17 can't file anything until we have all these documents in both languages,
18 which are English and French. So we only provisionally filed the
19 document, and we provide this to Your Honours only for your information.
20 We don't distribute anything until we have both languages.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Something is not functioning
22 well. Either I, too, am a privileged person because I have received both
23 versions. I have received the English and the French version. I have
24 them here.
25 MS. HOLLIS: Your Honours, we filed the motion itself both in
1 English and French. I believe when we filed the proffer, that was in
2 English only. And it appears, from the case manager's recollection, that
3 we provided courtesy copies to the Defence, but perhaps for some reason
4 they didn't get theirs.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, here is the
7 MS. HOLLIS: It was filed before 4.00 on the 4th, Your Honour.
8 THE REGISTRAR: So lots of unusual things happen in this case. I
9 will further investigate, and sorry about that.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Be careful, please, because if
11 there are unusual things happening on the side of the registry, it's up to
12 you to regulate matters, to deal with them.
13 Excuse me, I think perhaps it would be more effective to have a
14 break now, and the technicians are going to deal with the problem. I
15 think in that way, we will make the best of the time. So we're having a
16 half-hour break now.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.22 a.m.
18 --- On resuming at 10.52 a.m.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
20 Mr. Saxon, please continue.
21 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I think I just received the
22 French translation. I hope that's not going to --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Number three, can you hear the English?
24 MR. SAXON: Now I can hear the English. I apologise. I wish I
25 could speak French fluently, but I can't.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, we have polyvalent
2 interpreters, so please go ahead.
3 MR. SAXON:
4 Q. Mr. Malik, before the break, you mentioned that 15 persons listed
5 on the schedules of particulars submitted by the Prosecution as dead or
6 killed or murdered were mentioned in the 1998 ICRC register for missing
7 persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 What other kinds of documentation did you search for in regard to
9 issues of proof of death?
10 A. I contacted the local authorities in Bosnia and asked them to
11 submit any documentation that might show as to whether the person was
12 considered dead or alive, and I specifically requested any court
13 documents, court decisions or things such as death certificates, to be
14 made available to us so we could determine whether a particular person was
15 dead or alive.
16 Q. Did you also request and obtain documents known as "missing
17 persons statements"?
18 A. Yes. Missing persons statements had been filled out by the
19 families of a number of victims who have been -- who have not been seen,
20 and these were also forwarded to us by the Bosnian authorities.
21 Q. In the course of your investigative work, have you and your
22 colleagues contacted families of the alleged victims to determine what
23 information, if any, they had about the fate of these individuals?
24 A. Where the contacting details were available, we have tried to call
25 the family and ask them to provide us with whatever information they have
1 regarding a particular victim.
2 Q. And would these contacts with members of the families include
3 families of individuals, families of persons whose names are not
4 specifically mentioned in the Prosecution's -- in the schedules of
5 particulars submitted by the Prosecution?
6 A. Yes. We contacted families, both of the victims listed in the
7 schedules as well as some of those who were not listed there.
8 Q. Mr. Malik, have you prepared summaries of your results for each
9 person whom the Prosecution has alleged in its schedule of particulars
10 died at the Omarska or Keraterm camp?
11 A. Yes, and I and other members of my team have prepared these
13 Q. I'd like to show you a copy of what's been marked as 3/156. I
14 think the registrar already has a copy. Mr. Malik, do you recognise that?
15 A. I do.
16 Q. What are those documents in front of you?
17 A. On the top is a report that I prepared in relation to some of the
18 documents that we sought and obtained regarding the proof of death, and
19 then there are the summaries which you just spoke of.
20 Q. And what kind of information do those summaries contain?
21 A. Those summaries reflect the efforts made by myself and other
22 colleagues in relation to this proof of death exercise.
23 Q. And was the exhibit marked as 3/156 prepared by you during the
24 course of your investigation?
25 A. It was.
1 Q. How many -- approximately how many summaries or documents are
2 there in that exhibit?
3 A. I believe there are 30 or -- 38.
4 Q. Now, of those 38 summaries, how many of those refer to persons who
5 are listed in the Prosecution's schedules of particulars, and how many
6 refer to persons who are not specifically listed in the Prosecution's
7 schedules of particulars but whose bodies were found either at the
8 Kevljani or the Jama Lisac gravesites?
9 A. Thirty of the summaries refer to people mentioned in the schedules
10 and eight who are not.
11 Q. Mr. Malik, since the completion of those documents, have you
12 received any further information about persons listed in the schedules of
13 particulars as dead or killed?
14 A. Yes, I have.
15 Q. For example, who?
16 A. I have received information since the filing of this report
17 regarding a number of persons. Two of those persons are not listed here.
18 Their summaries have not been included here. In relation to one victim
19 for whom -- for who there is a summary here, I have also received some
20 additional information.
21 Q. Let's talk about the persons who are not included in those
22 documents with the summary. Can you mention the first person, please?
23 A. Yes. During the course of this week, I have spoken to the family
24 members of Mehmedalija Sarajlic, and for him I believe a summary was not
25 submitted last week.
1 Q. And what information did you receive from the family of
2 Mehmedalija Sarajlic?
3 A. I was told that Mr. Sarajlic was last known to be in Omarska in
4 1992, in the Omarska camp, and that he has not been seen or heard of since
6 Q. And what other family member -- what other families have you
7 spoken to?
8 A. I have spoken to the family of Silvije Saric.
9 Q. What information did the family of Mr. Silvije Saric provide to
11 A. They also said that the person, Mr. Saric, has not been seen since
12 1992 and that, as far as they know, he was last seen alive in Omarska
14 Q. Have you received any information from the family of Riza
16 A. Yes. My colleagues have spoken to the widow of Riza Hadzalic, and
17 she has informed them that her husband has not been seen since 1992.
18 Q. Do those summaries that you're looking at or that you have in
19 front of you, do they contain any discrepancies?
20 A. Yes, they do.
21 Q. Can you explain what discrepancies are in there or the kinds of
23 A. The information listed in these summaries is that provided by the
24 Bosnian authorities, and the information they have passed on has been
25 received by them directly from the family members. It is quite often to
1 note that the family members were not present with the person at the time
2 that they were last seen. Frequently they give dates which do not always
3 correspond with other information available but, as a police officer, I do
4 not find that surprising.
5 Q. All right. Mr. Malik, perhaps there is another exhibit marked
6 3/167 [sic]. I don't know if you have it in front of you underneath that
7 photograph or if it's still with the registrar. You do have it. Yes.
8 Could you place that exhibit on the ELMO, please.
9 MR. SAXON: I don't know if the technical people could move back
10 from the diagram.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, what is the number of
12 that document?
13 MR. SAXON: I misspoke, Your Honour. It should be 3/166.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Thank you.
15 MR. SAXON:
16 Q. Could you turn your mind to the document that's been placed on the
17 ELMO, Mr. Malik, and can you explain what it shows?
18 A. This is a flowchart prepared in order to show the fate of
19 prisoners who were in Omarska camp, or some of the prisoners who were
20 reported to be in Omarska camp in 1992.
21 Q. And can you take up the pointer, please, and explain how the
22 flowchart can be interpreted?
23 A. At the top of the chart we show Omarska. This is the Omarska
24 camp. From here we deal with two groups of prisoners. This arrow shows
25 that some of the prisoners from Omarska camp, who were seen in Omarska
1 camp, were taken to Kevljani sometime in 1992, and that in 1999, an
2 exhumation took place in Kevljani where their bodies were found. From the
3 site in Kevljani, their remains were then shifted to Visoko mortuary where
4 autopsies were carried out. After the autopsies were complete, the bodies
5 were returned to Bosnian authorities so that they could be reburied and
6 given to the family members.
7 Some of the bodies had been tentatively identified. Therefore,
8 some samples were taken at Visoko mortuary and were sent for comparative
9 analysis to the National Toxicological Institute in Madrid.
10 There was a number of artefacts found with these bodies and also a
11 large amount of documentation that was generated at that time, both at the
12 site as well as at the mortuary. That documentation was sent to the ICTY,
13 along with the artefacts.
14 The other half of the chart shows that, from 1992 in Omarska, some
15 people ended up at Jama Lisac. In the year 2000, eight years later, an
16 exhumation was held there. The remains were then shifted to Visoko
17 mortuary where again, after autopsies, the bodies were returned to Bosnian
19 As for the other two aspects, we follow a slightly different
20 course. Samples were taken in Sanski Most so that at least two victims
21 could be identified through DNA analysis. So the samples were not taken
22 at Visoko but at Sanski Most, following the exhumation.
23 Similarly, documentation generated at the site was not forwarded
24 to Visoko but to the ICTY by the Bosnian authorities directly.
25 In the end, however, the two sites mirror -- the processes that
1 went on at the two sites mirror each other in that, in each case, the
2 documentation and artefacts ended up at the ICTY, the bodies were returned
3 to the Bosnian authorities, and samples were sent to the National
4 Toxicology Institute in Madrid in both cases.
5 Q. Mr. Malik, I note that, at the top of this flowchart, in the very
6 first box, it says "Omarska," but it does not say the word "Keraterm."
7 Can you explain why that is?
8 A. As far as the information available to us, persons who were
9 exhumed at Jama Lisac and at Kevljani came from Omarska camp, and none of
10 these prisoners had been detained at the time of his death in Keraterm.
11 Q. All right. I'd like to ask you to review a different matter.
12 Mr. Malik, have you interviewed any of the accused in this proceeding?
13 A. Yes. I was present during the interviews of two of the accused.
14 I assisted the main interviewer in the case of Mr. Milojica Kos, and I was
15 the lead investigator in the interview of Mr. Prcac.
16 Q. And prior to your interview of Mr. Prcac, did you review the Rules
17 of Procedure and Evidence that pertained to interviews of accused?
18 A. I did.
19 Q. Prior to commencing the interview of Mr. Prcac, did you explain to
20 the accused what his rights were in a language that Mr. Prcac could
22 A. I did that.
23 Q. What were those rights that you explained to Mr. Prcac?
24 A. I explained to him that we were conducting this interview on
25 videotape, that he had the right not to say anything that he did not wish
1 to say. He was informed that he had the right to his counsel being
2 present. I also informed him that he had the right to have a person who
3 speaks his language, and that for that purpose, the registry had provided
4 an interpreter.
5 Q. And did Mr. Prcac indicate that he understood those rights?
6 A. Yes. He understood those rights and agreed to proceed with the
8 Q. And has your investigative team reviewed the contents of the
9 English transcript of your interview with Mr. Prcac?
10 A. Yes, my team has done that.
11 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time it was never our intention
12 to actually offer the video of Mr. Prcac's interview with the office of
13 the Prosecution. We actually always intended to offer the transcript.
14 The English and B/C/S versions of that interview are ready now, and we,
15 frankly, would prefer to offer the transcript, and we have two options to
16 suggest to the Trial Chamber.
17 One is that the transcript could be offered now; however, we could
18 provide -- the Chamber could provide the Defence an opportunity to review
19 the transcript, which they only received yesterday, in order that they can
20 make any comments or objections to the Trial Chamber before the Trial
21 Chamber determines whether to admit the transcript or not; or, it might be
22 possible, with the Trial Chamber's leave, for the Prosecution to offer
23 this transcript into evidence later, after the Defence has had time to
24 review and comment upon the English and B/C/S transcript.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon, the second option is
3 MR. SAXON: Would the Trial Chamber want the transcript to be
4 marked now for identification at this time, Your Honour?
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We're going to mark it for
6 identification. Madam Registrar, may we have a number, please.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Do you have the code?
8 MR. SAXON: It would be 3/167.
9 THE REGISTRAR: The number is 3/167A for the English version, and
10 3/167B for B/C/S.
11 As well, I have some photos here and they are marked as 3/167C1,
12 3/167C2, and C3.
13 MR. SAXON: And --
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Will the Defence be provided with that
16 MR. SAXON: Yes, we have extra copies now for the Defence.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that we now
18 have Exhibit 157 and another one, 167. Is that right?
19 MR. SAXON: I believe so. I don't have all the numbers in my mind
20 from the exhibits that were submitted yesterday, but I believe there was a
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Please proceed,
23 Mr. Saxon, with the second hypothesis that you have just expounded.
24 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. Just for the record, Exhibit
25 3/157 was a map that was shown to the witness yesterday.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Your Honour, will the Trial Chamber require me to show the
2 transcripts of the interview with Mr. Prcac to Mr. Malik to authenticate
3 it, or can we proceed?
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think that that would be
6 MR. SAXON: All right. If a copy of the Exhibit marked as 3/167
7 please could be provided to the witness.
8 Q. Mr. Malik, do you recognise this document?
9 A. I do.
10 Q. What is it?
11 A. This is a transcript of the interview that I conducted with
12 Mr. Prcac.
13 Q. Has your investigative team reviewed this transcript to ensure
14 that it is accurate and complete?
15 A. They have.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, at this time, I have no further
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Saxon, thank you.
19 Mr. Krstan Simic, what will be the order for the cross-examination
20 of Mr. Tariq Malik?
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the order will be
22 according to the order of the indictment because -- but I shall start off
23 by asking several questions.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We'll see. You can start, and
25 we'll see according to the order of the indictment later on. Your
2 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm ready. Thank you.
3 Cross-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
4 Q. Mr. Malik, did you, within the course of your investigations of
5 which you have spoken in great detail today, consider the aspect of the
6 armed conflict which existed in 1992, in the summer of 1992 in the regions
7 that you spend time frequently?
8 A. That was not, strictly speaking, the task that I was assigned. It
9 was not my job to consider in relation to the matters that I have
10 testified today whether or not there was an armed -- whether or not there
11 was an armed conflict in the area.
12 Q. With respect to your investigation, do you know, do you have any
13 information about under whose military control in the summer and autumn of
14 1992 the territory of --
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon.
16 MR. SAXON: Your Honour, I'm looking at Rule 90(H) that says that
17 cross-examination shall be limited to the subject matter of the evidence
18 in-chief. It seems that we are already going well outside what was the
19 subject of my questions to this witness on direct examination, Your
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic.
22 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not think that I
23 have left the subject matter, because I wish to ascertain the
24 accessibility of the Lisac cave in the summer and autumn of 1992, and in
25 that respect, the Hrastova Glava.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, then. Go ahead, Mr.
2 Krstan Simic, ask your question.
3 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Let me return to my question. Do you have any information under
5 whose military control in the summer and autumn of 1992 the territory was
6 where the Lisac cave is located which you described and presented to us?
7 A. Yes. The area was under Serb control at that time.
8 Q. Mr. Tariq, when we're talking about the mass gravesite in Hrastova
9 Glava, under whose control was that gravesite in the summer and autumn of
11 A. I have not spoke in relation to the evidence found there, but it's
12 my understanding that that gave was also under Serb control at that time
13 in the summer of 1992.
14 Q. Thank you. How many persons in total were identified who appeared
15 in the schedule of the Prosecution as the victims of these exhumations?
16 A. Three people have been identified from those listed in the
18 Q. Could you give me their names, please?
19 A. Miroslav Solaja, Ismet Hodzic, and Husein Crnkic. These are the
20 people that I've spoken to today and presented evidence on.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 A. In relation to which I have not presented information today.
23 Q. How many exhumed persons were you able to ascertain the manner of
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
1 MR. SAXON: Objection. This witness has not testified that he
2 ever attempted to ascertain cause of death or manner of death with
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, let me respond. In
5 the documents this is stated, and yesterday, one of my objections was
6 linked to that because the witness said that Miroslav Solaja had been
7 killed. So I just want to have the witness present his findings.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but please address yourself
9 to the exhibit, Exhibit 156. I think that is the document that you want
10 to cite and use, Mr. Krstan Simic. It is document 3/156. 3/156.
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] In view of the fact that the
12 documents contain those facts, I will withdraw my questions.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Tariq, in the course of your investigations, that is to say,
16 your participation in the exhumations and the expert analyses, did you
17 find out whether the Lisac cave was a primary site, that is to say,
18 whether those unfortunate persons exhumed from there were buried for the
19 first time in the Lisac cave or were they dislocated to that site?
20 A. It is my opinion that that is a primary site.
21 Q. Thank you. In your documents, you mention Safet Ramadanovic; is
22 that correct?
23 A. Yes, that is correct.
24 Q. You also state in the document that she was buried at the Pasinac
25 cemetery. Did you check out that fact?
1 A. This is what was reported in the missing persons form that we
2 received from the Bosnian authorities.
3 Q. This individual Safet Ramadanovic, is she mentioned in the
4 Prosecution documents?
5 A. Yes. She's one of the persons listed in the schedules.
6 Q. Thank you. And finally, in your reports, you mention the
7 decisions of the basic court in Sanski Most with regard to the
8 proclamation of dead persons. Have you studied that law?
9 A. No. I'm not an expert in law.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions, Your
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Krstan
15 Mr. Nikolic.
16 MR. NIKOLIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have no questions.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
18 Mr. Nikolic.
19 Mr. Fila, you're next.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Fila:
21 Q. Mr. Malik, I have a few questions for you. Was it ever
22 ascertained whether all the people found in the localities where you
23 undertook your research were killed at the same time or died at the same
24 time, and were they all thrown into the cave together or buried together?
25 A. It is my --
1 Q. Or was this done on several occasions?
2 A. As far as the Kevljani gravesite is concerned, it is my
3 understanding that bodies had been -- the bodies were taken there over a
4 period of time, perhaps in July 1992. And there may have been several
5 different instances of bodies being taken there and buried there.
6 However, in the case of Jama Lisac, I'm convinced that all the people were
7 taken there at one time and killed and thrown there on one particular
9 Q. As we're talking about the Lisac cave, was it possible to
10 ascertain whether they were killed there on the spot or were they brought
11 there dead and thrown into the cave? On the basis of your experience,
12 what would you say, if you're able to give such an opinion and on the
13 basis of the experts' opinion?
14 A. Yes. I inquired into that matter. The cave opening itself is
15 located on a slope approximately 10 to 15 metres below the edge of the
16 sinkhole. At the edge is a flat area where it is my opinion the people
17 were killed. I base that on the fact that, close to the cave, that's the
18 only spot where such a large number of people could have been held
19 together, and also that a number of shell casings were found at that very
20 particular spot.
21 Q. Thank you. At one particular point in one of the reports it says
22 that on their clothing of the people that were found, that you found
23 traces of the iron ore from Omarska. I apologise for asking you from this
24 angle. I should have gone up to the other seat but this is better for
25 me. Can you tell us where these samples were taken from, the locality
2 A. The number of the graves where those samples were found can be
3 found both in Richard Wright's report, Professor Wright's report, as well
4 as Antony Brown's report. There were four different graves where slag or
5 iron ore was found, and that was compared by Dr. Antony Brown with a
6 sample that he picked up near one of the buildings in the complex, in the
7 mine complex where the camp was located in 1992.
8 Q. You weren't present then, so you have no further knowledge about
9 that, apart from what you have just told me; is that correct?
10 A. No. I did not collect the evidence myself.
11 Q. In that case, I apologise for having asked you at all. I thought
12 that you had taken them personally. I saw that Mr. Saxon was going to
13 react, so that was the purpose of my question, just to make it clear.
14 Where did you learn that Mr. Solaja called himself Zika? Because
15 "Miroslav" is not an abbreviation of "Zika."
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon.
17 MR. SAXON: If it is necessary for Mr. Malik to answer this
18 question, I would request that we go into private session to respect the
19 privacy of the person who provided this information.
20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I'll finish very quickly. I'm not
21 asking you the name of the person but how did he learn about this. You
22 can say from somebody else and I'll be satisfied. It doesn't matter who.
23 That will satisfy me. I don't want you to uncover your source.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Even if Mr. Fila wants to know
25 how this will identify the person, and you wish us to move into private
1 session, do you?
2 MR. SAXON: Yes, I would be grateful for that, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us move into
4 private session for a couple of moments.
5 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
20 Q. You further stated --
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, we are in public session.
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
23 Q. You said that in Kevljani in the course of July 1992, these people
24 were buried. Now, what I want to know is, how is it you know the exact
25 month when they were buried? Why wasn't it in June, for example, or
1 September? That is the point of my question, and why 1992?
2 A. Some of the people who were exhumed from Kevljani have since then
3 been identified through DNA analysis, so we can be sure of the identity of
4 these victims. There are a number of statements on record with the OTP
5 which speak of these persons as being alive in early July, so therefore I
6 conclude -- I've concluded that since these people were found at Kevljani,
7 they must have been taken there sometime in July.
8 Q. Why not in August, for example?
9 A. Because there are references, again in the same statements, which
10 speak of these people dying at Omarska at around that time. People would
11 say that -- for example, I quoted Mr. Ermin Strikovic. He said that he
12 saw -- he remembers seeing the dead body of Miroslav Solaja at the camp.
13 As far as I know, the camp was closed in the first week of August;
14 therefore, he must have died before first week of August.
15 There are other people who would state that Mr. Solaja was alive
16 around the early part of July. That is why I have concluded that, since
17 he died in July, he must have been taken there and buried at that time.
18 Q. I see, thank you. I didn't ask only about Solaja but about them
20 So your source on the basis of which you were able to conclude
21 that this was in July are the statements made by the detainees, the
22 statements they gave; is that right? It is not ascertained through an
23 expert opinion, the exact time and date of death. That's what I wanted to
24 distinguish between.
25 A. That is correct. As far as I'm aware, no precise date has been
1 given by the experts.
2 Q. That's what I wanted to ask.
3 On the charts that you showed us, you deal with two camps, Omarska
4 and Keraterm only, and then you have Omarska itself. Do you state that at
5 these locations there were no people from Keraterm or Trnopolje, for
6 example, or is that because we're dealing with Omarska here and that was
7 the reason that you have indicated the example of Omarska?
8 A. I cannot answer that question definitively; however, all the
9 people who have been identified from these two sites are known to have
10 been at Omarska. I know of no person who has been identified from these
11 two gravesites who, at the time of his death, was thought to be in
12 Keraterm, or Trnopolje for that matter. However, it's possible that other
13 bodies may be there.
14 Q. So you cannot exclude the fact that somebody from Omarska was
15 taken to Trnopolje and from there to Kevljani, for example, without
16 anybody having seen that?
17 A. I cannot engage in hypothetical scenarios, but as far as I know,
18 people -- all the victims who have been identified and through DNA, I
19 believe there are nine now, nine victims, all of them are said to have
20 been in Omarska at the time of their death, except the two women which
21 were taken on a bus and reported -- and then found at Jama Lisac.
22 Q. Who says that they were in Omarska at the time of death? You and
23 the witnesses, not the experts, if I understand you correctly; is that
25 A. That is correct.
1 Q. Thank you. And one more question for you. If Mr. Saxon objects,
2 I will withdraw it because it steps outside the domain of the
3 examination-in-chief. The question is the following: Did you happen, or
4 anyone on your team, to analyse the water in the Omarska camp in the
5 course of your investigations from 1995 onwards?
6 A. It may have been done, but I'm not aware of that.
7 Q. Thank you. That would be all.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, you passed the test of
9 Mr. Saxon.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, for
11 giving me the floor.
12 Cross-examined by Mr. Stojanovic:
13 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Malik. I shall limit my
14 questions to the summaries on the death of certain persons that you
15 testified about today. I don't know whether you have those documents in
16 front of you. Perhaps we shall select a few we're interested in and
17 provide you with copies to remind you.
18 A. Yes, I do not have copies at this time.
19 MR. STOJANOVIC: This way, not all. Just a few only.
20 Q. [Interpretation] We have established a certain order of the
21 documents in which we are interested. The first one refers to a person
22 called Emsud Bahonjic. According to this document, was the body of that
23 person found?
24 A. The body has not been found yet.
25 Q. According to that same document, I'm only asking you about the
1 documents because that is the subject of your testimony, was a death
2 certificate issued the 24th of February, 1998?
3 A. Yes, it was.
4 Q. Can it be seen which institution issued that certificate?
5 A. I believe the death certificates are issued by the municipal
6 authorities. In this case, it would be Sanski Most.
7 Q. But that cannot be seen from that document, can it?
8 A. Not from the document that you're referring to, but the Office of
9 the Prosecutor has a copy of that certificate.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Saxon.
11 MR. SAXON: The document reads that a death certificate for Emsud
12 Bahonjic was issued 24 February 1998 in Sanski Most.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] May I say that, in Sanski Most,
14 there are many institutions. It is a town with tens of thousands of
16 MR. SAXON: Is Mr. Stojanovic now testifying, Your Honour, or does
17 he have a question to put to the witness?
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Yes, put the question, Mr. Stojanovic. Put the
20 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. From this certificate issued the 24th of February, can it be seen
22 which institution or person or body issued it?
23 A. Yes. It's an extract from what you might call the book of the
24 dead, the register of the dead, and I believe it is issued by the
25 municipal authorities.
1 Q. Excuse me, but how can you tell that from this document, because I
2 can't see it stated there.
3 A. What you have in front of you is a report based on the documents
4 that were submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor. The document itself
5 is not here, but what the document is and when it was issued has been
6 stated in this report.
7 Q. Thank you. The death certificate says that the person called
8 Emsud Bahonjic died on the 26th of June, 1992; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that is what it says.
10 Q. The municipal court decision declaring a person dead, was that
11 decision dated -- issued on the 27th of August, 1998?
12 A. That is true.
13 Q. Does that mean that the death certificate was issued prior to the
14 court decision proclaiming the person dead?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. Was the court decision issued on the basis of a witness statement,
17 the witness being Jaskic, Osman, and Jaskic, Safet?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. So according to these documents, can it be seen where the person
20 called Emsud Bahonjic died, the place of death?
21 A. I cannot answer that question from the information that I have
22 available before me at this time.
23 Q. I'm just asking you whether that can be seen from the document you
24 have provided. Of course it would be too much to ask of you where the
25 person died.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojanovic, you cannot ask
2 the witness whether he can see a conclusion. You're asking questions, and
3 you're making conclusions on that basis.
4 I can see Mr. Saxon his feet.
5 MR. SAXON: Perhaps to save time, Your Honour, and in the interest
6 of clarifying the record, perhaps Mr. Stojanovic can stipulate that at
7 subsection 2 of the document, under the subheading Missing Persons
8 Statement, it says that a note on the form says that Emsud Bahonjic was
9 killed in Keraterm.
10 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon. Yes. Yes. I
11 acknowledge the observation made and I'm grateful.
12 Q. Is it stated in the document how the person died?
13 A. I'm afraid I can't answer that question without referring to the
14 original document.
15 Q. I'm asking you to rely exclusively on this document, nothing
16 outside of that since Their Honours don't have that document. So my
17 question is: In the document itself, is the cause of death indicated?
18 A. Sir, as I have said, I cannot answer that question without
19 recourse to the original document. If you're asking specifically in
20 relation to the municipal court decision, then I would have to consult
21 that decision in order to answer your question -- in order to be able to
22 answer your question.
23 Q. Thank you. I suggest we move on now to the next summary about
24 death. It has to do with a person called Dalija Hrnic. According to this
25 document, was the body of that person found?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Is it stated in this document that the person died in Omarska on
3 the 23rd of June, 1992?
4 A. It does.
5 Q. Thank you. The next summary relates to a person called Sead
6 Jusufovic, but we also have Jusufagic Sead. Which is the proper surname
7 of this person, please?
8 A. I think that the name Sead Jusufagic was incorrectly put in the
9 schedules on the basis how the victim had been addressed in a witness
10 statement. However, the correct name of the victim mentioned in the
11 schedules is Sead Jusufovic, whose nickname was Car.
12 Q. According to this document, was the body of this person found?
13 A. No, it has not been found.
14 Q. If I understood your testimony correctly, you did some
15 investigation at the Pasinac cemetery as well, or gravesite.
16 A. That site has been exhumed by the ICTY this year. However, my
17 evidence does not relate to what was found at that site.
18 Q. Does that mean that you cannot assist us along the lines of my
19 question then so as to avoid tiring you further with questions relating to
20 that gravesite?
21 A. Yes. The statement I submitted in relation to my testimony makes
22 no mention of Pasinac. However, just to answer you, the inquiries into
23 Pasinac are still going on and they are not finished yet. But anyway, I
24 am not concerned with that gravesite for the purposes of my testimony.
25 Q. Thank you. The document on deaths that is mentioned in this
1 document, is it stated that the person Jusufovic, known as Car -- you said
2 that was the correct surname -- was buried at the Pasinac cemetery?
3 A. Yes, that is what it says.
4 Q. Was a legal proclamation of death carried out for this person?
5 Was this person legally declared dead?
6 A. I am not aware that that is the case.
7 Q. Thank you. The next document relates to the person called Becir
8 Medunjanin. According to this document, was the body of that person
10 A. No. The body of this victim has not been found.
11 Q. Can you see from this document that, on the basis of the testimony
12 in the court in Sanski Most, the person was declared dead on the basis of
13 the testimony of two witnesses, Vahid Besic and Uzeir Balic?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. According to that same document, did Mr. Becir Medunjanin die in
16 Omarska on the 22nd of June, 1992?
17 A. That is what it states.
18 Q. Thank you. The next document, if you could please look at it,
19 relates to -- excuse me -- a person whose surname is Mesic, first name
20 Safet, and I assume Spija is his nickname. According to this document,
21 has the body of that person been found?
22 A. That report before you states that his body has not been found.
23 However, since the preparation of this report, I have received information
24 that his son has identified his body among the remains that were exhumed
25 from Pasinac.
1 Q. Do you have that certificate? Are you in possession of that
3 A. I do not have a certificate. I spoke to the family of the victim
4 just two days ago, and they've said that they had recognised the body.
5 Q. According to this document, is the only evidence of the death of
6 Spija Mesic the statement of his acquaintance Dervis Karagic in Sanski
7 Most on the 29th of December, 1999?
8 A. That is the only document listed in the report that was prepared
9 at the end of last week.
10 Q. May we go on to the next document, please, which has to do with a
11 person called Emir Ramic, known as Hankin or Hanki. According to this
12 document, has the body of that person been found?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Can you see from this document whether he was legally declared
16 A. No. There is no document to that effect.
17 Q. And the last document I should like to refer to relates to a
18 person called Drago Tokmadzic. According to this document, has the body
19 of that person been found?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Is the only evidence of death, again according to this document,
22 the report of a certain Kemal Alagic? Is the only evidence of this person
23 the report by Kemal Alagic?
24 A. I apologise. I thought you were still in the middle of your
1 Yes. According to this document, the only document listed in this
2 report is the missing persons statement that you referred to.
3 Q. Is it stated there that a person called Drago Tokmadzic was killed
4 in June 1992?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And a general question: If I heard correctly, in addition to the
7 bodies, you found some casings, bullet casings, and objects which might
8 indicate the cause of death. When a body is found, is it sometimes
9 possible to establish the exact cause of death?
10 A. Yes, it is. It's the job of the pathologist to determine if that
11 is possible or not.
12 Q. Witness, thank you very much. I have no further questions for
14 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
16 Mr. Stojanovic.
17 Mr. Jovan Simic.
18 MR. J. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no questions
19 for this witness.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much,
21 Mr. Jovan Simic.
22 Mr. Saxon, do you have any re-examination?
23 MR. SAXON: Just three, Your Honour, just three questions.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please go ahead.
25 Re-examined by Mr. Saxon:
1 Q. Just to clarify the record, Mr. Malik. On cross-examination, you
2 discussed iron ore that was found in four graves. Was that iron ore found
3 in graves at the Kevljani site or at the Jama Lisac site?
4 A. It was slag and iron ore, and this was found in four graves at the
5 Kevljani site.
6 Q. Also on cross-examination, you were asked about a man named Safet
7 Mesic who used the nickname Spija, and you explained that you have
8 recently spoken to the family of Mr. Mesic and that they explained to you
9 that they have recently been able to identify his body. Can you tell the
10 Trial Chamber how the family was able to do that?
11 A. Yes. The family remembered the clothes that the victim was
12 wearing and also had other information which indicated that he had been
13 buried at the Pasinac cemetery in 1992.
14 This year, the ICTY exhumed the site, and that particular grave
15 was also exhumed. After that, the family travelled to Sanski Most, looked
16 at the remains and identified that particular body as being that of Spija
18 Q. On cross-examination, you were asked to look at a summary of proof
19 of death information on Drago Tokmadzic, and you indicated that the
20 summaries you prepared, that a document mentioned in your summary
21 mentioned that Mr. Tokmadzic was killed in June of 1992. Does that
22 document also mention where Mr. Tokmadzic was killed?
23 A. It says he was killed in Keraterm.
24 MR. SAXON: Thank you, Your Honour. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Saxon.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Judge Fouad Riad, do you have any questions?
2 Questioned by the Court:
3 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Malik, good morning. Can you hear me?
4 A. Good morning. I can hear you fine, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RIAD: You spoke about finding corpses of females. You
6 mentioned Sadeta Medunjanin and I think Edna Dautovic. Were there any
7 other corpses of females, or these were the only ones?
8 A. As far as the pathologists and anthropologists could determine,
9 those were the only two females.
10 JUDGE RIAD: And in other sites you know in the area?
11 A. As far as I'm aware, no females were found in any of the other
12 sites, either.
13 JUDGE RIAD: Just for the clarification of one of your statements,
14 you mentioned that, I'm quoting you, "Frequently, family members give
15 statements which do not always correspond with other information received,
16 but as a police officer, I do not find that surprising."
17 What is -- I mean, how far would they be divergent, and why is it
18 not surprising?
19 A. Your Honour, I -- when I have investigated these matters, I have
20 taken into account the situation that prevailed in Prijedor in early
21 1992. It was -- it's not surprising that a person may not have been in
22 touch with his family immediately at the time of his arrest, so the exact
23 date of arrest may not be known to the family.
24 Similarly, in many of these statements, the families say such and
25 such person was killed on such and such day at such and such place. Now,
1 we can be reasonably certain that they have information that the person
2 was at that particular camp, but because these family members were not
3 with the victim at the time of his death or at the time that -- of the
4 events which are being referred to in their statements, it is possible
5 that they may have the wrong date, and it may be off by a few days.
6 But generally speaking -- rather I would say, that every family
7 that I have spoken to, they have confirmed that their family members were
8 in one of these two camps, and they have reliable information. However,
9 as to the dates, occasionally we come across some discrepancies.
10 JUDGE RIAD: Now, concerning the date of death, you could not
11 still scientifically determine exactly the precise date, could you,
13 A. Your Honour, as far as I'm aware, it is not possible to pinpoint
14 accurately when the person has died. It is, it is possible to determine
15 this as long as it's relatively shortly after the incident; but as far as
16 I know as a police officer, it's not possible to judge that date precisely
17 eight years after the death.
18 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
20 Judge Wald, please.
21 JUDGE WALD: Mr. Malik, I just have one question. You said
22 earlier, I think, that 15 of the people in the Prosecutor's schedule are
23 reported as missing in the International Committee of the Red Cross's
24 records. Has it been your experience during your investigations that
25 there's a wide discrepancy between the people reported missing in the ICRC
1 and those reported missing to the local authorities? I mean, what's the
2 correlation between, between the two?
3 A. Your Honour, I find that the listings in the ICRC are more
4 limited. The figures released by the ICRC are conservative figures, in my
5 view, and the reason for that is they have very strict standards. The
6 ICRC will only accept the report of a missing person from a close member
7 of the family. In this case, the families of many of the victims have
8 moved out of the area or some have been killed, so it's my experience that
9 not every victim who has gone missing is listed by the ICRC.
10 The local authorities are willing to accept such reports from not
11 just only the family members but also from friends, so the local
12 authorities tend to have more precise and more comprehensive knowledge
13 about the people who have gone missing from the area.
14 JUDGE WALD: Let me just ask you one follow-up question. During
15 your investigations in this area, has it ever happened, or, if so, is it
16 frequent or rare, that somebody who was reported missing by a family
17 member or a friend or somebody who said, "I saw him in Keraterm and then I
18 never saw him again," shows up subsequently, turns up?
19 A. Your Honour, I am not aware of any such instance. I have spoken
20 to many family members in relation to this exercise, and every one of the
21 families that I've spoken to, they have all confirmed that these
22 particular victims have never been seen or heard of since 1992.
23 JUDGE WALD: Thank you.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Madam Judge
1 Mr. Malik, I have three questions. The first, you said that the
2 mass gravesite at Kevljani, that the bodies were deposited there in
3 different time periods, in several stages. The answer is in the reports,
4 but I would like to hear you here on the basis of what you come to that
6 A. Your Honour, at Kevljani there were a number of holes dug where
7 bodies were buried. The forensic team identified 26 such sites.
8 Precisely, 25; 26 were numbered initially. Approximately ten of these had
9 been robbed, either completely or partially. It's logical for me to
10 believe that different holes were dug at different times.
11 Also, we have witness statements which refer to periodic removal
12 of bodies from the camp. That also leads me to believe that not just --
13 the bodies were buried not just in one go, but over a certain period of
14 time. Also, the victims that we have identified appear to have died
15 perhaps a few days apart, although it's difficult to establish this very
17 But in my view, it appears that the bodies were buried there not
18 just in one go but over several different occasions.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] My second question: The
20 gravesite at Jama Lisac, was it artificial? Was it made for that
21 purpose? We have seen the pictures, but what is your understanding, in
22 any event?
23 A. Your Honour, it appears to me to be a natural cave which is very
24 well-concealed and hidden, but it's not man-made. I believe it has
25 existed there for some time.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You touched upon another point
2 which has to do with my third question. These gravesites, were they
3 concealed or were they readily accessible, people walking around in the
4 vicinity could see them? Could you give us an idea about that?
5 A. Your Honour, both sites would be out of sight of normal, ordinary
6 people. At Kevljani, the site is located in the very centre of the
7 village; however, by -- according to information that I have, by the time
8 that the bodies were taken there, there were very few people living
9 there. It was an exclusively Muslim village and, as far as I know, it had
10 been basically cleansed. So bodies were buried there, and then they were
11 covered by soil, which leads me to believe that the idea was that nobody
12 should be able to see them.
13 Similarly, the cave at Jama Lisac is a very well-concealed site,
14 and in fact, it was extremely difficult to find. There are houses nearby,
15 and those people may have known about it, but as far as the majority of
16 the population is concerned, they would not be able to see that particular
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Another question. How
19 accessible was it? Could trucks and tractors have access to those
21 A. The site at Kevljani could be accessed easily. It was very close
22 to Omarska, only five, six kilometres, and there are good roads, good
23 roads by the local standards.
24 The site at Jama Lisac is extremely difficult to reach by any
25 mechanical means, so in fact we have pondered over exactly how the
1 prisoners were transported there. That site must have required a great
2 deal of effort to, to reach if the prisoners, in fact, were taken there in
3 a mechanical -- in a vehicle. However, if you were to walk, then it's
4 approximately a 20 minutes' walk from the nearest good road.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are you able to tell us whether
6 the persons, or rather, the bodies, were led there on foot? How were the
7 people taken to the site?
8 A. Yes, Your Honour. I have come across some information, although I
9 must point out that this is preliminary. It is my understanding that up
10 to a certain point, the people were taken in a bus, in a vehicle, and from
11 then on they were -- their hands were tied, and then they were taken to
12 the actual site, the site of the execution. But because of the obvious
13 problem that no witnesses have survived from that particular incident,
14 it's difficult for me to confirm that, but that seems to have been the
15 series of events.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you have any information
17 which would indicate whether the persons were taken there alive to the
18 spot, or were they killed somewhere else and then brought there after
19 being killed?
20 A. It is my understanding on the basis of information I've gathered
21 that the people were alive when they were taken to the site. By that, I
22 mean to the area immediately above the cave. I believe from there, from
23 that flat, plateau-like area just above the entrance to the cave, the
24 bodies were brought on blankets to the mouth of the cave and then thrown
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Malik, you have
2 answered all our questions, I think. I have no more. Thank you very much
3 for your cooperation, for your work, and above all for coming here, for
4 moving from one floor to another. Thank you very much.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Usher, you can accompany
7 the witness out.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Saxon. I think we have
10 a series of exhibits to deal with.
11 MR. SAXON: Yes, Your Honour. Preliminarily, the Prosecution has
12 marked a signed and dated copy of the formal statement of witness Tariq
13 Malik as 3/155, and we would offer this for admission in substitution of
14 the statement of Mr. Malik that was filed with the Chamber on the 27th of
15 September, 2000. That way, the signed and dated copy will be the actual
16 statement on record with the Chamber.
17 In addition, Your Honour, we would offer for admission the
18 remaining exhibits which I believe are Exhibits 3/156 through, at this
19 time, 3/166, and then we will reserve our right to offer into evidence at
20 a later date the transcript of the Prosecution's interview with Mr. Prcac,
21 which has been marked for identification as 3/167.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So we can say already that
23 Exhibit 3/155 has already been admitted into evidence. The Chamber
24 admitted it as a replacement for the other that was not signed and dated.
25 Regarding Exhibit 3/167, we will wait, according to our decision today and
1 what we said yesterday. And we still have to discuss Exhibits 3/156
2 through to 3/166.
3 The Defence. Are there any objections, please?
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No objections, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. So this third group
6 of exhibits, 3/156 through to 3/166 have been admitted into evidence.
7 I think this is a good time to have a break. No. I see that we
8 can't have a break yet.
9 Mr. O'Sullivan, please.
10 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There's one matter I would like to raise with
11 Your Honours, and that is that we have a matter to raise with you before
12 2.00, that is, before a full bench. And it doesn't matter when we do it
13 but there should be a full bench when we do it, and my understanding is
14 that Judge Riad leaves at 2.00, so ... and it doesn't relate to the next
15 witness, so it can be done at any time before 2.00.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think perhaps now is a good
17 time. I don't know how much time you need, but perhaps it would be good
18 to deal with it before the break, which means now.
19 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour. Very briefly, then. On
20 the assumption that we're going to close the Prosecution's case today, and
21 it seems to be the case, we bring a motion pursuant to Rule 98 bis, motion
22 for judgement of acquittal.
23 As Your Honours know, that Rule provides that this motion may be
24 filed within seven days after the close of the Prosecution's case, and in
25 any event, prior to the presentation of evidence by the Defence pursuant
1 to Rule 85(A)(ii). My colleagues may have some comments to make in
2 relation to their particular Defence cases, but as regards the defendant
3 Kos, we request that we be allowed to file our motion under Rule 98 bis on
4 or before Friday the 17th of November.
5 The reason we ask for this time frame, first of all, the Rule
6 contemplates that it must be at any time before the presentation of the
7 Kos defence, under 85. That case will not begin before Christmas.
8 As Your Honours know, we've been very busy since the end of
9 August, and there's a lot of testimony and material to digest and analyse,
10 and we submit that it's reasonable to give us this time over the next few
11 weeks to do that and to make a carefully drafted submission in relation to
12 Mr. Kos. That's why we say that the six weeks, approximately the six
13 weeks, is a reasonable period for us to do that as is contemplated, we
14 say, by Rule 98 bis. And of course, Your Honours know about Rule 127
15 which allows for variations, and I submit that there is good cause in this
16 case in any event.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] If I understood you well,
18 Mr. O'Sullivan, you are suggesting that we give you time up till the
19 17th of November; is that right? So extend the time period until the
20 17th of November?
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's correct, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Perhaps
23 I should learn what the position of the Prosecution is regarding this
24 motion by Mr. O'Sullivan. Do you have any objections? The Chamber will
25 rule, of course, but ...
1 MS. HOLLIS: Thank you, Your Honour. We have no objection to
2 granting them an extension of time. We would, however, note that if you
3 do grant them until the 17th of November, the Prosecution would only have
4 half that time to file a response. So perhaps you can give them a little
5 less time, which would give us a little more time. But in terms of
6 actually extending the time in which they have to file their motion, we
7 certainly have no objection to that.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan.
9 MR. O'SULLIVAN: That's why I prefaced my submissions by saying
10 that my colleagues may have a different view and different time frame.
11 For Kos, we submit that November 17th is reasonable, and of course, then
12 the Prosecution can respond to Kos, but as there are five accused and each
13 one has separate rights, my colleagues may have different views in
14 response to what the Prosecutor has just said. But for Kos, we ask for
15 17th of November.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. O'Sullivan, I don't know
17 whether you can speak on behalf of the other Defence counsel, but could we
18 fix the same date for all Defence counsel if they intend to submit such a
20 I see Mr. Krstan Simic.
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will speak on
22 behalf of the other Defence counsel. Rule 98 bis does allow the Defence
23 to submit, within seven days of the presentation of evidence, to submit a
24 motion for acquittal. So we will examine the situation and see whether we
25 will be making such a motion, but if we do, we agree that the time limit
1 be the 17th of November.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And that it should be the same
3 for all?
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think we can now have a
7 Ms. Hollis, I see we have another witness. I see that Mr. Keegan
8 is already prepared to take him.
9 MS. HOLLIS: That's correct, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In any event, this is a good
11 time for the break because the technicians need to see what's wrong with
12 our monitors. So the technicians are going to do their work in the
14 --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
17 Mr. Keegan.
18 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, the Prosecution would call Vasif
19 Gutic to the stand.
20 [The witness entered court]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Gutic. Can
22 you hear me?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You're now going to read the
25 solemn declaration handed you by the usher, please.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
2 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 WITNESS: VASIF GUTIC
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated, and try and
6 sit comfortably. Please come up to the microphone.
7 Thank you for coming, first of all. As you know, you are here to
8 testify, and your testimony is going to take place in the following
9 manner: Mr. Keegan, the Prosecutor, will start off by asking you
10 questions, and afterwards, the Defence counsel, and possibly the Judges.
11 But you're now going to be answering questions put to you by Mr. Keegan.
12 Mr. Keegan is the gentleman standing up on your right-hand side.
13 Your witness, Mr. Keegan.
14 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Examined by Mr. Keegan:
16 Q. Mr. Gutic, would you please state, for the record, your full
18 A. My name is Vasif Gutic.
19 Q. Mr. Gutic, where were you born?
20 A. I was born in Prijedor.
21 Q. And where did you grow up?
22 A. I grew up in Kozarac.
23 Q. And what's your educational background?
24 A. I went to elementary school in Kozarac, and after that, secondary
25 school as a paramedic in Prijedor. Afterwards, I went on to study
1 medicine at the university in Banja Luka.
2 Q. And were you in fact in your studies for your medical degree when
3 the conflict broke out in the Prijedor area?
4 A. Yes. In 1992, I had listened to all my courses at the medical
5 faculty in Banja Luka.
6 Q. And how far away were you from becoming -- obtaining your medical
7 certification to become a doctor?
8 A. I still had three examinations to take.
9 Q. Were you present in Kozarac on the 24th of May of 1992?
10 A. Yes, I was in Kozarac on that date.
11 Q. And what occurred on that date?
12 A. On that day, there was an attack on Kozarac by the Serb army.
13 Q. And where were you when that attack began?
14 A. I was in the health centre in Kozarac.
15 Q. And what were you doing in the health centre?
16 A. I was taking part in preparing the premises for extending
17 assistance to any possible casualties during that attack.
18 Q. And why was it that you were already in the clinic preparing it
19 for a possible attack? What information or knowledge did you have that an
20 attack might occur?
21 A. As is common knowledge, the Serb authorities from Prijedor sent an
22 ultimatum to Kozarac, to the people in Kozarac. They posed an ultimatum
23 to surrender, or else that they would attack Kozarac.
24 Q. And when that attack began on the 24th, how did it begin?
25 A. The attack began with shelling, the shelling of the Kozarac area,
1 its different districts, from different types of weaponry; tanks, guns,
2 and so on.
3 Q. And when that shelling began, did the members of the clinic move
4 the clinic to another location for safety?
5 A. Yes, we moved the clinic and all the equipment, the drugs and the
6 staff, to another building for security reasons.
7 Q. And where was that building in relation to the town of Kozarac?
8 A. The other building was in a place called Rajkovici, which is the
9 north of Kozarac as you go towards Mrakovica.
10 Q. In other words, it was up the mountain.
11 A. Yes, that's right.
12 Q. And approximately how long did you remain up in Rajkovici?
13 A. We remained for a day and a night, and the following day up until
15 Q. So on the 26th of May, what did you do at around noontime?
16 A. At about noon, we decided to return to the clinic building in
17 Kozarac in order to give medical assistance to the population whom we
18 thought were still located in Kozarac.
19 Q. And what happened when you left the area of Rajkovici?
20 A. We drove in our ambulance with all the sanitary material, we went
21 towards Kozarac, and we saw that houses had been destroyed, windows
22 shattered, that houses had been hit by shells and grenades. Some of them
23 had been -- some of them were on fire. There was clothing from the
24 civilian population scattered all over the place. But we continued on our
25 way and went to our old building in Kozarac.
1 Q. And once you had re-established a clinic, what happened?
2 A. Several hours afterwards, the Serb soldiers arrived and we were
3 taken prisoner there. We were interrogated, and after that they made us
4 load up our medicines, all the injections and so on into a military truck.
5 Q. Then where did that military truck go? Do you know?
6 A. The military truck, that is to say, the officer who was by the
7 truck and had a radio link, he informed Prijedor that he was sending a
8 truckload of medicaments from Kozarac for use there, and I was present
9 during that conversation and I heard what he said.
10 Q. When this military truck left, did it take all of the available
11 medicine from Kozarac?
12 A. Yes, it did.
13 Q. What happened to the members of the clinic staff after that?
14 A. After that, the Serb army took us on foot from the clinic in
15 Kozarac to the school building, that is to say, the crossroads in front of
16 the school building in Kozarac, and then a transporter took us further to
17 the village of Kozarusa, and then we were taken by bus to the camp in
19 Q. Now, when you arrived in Kozarusa, what could you see in the area
20 where the buses were?
21 A. We saw a large group of Serb soldiers with trucks and then a group
22 of men who were standing there by the side. Two buses turned up after
23 some time and women and children were in those buses.
24 Q. And what happened with the group of men who were standing by the
25 side of the road, if you know?
1 A. I don't know what happened to them. We were ordered, that is to
2 say, the medical staff, we were ordered to board the bus, and we went off
3 in the direction of Trnopolje and they stayed behind us.
4 Q. What happened when you arrived at Trnopolje? What were you
5 ordered to do?
6 A. We were ordered by the commander of the camp to go to the first
7 aid department in the building in Trnopolje. The soldiers were ordered to
8 take us there.
9 Q. Who were the individuals who were with you from the clinic in
10 Kozarac who were ordered into the clinic in the Trnopolje camp?
11 A. They were members of our medical team, doctors, nurses, and all
12 the auxiliary staff.
13 Q. Do you recall the names of the doctors who were present then?
14 A. Of course.
15 Q. Please name them.
16 A. With us was Dr. Jusuf Pasic; Dr. Merdjanic Idriz; Dr. Kosuran,
17 Mensur, Mensur Kosuran; there was myself; there was a vet, Azra Blazevic;
18 Dzalagic Hasim, also a vet; a dental nurse by the name of Albina. There
19 was a midwife. Her name was Dautovic, Sabiha. And her husband Mujo
20 Dautovic. Then there was an auxiliary worker, Sefik Karabasic, and
21 another one, Senad. I've forgotten his surname. And there were two
22 other members of the staff, Lejla and Goga. They were also with us, the
23 two women.
24 Q. Mr. Gutic, you referred to two of the individuals as "vet." Do
25 you mean they were veterinarians?
1 A. Yes, veterinarians by profession.
2 Q. And was one of those veterinarians a woman named Azra Blazevic?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, of the doctors that you mentioned, did they remain with you
5 in the Trnopolje camp the entire time you were there?
6 A. Not all of them stayed until the end.
7 Q. Who was taken from the camp?
8 A. Dr. Jusuf Pasic and Dr. Mensur Kosuran were taken from the camp.
9 Q. Do you know where they were taken to?
10 A. That day, the two of them were taken away together in a police
11 car, police van, in the direction of Prijedor.
12 Q. And did you later learn where they ended up after they were taken
13 from Trnopolje?
14 A. Later on we learnt that both of them, both these doctors, ended up
15 in the Omarska camp.
16 Q. Now, after you arrived in Trnopolje on the 26th of May, did you
17 have another occasion to return to Kozarac shortly thereafter?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And why did you return to Kozarac?
20 A. That day, the military police came to the Trnopolje camp and we
21 were ordered by the leader of the camp to go to Kozarac by car to bring
22 back an old lady who was paralysed and whom the soldiers had found in a
23 house somewhere.
24 Q. Now, during that trip to Kozarac, what, if anything, did you
25 notice was happening in the area at that time?
1 A. On the way, we could see Serb soldiers looting the empty Muslim
2 houses. They were taking all the valuables, technical goods such as
3 television sets, refrigerators, and so on. And we saw that many of the
4 houses which remained standing on the 26th were set fire to afterwards and
5 destroyed, or they had been completely devastated in the sense of being
7 Q. Now, can you, in comparison to the 26th of May when you first left
8 Kozarac, can you give the Judges an idea of how much more destruction had
9 occurred by the 28th? Was it a lot, a little, in between?
10 A. Well, I would say that the destruction was not that great, that is
11 to say, it wasn't total destruction. It is difficult for me to assess the
12 degree and how many houses, but I did notice that most of the buildings
13 that were destroyed were the houses of distinguished citizens or business
14 premises in Kozarac. But, of course, later on during the time we spent in
15 the camp, the destruction continued.
16 Q. And how do you know that?
17 A. We heard, in the camp, daily explosions and shelling, and there
18 was a lot of smoke and flames coming from the destroyed houses that had
19 been set fire to.
20 Q. During the time that you were in the Trnopolje camp, did you have
21 another occasion where you left the camp and were taken to a different
22 part of Prijedor, to Urije?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And on that occasion, where did you go?
25 A. On that occasion, I and my colleague were escorted by a soldier,
1 that is to say, we were the escort of a soldier who was wounded -- who was
2 ill, I'm sorry, and we took him to the hospital in Prijedor.
3 Q. And during the journey to Prijedor, did you go the main road, or
4 did you go another way from the Trnopolje camp?
5 A. We went along the main road from Trnopolje via the village of
6 Garovaci towards Prijedor.
7 Q. And on that journey, did you pass through areas which had been
8 inhabited by mainly Muslims, Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And what, if anything, could you see happening in those areas on
11 that journey?
12 A. On that journey, I saw that the houses which had been abandoned
13 were also looted by the Serb soldiers.
14 Q. And what about the level of destruction?
15 A. In that area, the houses [Realtime transcript read in error
16 "thousands"] were only partially destroyed, those houses which were
17 further off from the main road. They were completely destroyed and burnt
19 Q. And approximately when did you take this trip?
20 A. It was, if I remember correctly, sometime in the middle of June or
21 the end of June 1992.
22 MR. KEEGAN: If I could have the assistance of the usher, please.
23 I'd like to show the witness what has been marked as 3/168, and there are
24 also copies for the Judges.
25 JUDGE RIAD: Perhaps a small verification, in the -- also they
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 say, "In that area, the thousands were only partially destroyed." Does
2 that mean thousands of houses, or what?
3 MR. KEEGAN: I believe the answer was the "houses," Your Honour.
4 JUDGE RIAD: Good, make sure. Thank you.
5 MR. KEEGAN: Can we zoom in a little bit, please, if possible.
6 Thank you. That's good, thank you.
7 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise what this graphic depicts?
8 A. This shows a diagram of the Trnopolje camp and the surrounding
10 Q. Now, if you could use the red pen that's in front of you, first I
11 would just like you to indicate by pointing at the diagram, without
12 writing anything yet, what was the area of the main camp? Where was the
13 camp -- what buildings comprised the camp?
14 A. This area here comprised the camp.
15 Q. Now, where on that diagram would be the road that would go to
16 Kozarac, from Trnopolje to Kozarac?
17 A. It's this road here, towards Kozarac.
18 Q. Would you please label that road by putting a "K" on it with that
19 red pen.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. And you referred to the road to Prijedor that went through the
22 area of Garovaci, I believe. Could you please label that road with a
24 A. That's this road here.
25 Q. Now, the largest building that you see there in the depiction of
1 the camp area, what was that building before it was used as a camp?
2 A. This largest building before the war was used as a primary
4 Q. Could you label that with an "S", please, just in front of that
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. And what was that building next below that, that rather elongated
8 building? Yes.
9 A. This was the cinema building in Trnopolje.
10 Q. Okay. Would you please mark that with a "C" then, for "cinema."
11 Where was the ambulanta or clinic where you worked?
12 A. The clinic was this little building here.
13 Q. Would you put an "A" next to that building, please.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. And where was the office of the commander in the camp?
16 A. Opposite, here in this building.
17 Q. And could you please put two "C"s there for "camp commander" next
18 to that building.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Now, during your time in the camp, were you aware of
21 interrogations being conducted, interrogation of prisoners?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We'll speak about the interrogations later, but could you indicate
24 on the diagram where the interrogations were conducted and mark that with
25 the letter "I."
1 A. It's this building here, which is where there were two rooms and
2 our laboratory.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honours, the next exhibit will be a series of
5 photographs depicting these buildings. That will be marked as 3/169.
6 It's a series of four photographs.
7 Q. Mr. Gutic, if you could look first, please, at the first
8 photograph, which would be 3/169A. They're in order.
9 MR. KEEGAN: Can you zoom back just a bit on the ELMO, please.
10 That's good. Thank you.
11 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise what this is a photograph of?
12 A. This photograph depicts one of the buildings in the Trnopolje
14 Q. And which building is that?
15 A. It's the cinema building in Trnopolje.
16 Q. And we see the area in the front that has the archways and then
17 the second covered porch area. Can you see that in the photograph?
18 A. Yes, I can see it.
19 Q. Now, to the right as you look at the photograph, to the right of
20 that main building, there's a separate smaller building going off to the
21 right on the extreme right. Can you see that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you recognise that building and tell the Judges
24 what it was, that second smaller building?
25 A. That was the building in which, before the war, the local
1 community sat, and it is precisely the building in which the
2 interrogations went on and the torture of the detainees while the camp was
3 in existence.
4 Q. And just for clarity's sake, could you point to it on the
5 photograph, please.
6 A. That's it there.
7 MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Your Honour, if the record could
8 indicate that the witness is pointing to the one-storey building that's to
9 the extreme right on the photograph.
10 Q. And the next photograph, please. This would be 3/169B.
11 MR. KEEGAN: Could that be moved slightly to the -- sorry, the
12 other way. Thanks. Okay. Thank you.
13 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise the building in this photograph?
14 A. Yes, I recognise it. That was also a building within the compound
15 of the Trnopolje camp.
16 Q. Which building was that?
17 A. It was our clinic, looked at from the front.
18 Q. Now, as we're looking at that photograph, we can see three
19 windows. Were any of those windows part of the clinic area?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And if you could point to which of the windows that would be.
22 A. All three windows, in fact, were part of the clinic building.
23 One, two, and three.
24 Q. I realise it's a bit difficult to see on the computer monitor due
25 to the light, the shading of the light, but I believe all the parties in
1 the courtroom have the picture. On the extreme left of the picture,
2 Mr. Gutic, you see where the building is intersected with another
3 building, another one-storey building. Can you see that?
4 A. Yes, I can see that.
5 Q. And what is that building that intersects into the clinic?
6 A. It's the building that I pointed out a moment ago. It is the
7 building in which our laboratory was located and the premises where the
8 interrogations and torture took place.
9 Q. And so if one were to refer back to the original diagram then,
10 this building where the interrogations took place connected to the cinema
11 and to the area of the clinic.
12 A. Yes, precisely so.
13 Q. And on the extreme right of the photograph, underneath what would
14 be the basketball hoop that you can see, there's a road there. Do you
15 know which road that is?
16 A. That's the road leading towards Kozarac.
17 Q. In fact, in the direction that this photograph is looking, would
18 you be looking in the direction of Kozarac?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And the next photograph, please, 3/169C. Mr. Gutic, do you
21 recognise that building?
22 A. Yes. That's also a building in Trnopolje.
23 Q. And which building is that?
24 A. It's the school.
25 Q. And the next photograph. Do you recognise what that depicts?
1 A. That's also a building in Trnopolje, in the Trnopolje camp.
2 Q. And what is the view of this picture? Where is this picture taken
4 A. It's taken from the direction of the football stadium in
6 Q. So this is the field behind the buildings that were part of the
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. And the building that you see on the extreme left, which building
10 is that in the photo? The extreme left.
11 A. That's the school building.
12 Q. And the building on the extreme right?
13 A. That's the cinema.
14 Q. And then the building that comes from -- moving to the left from
15 the cinema, then that would be the building for the interrogations, and
16 then the clinic from behind?
17 A. That's right, yes.
18 Q. And the next photograph, that would be marked 3/170, it's actually
19 a panoramic view. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise what this photograph
21 A. On this photograph, you can see the frontal part of the cinema and
22 the front part of the building that we said they interrogated and tortured
23 the detainees.
24 Q. I'm going to have you go over those details once you put it on the
25 ELMO, Mr. Gutic, but first, where is this picture taken from? Where is
1 the photographer standing? What's the vantage point from where it's
3 A. The vantage point is one of the windows in our clinic.
4 Q. Could you put that on the ELMO, please, on the projector,
5 Mr. Gutic. Okay, now we're going to have to start, if you will, from the
6 extreme --
7 MR. KEEGAN: Your right, the usher, your right.
8 Q. Mr. Gutic, what is the vantage point -- what are you looking at
10 MR. KEEGAN: Move it across just a bit, please. Keep going.
11 Right there, that's good, thanks.
12 A. This is the entrance, the joint entrance into our clinic and to
13 the laboratory. That's the door there. And here we see that -- the
14 continuation of that same building, which is where the local, former local
15 community seat was and, at the end there, you can see the cinema.
16 MR. KEEGAN: Okay. Now, if you can continue to move the
17 photograph over, please. Now, stop there, please.
18 Q. What is the building that you can see, that house? Do you know
19 what was in that building? To the left, that one, there.
20 A. That is the building where the camp commander was and the Red
21 Cross, the headquarters, the Serbian one.
22 MR. KEEGAN: And if you move the photograph just the rest of the
23 way over. Keep going.
24 Q. And what is that wall that you can see there on the extreme left?
25 A. That's the wall to the window, and this part of the wall here is
1 the back side of the building where there was a shop.
2 Q. Mr. Gutic, does that depict accurately the view that those of you
3 in the clinic would have looking out that window, that panoramic view?
4 A. Yes, that is the view we had.
5 Q. Thank you. Mr. Gutic, I'd like to turn now to the general
6 conditions in the Trnopolje camp. How long did you spend in the camp?
7 A. I spent from the beginning, the 26th of May, until the 1st of
8 October, 1992. That is the period I was in the camp.
9 Q. During the time that you were in the camp, beginning from 26 May
10 up until the beginning of August of 1992, what was the situation with
11 respect to food for those people detained in Trnopolje?
12 A. The people who were detained were forced to get their own food.
13 First, they ate what they had brought with them in their bags, and then
14 they -- later on, they had to fend for themselves.
15 Q. And how would people fend for themselves?
16 A. At first we relied on the local Muslim population who were still
17 in their homes and who would bring food for their friends in the camp
18 which we would share; but when those inhabitants were expelled by the Serb
19 army, the detainees went out, left the camp, and looked around for
20 something they could use as food.
21 Q. What was the situation for people who would leave the camp to go
22 search for food? Was there any risk in that?
23 A. Yes, there was an enormous risk.
24 Q. And what was that risk?
25 A. Every departure from the compound was a threat to their lives;
1 namely, at the time, the guards, like the other Serb soldiers, were also
2 wandering around those houses and taking out valuables. So very often
3 they would meet with our detainees so that some killings and mistreatment
4 occurred, so that each individual felt a great deal of fear, and they left
5 only when they really didn't have anything to eat.
6 Q. And when you say mistreatment occurred, you said killings and
7 mistreatment occurred when people went out, what do you mean by
9 A. They were beaten up. First they threatened them, cursed them.
10 They would usually catch them, because Serb soldiers would go in groups of
11 twos or threes, and they would beat them up. Then some would be allowed
12 to return to the camp. But as I myself was forced to go out into those
13 gardens, I saw some bodies, and some other detainees saw some other
15 Q. During the time that we're talking about, between May and August,
16 beginning of August 1992, how many people, to your knowledge, were
17 detained in the Trnopolje camp?
18 A. It is hard for me to give you an estimate, but according to my own
19 rough estimate, 4 to 5.000 people at different time periods; or if we
20 count all those who came, including women and children, and who passed
21 through the Trnopolje camp, again, according to my own rough estimate, the
22 number would be about 25.000 people.
23 Q. During the time that you were in Trnopolje camp, was there ever a
24 time when there was sufficient food for all of the detainees there?
25 A. No, such a situation did not exist.
1 Q. What was the situation with respect to water for the detainees?
2 Where did they get water from?
3 A. The very second day of the existence of the camp, the Serb
4 authorities closed off the water in the camp, that is, in the school, and
5 the detainees were forced to bring water from a pump that was in the
6 vicinity of the camp. But in doing so, they had to pass by Serb soldiers,
7 that is, a checkpoint held by them.
8 Q. And what would happen, if you know, when people passed by this
10 A. The Serb soldiers -- people were waiting in line to go through the
11 gates of the school. The Serb soldiers would let go two or three men to
12 go to the pump and then they would mistreat them, curse them, threaten
13 them. Some were turned back. Some had to wait in line again for water.
14 Q. Now, you referred to these checkpoints. How was the security
15 around the camp set up?
16 A. The guards who secured the camp were divided up into groups of two
17 or three to man the checkpoints, or more of them, sometimes five, and
18 those checkpoints were distributed in such a way that they surrounded the
19 camp all around.
20 Q. Please place 3/168, I believe it is, the diagram, back on the
22 Mr. Gutic, if you could just generally point out the approximate
23 location of the checkpoints around the camp, as you recall them.
24 A. Let me begin with the road coming from Prijedor. This would be
25 the entry checkpoint, roughly, then another one here, at this junction
1 another one. In the direction of Kozarac, the main checkpoint in front of
2 the headquarters of the camp commander, then another one in this area,
3 then one in front of the school, right here, where the people went for
4 water, then there was a checkpoint for a time here. Later, they removed
5 it. Then the entrance of the camp from the direction of Kozarac. There
6 was a checkpoint in these houses here which had control of the northern
7 side, and roughly here there was a house, which is not depicted on this
8 sketch, and there was a checkpoint there.
9 Q. So in essence, there were these checkpoints manned by the guards,
10 essentially surrounding the camp area.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, in addition to these checkpoints, were there any other guards
13 or soldiers who were routinely in the area?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And where did those individuals mostly focus their efforts?
16 A. At the very beginning of the establishment of the Trnopolje camp,
17 we noticed that a group of soldiers differing in number, five to ten, were
18 not linked to these checkpoints but moved along the road from Kozarac in
19 the surrounding of the camp, but they also entered the camp itself, our
20 clinic. They walked around the yard. Usually in groups, of course.
21 Q. Now, you referred to this group as soldiers. Why do you refer to
22 them as soldiers?
23 A. They were wearing military uniform.
24 Q. When you say "military uniform," what type of uniforms were
1 A. They were olive-grey uniforms of the Yugoslav army.
2 Q. Now, turning back to the conditions in the camp, what about the
3 hygienic conditions for the detainees; bathing, toilets, et cetera?
4 A. The conditions were disastrous in terms of hygiene. After the
5 Serbs stopped water supplies in the school in view of the large number of
6 people there in the school, very soon the toilets got blocked up. Then
7 the sewage -- the latrines were also full, so that people couldn't use
8 them. People were brought to the camp. They were not given a chance to
9 take with them soap or detergent for washing their clothes. Many of them
10 didn't have a change of clothing. For a period of time, they themselves
11 made improvised toilets outside these buildings, but, of course, the
12 problem was that they couldn't be used at night because the Serb soldiers
13 from the checkpoints would fire at anything moving during the night, so
14 that people relieved themselves wherever they could.
15 Q. What was the effect of these or the impact of these hygienic
16 conditions on the prisoners, on the detainees?
17 A. Because of these very poor hygienic conditions, very soon
18 infectious diseases were developed; dysentery, diarrhoea, stomach
19 problems. I remember people, after they relieved themselves, had to form
20 a line again to be able to use the toilet. There was this terrible smell
21 of faeces due to the diarrhoea. They lost a lot of liquid, electrolytes
22 from their bodies. So they were worn out and they lost their strength,
23 and their health deteriorated rapidly.
24 Q. As a result of the lack of bathing and the changing of clothing,
25 were there also problems with other types of health risks, such as lice
1 and scabies?
2 A. Yes. Because of the poor hygienic conditions, very soon lice
3 became widespread. Scabies caused a great deal of difficulties, this skin
4 infection. And because of the unsanitary conditions of sleeping -- people
5 were sleeping on concrete, on the ground -- open wounds, which soon became
6 infected, developed. People who had breathing problems or asthmatic
7 patients could hardly breathe or survive, especially small babies. They
8 were the most numerous casualties.
9 Q. And what about the effect of all of these -- the general
10 conditions, if you will, on various categories of prisoners such as the
11 elderly, infants, or people with pre-existing conditions like diabetes or
12 heart conditions?
13 A. We could see the effects daily. They would bring us small
14 children, half dead through loss of liquid, incessant crying, lack of
15 food. The mothers didn't have milk to feed them with. And we couldn't
16 help. We tried to prevent the diarrhoea but it was difficult, almost
17 impossible. The infections spread. The elderly, heart patients, found it
18 terribly hard to tolerate all this because of the state of shock they were
19 in. They had high blood pressure, and this affected particularly diabetes
20 patients. There was no insulin. There was no medicaments. They went
21 into a coma. Many had epileptic attacks caused by these conditions and
22 the stress. Many of them saw horrific incidents when they were expelled
23 from their houses. So that, all in all, these people were in a very bad
24 shape, exhausted, depressive, in apathy, and suffering from very serious
25 psychological problems. It was terrible.
1 Q. Mr. Gutic, you indicated that there were no medicines available
2 for you to treat these people with. Did you raise this situation with the
3 authorities in the camp?
4 A. The Trnopolje camp was visited by representatives of the Serb Red
5 Cross from Prijedor, and we addressed them to give us assistance as they
6 were an humanitarian organisation. We asked them to give us at least the
7 basic medicines and to assist us so that we might be able to bring relief
8 to at least some people. Of course, the camp commander was aware of our
9 requests, and they made promises, I must admit, but we never received a
10 single pill from them.
11 MR. KEEGAN: Can I have the usher show this next exhibit to the
12 witness. This would be 3/171, Your Honour.
13 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise the man in the photograph in the white
15 A. I do.
16 Q. Who is that?
17 A. This is a medical technician by occupation, Mirko Kobas, known as
18 Mico, and together with Dr. Ivic, he was in charge, as he himself told us,
19 for supervision over the health condition of the detainees in Trnopolje,
20 but also in Keraterm and Omarska.
21 Q. Did you ever raise your requests and concerns with respect to
22 medicine with Mico and the doctor to whom you've referred?
23 A. Of course. We told them that, and we asked them also to assist
25 Q. And did you ever receive any of the medicines or other items which
1 you requested?
2 A. No, we didn't receive anything from them. And when we asked again
3 whether we would get anything, he said that they also have nothing, that
4 they were also in need.
5 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you know where this photograph is actually taken?
6 Where is Mico standing; do you recognise that?
7 A. The photograph was taken in our clinic, in the corridor leading to
8 our premises where we examined the detainees.
9 Q. Now, with respect to the detainees in the camp, can you please
10 give the Judges an idea of the age groups, the range of ages, for people
11 or individuals who were detained in the camp?
12 A. In the Trnopolje camp, there were people of all age groups,
13 ranging from small infants of a few months, young people, middle-aged
14 people, up to the elderly of 70 and 80.
15 Q. And were there both men and women detained in the camp?
16 A. Yes. There were both men and women and children in the camp.
17 Q. And to your knowledge, what was the ethnic group or groups of the
18 detainees in the Trnopolje camp?
19 A. In the Trnopolje camp, the majority were Muslims, but -- and also
20 a few Croats.
21 Q. To your knowledge, were prisoners beaten and otherwise physically
22 maltreated within the Trnopolje camp?
23 A. Yes, they were beaten.
24 Q. How often, to your knowledge, were prisoners beaten at various
25 locations within the camp?
1 A. The beatings occurred several times on several occasions in
2 different periods of the existence of the Trnopolje camp.
3 Q. Was there a particular location within the camp where male
4 prisoners were taken and beaten?
5 A. Yes. People were most frequently interrogated and beaten in the
6 building where the former local authorities used to meet, and in the room
7 which housed the laboratory.
8 Q. And is that the building which you indicated on the diagram was
9 connected to the clinic where you stayed?
10 A. Yes, that is the building.
11 Q. Did you know any of the persons, any of the detainees who were
12 taken into the laboratory to be beaten?
13 A. Yes, I did know some of them.
14 Q. And can you give us the names of some of the individuals whom you
15 know were beaten in that laboratory?
16 A. Of course I don't remember all of them, but I remembered some of
17 them in particular, such as Sahbaz or Nedzad Jakupovic, a man named
18 Minkovic, and they have stuck in my mind. But there were many others who
19 were shut up there, beaten, then released, then taken off to other camps.
20 Q. To your knowledge, were any individuals beaten to death in that
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And who was that?
24 A. It was the gentleman with the surname Sahbaz.
25 Q. Do you know who it was that beat Sahbaz to death?
1 A. Mr. Sahbaz had started off towards our clinic. He entered the
2 corridor of the clinic, and he was coming towards us to seek assistance,
3 but a soldier called Deba would not let him pass. He insisted because he
4 said he needed assistance, but the soldier pushed him with his rifle into
5 this room that was used as a laboratory and shut the door behind him.
6 After that, he came out quickly and called other soldiers who were
7 at the main checkpoint, and a group of those soldiers ran up, and he said,
8 I remember that very well, that this man had resisted, and this was
9 something that was not allowed in the camp. Then the whole group of them
10 entered the laboratory, and we heard these terrible cries of this man who
11 was being beaten.
12 Q. And did Mr. Sahbaz die as a result of the beating he received from
13 those soldiers there?
14 A. Yes. That gentleman was beaten a number of times again during the
15 night. We could hear that from the rooms we were in, which were not far
16 from that laboratory, these terrible cries, the blows inflicted by boots,
17 his pleadings, his cries, and the curses of the Serb soldiers.
18 The next day, a soldier opened that room, and he was dead. I saw
19 him being carried out in a blanket. Then the Serb soldiers ordered us,
20 the medical staff, to clean the laboratory, to clean the blood.
21 Q. And what was the situation in the laboratory when you were ordered
22 to clean it? Where was this blood in the room?
23 A. The scene we saw was a terrible one. The room was covered. The
24 floor and the walls were tiled with white tiles, and when we looked inside
25 we could see pools of blood everywhere, clotted blood, and in the midst of
1 that clotted blood, the imprints of soldiers' boots. There were even
2 splashes of blood on the ceiling.
3 And at the level of the sink we could see a trace, a line on the
4 wall, a trace of blood going from one metre up the wall to the floor. And
5 our conclusion was that that was precisely the spot where Mr. Sahbaz
6 passed away, and that they hit his head against the wall and then let him
7 drop. It was a terrible scene to see.
8 Q. The other individuals who were beaten in the laboratory, who was
9 it that conducted those beatings, to your knowledge?
10 A. People were beaten most frequently by the guards themselves, or
11 rather, groups of guards in the Trnopolje camp.
12 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Gutic.
13 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I note it's 2.00. Is there a
14 requirement that we need to break at 2.00?
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Keegan. It is
16 convenient that we do that now. But I would like to take advantage of the
17 full bench for us to rule. Perhaps this would be the appropriate time.
18 I would like to ask the usher to accompany the witness out,
19 please. We'll be coming back later, Witness.
20 We have to make a decision regarding the motion made by
21 Mr. O'Sullivan regarding the time limit for the filing of a motion for
22 acquittal further to the provisions of Rule 98 bis.
23 You perhaps remember that we have envisaged the 6th and the 7th of
24 November for Status Conferences in preparation of the Defence. We,
25 however, didn't take into account this possibility. So now we have to
1 revise our schedule, and we're going to do that in the following way: I
2 think that Mr. O'Sullivan has taken into consideration that the opening of
3 the Defence case will be after Christmas, but, no, the beginning of the
4 Defence case has been scheduled for the 11th of December, which means that
5 we have to go back a little. It means that we have to share out the time
6 so that -- regarding Rule 98 bis, so that the Defence may file this motion
7 for acquittal. And bearing in mind the provisions of Rule 127, the
8 Chamber would fix the deadlines as the 6th of November for the Defence and
9 the 20th of November for the Prosecution.
10 A few days after the 20th of November, we will issue a scheduling
11 order, telling you which will be the dates for the Status Conference and
12 the Pre-Defence conference prior to the opening of the Defence case, which
13 has been scheduled, as I have told you, for the 11th of December.
14 So that is what we are able to do. We cannot tell you now what
15 the new schedule will be because we still don't know what will be the
16 results of the decision. So we have to wait for the decision to be able
17 to schedule after that the presentation of the Defence case. But there is
18 one date that has been fixed, and that is the opening of the Defence case
19 for the 11th of December.
20 That is what we wanted to communicate to you while Judge Fouad
21 Riad is still with us.
22 Mr. Fila.
23 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] We didn't quite understand. Are we
24 having a Status Conference on the 6th and the 11th of November? No, the
25 6th and 7th of November.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, Mr. Fila. We had planned
2 that, but we had not envisaged the possibility for a motion of acquittal.
3 There is no sense in having such a conference when we don't know what the
4 upshot will be.
5 So we can now fix the deadlines for the submission of this motion
6 of acquittal, and after that, we will issue a scheduling order indicating
7 the dates for the Pre-Defence Conference, and we will do that, as is
8 customary, through our legal officer. But we will, of course, take into
9 account the necessary requirements when fixing the dates.
10 As you can understand, the Pre-Defence Conference would need to be
11 held at least 15 days, or a minimum of 7 days, prior to the 11th of
12 December, a date that has been fixed for the beginning of the Defence
14 So for the moment, we are going to have a break until 3.00, and
15 we'll be coming back then.
16 --- Recess taken at 2.07 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 3.02 p.m.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
19 I see Mr. O'Sullivan on his feet.
20 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I believe this can be dealt with before the
21 witness comes in, Your Honour. A point of clarification on your ruling
22 before the break. The record indicates that Your Honour was making
23 reference to a Defence motion in the Rule 98 bis. Clearly we're talking
24 about a motion, if any, of an individual accused, not a group Defence
25 motion. I just wanted to make sure that was your understanding. Yes.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. O'Sullivan, you're
2 quite right. You raised the issue and we enlarged the issue. In the
3 event that perhaps other counsel may have the same motion to submit, they
4 will have the same time limit. We did not understand you to have been
5 speaking on behalf of all Defence counsel.
6 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I understand that also applies to the case.
7 There's no Defence case generically; there is individual defences of each
8 accused under Rule 85.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, that is true. That is
10 correct. Each Defence counsel will make his own decision. But if they do
11 decide to make such a motion, then they must do so within the same time
12 frame, that is, before the 6th of November.
13 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Okay.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
15 Mr. O'Sullivan.
16 Now we will continue the testimony of the witness, but I should
17 like to tell you that we will be sitting in line with Rule 15 bis, that
18 is, in the absence of Judge Fouad Riad, and we have decided to continue,
19 but only for today, in this incomplete bench.
20 Mr. Keegan, you have the floor.
21 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, can you bring in the
23 witness. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. He's here. Something has changed in our
24 customs, so I didn't pay attention while I was speaking. I beg your
25 pardon, Witness.
1 You have the floor, Mr. Keegan. We're all a bit tired, I suppose.
2 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
3 Q. Mr. Gutic, at the break I had asked you a question with regards to
4 who, if you know, conducted these beatings of prisoners within the
5 laboratory that you spoke of.
6 A. The beatings were carried out by Serb soldiers who were on duty,
7 by various soldiers, depending on the occasion and the time.
8 Q. Now, the victims whom you referred to, Nedzad Jakupovic, Sahbaz, a
9 man named Minkovic, and the others, to your knowledge, what was the ethnic
10 group of the victims of these beatings?
11 A. They were Muslims by ethnicity, Bosniaks.
12 Q. Earlier in your testimony when you were going over the photographs
13 of the buildings of the camp and the diagram, you referred to the building
14 where the laboratory is contained also as a place where interrogations
15 were conducted. Are you aware of who conducted interrogations in that
17 A. The interrogations were conducted, in most cases, by the deputy
18 camp commander, Slavko Puhalic, but also by other soldiers or policemen.
19 There were some such cases, too, who came to the camp looking for some
20 particular detainees, taken to that room for interrogation, interrogated
21 them, and then take some of them to the laboratory where further beatings
22 and interrogations occurred.
23 Q. Thank you. Just for clarification of the transcript, is the last
24 name of the Deputy Commander Puhalic?
25 A. It is.
1 Q. Were you able to either observe or hear these interrogations that
2 were conducted?
3 A. We were not able to see the actual interrogation in view of the
4 fact that they occurred in behind closed doors, but sometimes we could
5 hear the moans of the people being interrogated.
6 Q. When you say you heard moans, what did that indicate to you was
7 happening during the interrogation?
8 A. People were obviously being beaten and tortured. Various
9 questions were put to them, and as they were tormented, they screamed with
10 pain, provoked by that abuse.
11 Q. Did you have an occasion to see any of the individuals who were
12 the subjects of the interrogation after they left the interrogation room?
13 Were you able to observe their condition?
14 A. Yes. When the interrogations ended, they would take them out of
15 those interrogation rooms towards the laboratory so that, through our
16 windows, we could see injuries, blood on their heads or bodies. Later,
17 some of them sought our assistance so that, in those cases, we were able
18 to see for ourselves the nature of those injuries.
19 Q. Were any of the individuals who were interrogated taken from the
20 interrogation room to the laboratory for more beatings?
21 A. Yes, that happened too.
22 Q. Now, when you saw these individuals, those who sought your
23 assistance or those you were able to see for yourselves with respect to
24 the nature of the injuries, what were the types of injuries that you saw
25 and treated?
1 A. In most cases, these were bruises. We would see bruises on their
2 body as a result of beatings with sharp and blunt objects; rifle butts,
3 boots, parts of furniture, and additionally, various cuts as the result of
4 blows with sharp objects, then knife wounds, then also injuries of the
5 skin because cigarettes were extinguished on the skin. There was even a
6 partial scalp being removed from the head, together with the hair.
7 Q. Can you please describe that a little more clearly what you mean
8 by there was one instance where a partial scalp being removed from the
9 head, together with the hair. What do you mean by that?
10 A. This gentleman was hit, as he told us later, with a plank which
11 was part of a table, and this hit him across the head so that this front
12 part of his head was literally severed from his skull, so that it was
13 hanging loosely on his head.
14 In addition, this gentleman had a stab wound in the knee which was
15 bleeding heavily and a nerve, an important nerve, was cut so that he
16 remained disabled and he couldn't walk normally any longer. He also had
17 other bruises on his back and especially in the kidney area as a result of
18 very heavy beating.
19 Q. Mr. Gutic, this knife stabbing injury to the knee, did you also
20 see that on other prisoners, other victims of these beatings as well, a
21 similar type of injury?
22 A. I saw the same injury on another detainee, but this was inflicted
23 in the Keraterm camp, both legs having been stabbed.
24 Q. Did these prisoners tell you how the injury had been inflicted,
25 what they had been told to do, what position they were in at the time
1 those injuries were inflicted?
2 A. He told me that he was interrogated, and then they forced him to
3 sit down as the Muslims do, the way in which Indian chiefs sit with their
4 legs crossed. Then they told him to pray, and then with the soldier's
5 knife, they stabbed the knee area.
6 Q. Now, this sitting as the Muslims do with the legs crossed, does
7 that mean with the knees pointed out to the sides?
8 A. Yes, that is the way I meant.
9 Q. Now, you referred to the beatings, injuries in the area of the
10 kidneys. Was that something that you noticed frequently on the victims of
11 these beatings in the laboratory and other places?
12 A. Yes. It is a typical manner of beating in the case of our
13 detainees. Apart from the head, those were the most critical places,
14 because the pain inflicted is extremely powerful so that -- and the second
15 reason, at least in my opinion, is an attempt by these beatings to
16 incapacitate the kidneys so that they cannot function normally. And as we
17 know, kidneys are essential for a person to be able to lead a normal life.
18 Q. Yes. What would be the medical or physiological impact of
19 nonfunctional kidneys? What would be the result?
20 A. The result of a malfunctioning kidney would be the retention of
21 liquid in the body. And furthermore, as this is a vital body organ which
22 is essential for the removal of all toxic substances in the body, they are
23 retained in the blood which, in fact, poison the whole body. And the
24 brain is especially sensitive to the presence of such toxins, and later on
25 it is logical to expect that the end would come. This is a
1 life-threatening condition.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't mind the witness
4 talking about what he saw and heard, but he's now explaining to us as an
5 expert what happens if somebody's kidneys are affected. He's talking --
6 telling us about the function of kidneys. There are doctors who are
7 experts in this area, and they can be brought for that purpose.
8 In my system, a witness tells us about what he saw and heard, and
9 an expert witness talks about what he didn't hear or see but what he
10 knows. And there's a Roman proverb which says that the court tries cases
11 which they never saw or heard, and that is the difference. Thank you.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Mr. Keegan.
13 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, I'm happy to lay the foundation. I
14 thought it was fairly evident from the fact that the witness was only
15 three exams away from becoming a doctor, was working as a medical official
16 within the camp itself, that he's qualified to give a discussion about
17 what's the impact of severe beating of the kidneys. But I'm happy to go
18 into whether he had a course and studied these issues in medical school,
19 if you like. I didn't think it was really required for his testimony.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, perhaps. I think the
21 witness was not called as an expert witness. We know that the witness is
22 a doctor, but I think that we should confine the testimony to what he
23 himself observed and saw.
24 It is true that, at the time, he was almost a doctor, so he
25 probably saw more things than somebody else without that training, but
1 let's not go as far as interpretation of the consequences of the
2 dysfunctioning kidneys. I think this is outside the proper scope of the
3 testimony. So please take that into consideration, Mr. Keegan.
4 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
5 Could the witness please be provided Exhibit 3/31.
6 Q. Mr. Gutic, I'd like you to please take a look at this photograph.
7 MR. KEEGAN: Why don't you take it off the ELMO so the witness can
8 look at it.
9 Q. Now, you've described the victims, the injured -- the nature of
10 the injuries which you saw in the camp, who you treated, and the others
11 whom you saw. Does this picture reflect the type of injuries that you've
12 been describing to the Court?
13 A. Yes, that is a typical picture of a beaten-up detainee.
14 MR. KEEGAN: Could you please put it back on the projector.
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Our monitor is not showing the picture.
16 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. The lighting is so bad on the
17 monitor, I was trying to give the witness an opportunity to actually look
18 at the photograph. Of course, the Defence all have copies of this
19 photograph themselves, and it can be provided to the Chamber as well.
20 Can you zoom the ELMO back a bit, please. Okay, thank you.
21 Q. Mr. Gutic, I note that in the bottom -- Mr. Fila.
22 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you remember that this
23 photograph or one like it was the object of my objection. Where did this
24 photograph come from? Where was it taken? Who took it? One cannot
25 tender something that we don't know the source of. Who is on the
1 photograph? Who took the photograph, where was it taken, if the witness
2 saw that person; otherwise, he's again providing expert testimony.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Keegan.
4 MR. KEEGAN: First of all, Your Honour, this photograph has
5 already been admitted into evidence, so it's not a question of objecting
6 to this exhibit any longer. It's been admitted.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, I was expecting your
8 objection because you objected that time, too, but the Chamber admitted
9 the photograph.
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Even if it has admitted it, even then I
11 didn't mind you using that photograph, Mr. Keegan. I don't mind, but only
12 if the witness saw that person; otherwise, he is testifying as an expert.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Keegan will not have
14 any difficulty in explaining how this photograph was taken, and the
15 witness can answer your question. Please proceed.
16 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recognise this photograph?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. Were you present when this photograph was taken?
20 A. I must admit that I wasn't there the moment the photograph was
21 taken of this man because, for certain reasons, I had to leave the room,
22 but I was at the time immediately prior to the preparation, and I know
23 personally this gentleman who is on the photograph.
24 Q. Who is this?
25 A. It is Nedzad Jakupovic.
1 Q. And again for the record, this individual's first name is Nedzad?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And where was this photograph taken?
4 A. The photograph was taken in the Trnopolje camp.
5 Q. Do you know who took the photograph?
6 A. A member of our medical team.
7 Q. And were these -- was that roll of film subsequently given to the
8 international press?
9 A. Yes. The film was given to a TV team.
10 Q. And these photographs were published in the international press?
11 A. Yes, they were.
12 MR. KEEGAN: Now, Your Honour, so I can clarify this once and for
13 all for Mr. Fila. This is a still taken from a video that was made of
14 photographs. The film was originally taken with a camera and was given to
15 an international reporter who subsequently published it in British
16 newspapers, and I'm sure that Mr. Fila has probably seen those newspapers
17 by this point in his career here in the Tribunal. Now, once again --
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, perhaps you should
19 tell us the brand of the video camera. I'm joking a little, but you have
20 all the information now, all the relevant information.
21 Go on, Mr. Keegan, but don't tell us the brand name. We don't
22 need to advertise anything or anybody.
23 MR. KEEGAN:
24 Q. Now, Mr. Gutic, you described earlier the fact that Nedzad
25 Jakupovic was one of the victims of beatings in the laboratory.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You described how many of the individuals who you saw had injuries
3 around the kidney area. In this photograph, although it's difficult to
4 see on the ELMO, can you see the signs or the indications to you of such
5 an injury on Nedzad Jakupovic? And if you do, please point to it.
6 A. Yes. On this photograph, one can clearly see the kidney area in
7 the lower part of the photograph. It is precisely here where the blue
8 colour is, which is the bruise, actually, as a result of beating. This is
9 the kidney area.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, would you wait a
11 moment, because Mr. Fila is having problems with his headphones. It is
12 important for him to hear this. Otherwise, he's going to ask you for the
13 trademark of the video camera.
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Is it all right now, Mr. Fila?
16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I didn't ask for the
17 brand of the video, I just wanted to hear that it was taken from a video
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I know very well. We can see
20 that you're very happy today, so we forgive you.
21 Please proceed, Mr. Keegan.
22 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. You were referring to the discolouration on the lower part of the
24 back there, and you indicated that that was indicative of the bruising
25 that you would see after beatings in the kidney area. What other injuries
1 do you note from this photograph or from your memory, having seen
2 Mr. Jakupovic yourself in the clinic in the Trnopolje camp?
3 A. Apart from various hematoma in the area of the back and the arms,
4 he also had injuries on his legs and on his chest. Here we can see a
5 piece of bandage here where he had a cut near his eye. And apart from
6 that, but you cannot see it on the photograph, unfortunately, he also had
7 a cross that had been carved in his skin, but it's not visible on the
9 Q. And where was that injury that you can't see on the photograph?
10 A. The injury was on his chest.
11 Q. And was there also severe bruising evident on the area of the
12 shoulders and neck?
13 A. Yes. As I have already indicated here, you can see bruises in the
14 area of his back and in the area of his neck.
15 Q. Now, these injuries, were these characteristic of other victims
16 that you saw during your time in the Trnopolje camp?
17 A. Yes. Other detainees had similar injuries.
18 Q. Mr. Gutic, I'd like now to move on to the question of the
19 maltreatment of female detainees in the camp. To your knowledge, were any
20 of the female detainees in the camp assaulted?
21 A. Yes, they were. During the functioning of the Trnopolje camp,
22 many women were sexually assaulted by Serb soldiers.
23 Q. And how do you know that?
24 A. Because many of those women were actually seen by us from the
25 infirmary as they were being taken by Serb soldiers from the camp to some
1 unknown places and, later on, returned to the camp where those unfortunate
2 women or girls then came to us for help in the course of the following
4 Q. And during -- and when these women would come to you, or girls
5 would come to you for medical assistance, would they tell you what had
6 happened to them?
7 A. Yes, but only partially they would tell us what had happened to
9 Q. And what would these women tell you?
10 A. Usually they told us that they had been taken away by Serb
11 soldiers and raped in various places, various localities. Some of them
12 would briefly describe the act itself. Some, on the other hand, would
13 remain silent on that. They would simply say that they had been raped and
14 they would describe the symptoms that they had and then they would ask for
15 some medical help. They wanted to be given something, some painkillers
16 and something that would help the bleeding to stop.
17 Q. Mr. Gutic, a follow-up question. What types of injuries or
18 trauma, if any, did you and the other medical staff note as a result of
19 the sexual assaults and rapes?
20 A. I personally saw and talked to some girls, actually, to one
21 particular girl who had some surface injuries to her skin. However, the
22 most serious trauma that they suffered was psychological trauma. Their
23 psychological state was very serious indeed.
24 Q. What was the age of the youngest female detainee that you are
25 aware of who was raped during the time in Trnopolje camp?
1 A. The youngest female detainee who was raped was 12 and 1/2 years
3 Q. How do you know that?
4 A. Because I personally talked to her.
5 Q. Did these women or girls indicate to you or the other staff
6 members, during the time you were treating them, who it was that was
7 calling them out and raping or sexually assaulting them?
8 A. They told us that they had been raped by Serb soldiers.
9 Q. And to your knowledge, did these include personnel from the camp,
10 guards that you've referred to earlier?
11 A. In some cases, the guards were the direct perpetrators, the guards
12 from the camp.
13 Q. To your knowledge, were women ever taken out and sexually
14 assaulted or raped by units from outside of the camp, units who came to
15 the camp just for that purpose?
16 A. Yes. On one particular night -- but it's only our assumption --
17 we thought that that had been committed by people who were not members of
18 the guard units because they had arrived in the camp in a truck.
19 Q. To your knowledge, did any of the sexual assaults involve
20 gang-rapes of the women or girls?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And how is it that you know that?
23 A. I also talked to a girl who told me that, during one particular
24 night, she had been raped by seven Serb soldiers.
25 Q. Now, you spoke of the psychological trauma suffered by the women
1 who were the victims of these rapes and sexual assaults. What, if any,
2 effect was there on the general population of detainees as a result of
3 these sexual assaults and rapes?
4 A. When those girls were raped and when the news about that spread
5 around the camp, people lost every hope that they had. They no longer
6 hoped that they would be going back home, because for a while we all
7 believed that we would go back home and that the evil would stop.
8 However, after those rapes, people became afraid. And I'm not only
9 referring to the female population, but also to the men as well.
10 Many detainees tried to persuade their wives and daughters to
11 leave the area. They were horrified by the events that were taking place,
12 and such incidents had been very rare in that particular area before the
13 conflict. It was a horrific act, and they simply couldn't believe that
14 such a thing would happen to them, so the detainees themselves were all of
15 a sudden afraid.
16 Q. Now, with regard to the -- let me ask you this: To your
17 knowledge, you spoke earlier of when people went for food, that there were
18 on occasion people who were killed in foraging for food. To your
19 knowledge, were there others who were actually killed, either within the
20 Trnopolje camp or taken from the camp specifically for that purpose, that
21 is, to kill them?
22 A. Yes. Some detainees were taken out of the camp and murdered
23 somewhere in the vicinity of the camp. Some, as I have already indicated,
24 were caught as they went out foraging for food and were killed on the
1 Q. Now, how do you know that some of the detainees were taken out of
2 the camp specifically to be killed somewhere in the vicinity?
3 A. Their bodies were discovered by the detainees themselves in the
4 surrounding area. There was a group of people which consisted of
5 detainees which later on buried those bodies.
6 Q. Do you know the names of any of the victims of these killings?
7 A. I know some of them, not all of them.
8 Q. Could you list those names that you are aware of?
9 A. On one particular day, six Foric brothers were taken out of the
10 camp, and not brothers, but related from the Foric family. On the same
11 day, I remember that Zoran and Ante Murgic were killed, a father and a
12 son. Two men from the village of Hambarine by the name of Kardumovic;
13 unfortunately, I don't know their names.
14 At the very beginning, two men were taken out who were originally
15 from Kozarac and were killed in Jaruga. And then in the month of
16 September, five young men were taken out and killed. Those five had been
17 taken -- had been brought to the camp from the barracks in Prijedor, and
18 they were taken in the direction of the fish pond and killed there.
19 Minkovic was also one who was taken away. We found him with his
20 throat slit. We also found a woman and a man from Sanski Most who had
21 been taken out of a convoy and killed, and others.
22 Q. All of these individuals who you have referred to here, the
23 Forics, the people from the village of Hambarine, the men from Kozarac and
24 all the others, do you know their ethnic group?
25 A. They were Muslims, Bosniak Muslims.
1 Q. Do you know or are you aware of who it was that was taking them
2 from the camp?
3 A. In some cases I saw the individual who took the person out, but I
4 don't know for all of them.
5 Q. And in the instances where you do know the individual who took the
6 person out, who was that individual?
7 A. Minkovic was taken out by a soldier with a nickname of Dado,
8 together with a colleague of his. The six Foric people were taken out by
9 a policeman who, prior to that, had come to the camp on two occasions
10 looking for them and, when he found them, he took them out, but I don't
11 know his name. The Kardumovic people were taken out during one night by
12 Zoran, nicknamed Zoka, who used to work at the petrol station in Kozarac.
13 Q. Now, you indicated earlier with respect to the beating and killing
14 of Sahbaz that Dado was a guard at the camp; is that correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. These other individuals you mentioned, this Zoran or Zoka who
17 worked at the petrol station, and the policeman, did they work at the
18 camp? Were they guards at the camp?
19 A. Zoka was a guard at the camp for a while, and the policeman you
20 referred to came from outside the camp. He was not one of the guards.
21 Q. Now, to your knowledge, did the command of the camp, the members
22 of the command of the camp, ever do anything to prevent the beatings, the
23 sexual assaults, the rapes, or these killings that you have described?
24 A. Though the commander of the camp was regularly reported to by the
25 Red Cross, by the guard commanders about the events, I didn't notice them
1 undertake any measures in order to prevent such terrible incidents from
3 Q. To your knowledge, did they ever take any action to punish any
4 individual who committed any of these acts?
5 A. Some individuals continued -- some guards continued coming to the
6 camp and carrying out their duties, and I don't know whether they were
7 ever punished, but I don't think they were.
8 Q. Now, you indicated that the command of the camp was given regular
9 reports by the guard shift commanders and the Red Cross. You said "guard
10 commanders and Red Cross." To your knowledge, were they directly aware of
11 what was going on in the camp with respect to these beatings and sexual
12 assaults, rapes, and the killings?
13 A. They knew about that. They knew about everything that was going
15 Q. How can you be certain of that?
16 A. From the window of our infirmary, we were able to observe, for
17 example, the changing of the guards, the arrival of Major Kuruzovic who
18 would come to take up duty in the camp. We could see that the commander
19 of the previous shift would greet him and inform him of the situation and
20 report to him. In some cases, members of our team would directly inform
21 the commander Kuruzovic about the rapes. We informed Dr. Ivic and Kobas.
22 We informed the two of them about the rapes as well, and we asked for
23 their help, and they had close contact with the camp commander. So it is
24 perfectly clear that the commander was informed about the situation.
25 Q. Did any member of the command take part in the interrogations and
1 the maltreatment that you indicated occurred during the interrogations?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Who was that?
4 A. Slavko Puhalic, the deputy camp commander.
5 Q. Was the Trnopolje camp used as a staging area from which the
6 detainees were deported or forcibly transferred from the area?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And when did those deportations or forcible transfers begin? How
9 soon after you arrived at the camp?
10 A. As early as a couple of first days, some men detainees were called
11 out and taken to the Omarska camp. And at the beginning of June 1992,
12 Serb authorities organised the first deportation of women, children, and
13 elderly, elderly people over 65 years of age, to be taken by train to
14 Doboj via Banja Luka.
15 Q. Now, when you say they were deported by train, what type of train
16 cars were these detainees put into?
17 A. Those freight trains were actually used for the transport of
18 cattle and various types of merchandise. They were completely closed
19 off. They had no windows or doors on them. And there was only one door,
20 which was closed during the transport.
21 Q. Later on, how were the deportations organised? Did they continue
22 by train or did they use some other mode of transportation?
23 A. On the 11th of July, 1992, the last train left, and after that
24 date, people were deported by buses and transport trucks and trailer
25 trucks with canvas.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 Q. Are you aware of a convoy of trucks or buses that was organised on
2 the 21st of August 1992?
3 A. Yes, I am.
4 Q. Was there anything unusual about that convoy that sticks out in
5 your mind?
6 A. Unlike most of the convoys that had left prior to that date, that
7 particular convoy -- in that particular convoy, the Serb soldiers and the
8 camp command allowed for the first time for military-aged men to board
9 that convoy, that is, people older than 18 and younger than 60. They were
10 pushed onto those buses. Such a thing had never occurred before that,
11 because there was some very rigorous controls on convoys, and
12 military-aged men were not allowed to join such convoys. Everyone who
13 attempted to do so would be beaten up.
14 Q. Did you and the other detainees receive a report about what
15 happened to that convoy from the camp commander?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And what did he tell you had happened?
18 A. The following day, on the 22nd of August, 1992, Serb soldiers
19 ordered the detainees to assemble in front of the school building.
20 Slobodan Kuruzovic, the camp commander, held a very brief speech, and he
21 told the people that the convoy that had left on the 21st had a small
22 accident and that about 20 people were killed during that incident.
23 However, the remaining part of the convoy apparently had passed without
25 Q. After that convoy, did the International Committee of the Red
1 Cross intervene in the organisation of convoys from the camp?
2 A. Yes. The International Red Cross asked us detainees not to leave
3 the Trnopolje camp anymore in any other convoys which were not organised
4 by the Red Cross, that we were allowed to leave the camp only under their
6 Q. Were there any conditions placed on prisoners leaving the
7 Trnopolje camp on convoys by the local Serb officials?
8 A. In respect of that last convoy in which we were supposed to leave
9 the camp, the Serb authorities requested each detainee to relinquish in
10 writing all his property, both movable and immovable property. And one of
11 the items on that paper was that we would never be back to the area with
12 weapons nor that we would ever do anything against the Republika Srpska.
13 Those were the words that they used. And we had to sign that piece of
14 paper to be able to leave the camp.
15 Q. To your knowledge, did the International Red Cross react to that
17 A. Yes, they did react.
18 Q. And what was that reaction, if you know?
19 A. They tried to prevent any such signatures because there had been
20 agreement with the Government of Republika Srpska regarding the departure
21 of detainees from the Trnopolje camp. However, they were not successful
22 in their attempts, and in the end, we were all forced to sign such
24 Q. And did you, in fact, sign such a document yourself?
25 A. Yes, I did.
1 Q. You indicated earlier that you left the Trnopolje camp on the
2 1st of August -- excuse me -- 1st of October, 1992; is that correct?
3 A. Yes, that is correct.
4 Q. Mr. Gutic, to your knowledge, did prisoners from the Omarska and
5 Keraterm camps -- were -- excuse me -- prisoners from the Omarska and
6 Keraterm camps ever transferred to the Trnopolje camp?
7 A. Yes. We received a number of prisoners from both Omarska and
8 Keraterm camps in Trnopolje camp.
9 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, if we could have the witness shown
10 what's been marked as Prosecution Exhibit 3/172A through D.
11 Q. Mr. Gutic, do you recall approximately when prisoners from Omarska
12 and Keraterm arrived in the Trnopolje camp?
13 A. The prisoners from Keraterm arrived in the Trnopolje camp on the
14 4th of August, 1992. And from Omarska, I think that they arrived on the
15 6th of August, 1992.
16 Q. If you can please look at all four pictures first. Mr. Gutic, can
17 you recognise where these photographs were taken?
18 A. Those photographs were taken in the Trnopolje camp.
19 Q. And generally speaking, can you tell when these photographs were
21 A. They were taken upon the arrival of the detainees from Omarska and
22 Keraterm camps at the beginning of August, as I indicated.
23 MR. KEEGAN: Could you put the first photograph on the ELMO,
25 Q. Mr. Gutic, the individual, the man who's there on the left in the
1 photograph in the foreground, do you happen to know where that individual
2 came from, which camp he came from to the Trnopolje camp?
3 A. I think that this gentleman arrived from Keraterm, or perhaps from
4 Omarska, but I think it was from Keraterm that he arrived.
5 Q. And do you know who the woman is on the right of the photograph,
6 with the pink shirt?
7 A. It's Ms. Penny Marshall, a member of a British TV crew which was
8 the first to reach the camp.
9 Q. Now, if we could put the next two photographs on in succession,
10 these -- sorry, not so fast. Just if I could ask one brief question.
11 The two gentlemen who are in the foreground here of this
12 photograph, are these again photos of individuals who arrived from the
13 Keraterm or Omarska camps?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And the next photograph, please. And again the man on the left in
16 that photograph and also the last photograph, put that on as well. The
17 two then pictured in this last photograph, are all these individuals,
18 these emaciated individuals, from your observation of the prisoners who
19 arrived from the Omarska and Keraterm camp, are these men typical, their
20 physical condition, I should say, is it typical of the condition of the
21 prisoners whom you saw arrive from those two camps?
22 A. Yes. That is what our detainees coming from Omarska and Keraterm
23 most frequently looked like: skinny.
24 MR. KEEGAN: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Keegan.
1 Mr. Krstan Simic, can you tell us the order for the
2 cross-examination, please?
3 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Fila and myself
4 will cross-examine this witness.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Who is beginning? Mr. Fila is
6 going first?
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, then. Your witness,
9 Mr. Fila.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Fila:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gutic, my name is Toma Fila. I'm an attorney
12 from Belgrade. I will ask you only a few questions so as not to take too
13 much time.
14 I would like to know something. The Trnopolje camp, was it
15 surrounded by any kind of fence or wire fence?
16 A. A part of the Trnopolje camp was fenced in by barbed wire.
17 Q. Did that wire surround you, those of you who were inside, or had
18 it existed before?
19 A. The wire had existed before, a part of it, and a part of the fence
20 was positioned during the existence of the camp.
21 Q. Was it ordinary wire or barbed wire?
22 A. Ordinary wire.
23 Q. Was there a part with machinery that was surrounded by wire? Was
24 there any machinery in Trnopolje, construction machinery, building
25 machinery, a warehouse of material?
1 A. There was a part which had a shop for building material before the
2 war, but it was now empty.
3 Q. But that part, was that part surrounded by wire?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You mentioned that 24.000 or 25.000, you said, Muslims passed
6 through the camp, that camp. Would you agree with me that there were
7 about 40.000 in total in the territory of Prijedor before the war?
8 A. According to my information, in Prijedor municipality there were
9 about 60.000 Muslims. I'm saying according to my information. Most of
10 the population, women, children, and men, in different periods of time
11 passed through the camp during its existence. The Muslim villages
12 Hambarine, Rizvanovici, Alici, and so on.
13 The figure I mentioned, as I underlined, was my own rough
14 estimate, and I am confident that it is more or less right, including the
15 detainees who came from Omarska and who had also been expelled, you see.
16 Q. I'm asking you for clarification's sake. In answer to
17 Mr. Keegan's question, you said that a certain number of women, children,
18 and men who were not fit for military service were transported in the
19 direction of Banja Luka. I assume they're still not travelling in that
20 direction. They must have arrived somewhere. Do you know where they
22 A. They were taken and they arrived at the separation line in Doboj.
23 At the time, it was a tunnel on the railway line going from Doboj to
25 Q. And what happened then with them?
1 A. At that bridge there, a part of them ended their life,
2 unfortunately, sir. They were thrown from the bridge, killed.
3 Q. Did you see that?
4 A. I didn't see that; I heard that. And a part of them passed. Most
5 of them passed through.
6 Q. In the camp, was there an observation point, and if so, where?
7 A. Could you explain what you mean by an observation point?
8 Q. I'm talking about inside the area where you were, was there a kind
9 of tower, something high up?
10 A. No, there was no tower.
11 Q. In the course of your testimony you used the terms "army,"
12 "guards," "Major Kuruzovic," "Commander Kuruzovic." We speak the same
13 language; you know these are different things. We used to speak the same
14 language. Never mind.
15 You know that these terms differ. A Major is a military rank. A
16 Commander can be a military but need not be a military. Tell me, I don't
17 know, what was Mr. Kuruzovic; was he a military man?
18 A. He was a military man but, as you know, all officers have
19 epaulettes with the rank indicated.
20 Q. No, my question was whether he was a military person.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You spoke about soldiers at these checkpoints. Were they members
23 of the army?
24 A. Those were people wearing military uniforms.
25 Q. Thank you. You said that no food was distributed in Trnopolje,
1 but you had to manage on your own, and one of the ways was to go and to
2 look around in the houses, in the fields, in the vegetable gardens. Did I
3 understand you correctly? I don't mean you personally, but most people.
4 A. I went out, too, you see. Hunger knows no bounds, makes no
6 Q. Did anyone prevent you, guards or a fence or something that
7 wouldn't let you go out? How did it actually take place? Could you
8 describe it for us.
9 A. When the detainees were hungry, they had to eat something. They
10 would address themselves to the soldiers at the checkpoints and ask them
11 to let them by, to let them pass through that checkpoint, and to find
12 something to eat in the surrounding houses. So --
13 Q. If I understand you correctly, between you we can see on the
14 photograph something that looks like tents, and no one prevented you from
15 going to that checkpoint to ask the soldier whether you could go outside;
16 is that correct?
17 A. That is partly correct. Actually, there were people detained in
18 the warehouse of the building material who could not leave.
19 Q. And what did they eat during those five months?
20 A. They were detained there on a -- temporarily. They didn't spend
21 all the time there behind the wire fence.
22 Q. What did they eat?
23 A. Whatever other detainees threw to them or in some other way.
24 Q. So they weren't shut in inside a building so they couldn't come
1 A. I must say that for a time, from the inside of the camp, that is,
2 inside the barbed wire, there were also guards who prevented any contact
3 between the detainees who were in Trnopolje with the detainees who were
4 behind the wire.
5 Q. So the people who were not behind the wire could go to the soldier
6 and ask him to let him pass, and if he's in a good mood, he would do
7 that. You would come back with food or without, depending on your luck.
8 Is that true, yes or no, please?
9 A. Yes.
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That's all I had to ask. Thank you.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Fila.
12 Mr. Krstan Simic.
13 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, may I?
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, you have the floor. Please
16 Cross-examined by Mr. K. Simic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Gutic, my name is Krstan Simic. I'm an
18 attorney from Banja Luka, and together with Mr. Lukic, I represent
19 Mr. Kvocka. I have a few questions for you linked to your testimony.
20 You testified that you were about to graduate from medical school
21 in Banja Luka. Could you tell us which three examinations you had left
22 before graduation?
23 A. Forensic medicine, hygiene, and social medicine, occupational
25 Q. Have you kept your student's booklet with your examinations in it?
1 A. Unfortunately, my booklet was lost at the medical school in Banja
2 Luka at the time.
3 Q. Isn't a booklet something that his owner carries with him? It's
4 like a student ID in which all exams are entered when you sit for them.
5 A. Sir, as you know, you're very familiar with the educational system
6 in the former Yugoslavia. Every student is obliged to apply for an
7 examination, and a couple of days prior to sitting for that examination,
8 he has to hand in his booklet to the department where he is to sit for his
9 examination. And I had an examination scheduled for the 26th of March,
10 1992, but unfortunately because of the blockade in the area of Kozarac, I
11 was unable to leave my place of residence and to sit for that exam.
12 Q. Mr. Gutic, you had three examinations left to become a doctor.
13 After the Dayton Agreement, did you address yourself to the school of
14 medicine to ask for a certificate about the examinations that you had
15 taken in the five or six years of your studies?
16 A. For a long time, because of the well-known situation in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I couldn't move around. I couldn't get into the
18 country. But as soon as the conditions were right, I managed to get the
19 document that you have mentioned and to continue my education.
20 Q. And you graduated?
21 A. I am still studying at the university in Sarajevo, but I will
22 graduate soon.
23 Q. Do you have a certificate from Banja Luka about the examinations
24 you had taken to be able to continue your studies?
25 A. I did receive such a certificate, and I handed it in to the
1 university in Sarajevo because, as you know, that is required for one to
2 be able to enrol.
3 Q. When did you enrol in Sarajevo?
4 A. Last year.
5 Q. Thank you for this information.
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel repeat his question? I'm afraid
7 we didn't hear it.
8 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
9 Q. You spoke about the attack on Kozarac, and you said that you
10 medical personnel, including veterinarians, organised some kind of
11 reception area to extend aid to the citizens of Kozarac; is that correct?
12 A. We happened to be in the medical centre in Kozarac, the only
13 purpose of which is to extend aid to all injured and sick ones.
14 Q. Were you employed in the medical centre?
15 A. I couldn't have been employed because I was still a medical
17 Q. How come you went there?
18 A. I went there voluntarily on that day because I considered that to
19 be my ethical, moral obligation as a medical student to assist any persons
20 who were injured.
21 Q. Mr. Gutic, did you expect a conflict that day so you volunteered
22 to assist?
23 A. On that very day, the ultimatum was running out set by the Serb
24 authorities in Prijedor municipality to Kozarac to surrender. I don't
25 know what they meant by "surrender." I don't know anything about
1 politics, sir.
2 Q. Mr. Gutic, my question is: Was there any resistance in Kozarac?
3 Were there any military, paramilitary, Territorial Defence units organised
4 with arms? And within that framework of organised resistance, was there
5 also a clinic?
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic, I'm sorry for
7 interrupting you. I'm not pressuring you, but I wish to remind you that
8 you have asked for three minutes to discuss the consolidation of the
9 indictment. So bear that in mind.
10 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] I'll manage, Your Honour.
11 A. As soon as the first shell fell on Kozarac, I spent all my time in
12 the medical centre in Rajkovici, in the improvised motel, and I never left
13 that medical keep nor my patients.
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. So you didn't get there before, but after the shells fell.
16 A. No. I arrived there several hours before the first shell fell.
17 Q. Thank you. You mentioned a certain gentleman by the name of
18 Sahbaz. Do you know what his name and surname is?
19 A. That is his surname.
20 Q. But you don't know his first name?
21 A. I can't recollect, sir.
22 Q. Mr. Gutic, will you tell us anything at all about this person?
23 What was his occupation?
24 A. I can't tell you because I don't know this person in person.
25 Q. Do you know where he worked?
1 A. I didn't know that person personally.
2 Q. How did you learn his name was Sahbaz without knowing him?
3 A. The moment this incident with Mr. Sahbaz occurred, I was in the
4 corridor of the infirmary together with Dr. Jusuf Pasic, who personally
5 knows Mr. Sahbaz as a patient. Mr. Pasic had worked in Kozarac for 20 or
6 30 years and so he knew most of the people, both Serbs and Muslims. And
7 he said -- he asked this guard to let this Mr. Sahbaz through because he
8 was his patient, but this soldier took no heed.
9 Q. How old was Mr. Sahbaz?
10 A. He was between 45 and 50.
11 Q. Did Mr. Pasic say whether he had any family?
12 A. I didn't discuss this gentleman with Mr. Pasic any further.
13 Q. Mr. Pasic worked in the territory of the Kozarac medical centre,
14 did he not, and he extended medical aid in the territory?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it correct to say that then Mr. Sahbaz must have lived in the
17 area covered by the medical centre of Kozarac?
18 A. I assume so.
19 Q. Thank you. Mr. Fila mentioned ranks, and you said that
20 Mr. Kuruzovic was a major. You mentioned Mr. Slavko Puhalic. Do you know
21 whether he had any rank?
22 A. He did not have a rank in the sense of insignia on his shoulder,
23 but on his left sleeve he had an emblem, a patch which said "The Police of
24 Serbian Krajina."
25 Q. Did you know Mr. Puhalic from before?
1 A. No.
2 Q. I should now like to go on to the persons you mentioned as having
3 known them, Dr. Ivic and Mico Kobas. You testified that Mico Kobas and
4 Dr. Ivic told you that they were responsible for extending medical aid to
5 Trnopolje, Keraterm, and Omarska; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did they tell you who entrusted them with these tasks?
8 A. No, nor did we ask them.
9 Q. How frequently did Dr. Ivic and his assistant come to Trnopolje?
10 A. In various periods of time they came at different intensity. At
11 the beginning of June, they came almost every day. They stayed a couple
12 of hours or all day. Then later on, they came every second or third day.
13 There was no rule.
14 Q. Thank you. When you were treating people, did you have any
16 A. We had a little.
17 Q. You are familiar with the situation. A moment ago, you said that
18 at Doboj there was a separation line. Was there a separation line at
20 A. I don't know that. I was in the camp.
21 Q. Was it possible to go from Prijedor to Sarajevo unhindered at the
23 A. As far as I know, no.
24 Q. Could one go unhindered to Zagreb?
25 A. No. As far as I know, no.
1 Q. At the end of May, beginning of June when these unfortunate events
2 were taking place, was it possible to go to Belgrade?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Mr. Gutic, was there a battle over a corridor at Brcko?
5 A. Sir, we were in the camp. We had no information.
6 Q. Well, do you know whether it was possible to go to Belgrade or
8 A. I can't remember when, but that corridor was broken through by the
9 Serb army, as far as I can remember. This is what Mr. Slavko Kuruzovic
10 told us. I'm sorry, what Mr. Puhalic had told us.
11 Q. Now you remember that the corridor was broken through. Until that
12 occurred, the area of Bosnian Krajina, was it surrounded at the time?
13 A. I can't know what happened elsewhere. I was in a camp. We had no
14 newspapers or any other information.
15 Q. Let me go back to the previous question. One couldn't go to
16 Sarajevo through Doboj. You couldn't pass to Belgrade, you needed -- the
17 corridor. Could one go to Bihac?
18 A. I didn't try, sir. I don't know.
19 Q. What was the situation like with regard to medicine in medical
20 institutions in those days in the territory of Prijedor, Banja Luka, and
22 A. I wasn't employed in a medical institution, so how can I tell you
23 how much medicine was available?
24 Q. When you asked Mr. Kobas once, he said, "We don't have any
25 either." Did you check why?
1 A. I had no way to check. I was a prisoner.
2 Q. You made this photograph of Mr. Nedzad Jakupovic. How did you
3 make that photograph?
4 A. I said that I wasn't there the moment the photograph was taken. I
5 said I was there when Mr. Nedzad took off his shirt and was being prepared
6 for the photograph to be taken.
7 Q. I'm sorry, I heard that, but my question is: Do you know how that
8 photograph was taken? With a camera?
9 A. The photograph was made with a camera.
10 Q. You spoke about rapes and numerous beatings, and you managed to
11 take a photograph of an injured man. Did you keep a record of the
12 patients that you treated?
13 A. For a while we did keep medical records about our patients.
14 Q. Mr. Gutic, the purpose of this Tribunal is to establish the truth
15 in order to render justice, and everything needs to be checked. So if
16 you're ready to answer my question, I would like to ask Their Honours to
17 go into private session.
18 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] If the witness says he doesn't know
19 or he won't know the answer, then there's no need. Allow me to put my
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But why is the question
22 necessary, Mr. Simic?
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] It's a question related to rape,
24 and if I get an answer, I wouldn't like it to be made known to the public.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] All right, then. Let's go into
1 private session for a couple of minutes.
2 [Private session]
18 [Open session]
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Krstan Simic, you may
21 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Gutic, these tragedies, let me call them that, or incidents in
23 the technical sense only linked to rapes, did you report that to anyone?
24 A. The first rape that occurred in Trnopolje was reported -- or
25 rather, the disappearance of that person was reported to the camp
1 commander Mr. Kuruzovic.
2 Q. Did you inform any of the medical personnel?
3 A. The raping of five girls in the village of Suhi Brod was reported
4 to Dr. Ivic. Mr. Ivic took those women patients to the medical centre in
5 Prijedor for a gynaecological examination by Dr. Savic who examined them,
6 all those girls, and those girls were brought back to Trnopolje, and we
7 had occasion to talk to them. And according to our information, this
8 Dr. Savic was fired after that.
9 Q. Did I understand you correctly, Dr. Savic was dismissed because
10 she treated five women of Muslim ethnicity who were victims of rape?
11 A. I assume that that was the reason or the cause, the immediate
12 cause. What the real reason was --
13 Q. Do you know the ethnicity of Dr. Savic?
14 A. I do not.
15 Q. And my last question: Dr. Savic was then working in the medical
16 centre in Prijedor?
17 A. I don't know. We were informed that the girls were taken to the
18 hospital in Prijedor.
19 Q. Mr. Gutic, did you know Dr. Savic?
20 A. I do know Dr. Savic.
21 Q. So my question is a very simple one. Was Dr. Savic the one you
22 know working in Prijedor where these patients were examined?
23 A. She was employed in the medical centre, Dr. Mladen Stojanovic, in
24 Prijedor. Whether she was working in Urije or in a clinic, I don't know.
25 Q. So she's a gynaecologist, isn't she?
1 A. Yes, she's a gynaecologist.
2 Q. Did Mr. Ivic tell you anything about the medical treatment of
3 these girls?
4 A. Yes. He said that they had been -- that had he taken these girls
5 to the gynaecologist.
6 Q. Thank you, witness.
7 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] And thank you, Your Honours, I have
8 no further questions.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Mr. Krstan
11 Mr. Keegan.
12 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, thank you, Your Honour, I have just a few
14 Re-examined by Mr. Keegan:
15 Q. Mr. Gutic, in cross-examination, you were asked questions about
16 fencing at the Trnopolje camp. To your knowledge, was some area fencing
17 put up specifically for certain groups of prisoners?
18 A. Yes. Certain portions of the fence were set up in the camp during
19 the operation of the Trnopolje camp as they were expecting the arrival of
20 detainees from other camps.
21 Q. And those other camps, does that include the prisoners from
22 Omarska and Keraterm?
23 A. Yes, the arrival of prisoners from Omarska and Keraterm, which was
24 the immediate cause for the setting up of those portions of the fence.
25 Q. And did part of that fencing include the barbed wire fence which
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 had been around the former cooperative?
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila.
3 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] That question was asked by myself,
4 Mr. President, and the response that was given, that it was an ordinary
5 fence. This is now leading of the witness in some other direction. You
6 can check the transcript. My question was what kind of fence it was, and
7 the response was that it was an ordinary kind of fence.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, would you please
9 rephrase your question. Instead of using the words "barbed wire," would
10 you please ask the witness what type of fence there was.
11 MR. KEEGAN: Your Honour, if I may respond to that. Mr. Fila
12 specifically asked about the barbed wire fencing which preexisted the camp
13 which was around the cooperative. He then, the witness, specifically
14 referred to the fact that more fencing was put up. Mr. Fila's question
15 related to was that new fencing barbed wire or regular wire, to which the
16 witness responded regular wire. I'm simply trying to clarify the portions
17 he's talking about, the new fencing, was connected from the building with
18 barbed wire. So it's nothing --
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right.
20 MR. KEEGAN: And in fact, it's on the video which you already have
21 in evidence.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay, please proceed.
23 MR. KEEGAN:
24 Q. Would you like me to repeat the question, or do you remember it,
25 Mr. Gutic?
1 A. Could you repeat the question, please.
2 Q. You indicated that some fencing was put up specifically for the
3 arrival of prisoners from Omarska and Keraterm. My question was whether
4 that fencing that was specifically put up for them was attached to or
5 connected to the barbed wire fencing which you earlier referred to that
6 had surrounded the former cooperative.
7 A. Yes. The new fencing consisted of meshed wire, and it connected
8 the corner of the cinema building with the fence -- with the wire, piece
9 of wire which was around the cooperative. Those two wires, those two
10 fences were connected.
11 Q. Mr. Gutic, are you aware of when the Trnopolje camp actually
13 A. We left Trnopolje camp on the 1st of October, 1992. However,
14 after our departure, there were some civilians that were left behind:
15 women, children, and some men. So some people stayed on after our
16 departure in the Trnopolje camp.
17 Q. And finally, with respect to the questions related to the attack
18 on Kozarac, during the time that you were actually in the medical centre
19 itself in Kozarac, was the medical centre ever shelled during the attack?
20 A. The medical centre was shelled during the first minutes of the
21 attack. The first shells fell in the yard of the building of the medical
22 centre, and the building itself was hit with a shell.
23 Q. And is that the reason why you and the other members of the staff
24 moved from there up to Rajkovici?
25 A. Yes, that precisely was the reason why we moved. But of course,
1 we were also concerned from -- for our security and also for the safety of
2 the injured people that kept arriving to the medical centre.
3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Gutic.
4 MR. KEEGAN: I have no further questions, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
6 Mr. Keegan.
7 Madam Judge Wald has the floor.
8 Questioned by the Court:
9 JUDGE WALD: I have just a few questions. What I gathered from
10 your testimony, Mr. Gutic, that you had a sort of makeshift clinic at
11 Trnopolje. I mean, there was a place -- were the prisoners allowed to
12 come see you if they had some kind of need for medical aid, they could
13 line up and try to get whatever help was available? Is that right?
14 A. In principle, that is right. Most of the time, they were able to
15 come to us in the makeshift clinic; however, I must say that at the time
16 -- there were periods of time when the guards prevented them from coming
17 to us.
18 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Were you ever called to and allowed to go out
19 to them, I mean in their sleeping rooms, that sort of thing?
20 A. Yes. We would visit our patients in the school building, in their
21 sleeping quarters, especially during the evening hours when they were not
22 allowed to move around and in those situations where their condition was
23 so difficult and severe that they were unable to move.
24 JUDGE WALD: When you weren't tending patients or giving some kind
25 of medical aid, were you treated just like other prisoners or did you have
1 any kind of special status or were you just treated just like the other
2 prisoners when you weren't actually giving medical aid?
3 A. We were actually prisoners just like everybody else. However, I
4 must admit that the guards manning the checkpoints would let us go and
5 fetch some water or some food. That is to say, it was easier for us to
6 ask them for that than it was for other detainees. We wore our white
7 medical overcoats, so maybe they did have some respect for us and for our
9 JUDGE WALD: Okay. While you were there, could family members
10 ever visit the detainees? You mentioned in the beginning that sometimes
11 families brought food. Could they come in and visit the detainees at all
12 or were they prohibited?
13 A. At the beginning of the existence of the camp, there were contacts
14 with the people -- there were no contacts with the people outside the
15 camp. Such contacts were not allowed. However, at the beginning of June,
16 the camp commander allowed a group of women with small children, with
17 babies, to leave the area of the camp and to move to nearby houses to stay
18 with their relatives and friends.
19 Later on, that civilian population which was outside the camp was
20 allowed to visit us, to come to us for medical help, and on such
21 occasions, they would bring us food. They would sneak in the food, and we
22 would distribute that food to their relatives in the camp.
23 JUDGE WALD: I have just two more questions. You mentioned early
24 on that two doctors who had been on your original team when you were all
25 arrested together and brought to Trnopolje were taken to Omarska. Were
1 they taken there, to your knowledge, as prisoners or were they taken there
2 to try to give some medical aid to the people in Omarska? Were they taken
3 there as doctors or just as ordinary prisoners being transferred?
4 A. They were taken out of the Trnopolje camp for interrogation and,
5 after the interrogation, they were transferred to Omarska as detainees.
6 JUDGE WALD: My last question is: You talked about some of the
7 exacerbation of suffering of people who had asthma and people who got
8 dysentery and diarrhoea and lost great amounts of weight and became
9 fatigued and exhausted. To your knowledge, how many, if any, would you
10 estimate people died from those kind of causes when you were there? Not
11 from beatings or executions but just from physical causes while you were
12 there that you know about.
13 A. Three men died as a result of exhaustion, and we buried them not
14 far from the Trnopolje camp. I don't know what happened to the elderly
15 and the sick who were transported. I don't know whether they died in
16 various locations in Bosnia where they were transported to.
17 JUDGE WALD: Okay. Thank you.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
19 Judge Wald.
20 Witness, I have only one question for you. During your testimony,
21 you used the words "our detainees" on several occasions. What kind of
22 relationship was there? What exactly did you mean when you said "our
24 A. I was referring to the detainees in Trnopolje. And when I said
25 "our detainees," I meant the detainees who were in the Trnopolje camp
1 from the beginning.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Do you intimately feel or did
3 you feel somehow responsible for those detainees?
4 A. As a man, as a paramedic, I felt responsible for all people who
5 were detained in the camp, both the Trnopolje camp detainees and the
6 detainees who had arrived from Keraterm and Omarska.
7 I personally had an opportunity to flee the camp. I could have
8 fled in any of the convoys or I could have simply escaped into the woods,
9 but I stayed there. I was there from the beginning. And as a medical
10 worker, I had no right to abandon those people as they were experiencing
11 the worst moments of their life. That was my moral obligation towards
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Gutic.
14 We have no further questions for you, and you have come to the end of your
15 testimony here. Thank you very much for coming to testify at the
16 International Tribunal, thank you for your cooperation, and may you have a
17 safe journey back to your place of residence.
18 Let me ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 [The witness withdrew]
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, exhibits.
22 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] 3/168 to 172, and 3/172A
24 through D, am I correct?
25 MR. KEEGAN: Actually, 3/169 is A through D as well, which are the
1 photographs of the camp. So, yes, it would be 3/168 to 3/172, including
2 the multiple photographs in 169 and 172, A through D.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Krstan Simic.
4 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] No objection, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I hope you spoke on
6 behalf of all. The exhibits tendered will be admitted into evidence.
7 I think that we should at least have a ten-minute break.
8 Mr. Krstan Simic requested three minutes for his argument. I think that
9 the Prosecutor needs to be given an equal amount of time, and
10 Mr. Stojanovic will probably want to speak.
11 Let me try to organise things. Who wishes to speak on behalf of
12 the Defence? Mr. Krstan Simic. Are there any Defence counsel who wish to
14 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you're talking
15 about the issue of the indictment, I myself want to speak and --
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, the consolidation of the
17 indictment. That is the only item on the agenda. I know that
18 Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Fila, and Mr. Jovan Simic have nothing to say.
19 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I will speak and
20 Mr. Stojanovic, if he wishes to speak.
21 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I do
22 not intend to take the floor unless there is an objection by the
23 Prosecutor to my previous arguments.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But I think that we will
25 need more than ten minutes for all of the arguments and submissions, so I
1 do believe that we need a break. At least ten minutes. I don't know what
2 you think, unless perhaps -- I don't know.
3 Madam Hollis, how much do you think -- I don't know whether it is
4 Madam Hollis or Mr. Keegan who is going to speak. How much time do you
5 think you will need for your submissions?
6 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I'll speak to the issue of the
7 consolidated indictment, but there's also some administrative matters that
8 we'd like to raise that Ms. Hollis will speak to and that will probably
9 take five or six minutes on top.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So I think that we need to have
11 at least a ten-minute break so that we can have some rest and prepare
12 ourselves. We will be back at 5.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 4.52 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 5.04 p.m.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Consolidation of the
16 indictment. I don't know, shall it be Mr. Keegan, or perhaps we should
17 bear in mind that we have written submissions. The Prosecution abides by
18 them. I know that Mr. Krstan Simic has an objection. Perhaps we should
19 hear the Defence. Do you agree, Mr. Keegan?
20 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Krstan Simic,
23 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I make a statement
24 in connection with my submission?
25 We continue to maintain that this cannot be a printing error.
1 This is clearly supported by Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment and the
2 schedules that go with those counts whereby Kvocka is charged with murder
3 only in those counts. These are finite criminal acts, and Kvocka is being
4 charged only with murders carried out, according to the Prosecution's
5 allegations, in the course of June 1992. Outside that time frame, there
6 is not a single murder which is attributed to Mr. Kvocka.
7 We must note that, in the motion for the provisional release of
8 Mr. Kvocka, we disclosed evidence whereby we supported the claim that
9 Mr. Kvocka on -- the 23rd of June was his last working day in Omarska.
10 Then came the indictment with the revised date, until the 30th of June, so
11 that now, bearing in mind Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment and the
12 evidence we disclosed, we were confident that the Prosecution had accepted
13 these submissions and limited the time period for the responsibility of
14 Mr. Kvocka.
15 We fear that, through the current consolidation, we would be
16 prejudiced because we are being misled, and this could jeopardise the
17 right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 21, paragraph 2. That is all
18 I have to add to my earlier submissions.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] That's fantastic, Mr. Krstan
21 I don't know whether for the moment the Prosecutor wishes to
22 respond --
23 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] -- in the same time as
25 Mr. Krstan Simic.
1 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, sir. I'm mindful of the challenge here on the
2 timing, so I'll do my best.
3 With respect to this particular point, Your Honour, we would
4 invite the Trial Chamber to also, for example, view the order with respect
5 to the amendment of the indictment which was issued by the prior Trial
6 Chamber on the 12th of April of 1999 and look at what the order in fact
7 dealt with, and it had nothing to do with dates. It had to do with, where
8 possible, to provide information that would identify other participants,
9 the names of victims, et cetera. It was more particular detail, and that
10 was the focus of these schedules in the amended indictment.
11 If one looks at the schedules, it's clear that that first block,
12 if we can refer to it as the general block because it was intended to go
13 to all detainees for the entire time frame, It's clear that it has to be
14 typographical error because the blocks which come underneath it then refer
15 to time periods that go into August 1992 in every case, with the exception
16 of Counts 4 and 5. The difference there is that, with respect to the
17 question of individual criminal responsibility, even if Miroslav Kvocka
18 may have left the camp as a commander prior to August, if he continued to
19 be engaged in the camp in some fashion, he can still be held responsible
20 under a common purpose document.
21 Therefore, there is potential liability, even after he has left
22 his position as a commander, and that's why the counts in the indictment
23 which we say are the primary charge are, in fact, the charges in this
24 case. They have always reflected the date of 30 August for all charges,
25 including the murder charge. So the schedules were just envisioned to
1 provide more particulars to victims and other perpetrators. Thank you.
2 JUDGE WALD: I've got a question for Mr. Keegan. I'm concerned a
3 little bit about the indictment itself, the consolidated indictment, in
4 relation to the argument you've just made. This refers only to Kvocka.
5 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE WALD: I read the indictment as alleging, certainly in the
7 general counts about the inhumane treatment, alleging these things against
8 him as first the commander and as a deputy commander and, in fact, there
9 are all kinds of -- 19, I think, 20, 27, it usually says, "As the camp
10 commander and then deputy commander he had the authority ..." blah, blah,
11 blah, blah, blah. I didn't see anything in there that alleged he had done
12 something when he wasn't maintaining either of those roles. Therefore, I
13 must admit that -- you're through with your case-in-chief, I mean almost
14 virtually now, and it seemed to me the only way that the August date would
15 have made any sense would have been if either you were saying that he
16 didn't step down from his role as deputy commander till sometime near
17 August, but the indictment itself says that he was replaced as the deputy
18 commander by Prcac in June, the next item in the indictment itself.
19 So if that's true, then the other alternative would have been
20 something that you alluded to, but I have to be frank with you, I haven't
21 heard one iota of proof along those lines that somehow, after he left the
22 camp as deputy or commander he did something else. We haven't had one
23 iota of proof and your case is through.
24 So this all led me to at least have doubts about whether or not
25 when there was the original June 30th date for him, not for the others
1 because it seemed clear to me that they were there the whole time and that
2 would have been a typographical error, but for him, it was misleading. It
3 could easily have been perceived as saying he's the commander. While he
4 was the commander and the deputy commander, he was responsible and then
5 the indictment itself has him stopping being the deputy commander sometime
6 in June. I'm just asking you if you'd react to that.
7 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I think, first of all, of course,
8 there is a third basis, for example, within paragraph 27, which talks
9 about the independent duty as an active-duty policeman. Certainly, of
10 course, he continued after he left the camp as an active-duty policeman,
11 and that fact, of course, is not even disputed by the accused himself.
12 JUDGE WALD: But nobody's done much to develop that evidence-wise.
13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, but the evidence is not over yet.
14 There's still the Defence case, there is the rebuttal case, and as I'm
15 sure Your Honour will be aware, there's been a number of issues related to
16 particular witnesses who may or may not yet testify in this case who might
17 shed light on a number of these issues. And so we submit that, of course,
18 it's too early to say all the evidence is in upon which conclusions can be
20 Secondly, the charge is plainly stated, that it goes through the
21 entire time frame. We think that this Trial Chamber, consistent with the
22 jurisprudence of this Tribunal, could determine that, based on the
23 evidence that has been elicited thus far, can find that there is evidence
24 which would support a basis of common purpose which continued beyond 30
1 JUDGE WALD: I'm -- maybe there's a lot of law I don't know
2 Mr. Keegan, but even back in American law, I never knew that once you left
3 whatever we called it there, a common purpose, a conspiracy, once you left
4 it that you were responsible for things that happened after you had left
5 it. I mean, maybe you're going to argue that, but I hadn't heard very
6 much about it up till now.
7 MR. KEEGAN: Our point is, first off, of course the evidence isn't
8 entirely clear. Some witnesses have put him into the camp until at least
10 JUDGE WALD: You yourself have placed him as the deputy in the
11 indictment in June as leaving his -- and being replaced by Prcac in June.
12 That's in the indictment.
13 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, but that doesn't mean that he
14 didn't remain in the camp for a certain period of time generally. There's
15 also, we believe, evidence that will support the fact that he came back
16 and that, through his position as a policeman, his former position, he was
17 still supporting, encouraging --
18 JUDGE WALD: Is that evidence yet to come?
19 MR. KEEGAN: No, Your Honour. We believe there's already evidence
20 of that of record in this case.
21 JUDGE WALD: That he came back?
22 MR. KEEGAN: Into the camp, yes, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE WALD: Came back and did any of these things that are
24 alleged here?
25 MR. KEEGAN: Of course, Your Honour, there are other ways, and I
1 don't suppose this is the place for final submissions, but there are other
2 ways to aid and abet other than physically assisting.
3 JUDGE WALD: I understand that.
4 MR. KEEGAN: So by his presence, he could have continued the
5 encouragement and support.
6 JUDGE WALD: I understand your argument.
7 MR. KEEGAN: But the charge itself, Your Honour, is plainly
8 stated. We believe that we are entitled to continue upon that charge
9 until the end of the case, until all of the evidence is in and all of the
10 final submissions on law and fact are made.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, I have two
12 questions, and to take up your argument, if we look at this whole picture,
13 what we have in relation to Count 1 to 3, we confirm your argument; that
14 is to say, the windows you mentioned go beyond the first.
15 As for Counts 8 to 10, that can be verified. But how can you
16 explain now Counts 4 and 5, where the dates do not go beyond the dates of
17 the first block?
18 Another question I would like to add: Why is it not legitimate to
19 say that, for all the prisoners in general, it is the date of the 30th of
20 June and for each one specifically mentioned are the dates that have been
21 indicated? Those are my two questions.
22 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. With respect to the first
23 question, that is, Counts 4 to 5, that's why I invited the Chamber to look
24 specifically at the order issued by the previous Trial Chamber and the
25 specific direction given to the Prosecutor, which was to -- with respect
1 to Miroslav Kvocka, provide information -- identify to the extent possible
2 the names of the victims in the crimes alleged against all four accused.
3 So what we were trying to do specifically with the murder, because
4 that is obviously a very specific crime as opposed to general beatings or
5 general conditions in the camp, was to identify people who fell within the
6 time frame where the accused himself admits being in the camp. It is
7 still our position, however, that, as a matter of law, he can be held
8 responsible for murders which occurred even outside that window which he
9 admits to being within the camp if, in fact, by his presence as a senior
10 active policeman in the camp after that time frame, his presence still
11 amounted to encouragement of the continuing acts in that camp. And that's
12 why we think that he could be legally held responsible for the totality of
13 the acts.
14 But in this, we were trying to answer the particular order of the
15 Chamber which was to identify, to the extent possible, specific victims.
16 And so that's why there's that deviation. And you'll see that as well for
17 the other accused, that there are, specifically with respect to the murder
18 counts, specific victims.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But, Mr. Keegan, my second
20 question: Is it legitimate or not to say that the date up to the 30th of
21 June is only for the first window and afterwards there are specific dates
22 for each victim?
23 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. It's not correct to say that. I'm
24 sorry. I'm saying yes, I'll answer that.
25 The specific victims fall within that first window. Again, we
1 were addressing the specific order of the Trial Chamber. At the same
2 time, we wanted to reinforce the fact that the Prosecution's theory is
3 that each of these accused individually are responsible for the totality
4 of the acts by virtue of their participation in this common enterprise.
5 And so the first block, much like the indictment itself, was focused at
6 all of the victims, named and unnamed.
7 Then in order to answer the Chamber's specific direction, we then
8 endeavoured to name specific victims where possible, but all of those
9 specific victims are subsumed into that first block, if you will. They're
10 included in and are subsumed by that first block.
11 That was the idea of why it was drafted that way, 'cause we did
12 not want to, in fact, get into a position where we'd have an argument that
13 now, that they would only be held in jeopardy for, if you will, to be
14 responsible for the particular people named. We didn't want to be placed
15 in that argument, so we included the general block.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] But to conclude, maybe it's not
17 too important, but do you have any idea how this correction was done? Was
18 it done on a computer, or was each date addressed separately? Maybe it's
19 difficult because you yourself didn't do it, Mr. Keegan. I don't know
20 whether you understand what I wish to say.
21 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. I wasn't clear which blocks, which
22 changes you're referring to, so if you could please clarify for me.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The changes in date in the whole
24 first block which were the dates that were modified, that were changed.
25 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour. The original draft was prepared,
1 and it was a mistake from the -- just literally preliminary drafts. And
2 someone was cutting and pasting, and cut and paste from a block which had
3 included a victim with the June date, apparently, and that's why it was
4 repeated; but not repeated in every block, because they only used it as a
5 cut and paste for certain portions. And again, that was one of the
6 indicators I tried to point out to the Chamber in my previous comments,
7 that it's not every general block that had that 30 June date; some didn't.
8 And the reason why was, it depended on which individual was preparing that
9 section, and they used the wrong block as a model. That was the problem.
10 And it wasn't until later that we, upon review, realised the error, which
11 is why we submitted for the --
12 JUDGE WALD: One last question, though. This June 30th date in
13 the one block there, that's been around now since when? When was the
14 first time that appeared?
15 MR. KEEGAN: I believe --
16 JUDGE WALD: Way back in --
17 MR. KEEGAN: -- April.
18 JUDGE WALD: Way back in the original schedule. Then it appeared
19 all the way through the 21st. It wasn't until you picked it up on the
20 28th submission.
21 In the meantime, Mr. Simic had raised this general problem in one
22 of the sessions about -- yes, he did. He raised the problem about the
23 indictment, that he wanted to bring up, Did the indictment only go to June
24 30th. I don't even remember when, but I do remember the incident.
25 So, I mean, this is all getting to the problem that in the case,
1 because of these peculiar circumstances, and again, this applies only to
2 Kvocka because -- do you think it's fair, when it seemed to say June 30th
3 all the way up to a week before, and when there are those sort of odd
4 circumstances about his not being in the camp as a deputy after sometime
5 in June, that they should have -- well, I know what you're going to say,
6 but maybe you'll give me your backing for it -- that they should have
7 guessed about this theory that he was going to come back and be an aider
8 and abettor as an independent policeman after he lost all official
10 I mean, how would they -- why would they have not been misled to
11 think -- it said he was a Deputy Commander, the indictment says now Prcac
12 is a Deputy Commander, so June 30th is it.
13 MR. KEEGAN: For a couple of reasons, Your Honour. First off, I
14 think that actually I raised -- I flagged the issue that we were going to
15 do this, and that's when Mr. Simic raised, "Well, in fact, I have
16 questions about the indictment, and that's when we addressed it, and which
17 is why as early as 9 September, I was saying this needed to get resolved
19 JUDGE WALD: Yes, I know. I know that.
20 MR. KEEGAN: I think first off, again, it's the body of the
21 indictment itself which is the first premise. Mr. Kvocka has always been
22 charged for the whole time frame, despite the fact that the indictment
23 itself reflects his positions may have terminated.
24 Second, if one looks at the opening statements and the theories of
25 responsibility that were at that time given by the Prosecution, it's clear
1 that we've always focussed on this aspect of the common enterprise.
2 JUDGE WALD: Yes, but you didn't focus in on his role, this role
3 in the common enterprise. It was more of the global theory --
4 MR. KEEGAN: Well --
5 JUDGE WALD: -- in your opening submissions, or --
6 MR. KEEGAN: -- maybe because openings submission are not the
7 place to --
8 JUDGE WALD: I know, I know.
9 MR. KEEGAN: But the point being that the Prosecution has never in
10 any official document or in any of our arguments indicated that we thought
11 that this accused was absolved of any further responsibility for any
12 criminality from -- you know, after 30 June. We have always spoken in
13 terms of August.
14 JUDGE WALD: Except in the annex.
15 MR. KEEGAN: Except for the schedule.
16 JUDGE WALD: The schedule.
17 MR. KEEGAN: But again, we think that the schedules were never
18 intended to amend the indictment. They were provided on a specific
19 direction to identify more particulars with respect to victims and
20 coperpetrators. That was the purpose of the schedules, that's what they
21 were designed for, and a mistake was made in terms of the typing with
22 respect to that one block.
23 But even with respect to Counts 4 and 5, you'll notice the term in
24 the counts itself is "including" victims. There's nowhere that the
25 schedules were intended to be an exhaustive list, these are -- the named
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the English
14 and French transcripts.
1 victims aren't the only victims, as I indicated earlier. So if one looks
2 at the counts, the way the counts were alleged and when victims are named,
3 they are named as only an example of the victims of the crimes.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Keegan, excuse me. We have
5 to speed things up a little, but we -- I have some doubt. If the order of
6 the third Trial Chamber was to specify, and this is quite acceptable, even
7 on the part of the Defence, that you should specify even the dates and the
8 circumstances in time because for some accused you maintain the date the
9 30th of August, and for others you change. And if the order was to
10 specify, it is quite legitimate on the part of the Defence to say here is
11 the result of that specification. How would you respond to that?
12 MR. KEEGAN: Yes. Briefly but slowly, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: Slowly but, slowly -- [Interpretation] slowly
14 but quickly. It is possible to combine the two.
15 MR. KEEGAN: Yes, Your Honour, it is.
16 The answer, I believe, is first, the reason I pointed out the
17 specific language of the order was time was never a factor addressed,
18 either in the Defence submissions nor in the Chamber's order. It was only
19 names of victims and coperpetrators. So a review of the order indicates
20 time was never one of the factors we were supposed to address. The
21 indictment has always focused on the full time frame.
22 So I don't believe that it's legitimate for the Defence to say
23 that because some of the blocks indicated the June 30th date but all the
24 others indicated dates after 30 June, that they could somehow latch onto
25 one block and say that that somehow outweighs not only the other blocks
1 within the schedules but also the actual indictment itself, and that's our
2 main focus. Because it's not just Kvocka. There are mistakes with
3 respect to Radic and Kos as well, or perhaps -- yes, and Kos as well,
4 where some of the blocks, because again of the cut and paste, reflect
5 30 June and others reflect the end of August.
6 But the particular victims which were done separately and cut and
7 pasted in have dates through the August date, and that's why we think it's
8 clear that it was obviously a typographical error.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We will render our
11 Do you wish to add anything that would be new, Mr. Krstan Simic?
12 MR. K. SIMIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I have to
13 respond to Mr. Keegan, who spoke at some length, and I shall be very
15 The crucial issue here has been touched upon by Judge Wald. An
16 order was given to consolidate the indictment. We received it. We are
17 not basing our position only on the date of the 30th of June. Our
18 position is based on the fact that the indictment, which served as a basis
19 for our preparation, says that Mr. Kvocka was the commander, then deputy
20 commander, and in June, replaced by Prcac. There was never any mention
21 made of Mr. Kvocka being a policeman, a guard, or anything like that, a
22 senior police officer.
23 Mr. Kvocka is the lowest police officer in the department of the
24 police station. We won't discuss his status in the camp because that is
25 part of the proceedings here. We're talking about Kvocka as a policeman.
1 I'm surprised by Mr. Keegan's statement, and that is what we
2 precisely fear, the question of common purpose. Mr. Keegan says that
3 Mr. Kvocka was a policeman, and he is duty-bound to carry out the law of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. That is not a crime.
5 And there were many arguments that give us reason to believe that
6 the order of the Trial Chamber was respected and carried out. It is not
7 just the question of 30th of June. Also the motion for provisional
8 release, we provided objective proof that Mr. Kvocka left Omarska on the
9 23rd of June, and that is what led us to believe that this was a matter
10 that had been resolved definitely.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Krstan Simic. We
12 will make our ruling as quickly as possible.
13 I said that we could not go beyond 5.30, but I have heard that
14 Ms. Hollis or the Prosecutor has some administrative matters to raise.
15 MS. HOLLIS: Very, very briefly, Your Honour.
16 As we have reviewed admission of the exhibits we have actually
17 tendered during these proceedings beginning in the spring, we have not
18 found in the transcript for certain exhibits a clear indication that the
19 exhibit was admitted. I would suggest that we provide a list of those
20 exhibits in writing with references so that Your Honours may review that
21 and clarify for the record. That's one matter.
22 The second matter relates to the filing of the expert statements.
23 The filings were on the 12th of September, the 22nd of September, and the
24 26th of September. The Defence did not object to these expert statements,
25 and I'm talking about Dr. Clark, Dr. Wright, Dr. Alonso, Dr. Brown,
1 Dr. Klonowski. The rule indicates that if there is no objection, the
2 Chamber may admit the statements; but again, we have no clear indication.
3 We believe they have been admitted, but we have no clear indication of
4 that. So again, we would ask for that.
5 The final matter, Your Honour, has to do with a Defence exhibit
6 which was admitted with no objection. It was an exhibit submitted by the
7 Defence for Mr. Radic. It is Exhibit 30A and B, consisting of three
8 documents. Two of the documents were results of testing of water in
9 Omarska in 1989. The third document was a letter addressed to Mr. Fila
10 from a person by the name of Ranko Cvijic. We did not object to those
11 documents, we do not object, but I wanted to put on the record we draw a
12 distinction between the letter that it appears was prepared for this case
13 and the two documents that are the results of testing. In our opinion,
14 the two documents that are the results of testing are regular business
15 records, and they stand on their own.
16 Regarding the letter of Mr. Cvijic, we suggest that what that
17 really is, is what he would testify to if he were called to testify.
18 We want to put on the record that, unlike the Defence position, we
19 don't object to the admission of this statement, but we do not accept the
20 accuracy of its contents. We dispute the accuracy of its contents, and we
21 believe we would have the right in the future to call this person for
22 cross-examination. So I simply wanted to clarify for the record our
23 position regarding these documents. But we do not object to their
24 admission into evidence.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I hope that everything will be
1 clarified in due time. We cannot do it at this moment. We have already
2 gone beyond 5.30. I don't think that these matters are really urgent and
3 they can be taken up later on.
4 I think that we can, therefore, declare the end of your case,
5 Madam Hollis. Give us a smile, please. Tell it to us with a smile.
6 MS. HOLLIS: Yes, Your Honour, subject to the Prcac interview.
7 Yes, Your Honour. We believe that whatever we have raised we can address
8 in rebuttal or otherwise. Thank you.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think we can all
10 feel satisfied because we have reached the end of this stage of the
11 proceedings. As I told you yesterday, we had made a great amount of
12 effort to be able to finish on time. Everyone made their contribution,
13 and the work of the Prosecution has ended, at least when it comes to this
14 particular stage of the proceedings.
15 I should like to thank them all; Mr. Keegan, Madam Hollis,
16 Mr. Waidyaratne, Mr. Saxon. We should not forget Mr. Niemann, and
17 Ms. Ann Sutherland, and Mr. Stringer. They all took part in this part of
18 the case, and I should like to thank them all.
19 I should like to address Mr. Keegan in particular. I learned
20 recently that these are his last days at the Tribunal, and I should like
21 to say something to him in particular.
22 We have greatly admired your professional competence, your ability
23 when it comes to human relations, and also your ability to conduct
24 meaningful dialogue with the other party. We wish you a great deal of
25 personal and professional success in your life. We have become accustomed
1 to seeing you here, Mr. Keegan, and all I can do at this point is to
2 congratulate you on your work and express to you my warm wishes for the
4 MR. KEEGAN: Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila.
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. President, but
7 Madam Hollis said something to which I want to respond. However, let me
8 first say goodbye to Mr. Keegan. We have had contacts for five years, and
9 I will miss him.
10 As regards what Madam Hollis has said, if you wish to call this
11 witness, expert witness, when it comes to the issue of water, I have
12 nothing against that. I will try to bring him here if necessary, but the
13 Prosecution has all the necessary means to check those results of the
14 testing of water.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Fila, thank you
16 very much.
17 We are all very happy at this moment, including Mr. Fila, because
18 we have come to the end of this particular stage of the case. I will
19 inform you on time about the dates of the Status Conferences for the
20 Pre-Defence Status Conference.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
22 at 5.39 p.m. sine die