1 Friday, 1 June 2001
2 [Closed session]
3 --- Upon commencing at 10.07 a.m.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning. Please be
5 seated. Good morning to the technical booth and to the interpreters; good
6 morning to the staff of the Registry; good morning to the counsels, the
7 Prosecution and Defence. I see we have some new faces with us, and I
8 should like to wish them welcome.
9 We are here today to hear Witness K's testimony.
10 My monitor isn't switched on. I'm not getting the image. I think
11 we're in private session, however, and as that is the case, let me ask
12 whether anybody would like to raise any issues of the two parties before
13 the witness is shown in.
14 Ms. Susan Somers.
15 MS. SOMERS: I believe the Chamber is aware of an issue that we
16 attempted to resolve with the Registry on a potential disclosure matter,
17 and we've not been able to get resolution and I'm unclear. I would need
18 the direction of the Chamber on how to proceed.
19 We served that which was given to us, but I'm afraid I don't
20 know -- I cannot address anything about whether it clarified what we were
21 hoping to convey.
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Did you discuss the issue with
23 the Defence, Ms. Somers? Does the Defence know what you're talking
25 MS. SOMERS: [Previous translation continues]... some materials
1 last evening as were given to the Prosecution by the Registry and that is
2 all the Defence has now. There's been no discussion. We felt we really
3 couldn't, given the situation with the state of the order.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, are there any problems
5 on your part?
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem is as
7 follows: The use of the two transcripts. The first transcript which
8 testifies about Witness K's testimony - J; the pseudonym, I'm told, is
9 J in the Keraterm trial - is a complete one. The second transcript, which
10 we received today, that is to say, last night, is a redacted one and, in
11 fact, it has no useful value to us. It is of no use.
12 So what are we going to do? Either we're going to forget about
13 it, or we're going to ask for a complete transcript with all the details
14 to see if there's anything there of interest. And the discussions between
15 the Prosecution and ourselves is to no avail, because I think it is a
16 matter for the Chamber to decide.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And with those working aids,
18 will you be able to work or do you need clarification as to the second
19 document or can you go ahead with what you have?
20 You're going to ultimately have the witness here before you.
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, you know full well that
22 I never contested the work of this Court and Trial Chamber, and I'll work
23 with what I have. I'm not going to do so in this instance either. I'll
24 work with what I have.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] At all events, the important
1 thing here is, and which must be stated for matters to be quite clear, is
2 that, as you know, the third Chamber ordered that this transcript be
3 communicated with all the same protective measures which protected the
4 identities of all the witnesses mentioned in the transcript, in the
6 The registrar, in executing and implementing the order by Trial
7 Chamber III, redacted this, and therefore it was communicated. Trial
8 Chamber I, interpreting the decision, maintains that in order to be able
9 to communicate the transcript, the identity of the individuals must be
10 redacted, but it is not necessary to redact everything because it was a
11 session -- a private session anyway.
12 We're going to work in closed session now, so if we have a
13 transcript, a record, without the names of the people, then that will be
14 the same thing, and I think that it is more equitable to give the parties,
15 whether it be the Prosecution or the Defence, a redacted transcript with
16 respect to the identities of the witnesses, but not everything else.
17 So what the Chamber is now going to do is to issue an order, that
18 is, to request of the registry to redact the identity of the protected
19 witnesses who are mentioned in the text, to strike their names. We're
20 going to take a break for the registrar to be able to do that work and for
21 counsel to see what it has, this latest edition, so to speak, and then we
22 will come back for the cross-examination, or rather, for the testimony of
23 that witness. So I think that is the best way to proceed and the fairest
24 way, without having any dark spots, dark places in our procedure. So
25 everybody's interests will be protected. The identity of the witnesses
1 will be protected. The Defence will nevertheless obtain all the
2 information, and we're going to have the witness here, in person, in the
3 courtroom, and therefore any questions that need to be asked can be asked.
4 So Ms. Krystal, please take note of that, of the work in hand for
5 you. And now I should like to get an idea of the time required,
6 Ms. Krystal, for the work that you have to do. How long do you think it
7 will take you?
8 THE REGISTRAR: Mr. President, I think we would need approximately
9 45 minutes to review this. We are already working on it now, so I will
10 continue to help and make sure we get this done quickly and accurately.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Would you -- Mr. Fila, half an
12 hour for you? Would that be sufficient to go through the document? Would
13 that be sufficient or not? Would you need longer?
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, that is even too long.
15 I know what it's about, in fact. I know the substance of it.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So would a quarter of an hour be
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes. We will be able to continue at
19 11.00, as far as I'm concerned.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm going to say
21 approximately 11.00. We shall reconvene at approximately 11.15. That
22 will give 45 minutes to the registrar and 15 minutes for Mr. Fila, and
23 then we'll come back with these new instruments or aids for our
24 proceedings. The Court is adjourned.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 11.50 a.m.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
3 We apologise for the tardiness, but we needed to do some
4 additional work.
5 Ms. Susan Somers, are you ready to have the witness shown in for
6 your part, or is it Mr. Stringer?
7 MR. STRINGER: Yes, good morning, Mr. President and Your Honours.
8 I can take a brief moment to reintroduce myself to the Trial Chamber.
9 It's been many months since I appeared. I was asked to appear again today
10 since it's Witness K who is coming back and I led her testimony last
12 I think, as the Trial Chamber knows, the witness has been called
13 back today so that she can be cross-examined in respect of a statement
14 that was found and disclosed after she had testified in this case. It's a
15 statement from February of 1993 that appears to have been provided by the
16 witness to Helsinki Watch or some sort of human rights monitoring
17 organisation. At that time -- the statement appears to have been given in
18 February of 1993, as I said, and was found by us, disclosed to the
19 Defence, and they have exercised their right and they have accepted our
20 invitation to bring the witness back to testify during the Prosecutor's
21 rebuttal case. So that is where we stand.
22 I'm not certain what the Trial Chamber's preferences are in terms
23 of the procedure here today. It's our understanding that this is
24 certainly primarily for re-cross-examination and so if, Mr. President,
25 it's your preference that the cross-examination start first, that's
1 certainly acceptable to us.
2 I don't know that the witness really knows what the procedure will
3 be today. We've not spoken to her about it, and I don't know that she
4 even really understands that it was this February 1993 statement that is
5 the reason for her having to come back. So I don't know exactly what she
6 understands about the proceedings that will be taking place today.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer. Perhaps with the
8 authorisation of Ms. Susan Somers, could you present the new pieces of
9 information, for the record, that the Prosecutor has. You can do this or
10 perhaps Ms. Susan Somers.
11 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, this is about the statement that I've
12 just been referring to, or is this about -- I'm not certain exactly what
13 you've got in mind.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You introduced yourself.
15 Perhaps you could present the other elements that the OTP has, for the
16 record, because I see new faces here. Could you introduce your other
17 colleagues. We see new faces.
18 MR. STRINGER I apologise, Mr. President.
19 MS. SOMERS: I apologise, Judge. The translation was -- it looked
20 like a legal argument that I was supposed to make. Terribly sorry.
21 Again, of course, Mr. Stringer, and Ms. Patricia Sellers, who is a
22 member of the staff of the Office of the Prosecutor. We're very pleased
23 to have her with us. Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You're quite right. I mentioned
25 the judicial elements of the OTP.
1 Mr. Fila, are you ready? Have you got an idea, a response with
2 respect to procedure? Do you wish to start off with the cross-examination
3 and then have additional questions afterwards? Have you got an idea on
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Well, that's the only possible course,
6 as far as I can see, Mr. President. Thank you.
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Are you then satisfied with the
8 new pieces of information that we have received, all the new elements
9 brought forward?
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. President.
11 And I am quite ready to go ahead with the cross-examination.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, just to inform the Trial Chamber,
14 the February 1993 statement, which I believe will be the basis for
15 cross-examination today, is a B/C/S statement, again, made by another
16 organisation. It is accompanied by an English translation which was made
17 by the other organisation. There is, however, also a Tribunal English
18 translation which our own people made.
19 I mention that only to inform you that those three documents are
20 in the booths, and we have additional copies of those for the Trial
21 Chamber should it become necessary during the proceedings to -- if you
22 have any wish to look at them. It's a possibility that we're prepared to
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it would be a good
25 idea for the Trial Chamber to have those documents before you, because
1 names are mentioned. So rather than having the names come up on the
2 monitor, perhaps it would be a good idea if you were to have the documents
3 that Mr. Stringer mentioned in front of you, to be able to follow.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila. We are in closed
5 session, so there's no problem with having the documents placed on the
6 ELMO. So they won't be admitted into evidence. They are just being
7 introduced to clarify any possible contradictions or to test the
8 credibility of the witness. So I don't think we need that, although we
9 can follow on the ELMO, because we are in a completely closed session. So
10 none of this will be publicised. The proceedings will not be publicised
11 and in public.
12 Mr. Usher, would you have the witness shown in, please.
13 [The witness entered court]
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. Can you
15 hear me?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated. I should
18 like to thank you for coming here once again. We need to clarify certain
19 points and to take advantage of your presence here. We would like to
20 extend our gratitude, because I know that to recount this kind of a story
21 once again will cause you pain, but we would like to welcome you and
22 welcome your contribution to justice.
23 I am sure that you are fully conscious that you are making a
24 contribution to justice, and I'm sure you are also fully conscious of the
25 fact that the accused enjoys certain rights, that is to say, the right to
1 be able to clarify certain points in testimonies. So it is within that
2 framework that we have asked you to come back and throw more light on the
3 matter. And you made a solemn declaration [as interpreted] in February
4 1993. That is to say, we have here Defence counsel, and they have been
5 very careful and sensitive to the way in which questions are asked. So we
6 know that you are a very courageous and brave lady and that you will
7 answer truthfully all the questions that are asked you.
8 We consider that this is a continuation of your testimony, so you
9 won't be taking the solemn declaration again, but let me remind you that
10 you will be under oath. And we thank you for having come back. We should
11 like to thank you for your contribution and also for your understanding.
12 I'm sure you know that there are rules according to which we must proceed
13 and see justice done, and one of those is to respect the rights of the
14 accused. So having said that, what we're now going to do is we're going
15 to have Mr. Fila asking you questions which he needs to ask to clarify
16 certain points, after which the Prosecution will also be asking you some
17 additional questions.
18 Are you feeling comfortable, at ease?
19 A. Yes. Thank you for your invitation and for your address. Yes, I
20 am. Thank you.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Fila, your
23 WITNESS: WITNESS K [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Further cross-examined by Mr. Fila:
2 Q. I don't need to introduce myself again, madam. You know who I
3 am. Let us clarify one point at the outset: How many times have you
4 testified before this Tribunal?
5 A. This is my third time.
6 Q. Do you know how many times you have given a statement, that is,
7 not a testimony but a statement?
8 A. Only once.
9 Q. When was it?
10 A. In 1993.
11 Q. Do you recall where you were in 1993?
12 A. In Zagreb.
13 Q. Of course you spoke about the events which took place in Omarska
14 and Keraterm.
15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. Do you remember a person by the name of Zeljko Zivkovic - I'm
17 sorry - Zeljka Zivkovic?
18 A. No, I cannot remember that person.
19 Q. Do you remember perhaps telling her something about those
20 unpleasant events, if I can refer to them that way?
21 A. I cannot remember. I may have done so, but I really do not recall
22 at this point.
23 Q. See, in that statement, your particulars are stated, if I can
24 remind you of that fact.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. I'm not going to pronounce your name. You know it. Let me just
4 (redacted) . (redacted)
5 Does that constitute your particulars, your background?
6 A. Yes, it does.
7 Q. We have a note which was written by Ms. Zeljka Zivkovic here, and
8 according to that note, you spoke about an event which took place in
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Let me read you, briefly -- I don't need -- I don't wish to upset
12 you unnecessarily, and there is no need to go into details, but you
13 mentioned having seen Zoran Sikirica [as interpreted], who was the
14 commander of Keraterm, and then you went on and said, among other things,
15 "He raped me on one of the tables."
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. "He first started insulting me. He asked me whether I had a
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. "So I told him that I was divorced. He asked me whether I had a
21 lover, and he ordered me to take off my clothes. I started to cry. I
22 told him I was having my period, but he said he didn't mind and that he
23 would show me how a Serb does it." Not "Serbs" but "a Serb." "He tied my
24 hands and raped me on the desk."
25 The question, Witness K, was as follows:
1 Q. Was there anyone else in the room besides two of
3 A. No. We were alone. When we left, three -- when he
4 left, three other men came in. They had no
5 flashlights, so I couldn't see their faces. I know
6 that one of them had a moustache. They were
7 together all the time, the three of them. While one
8 was raping me, the others laughed, insulted me, and
9 cheered. They stank of alcohol.
10 A. No. No, I didn't state that. I didn't mention alcohol, no.
11 Q. What about the previous part of the text?
12 A. No. I'm sorry, I don't remember having mentioned alcohol. I'm
14 Q. I fully understand you, madam. The other thing that is not
15 correct is the fact that they stank of alcohol?
16 A. No, it's not correct. Sikirica knows very well who those
17 individuals were. He's the one who should answer that question. I don't
18 know who they were.
19 Q. Can we agree on the following, madam: Everything that I have just
20 read out to you is correct except for the fact that they stank of
22 A. Well, not everything is completely correct. I do not agree with
24 Q. Could you tell me what is not correct?
25 A. When I came in, Sikirica arrived and the chains on the door, the
1 padlock was on the door and he was the one who came in first.
2 Q. Did he rape you?
3 A. Yes, he did, and I maintain that position. You can ask him
5 Q. Well, I'm asking you. Is it correct that three other individuals
6 came in?
7 A. Yes, after Sikirica left the room.
8 Q. Did they address each other with names?
9 A. No.
10 Q. "I only knew Sikirica by his name, nothing else. They didn't or
11 maybe they did, but I didn't notice. It was terrible. They beat me on
12 the legs. Both my legs were black and blue for several days."
13 A. That is correct, yes.
14 Q. So is this what you told Mrs. Zivkovic, as I have just read out to
16 A. I cannot remember whether it was Mrs. Zivkovic. I know that
17 someone was there, but to tell you the truth, I don't remember who it was
18 when I gave the statement in Zagreb.
19 Q. But you actually did give a statement to this effect?
20 A. Yes, I did.
21 Q. Let me continue with the same statement and let me read the
22 following: "As a woman, did you have any particular problems in
24 I'm first going to read you the statement and then we will discuss
1 A. No, nothing similar to what took place in Keraterm
2 happened there. One of the guards, Mladjo Krkan,
3 suggested that I go with him, and he promised me
4 that, in that way, I would help my sons and that
5 things would be easier for me as well.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. "I told him that neither me nor my children were to blame for
8 anything and that one day it would come to light."
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. "I heard from other women that he made the same suggestion to them
11 but he didn't force me to do anything. When I refused him, he left me
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you state this? Did you give a statement to this effect?
15 A. No. I couldn't have possibly done so, that such a thing did not
16 happen in Omarska, and I can repeat once again here before this Court that
17 Mladjo Krkan raped me, and I maintain that statement.
18 Q. How do you explain the fact that this particular statement
19 contains this allegation and that you confirm everything except for this
21 A. I don't know whether it was Zeljka. I did give a statement to
22 someone. I know that Vinka at one point came to see me and she told me
23 that Mladjo wanted to see me, and this is what I testified before and this
24 is what I'm prepared to repeat once again. I'm sure about that.
25 Q. We're talking about 1993. Did you give a statement to this effect
1 or not to the individual who took the statement?
2 A. Yes, I did give a statement. However, I do not agree with
3 everything that is contained in there. Many things are wrong. I am sure
4 about what happened with Mladjo Krkan and Sikirica. I'm sure about what
5 happened to me personally. I don't know about others.
6 Q. When you were examined here last time when you testified here, in
7 response to a question, you said that you discussed the rape in Omarska
8 for the first time with Ms. Hollis in 1995.
9 A. Yes, that is correct. That is true.
10 Q. Now you're telling us that you discussed the rape in 1993 with
11 some other people.
12 A. You see, I talked to Ms. Brenda in 1995 about what had happened to
14 Q. But you told us that you had never spoken about it before you
15 talked to Ms. Hollis.
16 A. Except for that lady, Ms. Zeljka. If you're saying so. It was
17 ten years ago. It was a long time ago. I have very deep respect for you,
18 but, you know, I'm really telling you the truth.
19 Q. Mrs. K, last time you testified, you told us that you had never
20 spoken about the fact that you had been raped in Omarska before you talked
21 to Ms. Hollis.
22 A. Yes, but I'm telling you now I cannot remember about what I said
23 to Ms. Zeljka. All I know is that I told you everything to Ms. Brenda
24 Hollis. It was very embarrassing me for to talk about those things, but I
25 did tell it all to Ms. Hollis.
1 Q. Let me remind you what you stated during the cross-examination
2 here. You stated that up until 1995, you had never spoken about the rape
3 to anyone, that is, up until your conversation with Ms. Hollis.
4 I'm referring to transcript page number 4963 of the English
5 version of the transcript.
6 Would you agree with me that we cannot have two truths?
7 A. I beg your pardon? I know that I talked about it to Ms. Brenda
8 Hollis, and I still maintain that position, that statement, and you cannot
9 challenge it in any way.
10 Q. (redacted)
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, sorry to interrupt
12 you, but I should like to address the witness.
13 Ms. K, take your time. Mr. Fila is not here to challenge you in
14 any way. Try to speak slowly. Concentrate yourself so that the
15 interpreters can follow you and so that we can have pauses between
16 questions and answers.
17 Mr. Fila, please continue.
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Do you know an individual by the name (redacted)?
20 A. There were some (redacted) in Keraterm and in Omarska, but I don't
21 know that one. I don't know his name. I know (redacted) .
22 Q. Do you know an individual by the name of Fikret Sarajlic?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. I'm sorry, Fikreta Sarajlic. Were you with her in Keraterm?
25 A. Yes, I was.
1 Q. Did you tell Ms. Fikreta Sarajlic about what had happened to you
2 in Keraterm?
3 A. No, never. Never.
4 Q. I should like to ask you to pause between questions and answers,
5 please, for the interpreters.
6 Could you please comment on the fact that one witness in the
7 Keraterm case testified that he or she was with you in the same room, in
8 Room 1 in Keraterm?
9 A. No, never. I haven't mentioned the name.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stringer.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'm sorry to interrupt and obviously
12 it's your ruling. In my view, it's incorrect or it's not appropriate for
13 counsel to ask a witness to comment on the testimony of some other witness
14 in another case of which she doesn't know anything. I think every
15 witness's testimony is their testimony and -- but I just note that and
16 that is our objection.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, your response,
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] You know very well that the objection
20 was raised when Mr. Saxon, the counsel for the Prosecution, did the same
21 thing, and the Chamber ruled that it was possible to bring up what the
22 witness had said in an interview with the Prosecutor or somewhere else.
23 There is a decision of this Chamber to that effect, and I'm really sorry
24 that we have different counsel appearing for the Prosecution here and very
25 often they're not abreast with the procedure.
1 I can tell you the name of the witness, but I don't think it's
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] No, no, no. It's not necessary,
4 Mr. Fila. You should not ask the witness for a comment. You should ask
5 her if she has any different information, anything that would contradict
6 this other testimony. You should ask the witness about what she knows.
7 She's not here to comment on testimonies given by other witnesses. She is
8 here to answer questions about the facts that she's familiar with.
9 Bearing that in mind, please continue.
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Saxon asked his
11 questions a bit differently, but I will, of course, heed your decision and
12 your advice.
13 Q. Witness K, are you familiar with the fact that during the Keraterm
14 trial, one individual - I can tell the name if it's a problem - said that
15 you had told Fikreta Sarajlic, and then to him personally, that you had
16 been raped by Sikirica and an individual by the name of Kajin?
17 A. No. I never told anyone that before Ms. Hollis, and you can check
18 it out with Fikreta. Because Fikreta and myself, we were not together in
19 the garage. We were together in the evening, but later I went upstairs
20 and Fikreta was taken into another room. You can verify that. What
21 you're telling is not simply true.
22 Q. I'm just telling you what the words of this other witness are.
23 A. Well, we were together during the day in the garage, and later, in
24 the evening, we went upstairs. And Sikirica knows very well what the
25 situation was. We were separated, the two of us.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 Q. I'm not referring to Sikirica. He was not the one who testified.
2 A. I know what I'm saying. I never said anything about those events
3 to other people, including my mother.
4 Q. So you are not --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please be asked to make
6 pauses between questions and answers.
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
8 Q. From what I have just read out, it follows that you did not state
9 that you were again raped by Sikirica on the following day, and you
10 testified something different to this Chamber. My question is: Why
11 didn't you say that during that last testimony?
12 A. Because I was too embarrassed to tell. And I will tell you now.
13 I will tell everyone how it was. I know what you're trying to say.
14 You're trying to say -- you're trying to put to me that I did not
15 experience that, that that is not what had happened to me. You're just
16 provoking me. You should ask the gentleman in question what happened.
17 Q. Witness K, I'm asking you why you said that Sikirica raped you one
18 day, and three unknown Serbs, and that you did not say that the next day
19 Sikirica raped you again.
20 A. Yes. The second night Sikirica raped me. The others didn't rape
21 me. They just bit me and swore at me. It was only Sikirica who raped me
22 in Keraterm. They -- I had my period. I had to take off my vest and use
24 Q. If I understood what you have just been saying, you were raped
25 only by Sikirica in Keraterm and not the other three men.
1 A. That's right, not the other three men. They just came, when they
2 saw that I had my period, they did other things; I can't tell you what.
3 Q. Why did you then state -- tell the woman that those three men
4 raped you too? And I'll read it out to you.
5 A. Go ahead. Read it out.
6 Q. "When Sikirica left, three other men came in. They had no
7 flashlights, so I could not see their faces. I know that one of them had
8 a moustache. They were together all the time, the three of them. While
9 one was raping me, the others laughed, insulted me, and cheered," and then
10 you said that they bit you on your legs.
11 A. I was in a completely unconscious state, sir. I was unconscious.
12 I was down on the floor. Can you understand that? That's not what I said
13 then. I didn't talk about it then.
14 Q. You said that those three men raped you. That's what you said
15 then. Now you say that only Sikirica raped you. Which of those two
16 statements is true?
17 A. Sikirica raped me, 100 per cent. That is certain. The others
18 tried. They saw that I had my period and then they just swore at me, said
19 all kinds of horrible things and did all sorts of things.
20 Q. Do you happen to remember: During that interview in 1993, the
21 conversation you had then, were you alone with that man or were there
22 several people there?
23 A. Where do you mean? Where do you mean? In the room upstairs?
24 Q. I'm asking about 1993.
25 A. Where do you mean? It was in 1992, sir, not 1993.
1 Q. You haven't understood me.
2 A. Why are you mentioning 1993? It all happened in 1992. I was in
3 Keraterm and Omarska in 1992. In 1993 I was in Zagreb.
4 Q. That's what I'm asking you about, Witness K, about Zagreb; in
5 1993, in Zagreb. It is the 11th of June. It was in 1993, in Zagreb, in
6 the room where you talked to the person, whether it was a man or woman.
7 Were you alone in the room or were there several people there?
8 A. Just that woman, if you say it was her. There weren't any other
9 people in the room. And it wasn't in 1992; it was in 1993. Everything
10 happened in 1992.
11 Q. Let us now go back to the year 1992. The room, the place in which
12 only Sikirica, as you now say, raped you, where was it and how did you
13 call that room?
14 A. You went up the stairs to the left, on the landing to the left,
15 and it was a hall, a meeting -- a conference room, in fact. And I stand
16 by what I say.
17 Q. You're talking about Keraterm now?
18 A. Yes, Keraterm.
19 Q. The place you claim Mladjo Radic, "Krkan," raped you?
20 A. Omarska.
21 Q. Where in Omarska?
22 A. You go up the stairs, down the corridor. It was the last hall on
23 the left-hand side. There was a spongy mattress and that is where Krkan
24 raped me.
25 Q. Was that also a conference room?
1 A. Yes, it was, and I'm quite certain of all that.
2 Q. And it took place at noon, did it? The interrogations were going
3 on and the corridor was full of people.
4 A. Yes, people were in the corridor, waiting to be interrogated.
5 There were guards there as well.
6 Q. How do you explain the fact that you had been bitten on your
7 legs? You never told anybody else except in 1993.
8 A. Well, I was ashamed. I didn't know that it would come to this. I
9 didn't know that I would be in The Hague. Nobody ever told me that. I
10 was ashamed. And there were worse things that I never said, sir, that I
11 never talked about, and I'm sorry I didn't now.
12 Q. If I understood you correctly, in 1993 you were not ashamed to say
13 that they bit you on your legs, but you were ashamed to say that Sikirica
14 raped you twice; is that right?
15 A. I said there were worse things that I don't want to repeat.
16 Q. Answer my question, please.
17 A. I'm telling you now. You want me to say that it's not the truth,
18 but that's not the case, and I'll always say the same thing. And you can
19 ask Sikirica yourself. You can't convince me otherwise.
20 Q. I'm asking you whether you are saying now that you were not
21 ashamed in 1993 to say that you were bitten, they bit you on your legs,
22 whereas you were ashamed in 1995.
23 A. Well, if you really want to know, I was ashamed in 1993 and 1995.
24 But I said I was embarrassed. Of course I was embarrassed and ashamed.
25 It's something that every woman would say, that she was embarrassed.
1 Q. Why in 1993 did you say that Sikirica raped you once and in 1995
2 you say that he raped you twice?
3 A. He raped me the first night and the second night. That's what I
4 experienced in Keraterm. He could have done it five times, if he wanted
5 to, because he held power in his hands.
6 Q. I'm not asking you that.
7 A. But that's my answer to you.
8 Q. I would like to ask you to answer my questions.
9 A. I have already answered them.
10 Q. Why in 1993 --
11 JUDGE RIAD: Can the interpreter please say "question."
12 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honour. Could they make pauses
13 between question and answer, please.
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
15 Q. My question is: Why did you state in 1993 that Sikirica raped
16 you, along with three other men, once Sikirica and then three other men,
17 and in 1995 you say that Sikirica raped you twice?
18 A. Yes, Sikirica did.
19 Q. But why the difference?
20 A. I don't know why the difference, but Sikirica raped me twice, the
21 first night and the second night. That is certain.
22 Q. I'm just asking you why you didn't say that in 1993.
23 A. I don't know why myself. I'm telling you now. Perhaps it would
24 have been better that I had said so then, but that's how it was for sure.
25 Q. Why in 1993 do you say that Sikirica plus three other men raped
1 you and you don't say that at any other time?
2 A. Well, Sikirica knew who raped me. Sikirica was the main person in
3 that room. He was the responsible person. Anybody who wanted to came
4 into the room.
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] She says -- could the answer be
6 recorded? She says, "I don't know who raped me."
7 A. Sikirica raped me on the first and second night. Zuti and Brko
8 came in. Sikirica knows who those other people were. He can tell you.
9 Q. I'm not asking you about their identity. Please answer my
10 question. Why did you, in 1993, say that Sikirica raped you just once,
11 along with three other men, while in 1995 you gave a completely different
12 version to Ms. Hollis? You said that Sikirica raped you twice and don't
13 mention the other three men. I'm just asking you why.
14 A. Well, I don't know why. All I do know is that Sikirica did for
15 sure. The other three tried, but I had my period and they found it
16 distasteful, I think. But all I want to say is that Sikirica knows who
17 those other men were.
18 Q. I'm just asking whether you can see the difference, the difference
19 between what you said in 1993 and 1995.
20 A. Yes, of course I do. I'm not stupid. But I'm just saying what
21 happened. You want to convince me that Sikirica didn't rape me.
22 Q. No, that's not what I'm trying to do, madam.
23 A. Yes, you are, sir.
24 Q. I give you my word that I'm not trying to do that, madam.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I think we're going
1 round and round in circles. Perhaps you did ask the question properly,
2 but you should say, You said this one year and this another year, is there
3 a difference, and if there is a difference, where is the difference?
4 Because otherwise, we keep going round and round in a circle. We're in a
5 vicious circle. I think you asked why three or four times. I think we
6 ought to move forward.
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you, Witness, please make pauses between my question and
9 your answer. That's the first thing I want to ask you. Secondly, do you
10 see that between what I've read out to you now, what you said in 1993, and
11 what you told Ms. Hollis in 1995, there is a difference? If you realise
12 that there is a difference, could you explain to me why the difference?
13 A. I do see the difference. I do realise that there is a difference,
14 but I stand by what I said. That is what happened. In 1992 -- you want
15 me to say 1993.
16 Q. The difference in your statements in 1993 and 1995.
17 A. Yes, I know what you mean, and I've already told you. Probably
18 that's so, but I'm telling you now that I told Ms. Brenda the same truth.
19 And Zeljka who asked me, probably I told her too, but I didn't know what
20 to do. All I know was that people came in all night the first night and
21 the second night. Not people, I mean the guards. The guards kept coming
22 in. And this happened at night. It didn't happen during the day.
23 Q. Either you don't understand me or you don't wish to understand
24 me. I'm not asking you what happened in 1992.
25 A. But that's important. It's important what happened in 1992 and
1 not in 1993. I beg your pardon.
2 Q. Please don't assess what is and is not important. Just answer me,
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I do apologise, but
5 let me tell you. Ask short questions. Ask the witness short questions,
6 because if you elaborate and enter into a dialogue, this leads us
7 nowhere. So ask short questions and wait for her answer. As questions
8 one by one.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
10 Q. In 1993, you said Sikirica raped you once and three other men
11 raped you?
12 A. Sikirica --
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ask whether you -- "Did you say
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Is that what you said in 1993, what I read out? Is that what you
17 said? I read out the passage.
18 A. You mean in 1993? You didn't read anything. I said the same
19 thing in 1993 and in 1995. That's what I said and that's how it was.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, I apologise for
21 interrupting, but relax, take a break, pause. Nobody is here to upset you
22 and make difficulties for you. We're just here to ask questions. So just
23 answer the questions with what you know. If you don't know, say, "I don't
24 know. I do not know," but give us an answer without going into any
25 explanations, just your answer, and then you can wait for the next
1 question. And I'm going to say the same thing to Mr. Fila.
2 Mr. Fila, please ask short and clear questions, concise and clear,
3 and wait for the answer. Then you can go and ask your second question.
4 Otherwise, we'll never get on, because -- Mr. Fila, the witness is upset.
5 She is under tension, and she is becoming tired. So please pose clear,
6 concrete, and concise questions.
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
8 Q. You now say that in 1993 and in 1995, that you told the truth?
9 A. Yes. I think I did, only I'm not aware of that. I'm not
10 conscious of that. But, yes, I did.
11 Q. If that is indeed the case, then it would appear that nothing
12 similar happened to you in Omarska to what happened in Keraterm; is that
14 A. I apologise. You don't say that Sikirica hit me in the eye
15 twice. You don't say that.
16 Q. I'm not asking you about Sikirica. You said that in 1993 and in
17 1995, you told the truth, is that right, and that you always tell the
19 A. Yes, I am telling the truth and I stand by what I said, what I
20 experienced by -- what happened to me -- what Sikirica did to me and what
21 Mladjo Krkan did to me.
22 Q. If that is so, how do you explain, then, the fact that in 1993,
23 you claim that Mladjo Krkan did not rape you?
24 A. I didn't want to talk about it. And then I thought about it, and
25 I said to myself, "Why not? Why shouldn't I say what happened to me?"
1 And Mladjo knows what he did very well.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I think you've got
3 your answer. Move on, please.
4 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Why didn't you want to say that in 1993?
6 A. I don't know why. Perhaps I should have. I ought to have talked
7 about it. But I said that later on, and I stand by it. Mladjo's here.
8 He can say if it's not true, but I stand by what I claim.
9 Q. Another witness was questioned, Witness Vinka. Do you know that
10 Vinka has denied that she did what you say she did?
11 A. Vinka did that for sure. I knew Vinka before when she was a
12 cleaning lady, and -- when I was a cleaning lady, and she called out the
13 women one by one, and she says, "Dika, Mladjo wants you upstairs." I
14 didn't know what he wanted. He was upstairs. The sponge mattress was on
15 the floor. And I stand by everything I said. That's what happened.
16 Q. Witness Vinka said that none of that was true.
17 A. It is most certainly true. And Vinka is alive and well, and we'll
18 see, but it certainly is. You cannot deny it. You can't negate it.
19 Q. What do you do in the country you now reside?
20 A. What I do? I live. It doesn't matter what I do now. I don't
21 think that is essential. I don't think it's important.
22 Q. How do you make your livelihood?
23 A. My family helps me, because the Serbs won't let me go back to my
24 house in Prijedor. They say that I should -- they say that I go to The
25 Hague to testify against Serbs. And I don't testify against all Serbs,
1 only the Serbs who inflicted pain on me.
2 Q. My questions are short ones. Could you give short answers? What
3 is your status in your country of residence?
4 A. I am a refugee.
5 Q. How long has your visa been extended for?
6 A. I haven't got a visa. I have a card. Why would I need a visa?
7 In Bosnia I just have my refugee card and that is prolonged.
8 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, counsel.
9 Mr. President, the objection here would be that this questioning
10 is beyond the scope of the statement which is the reason for having been
11 brought back for cross-examination. I think this is an area that could
12 easily have been inquired into when she appeared in this case for the
13 first time.
14 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
15 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I am testing the credibility of the
16 witness, and it comes within that framework. In the meantime, I learnt
17 that the witness is still testifying, so I want to know whether she makes
18 a living testifying and whether that is a basis for her residence in the
19 country and does that extend her status.
20 A. Well, I see you're very interested in that, whether I have a job
21 or not. I am a refugee in Sarajevo. I can't go back to Prijedor because
22 the Serbs live in my house and they don't want to evacuate it. They don't
23 want to leave.
24 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
25 Q. (redacted)
1 A. Ah, yes. I go and visit my family there. Yes, that's right.
2 Q. Did you meet somebody called (redacted) there?
3 A. No, I never met (redacted) . I just heard about her, but I
4 didn't meet her. I don't know her.
5 Q. When you went to (redacted), how did that happen? Did you meet or
6 did you meet up?
7 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
8 MR. STRINGER: Again, Mr. President, I'm not sure where this line
9 of questioning is going, but I am certain that it's beyond the scope of
10 this February 1993 statement. So again, the objection is that this is
11 beyond the scope of appropriate questioning today. These are areas which
12 could have been inquired into previously.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
14 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Yes, but I obtained that information by
15 looking at the transcript from the Keraterm case, and my last question is
16 how it was that she went to (redacted) to testify and whether she repeated
17 the same thing there, the same she said here before this Tribunal.
18 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, if this
19 information goes beyond the scope of the transcript which was submitted by
20 the Defence, what is your response to this? As you know, we're not aware
21 of that record.
22 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour. Again, I'm not certain how the
23 Trial Chamber wants to -- how it views today's proceedings. Our view was
24 that the witness was being brought back so that she could be
25 cross-examined in respect of a statement or a document which should have
1 been disclosed prior to September of last year, that is, prior to the time
2 she testified.
3 Now, the proceedings in (redacted) that counsel's aware of, he's
4 correct; that is an issue which came up during the cross-examination of
5 this witness during her testimony in the Keraterm case. That occurred in
6 April of this year. So that's an issue which counsel's correct. We
7 viewed her testimony from Keraterm as a witness statement which, in
8 fairness, ought to be disclosed to the Defence prior to her appearing
9 today, but issues regarding any testimony in (redacted) are certainly beyond
10 the scope of the original reason for her being here, which was the
11 February 1993 statement.
12 So I don't know how to respond beyond that, Your Honour. It's a
13 bit of a new issue because it only came up in the April proceedings in
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, if you have an
16 opportunity to ask additional questions of the witness, I think by doing
17 so that we will be mindful of the balance and the equality of arms
18 principles. Do you agree with me? You will have an opportunity to bring
19 it up again during the redirect.
20 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour, and I absolutely accept your
21 ruling. I just wanted -- it wasn't clear to me that any proceedings in
22 (redacted) -- I didn't want it to be assumed that the February 1993
23 statement is another matter that -- that the February 1993 statement makes
24 reference to testimony in (redacted),which it does not.Testimony in
25 (redacted) is an issue which is not within the four corners of the February
1 1993 statement.
2 But certainly, Your Honour, I can -- I'm sure I'll have the
3 opportunity for a redirect.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Fila, as you
5 know, the Chamber is not aware of those statements. We don't know what
6 they're all about. And what we would like to ask you is to streamline and
7 focus your examination to the reasons why the witness has been recalled.
8 So please cross-examine the witness concerning this new information. Of
9 course we have to have the possibility of testing the credibility of the
10 witness. It's in accordance with the Rules. And the counsel both for the
11 Defence and the Prosecution have the right to ask questions which go to
12 the issue of credibility. It is the task of justice to examine witnesses
13 and to test their credibility.
14 Mr. Fila, please focus your questions on that particular issue and
15 of course the Prosecutor will be given the opportunity to ask questions
16 during the redirect. In that way, we will, of course, as we always do, be
17 mindful and respectful of the equality of arms principle.
18 Please continue, Mr. Fila.
19 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
20 Q. My question's very simple. Did you go to (redacted) and did you
21 give the testimony in (redacted) as you gave here?
22 A. It was organised on a private basis. There were ten of us, and we
23 went there, and it had nothing to do with the Tribunal.
24 Q. I would like to know whether your description of the events in
25 Omarska and Keraterm was the same.
1 A. Yes, but there were other things as well. As I said, it was
2 organised on a private basis. I was not alone. There were ten of us, and
3 it had nothing to do with the Tribunal. It concerned Karadzic and not
5 Q. But the gist of my question is as follows: Did you give the same
6 description of the events that took place in Omarska and Keraterm as you
7 did here?
8 A. Of course I did. But again, it was a private action.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. This
10 concludes my examination.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you,
12 Mr. Fila.
13 Mr. Stringer, how much time do you think you will need for your
14 additional questions? Because I think we will soon have to break for
16 MR. STRINGER: Your Honour, I don't know what the normal lunchtime
17 is, but it's my guess that I would go for at least 30 minutes, possibly
18 45. I'd be grateful if I had perhaps the lunch break to organise and
19 streamline the redirect to make it actually more compact.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In that case, I think it's
21 better to have a break now. We will have our lunch break at this point,
22 which means that the recess will take 50 minutes, after which we will come
23 back for additional questions and questions of the Judges.
24 Madam K, I will first ask the usher to accompany you out of the
25 courtroom, because you yourself also have to have lunch.
1 Fifty-minute break.
2 --- Recess taken at 12.50 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 1.49 p.m.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Please be seated.
5 Mr. Stringer.
6 MR. STRINGER: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President,
7 before the witness enters the courtroom, there's one matter that we want
8 to bring to the attention of the Trial Chamber. It's an issue that we've
9 been grappling with a little bit over the last several days, or day, and
10 we have had further consultations with others in the office. We've become
11 aware that perhaps there's a practice or a policy that's being observed by
12 one of the other trial teams involved in one of the other -- or appearing
13 before one of the other Trial Chambers, and so we decided to just bring
14 this to the Court's attention, the Trial Chamber's attention, in the
15 presence of the Defence so that whatever action is thought to be
16 appropriate, if any, can be taken, because we're not even sure whether
17 this is significant or not.
18 In the last week or ten days, in the course of scheduling Witness
19 K for her coming and travel to The Hague to testify, we were informed, in
20 a sort of an informal way or just as an aside, by someone in the Victims
21 and Witnesses Section who was actually trying to make the travel
22 arrangements, that the witness was not able to travel at an earlier time
23 or that her travel to The Hague would be affected because of her
24 unavailability because she was going to be at a spa, and that's the word
25 that's been given to us. And there might be some suggestion that there
1 might be some sort of treatment or therapy. We don't know. But we know
2 that one of the other Trial Chambers has taken the position that really if
3 there's any suggestion that a witnesses is receiving any sort of
4 psychological counselling of any kind, it's something that is disclosed,
5 and so we decided to bring this to your attention.
6 As the Trial Chamber knows, we haven't been permitted and we
7 haven't had any contact with the witness, and so we've not been in a
8 position even to try and get any more information about the nature of what
9 she may have been going to a spa for, whether there's stress or whether
10 it's just simply a vacation. I don't know. But I think in respect to
11 this witness in particular, given the fact that she has had to return
12 because of a failure on the part of the Prosecutor to disclose this
13 document from February of 1993, and in light of the fact that at least one
14 Trial Chamber seems to be taking even this kind of information as
15 something that can be subject to disclosure, we thought that it should be
16 mentioned, that counsel should be informed about it. If there's some
17 inquiry perhaps that the Trial Chamber wants to make of the witness to
18 enable us to know whether there's any reason to pursue the inquiry
19 further, we leave that to the Trial Chamber, as I said, because we're not
20 in a position to do it ourselves.
21 So that is the issue that we wanted to raise before the redirect
22 examination starts, Mr. President.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I haven't discussed the issue
24 with my colleagues, but I can tell you what my position is. I don't think
25 that we should be exaggerating and that every time something happens in
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 relation to the witness, we have to follow him or her step by step. If I
2 went to a spa, it doesn't necessarily mean that I am ill. I like going to
3 the spa, for example; I don't know. If the witness is going to a spa, I
4 don't know that we should be following her. It may not be that
5 important. I know there are issues that arise in relation to that, but I
6 really don't think we should be undertaking any measures.
7 However, in order to respect the principle of equality of arms, I
8 will give the floor to Mr. Fila to hear whether he has any comments.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in my country, in my
10 legal system, such things are very simply resolved; someone should
11 approach the witness and ask her why she is undergoing treatment, if any.
12 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much
13 for drawing our attention to that fact. We are always concerned that the
14 procedure should be transparent and clear, and I think that in the spirit
15 of good cooperation between the parties, this particular issue has been
16 brought to the Chamber's attention. But having heard you, I don't think
17 that there's anything that needs to be done in relation to that. We will
18 proceed with the pertinent questions that need to be asked of the
20 Having said that, I think we can call Witness K back to the
21 courtroom. Let me ask the usher to help the witness into the courtroom.
22 [The witness entered court]
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] You may be seated, Witness. I
24 hope you have had a good lunch, Mrs. K. Have you had a good lunch?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't have any lunch, no.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I hope you will have some lunch
2 after this, after your testimony.
3 Witness K, we will now continue with your examination, and you
4 will be answering questions that will be put to you by Mr. Stringer now.
5 Mr. Stringer, your witness.
6 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Further examined by Mr. Stringer:
8 Q. Good afternoon, Witness K. During the questioning by Mr. Fila
9 earlier, he asked you how many times you had given testimony at the
10 Tribunal and how many times you had given statements about the things that
11 happened to you at Keraterm and Omarska. Do you recall those questions?
12 A. I testified three times. This is my third time here at the
13 Tribunal, and I gave a statement to Ms. Brenda also. I gave a statement
14 to Zeljka as well, but Zeljka told me that that statement would never go
15 anywhere, would never leave her office, so that's why I was surprised. If
16 I remember correctly, Zagreb and Zeljka, if that indeed is the lady in
17 question, but I will try and locate her.
18 Q. Let me ask you if you could just try to limit yourself to
19 answering my questions and then we can have perhaps a better exchange.
20 Now, this is the third time you've testified at the Tribunal. The
21 first time was in this case last September. Do you recall that? And then
22 you returned here last April, a couple months ago, to testify in what we
23 call the Keraterm case, a case against Mr. Sikirica and others.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You're here again today for the third time.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, we've talked about two statements and -- one of them being
3 the statement that you gave to Ms. Brenda in February of 1995.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And Ms. Brenda, that's Brenda Hollis. She was an attorney with
6 the Office of the Prosecutor here at the Tribunal. Is that your
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you've been asked today about a statement that you made in
10 Zagreb to this woman Ms. Zivkovic, is that correct?
11 A. I don't know the surname.
12 Q. Okay. Now, the statement that we're talking about now, this one
13 that you gave in Zagreb in 1993, do you recall giving that or having an
14 interview and someone asking you about your experiences at Omarska and
16 A. I think it was Zeljka.
17 Q. Okay. And after you spoke to this person Zeljka, did she ever
18 show you a written statement that was made based on the things that you
19 told her?
20 A. No. I never saw her again. I would like to meet her.
21 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I have this document which I would
22 like to put on the ELMO and have the witness look at it, if I may. And
23 perhaps with your permission, Mr. President, I could give another copy of
24 it to the witness. She could look at it rather than looking at the video
1 Q. Now, Witness K, if you would, take just a moment to look over that
2 statement. You don't have to read it, all of it, but just perhaps look
3 through the pages and familiarise yourself with it, if you would, please.
4 You can look at the document that's been placed in front of you, which is
5 the same one that you're looking at on the video.
6 Are you able to tell me whether you ever saw that document
8 A. I can't remember having seen the document. I'm not hundred per
9 cent sure, though.
10 Q. And after you told your story to this woman in Zagreb, then, did
11 she ever read this statement or any other statements back to you?
12 A. No. No.
13 Q. Can you look through the remaining pages on that document and tell
14 me whether you signed the document? Does your signature appear on that
16 A. I don't see my signature here.
17 Q. So is it your testimony that you were never given an opportunity
18 to read it and to say whether it is accurate or inaccurate or whether some
19 parts are correct, other parts are incorrect?
20 A. No.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. No, I never saw it, and my signature is not here. I only trust
23 what I signed.
24 Q. Now, earlier this morning, Mr. Fila asked you about some things
25 that are in that statement which are not the same as things that are
1 contained in other statements that you have made. Do you recall that?
2 A. Mr. Fila. Yes.
3 Q. Now, one of the questions that he asked you was based on the fact
4 that, in this statement, you did not say that Mladjo Radic raped you at
6 A. No, I didn't say that.
7 Q. Can you tell the Judges why you didn't say it at the time that you
8 were speaking to this woman in February of 1993.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila.
10 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I asked the same
11 question at least five or six times and you yourself prevented me from
12 asking it once again. And I think that we should now -- we will be simply
13 repeating the same question, and I think that the question was asked and
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, your response,
17 MR. STRINGER: I don't think I have a response, Mr. President.
18 I'll move on.
19 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Ask another question, please.
20 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
21 Q. In February of 1993, did you inform this woman that Radic had
22 raped you at Omarska?
23 A. No. No. I didn't tell her that.
24 Q. Why not?
25 A. I don't know why I didn't.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Fila. I think that
2 we're now moving in circles.
3 Mr. Stringer, do you intend to repeat all of the questions that
4 have been asked by Mr. Fila?
5 MR. STRINGER: No, Your Honour. I was --
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but this is your redirect
7 examination, additional questions which follow from the questions and the
8 responses which we heard already. We're not going to repeat the same
9 questions again. The question was asked by Mr. Fila. Would you please
10 move on to another question.
11 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President.
12 Q. I believe that in response to the question of Mr. Fila, you said,
13 "I didn't want to talk about it."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Why didn't you want to talk about it at that time?
16 A. I don't know myself.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
18 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] But it's the same old story,
19 Mr. President. I have asked the same question already.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I myself am
21 somewhat surprised. The witness has been asked the same question and she
22 has given the same answer. I really don't know the reason for these
23 questions. Are you aware of the fact that this question has already been
24 asked of the witness?
25 MR. STRINGER: I am, Your Honour. I'm simply trying -- we have
1 what I think everyone agrees is an inconsistency, and the witness has
2 acknowledged that she did not inform this person in 1993 of the events
3 which she is now testifying about. I don't know that the question has
4 ever been asked to her by Mr. Fila today: Why did she withhold this
5 information in February of 1993? Perhaps there's a legitimate explanation
6 which is relevant to the Court's consideration of this inconsistency.
7 JUDGE WALD: If I might intervene, I tend to think too that this
8 is the crux of -- or at least, of what I want to know as a fact-finder. I
9 think perhaps this might be the last time it's allowed to be asked, but I
10 would like to hear the answer.
11 JUDGE RIAD: Mr. Stringer, perhaps she doesn't know the answer.
12 It's a whole psychological evolution. You need a psychiatrist to tell the
13 answer, perhaps.
14 MR. STRINGER: I agree with you, Judge Riad. I do believe,
15 though, that it is a question that perhaps the witness ought to be
16 entitled to answer as well. I agree that a professional might be able to
17 provide a good answer, but I think it's something that, in my view, the
18 witness should be given an opportunity to clarify.
19 JUDGE RIAD: If she knows it.
20 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, shall I ask the question again
21 or ...
22 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, please do ask the question,
23 but after that, we will have to move on. I myself also have a line of
24 questions that I'm trying to follow here. But okay, even if this is going
25 to be repetition, please ask the question.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Witness K, why did you withhold that information about Radic from
3 this woman when you spoke to her in February of 1993?
4 A. I withheld that information. I don't know why I did. I don't
5 know the reason why at this point.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, these are leading
8 questions. She said that -- it's not that she didn't give any
9 information. She did give some information. We can read the question
10 from the transcript.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I think that there
12 is a danger of making allegations and moving around in circles at this
13 point. What we have to do at this point is to collect, gather information
14 without engaging in discussions. However, if we continue repeating the
15 questions that have already been asked of the witness, then I think that
16 we are running the risk of hearing different answers to the same question.
17 Mr. Fila has made an objection to the effect that the witness
18 stated that Mr. Radic had not done anything. I haven't read the
19 statement, so I think we should perhaps rephrase the question so that we
20 are able to follow the information which is contained in the statement
21 that is currently being discussed.
22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think I'm prepared to move on if
23 you think that this is becoming a bit repetitious. The main point I was
24 hoping to get from the witness was why was information withheld, and she
25 has answered the question and I'm prepared to move on. But again, if --
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but the witness has already
2 answered the question which was asked by Mr. Fila. Or are you trying to
3 elicit a different answer? Mr. Fila has asked this question and the
4 witness has responded to that question, has provided an answer. You can
5 perhaps take up the answer once again and ask additional, supplementary
6 questions, but what you cannot do is ask the same question once again.
7 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm prepared to -- I've
8 finished my questioning in respect of the 1993 statement and I'm ready to
9 move on.
10 Q. Witness K, now just a couple of brief questions about the
11 statement that you gave to Brenda Hollis in 1995. When you made that
12 statement, were you given an opportunity to review the statement?
13 A. Yes, a little bit. I managed to review the statement with
14 Ms. Brenda.
15 Q. Do you recall that it was read back to you in the Bosnian language
16 before you signed it?
17 A. I believe it was, yes.
18 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, could I ask that the Brenda Hollis
19 statement be placed in front of the witness for one very quick question.
20 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I think I should have to
22 quote Mr. Stringer now. Only the statement dating from 1993 was discussed
23 before the Chamber. I don't see the reason why we should be discussing
24 the statement given in 1995 before the Chamber. I was cautioned by the
25 Chamber to the same effect. If my learned colleague has finished
1 questions relating to 1993, then it means that he has completed and
2 finished his redirect examination. Thank you.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, I don't think we have
4 heard the question that Mr. Stringer wants to ask, but I think I can sort
5 of anticipate the reason for that question. And so can you -- we are
6 talking about several statements here, and we have to establish the
7 difference between these statements, and that's what I think Mr. Stringer
8 is trying to do. So please -- yes.
9 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
10 Q. Witness K, the Brenda Hollis statement which has been placed in
11 front of you, do you recognise your signature on that document?
12 A. Yes. Yes.
13 Q. Were you given an opportunity to review that statement or to have
14 it read to you in your own language before you signed it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And in that statement, do you recall if you informed Ms. Hollis
17 that Mladjo Radic raped you at the Omarska camp?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Witness K, you were asked some questions about your experience at
20 the Keraterm camp, which I would very briefly follow up on.
21 You testified that you were raped by Mr. Sikirica; is that
23 A. Yes, for sure.
24 Q. How many times?
25 A. Two times. The first night and then the second night.
1 Q. There was testimony about other men who came to you when you were
2 at Keraterm.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did anyone else rape you when you were at the Keraterm camp, other
5 than Mr. Sikirica?
6 A. I wasn't raped by the others, but Brko, for example, was trying to
7 do it, but I fought back. There were three of them, three men, but it was
8 dark, so I couldn't see them. And Sikirica had already left the room.
9 Those were three other individuals. But it was during the night, so the
10 place was dark.
11 Q. Very well. You were asked by Mr. Fila about the testimony in this
12 trial of a woman named Vinka. Do you recall that question from Mr. Fila?
13 A. Yes. Yes, I remember those questions very well.
14 Q. And he told you that Vinka had testified here that Mr. Radic had
15 not raped you or that he had not engaged in misconduct.
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] When did I ask that question and when
18 did Vinka say that? I should like to know where it is recorded. At least
19 I should be quoted correctly, if nothing else.
20 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think the record will obviously
21 say what it says. I think -- I have a very firm recollection that
22 Mr. Fila confronted the witness with testimony of a woman named Vinka who
23 testified earlier in this case. I didn't mean to mischaracterise the
24 nature of her testimony and I apologise if I did that, but the purpose
25 simply was to focus the witness on the testimony of the woman named
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Please try to help the
3 witness to focus her concentration on the issue and ask the question once
4 again, please.
5 MR. STRINGER:
6 Q. Witness K, do you recall that Mr. Fila asked you about testimony
7 of a woman named Vinka?
8 A. Yes. Yes, I do.
9 Q. Do you recall this woman Vinka at the Omarska camp?
10 A. Yes. Yes.
11 Q. Was she a detainee at the camp? Was she a prisoner?
12 A. No. She worked there. She had worked there before, and she also
13 worked there while we were in Omarska. I know her very well, and she
14 knows me also.
15 Q. Did she live at the Omarska camp at this time?
16 A. No, she didn't live there. She simply came to work there every
18 Q. And in the evening, did she go home?
19 A. Yes. Yes, in the evening, she would go home. But that event
20 occurred during the day, not in the evening.
21 Q. Do you recall what was her ethnic background, her nationality?
22 A. She's a Serb.
23 Q. Now, Witness K, I'm going to again very briefly direct your
24 attention to -- well, I already -- I believe that you've just indicated
25 that, in your statement to Brenda Hollis, you recall stating that Mladjo
1 Radic raped you at the Omarska camp; is that correct?
2 A. Yes. Yes. And I stand by that.
3 Q. Now, I want to ask you whether you recall specifically --
4 MR. STRINGER: If I could have the statement back from the
5 witness, please.
6 Q. Witness K, again on this point, I just simply want to ask you
7 specifically whether you informed Ms. Hollis that Mladjo Radic raped you
8 one time: "He pushed me onto a foam mattress on the floor. I tried to
9 resist him. He pulled my skirt up, raped me, then left the room."
10 Do you recall informing Ms. Hollis about that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is it still your testimony today that that's what happened?
13 A. Yes, it is. I stand by what I said.
14 Q. Directing your attention to your testimony to this case in
15 September of last year, September the year 2000, do you recall testifying
16 as follows: "I was called by Vinka, the cleaning lady, and she told me
17 that Mladjo needed me, that he wanted to ask me something. So I went
19 Skipping ahead a couple of lines.
20 "Mladjo Radic was already there, and he started blackmailing me
21 with my children. He told me that my children would not be harmed, things
22 like that. I told him that my children were not guilty of anything, that
23 if they had come to kill someone, they should kill me. Then he attacked
24 me, he assaulted me, and raped me. Mladjo Radic raped me. There was a
25 foam mattress on the floor, on the left-hand side from the door. It had
1 already been placed there for the women. I know only what happened to
2 myself, and I think that the others should talk about what happened to
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you recall that testimony earlier in the trial?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And is that still your testimony about what happened?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, you were here, as you testified, a couple of months ago,
10 testifying in the case against Mr. Sikirica and others. Do you recall
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Do you recall testifying in that trial that: "Vinka, the cleaning
14 lady who used to work in Omarska when I worked there, came and said that
15 Mladjo was calling me upstairs. Of course I followed her, and she brought
16 me to the conference room. I entered, and Mladjo was already in the room,
17 and on one side there was a sponge bed or something, sponge mattress,
18 and ..."
19 A. It was not a bed. It was a mattress, foam mattress.
20 Q. "... and it's there that Mladjo raped me."
21 Do you recall that testimony from the Keraterm case?
22 A. Yes. Yes.
23 Q. And is it your testimony today that that is correct and that's
24 what happened to you at the Omarska camp?
25 A. Yes, it is. The answer is correct, and what I said is correct,
1 and I stand by it and I always will, and I'm sure about that.
2 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, may I have one moment to consult
3 with my colleagues?
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, just for the sake of a full record,
6 we're going to offer into evidence the 1993 statement that the witness
7 made to the person in Zagreb, and we have an English translation, which is
8 the Tribunal's translation which would obviously accompany that, and so we
9 offer that into evidence at this time.
10 Beyond that, I don't have any further questions of the witness.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. We will consider
12 that issue at the end, after the questions of the Judges. Thank you very
13 much, Mr. Stringer.
14 Let me give the floor to Judge Fouad Riad, but I see that Mr. Fila
15 is on his feet.
16 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I should like to ask the
17 Court's permission, as the question has remained open, what the witness
18 testified in the Keraterm trial, and as you know, I didn't ask her,
19 neither did I use the transcript in my cross-examination, because I deemed
20 that we were discussing the 1993 statement, but I should like to ask the
21 Court's indulgence and allow me to ask one question, to ask her what she
22 said in the Keraterm trial, when she was testifying in the Keraterm trial,
23 what she said happened to her. I didn't ask her that. I was just
24 concentrating and focusing on the statement. So that is another issue
25 which has been opened. And if the issue has been opened, I have the right
1 to redirect.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
3 MR. STRINGER: My response, Your Honour, is that the full Keraterm
4 transcript was disclosed to all counsel prior to today to give them an
5 opportunity to review Witness K's testimony in that case. I just went
6 into it on redirect because, in my view, it was -- the door had already
7 been opened quite widely by counsel during his cross-examination. So I
8 think he opened the door to it. I followed with redirect. I don't know
9 that it's necessary to go back into it. He had the opportunity and he
10 took it.
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes, but Mr. Stringer - I
12 apologise for interrupting - what did your objection signify with respect
13 to certain questions that Mr. Fila raised and asked? And you said at the
14 time -- your objection was -- the objection you raised was that they went
15 beyond the 1993 statement, because from your point of view it was only
16 that statement, the 1993 statement, which was the issue being discussed.
17 So I don't understand your position, because that was the objection you
18 yourself made.
19 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour, but I believe that after the
20 objection was made, the door was -- counsel clearly put to the witness
21 questions regarding her testimony in the Keraterm case. That's my
22 recollection of it, quite clearly. She was -- she clearly testified on
23 cross-examination about how many times, if any, Mr. Sikirica raped the
24 witness, whether other men were present. These were all issues that did
25 come up during the cross-examination by Mr. Fila.
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Okay. Very well. Let me
2 consult my colleagues.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, are you able to ask
5 your questions in two questions or one question?
6 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Two questions.
7 Further cross-examined by Mr. Fila:
8 Q. When you were questioned during the Keraterm trial, on page 2158
9 of the English transcript, you stated the following:
10 A. A second man came into the room and did the same
11 thing Sikirica had done. He had a lighter and he
12 found me also.
13 Q. And he did the same to you that Sikirica did?
14 A. The same that Sikirica had done.
15 Q. You say that he raped you also.
16 A. Yes, he also raped me.
17 Q. That same night in the room up on the floor above,
18 something else happened.
19 A. A second man came in.
20 And so on and so forth. Therefore, my question is as follows:
21 Did you testify in the Keraterm trial that, in addition to Sikirica,
22 another man raped you, as I have just read out from the transcript?
23 A. I think he did. I was unconscious. I saw the man. The third
24 person that came was Brko, and when I pushed him away, I was all covered
25 in blood, sir, and I stand by that. What he did, I don't know. All I
1 know is that he was there and that I pushed him away. I was lying down on
2 the floor. And Sikirica knows who those people were.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Witness. I think
4 that Mr. Fila is satisfied with your answer.
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I come now to the second question. What is true: What you have
7 just told Mr. Stringer, that only Sikirica raped you in Keraterm that
8 night --
9 A. Or?
10 Q. -- or is it true what I just read out? Is what I just read out
11 true: that after Sikirica, another man raped you, who put on his lighter
12 and saw you by the light of the lighter, which means that you were not
13 unconscious if you had seen his lighter.
14 A. Sikirica came with the lighter. This other man did not. While I
15 was lying down on the floor, I was unconscious. I didn't know. I just
16 saw a man on top of me. What he did, I don't know. That's why I didn't
17 testify that way and didn't tell the truth, that is to say, what he did.
18 And Sikirica knows who the people were who could have come in. There were
19 several of them. And if necessary, I'll go on and say some more.
20 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] All that remains for me, Mr. President,
21 is for somebody to read through that segment, that portion, and they will
22 find two answers. It's either like that or not like that. Thank you.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, two additional
24 questions for you. Do you have any questions? Two, if you do.
25 MR. STRINGER: My only question, Mr. President -- I may have
1 missed it. I didn't know if there was a ruling by the Trial Chamber on
2 whether it would admit the 1993 statement and the translation.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I gave you the floor,
4 Mr. Stringer, to give you the right to ask two additional questions of the
5 witness, not of the Trial Chamber; to ask the witness any questions if you
6 have them, two.
7 MR. STRINGER: I apologise, Mr. President. I don't have any
8 further questions for the witness.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. I think Judge Riad
10 said he didn't have any questions.
11 Madam Judge Wald.
12 Questioned by the Court:
13 JUDGE WALD: Witness K, I have only one question, and it has to do
14 with the 1993 statement. You tell us now that you had two very bad
15 experiences - we don't have to go into the details, I'm not interested at
16 this juncture in the details - in 1992, one in the Keraterm case and one
17 in the Omarska case. And you told us that when you were discussing it in
18 February 1993 with this person in Zagreb, that you didn't want to talk
19 about the Omarska incident. I'm just wondering if there was any special
20 reason why at that time you felt you could talk about, according to your
21 version, a very terrible experience that happened to you in Keraterm but
22 that at that point you were not able to talk about what seems to be, you
23 know, an equally bad experience in Omarska, if you know.
24 A. There is a reason: Because in Keraterm I got two fists in my eye,
25 and nobody beat me in Omarska; just Radic raped me. So that was the
1 reason, and I stand by that.
2 JUDGE WALD: Okay.
3 A. Nobody else beat me; just Sikirica.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness K, relax, take a deep
5 breath. I have some questions for you as well. We spoke about statements
6 that you gave in Zagreb, the one to Ms. Brenda Hollis in (redacted), and
7 before the Tribunal, all the different statements. For you, is there any
8 difference between these different statements, or in your mind, to you,
9 are they exactly the same? What I am thinking about is the form.
10 A. Well, I think that more or less they are the same, more or less,
11 approximately, but Keraterm is the most difficult, as far as I personally
12 am concerned. That was the most difficult thing.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let me go back a bit. For
14 example, if you were to compare the statement that you gave in Zagreb in
15 1993 -- I'm not thinking about what you were saying. For you, in your
16 mind, are they all statements, or were there differences between the
17 statement you gave in Zagreb and, for example, the statement you made to
18 Ms. Hollis? Not what you actually said, but in your own mind, how do you
19 feel about them? Can you say that -- can you think of them as being
20 statements in the same sense?
21 A. Well, not in the same sense, no. They're not the same. I agree
22 with you. They weren't the same, but the same thing happened. But I
23 didn't make the same statement, because Zeljka didn't say that that
24 statement would go anywhere. She said she would keep it for herself. I
25 didn't sign it. And Zeljka was a journalist, and when she came, she took
1 the statement.
2 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, do you know
3 what the Zagreb declaration -- what the purpose of it was?
4 A. No. She said she just wanted to have it for herself. I never saw
5 it or read it or signed it.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] What about Ms. Hollis? Did she
7 tell you why -- what purpose the declaration would serve, the declaration
8 you gave to her?
9 A. No, Ms. Hollis didn't tell me either, but then something happened
10 and I wanted to tell it all, tell the whole story, to make myself feel
11 better. I made my statement voluntarily, but it just came to me that I
12 wanted to tell her all this.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] When you said, "the first time
14 that you gave a statement to Ms. Hollis," why did you say it was the first
15 time you made a statement?
16 A. Because I didn't know that Zeljka -- that anybody would hear about
17 it, that it would exist anywhere. She said she was only taking it for her
18 own -- for herself. She didn't only take it from me; she took statements
19 from other women. And she said that, as a journalist, she wanted the
20 statement for herself. All journalists were going around all the time.
21 And I didn't know her. I know her name was Zeljka. But I'll find her.
22 I'll find her for sure.
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] In front of you -- that is to
24 say, you were there, Witness, and the journalist was there. Was there a
25 sort of agreement and did you reach -- was there a confidentiality
1 established between you?
2 A. Well, I had confidence in her. She said that nobody would learn
3 of it, you know, when I came, and I didn't give anybody else a statement
4 until I gave the statement to Ms. Brenda.
5 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] And another question: You
6 needn't answer the question which I'm going to ask you but, if you like,
7 you can.
8 Did you ever receive any psychological counselling to help you put
9 all these things that happened to you into perspective? Did you ever
10 receive any psychological counselling?
11 A. Well, I did a little bit in Zagreb and a little bit in Sarajevo
12 when I went back, at the doctor's.
13 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I see. Yes. Do you feel more
14 at ease now to speak about those events and that experience; that is to
15 say, did you feel more at ease at the beginning of the treatment, in the
16 middle of the treatment, or at the end of the treatment? Or let me put it
17 another way: When did you feel more at ease and were able to talk about
18 what had happened to you, to talk about your experiences?
19 A. Well, let me be quite frank. It's never easy to talk about things
20 like that, to be quite frank. It's never easy in any situation.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. We know that, Witness.
22 But is there a difference? Were you able to talk about it better at the
23 beginning of the treatment or at the end of the treatment, at the end of
24 the counselling? When did you find it easier?
25 A. Well, it was easier -- I would cry a bit, I would concentrate my
1 mind on these events, and then talk about them, but I don't like to talk
2 about them to everyone and anyone.
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. That is why we are in a
4 privileged position here. You are before us here, and you have answered
5 questions by the Defence and so on. You are answering my own questions
7 So, Witness, when you say that it's always difficult to talk about
8 it, it is always easier after you've cried a bit. That's what you said.
9 Now, what you've said, is it linked to the degree or - how shall I put
10 it? - to the counselling you received, to the degree and the phase of
11 counselling? At first you weren't able to say a great deal and then,
12 after received counselling, you began to talk more and then, at the end of
13 the counselling, you began to speak about it even more?
14 A. Well, yes. At the end, I think I could say more, and I could say
15 a lot more now, but I wouldn't be very happy to have to do so,
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] I should like to go back to your
18 Zagreb statement now, please, Witness. Were there any other people who
19 made statements?
20 A. Not with me. There wasn't anyone there. But yes, people did make
21 statements. They did give statements. Because the journalists were just
22 there, waiting to see us turn up. And who gave the statements, I don't
23 know, because refugees came from Prijedor to Zagreb daily, and the
24 journalists would wait for them.
25 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] So if I understand you
1 correctly, when you made your statement, you were alone while giving it,
2 but you had the impression that the journalists were there. And the
3 journalist was there, and she was waiting for other people, to hear their
4 stories; is that right?
5 A. Yes, yes. Many people asked me, but I didn't tell anybody
6 anything. I don't know why I told Zeljka, but because she said that it
7 would be confidential between us, and it was all fresh in my mind when I
8 had just arrived.
9 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Very well. May I take it, then,
10 Witness K, that you gave Zeljka -- made the statement to Zeljka because
11 she promised not to disclose it, not to disclose your statement; is that
13 A. Yes, yes. She said she wouldn't disclose it. My mother was in
14 Prijedor and my grandmother was in Prijedor, and I didn't want them to
15 know then and I don't want them to know now. I didn't even sign that
16 statement, you see.
17 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. But let me remind you that
18 we're in a totally closed session. Everything is confidential, for all of
19 us here. All of us in this courtroom. Everything is confidential, and
20 it's confidential for you. We're in a completely closed session. So the
21 statement and the contents remain confidential.
22 Would you like to add anything, having said that, something that
23 you haven't said so far? Is there anything that you would wish to add?
24 A. I have nothing to add, but I believe that all this is
25 confidential, and I wouldn't be talking about it if it weren't. I believe
1 this to be a closed session, that it's not for the publishing, public
3 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Well, I assure you you have all
4 the protective measures available. We are in a totally closed session and
5 you are completely protected in that way.
6 I have no further questions.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila.
9 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to take
10 advantage of the opportunity you gave me, if anything new comes up in the
11 course of examination, to ask additional questions. That is to say, to
12 your question she said that the Zeljka person was a journalist. This came
13 up in answer to your question, as far as I was able to understand.
14 A. I think she was. I think she was. I'm not quite sure.
15 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. What was
16 the question, Mr. Fila? What are you asking?
17 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] In the statement that the Prosecution
18 has, it says that it is an official statement given to Marija Zivkovic of
19 the Family Centre in Zagreb, and that means that she's not a journalist.
20 This is your document.
21 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Witness, don't answer. Wait a
22 minute. We're going to resolve this question amongst the two parties.
23 Mr. Stringer.
24 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. First to address the
25 last thing that counsel said. This is not her document. I think the
1 record makes it quite clear that she was never shown this document and is
2 not in a position to authenticate anything that's on it, especially not
3 notations or other things that were written or printed on the document
4 after she gave the information to the interview.
5 Now, what counsel's referring to now is a third document which
6 we've not talked about today. I mentioned it at the very beginning this
7 morning. There are three: There is the Zagreb B/C/S version of what this
8 witness said in February of 1993; there is the Tribunal's English
9 translation of that document. Those are the two that have been offered
10 into evidence by the Prosecution.
11 The third document is the English translation that was
12 evidently -- was apparently made by someone at this place where she gave
13 this statement. We don't know who made the translation into English, and
14 as is the case with all translations that come to us, we don't rely on
15 it. It's someone else's translation of the original language, that is,
16 the original language being B/C/S.
17 The English translation that was made by those other people,
18 that's the third document. That's the document that counsel's now relying
19 on that has a notation at the top that there was a fax sent from this
20 Family Centre. The same translation has some handwritten notes on it. We
21 don't know who made any of that, any of those notes. We certainly don't
22 know where this fax notation came from that's at the top. For us, this is
23 an English translation which we don't accept because we didn't make it
24 ourself. So it's a non-document, and again, this witness is not in any
25 position to explain where these other notations would have come from.
1 That third document again, Your Honour, it's in the courtroom. We
2 can put it on the ELMO, we can examine it, but it is someone else's
3 translation with someone else's notations on it. We simply don't know.
4 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We should like to follow a
5 normal procedure for these proceedings, but, Mr. Fila, may we have your
6 response, and what is your question?
7 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] We received two documents from the
8 Prosecution, Your Honour, which are now being tendered. When we learned
9 that in Keraterm the same Prosecution had a third document, the one that
10 Mr. Stringer is talking about now, we received that third document, too,
11 from the Prosecution.
12 None of those three documents which are now being tendered for
13 admission has a signature, neither the one in Serbian or the one that has
14 been translated into English or the other English translation. But from
15 the third, which they say they don't recognise, I obtained that from the
16 Prosecution, and on that document it states, "Marija Zivkovic, Family
17 Centre," and it is a Prosecution document. And on it there is the
18 official person taking the statement, and that official person is Zeljka
19 Zivkovic. That's what it says. Whereas the one that we were given in
20 Serbian and which the Tribunal had translated into English, there is no
21 mention of the name "Zeljka Zivkovic" nor is there a signature on the
23 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, this is communication
24 between your two parties. We ourselves, the Trial Chamber, don't have the
25 documents. The documents have not been identified or numbered, identified
1 with a number.
2 Now, what is the proposal you're trying to make to the Chamber?
3 What do you want to do? After the Judges' questions, when we are about to
4 release the witness, what are you asking now?
5 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] Let the witness be released. All I
6 wanted to say is that the document says that it was the -- the statement
7 was taken by an official person and not a journalist. All I wanted to ask
8 was is she sure that the Zeljka person was a journalist, and with that, I
9 have concluded.
10 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, you weren't here - I
11 think, last Tuesday it was - but Mr. Jovanovic was here, and we saw a
12 statement, the statement of a witness, and I can quote the name, Lukic,
13 and I think it's the same thing.
14 So what do you want to do now? I think it's the same thing. The
15 counsel are here. I think we're speaking about the same type of issue. I
16 don't see any problem. I don't see where the problem is. I think that
17 there is an enormous amount of confusion.
18 As you know, we're talking about documents that are not -- we
19 don't have before us. The documents haven't been given a number, haven't
20 been marked for identification, and on the basis of my experience, on last
21 Tuesday we had a similar problem regarding documents and statements which,
22 just by chance, were taken in the same place, on the same date, in the
23 same town, and so on. The situation was analogous last Tuesday.
24 But having said that, let me turn to the witness.
25 Witness, it is -- the search, the quest for the truth is always --
1 and justice is always difficult, and that is what we're about here, to
2 arrive at the truth, the real truth, and nothing but the truth. That is a
3 term we have adopted, "the whole truth," as we like to say here. But,
4 Witness, we should like to thank you for coming back once again.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. May I just say
6 something, Your Honour? I just recognised the statement I gave to
7 Ms. Brenda and that I signed. I stand by that statement.
8 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] We know that, Witness. You've
9 already told us that. We do tend to repeat ourselves again and again and
10 lose time by doing so, whereas we have a lot of work to get through.
11 But, Witness, let me thank you once again. I wish you a pleasant
12 journey back to your place of residence, and I'm going to ask the usher to
13 escort you out of the courtroom now.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honour.
15 [The witness withdrew]
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Let us take up the matter
17 that -- and that is the tendering into evidence of the statements.
18 I'm going to ask Mr. Fila's opinion, but I think that I can
19 anticipate his views, because there has been a ruling by the Chamber.
20 Mr. Fila. Objection?
21 MR. FILA: [Interpretation] I object to having statements taken as
22 evidence and being admitted into evidence. If this Chamber considers that
23 this will lead us to the truth, and it is the truth that is the most
24 important thing, then we cannot take two out of three, because I received
25 all three from the Prosecution. All three have numbers given by the
1 Prosecution, and none of them are signed.
2 In that third one, the fax number is mentioned and the name of the
3 individual who says they -- she -- they took the statement from the
4 witness, and that same name was repeated by Witness K. And that person's
5 name is Zeljka Zivkovic, and that name is only in that third document.
6 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Mr. Fila, all that to say that
7 you have no objections? Is that right? On condition that they are -- all
8 three documents, that all three documents are admitted.
9 Let me confer with my colleagues, please.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] The Chamber has rendered a
12 ruling after extensive discussion between the Prosecutor and the parties,
13 and that is that the preliminary statements of the witnesses that come
14 here are not admitted. That was the decision that we rendered from the
15 very beginning, and the Prosecutor's fully aware of that, especially
16 Mr. Waidyaratne. He knows the situation.
17 So we're now not going to make an exception to that rule, to that
18 ruling, an exception that we never did. So the Chamber has ruled, after
19 extensive discussions on the principle of orality and the use of
20 preliminary statements, and we place the accent on "oral." There are
21 counsels that spoke pro and counter, but the Chamber ruled that
22 preliminary statements could be used in order to clarify possible
23 contradictions or in order to test the credibility of the witness in
24 question, but never -- would never allow them to be admitted into
25 evidence, and the Chamber stands by that ruling and will do so until the
13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French
14 and the English transcripts.
1 end of the case, and we have almost arrived at the end. So it is not
2 towards the end that we're going to grant an exception. Therefore, the
3 Chamber rejects the admission into evidence of these documents.
4 I don't think that there are any other outstanding matters for
5 today. If I remember correctly, we shall meet again in this same
6 courtroom, I think, on the 18th; is that right? But before we meet
7 again -- it seems we're going to continue.
8 Ms. Susan Somers.
9 MS. SOMERS: I wanted to let the Chamber know that at the very
10 beginning of the session, we observed a correction that needed to be made
11 in the record. On page 9, line 5, I believe that the year 1993 appeared,
12 and I think it should have been the year 2000. It was about the original
13 time of the witness testifying in front of the Chamber. If the registrar
14 would be kind enough just to verify it, but I believe it did occur at the
16 JUDGE RODRIGUES: [Interpretation] Yes. The context will be clear
17 for that correction. No problem there.
18 We adjourn and reconvene and meet again on the 18th at 9.20, the
19 usual hour. I hope you have a good weekend and fruitful work until then.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.58 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of June,
22 2001, at 9.20 a.m.