1 Tuesday, 13 June 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Mr. Whiting.
6 MR. WHITING: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Good afternoon.
8 MR. WHITING: I wonder before we continue with the witness if I
9 could just raise two matters very briefly. The first has to do with
10 scheduling and needs to be raised now.
11 I -- this witness -- before -- before we started today, I asked,
12 inquired of Defence counsel, as I often do, how long they expect the
13 cross-examination to continue, information that we need for planning
14 purposes for the next witnesses. I have to say I was quite surprised when
15 I was told that they thought they would -- they indicated they would take
16 the rest -- the entire day for cross-examination of the witness, and I
17 raise the matter now because in our submission that's excessive given what
18 this witness is all about.
19 Now, I know that the witness has submitted an expert report so the
20 length of the direct examination doesn't -- shouldn't limit the Defence
21 because there's also the expert report to consider. The expert report,
22 however, is only 18 pages long. It is what it is. It's mostly about
23 victim impact, about -- some information about the scale of these events.
24 The direct examination was 39 minutes. The cross-examination has
25 already been 1 hour and 26 minutes. It seems to me that going the entire
1 day today cross-examining this witness is just far in excess of what
2 should be necessary for this kind of a witness given where we are already.
3 We would ask respectfully that the Defence be instructed to finish
4 its cross-examination no later than at the end of the second session, and
5 that will then allow us to call further witnesses today.
6 I'm also mindful of the schedule that the Court has imposed about
7 finishing the trial, and we're trying to get our witnesses in here for
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: On that point we've given you a day extra. You
10 give us the 19th. We said you must finish on the 20th.
11 MR. WHITING: Yes, that's right. Though I think whenever I give a
12 date, an estimate, I think I always was careful to say that it could move
13 a day or two.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: We're mindful of that.
15 MR. WHITING: In any event, I think with respect to this specific
16 issue I've made my submission, and I think that -- I really think that the
17 entire day for this witness is excessive for cross-examination, on top of
18 an hour and 26 minutes which has already been done.
19 And then I have a second matter to raise which is entirely
20 separate and has to be raised in private session, so I don't know if the
21 Court wants to deal with this matter first or would like me to --
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my learned friend
24 indeed asked me how long my cross-examination would last, and I told him.
25 It is true that we started our cross-examination yesterday. However, I
1 don't believe that it is in dispute, and I believe that pursuant to the
2 Trial Chamber's decision we already have this witness's testimony in the
3 Babic case admitted in our file. He was examined-in-chief in detail in
4 that other case. He wasn't examined by the Prosecutor in this case in
5 great detail concerning all the details from his expert report. However,
6 in the Babic case he gave a very detailed explanation of his report that's
7 in the file, and I don't think the Prosecution should be bothered by the
8 fact that the Defence wishes to cross-examine the witness a bit more
9 extensively. It may go on for quite some time, but the Defence will keep
10 in mind the need to deal with the matter expeditiously or with relevance
11 and with concision. The sooner we complete the examination, the easier it
12 will be for us to proceed.
13 Now, my learned friend said that we should complete our
14 cross-examination by the end of the next session. We will do our best to
15 finish as soon as possible with regard to all the participants in the
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
18 Let me just make two short observations. One observation is that
19 this particular witness is incomparable with other witnesses, precisely
20 because he's a 92 bis witness and all the Prosecution did was just to
21 touch on introductory remarks, hence only 39 minutes, and I don't think it
22 would be fair to the Defence to try to limit them to that kind of period
23 or something close to that period. I think they still have to go into
24 substantive matters that the witness deals with, and I take into account
25 the point raised by Mr. Milovancevic that the witness was extensively
1 cross-examined in the Babic case, and they may want to ask questions on
2 those issues.
3 On the other hand, I would like to say, and that's the second
4 point, that I welcome what you say, Mr. Milovancevic, that you will move
5 with expedition and relevancy. Those are very important things. Please
6 stay relevant. Now the Bench will certainly watch you like a hawk on that
8 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic. Sorry. I beg your pardon,
9 Mr. Milovancevic. Mr. Whiting had another point to raise.
10 Yes, Mr. Whiting. Do you want to go into private session,
11 Mr. Whiting?
12 MR. WHITING: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the Chamber please move into private session.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 5482-5483 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 Mr. Milovancevic, call your witness.
11 [The witness entered court]
12 WITNESS: MLADEN LONCAR [Resumed]
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, I'm sure having testified in this court
15 before you do know what I'm going to tell you, but it's still my duty to
16 remind you that you are bound today still by the declaration you made
17 yesterday to tell the truth, nothing else but the truth.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am aware of that, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
20 Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 Cross-examination by Mr. Milovancevic: [Continued]
24 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Loncar. We shall continue
25 your cross-examination today. I have the same favour to ask of you today,
1 which is to make sure that you make a slight pause before answering my
2 question so that we facilitate the work of the interpreters today.
3 Yesterday we completed one subject, which had to do with your stay
4 at Begejci in 1991. We discussed whether it was a concentration camp or
5 not, and you gave us your opinion thereof. I have one more question with
6 regard to this. On all -- in all broadcasting companies, CNN, BBC, even
7 the Croatian TV, or local TVs, we can see the Guantanamo prison which is
8 surrounded by barbed wire, there are guards present with dogs, by judging
9 the external appearance of the prison, would you deem it would be a
10 concentration camp?
11 A. Your Honour, may I comment by saying that the subject of my
12 testimony is not Guantanamo.
13 Q. Mr. Loncar, I do agree with you that it is not. I merely wanted
14 you to draw a comparison with what you described as the Begejci camp, and
15 I wanted to establish whether you had any prejudice in regard to that.
16 Let's move on.
17 Did you write about your stay at Begejci, and did you identify the
18 Begejci camp as the Serb collection centre or as a Serb collection camp or
19 as a concentration camp?
20 A. As a concentration camp, Your Honour.
21 Q. In connection with your CV, you gave us a very extensive
22 presentation of your interventions and addresses at different conferences
23 on several pages of your CV including the various subjects you dealt with.
24 Among other things, in 1991, as the subject of presentation at
25 conferences, that's page 2 of your CV, one of the topics you relate is the
1 Chetniks and ethnic cleansing in Vojvodina which was published in Berlin,
2 Germany, as far as I can conclude on the basis of this text.
3 Do you as a psychiatrist believe to have the expertise necessary
4 to deal with ethnic cleansing and violations of human rights?
5 MS. VALABHJI: I'd like a reference from my learned counsel as to
6 which portion of the CV he's presumably quoting from.
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise if I wasn't
8 precise. Mr. Loncar's CV, page 2. The title is "Presentations at
9 seminars and conferences." Item number 1 or entry number 1 is the year
10 1992, and as far as I understood, this was work product by Mr. Loncar,
11 ethnic cleansing and violation of human rights in Vojvodina. My question
12 to him was whether he authored the presentation and whether he had the
13 expertise necessary for it.
14 A. Your Honours, as I already said, in any addition to the work I
15 normally do --
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just a second. Just a second. The Prosecutor was
17 on her feet before you can answer.
18 MS. VALABHJI: Sorry to interrupt. But I thought I heard in the
19 question of my learned colleague the term "Chetnik." But I don't see that
20 either in the B/C/S or the English title in that entry for 1992, Berlin,
21 Germany. Just let the record reflect that.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, your learned friend says the
23 word "Chetnik" doesn't appear on that sentence. It is a question of
24 characterisation of this witness's --
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no, I never
1 mentioned that word. I was speaking of ethnic cleansing, and I never
2 mentioned the term.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me tell you what your question said,
4 Mr. Milovancevic. "In connection with your CV you gave us a very
5 extensive presentation of your interventions and addresses at various
6 conferences on several pages of your CV including the various subjects you
7 dealt with among other things in 1991 as the subject of presentation
8 conferences, that's page 2 of your CV, one of the topics you relate is the
9 Chetniks and ethnic cleansing in Vojvodina which was published in Berlin,
10 Germany, as far as I can conclude on the basis of this text."
11 So the word "Chetnik" in the transcript is there, and I don't
12 want --
13 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm grateful to my
14 colleague for noticing that in the transcript. I wasn't following the
15 transcript while I was putting questions, but I was literally quoting the
16 title of the first "ouvre" as cited on this page, and -- and the word in
17 the B/C/S was "etnicko," and perhaps that's why the interpreter may have
18 misheard the term, but I never used the word in putting the question.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Previous translation continues] ... used in terms
20 of Chetnik and still gave us ethnic. We will take your word or give you
21 the benefit of the doubt that you didn't use the word and you didn't
22 intend using it.
23 So will that make you happy? Is that okay, Ms. --
24 MS. VALABHJI: There would be fine, Your Honour, thank you.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. You.
1 May proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I wish to make one observation,
3 Your Honours. I neither had the intention of using the word nor did I use
4 it, because there was no context for me to use it. This is evidently
5 misinterpretation, and I believe we have to clear up any doubts we have.
6 Otherwise, it might be taken as my provocation of Mr. Loncar, and I don't
7 see why that should be the case.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic. You may proceed.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Loncar, did you produce this work?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. Beneath the year 1992, on page 2 of your CV there's
13 the year 1993, and as one of your presentations given at various seminars
14 and conferences is the topic "Mass-scale rape of women in the war against
15 Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina." This was supposed to be given at a
16 conference in 1993 in Opatija in Croatia. Is this article also your work
18 A. Yes, Your Honour.
19 Q. In your CV under the year 1994, and that's the fourth date from
20 the other one, the topic "Sexual violence against men in war," and you
21 presented this topic in Dresden in Germany; is that correct, sir?
22 A. Yes, Your Honours.
23 Q. In 1998, which is on the following page, on page 3 of your CV, the
24 fifth date from the top of the page, is your work dealing with the
25 violations of the international humanitarian laws in the war in Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina, and you presented that in Italy 1998, and that is again your
3 A. Yes, that was my presentation indeed.
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: You can accept, Mr. Milovancevic, that all those
5 topics are his work, and you can avoid asking that question and move a
6 little forward if you have any content -- subquestion to put to the
7 witness, because I think now you're asking questions which are just
8 delaying us. This is all his work. That's why he's written and said this
9 is his work.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
11 mentioned those specific papers because I have singled them out from the
12 rest of them because it seems to me that the topic that the expert has
13 been dealing with is something that goes beyond his area of expertise, and
14 that's why I'm going to put the following question to him.
15 Q. Are you an expert in international law? I have already asked you
16 whether you have any legal knowledge. Do you believe that you have the
17 ability to deal with the violations of international conventions and to
18 deal with things that in their nature are of a legal substance? Could you
19 answer that question, please, and tell me what you think about that?
20 A. Your Honours, if you allow me, I will answer this question in the
21 following way: In my work I have not been dealing with legal matters. I
22 have not dwelt upon legal norms. Second of all, the World Health
23 Organisation has published a book in which it deals with the violation of
24 human rights and the problem of health in people. Within the context of
25 the World Health Organisation as the publisher of that book, I believe
1 that -- I can say that this is an indicator of the doctor's right to deal
2 with the issue of human rights, because human rights are not just a legal
3 matter. It is something that everybody should be working towards
4 improving, and everybody can do their bit in improving the state of human
6 Q. On page 2, when you present your papers in your CV and when you
7 say that there was a mass rape of women in the war against Croatia and
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina, this is the second paper on that list, could you
9 please tell us who was it who waged this war against Croatia and Bosnia
10 and Herzegovina? Was that a simultaneous war? Was it taking place at the
11 same time? And who was -- who perpetrated all those rapes?
12 A. As for the perpetrator, in my research I have shown this, and the
13 paper was published in an Assisi medical publication, as we will call it,
14 which means that it was reviewed by two independent reviewers who we don't
15 know who they are, and they approved of that paper, and in that paper I
16 presented the research that I had carried out until then in the area of
17 the raped women in the war.
18 Q. Mr. Loncar, I've asked this question because I personally believe
19 that the subject that you're dealing with in this particular case is the
20 status of victims of rape in the war. However, I am really curious about
21 the title that you gave to your paper. I appreciate that you spoke to the
22 victims. However, you qualified this act of rape as part of the war
23 against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you saying that this is part
24 of the war?
25 A. Yes. This was a result of my research. Mass rapes were one of
1 the means of waging this war.
2 Q. And this rape was used against the Bosnian and Croatian side. Did
3 I understand you well?
4 A. Well, if you want to simplify all this, then yes.
5 Q. In connection with this, I'll move on to your expert report. On
6 the first page the title is "Medical centre for human rights." On the
7 second page, and we're talking about the English version, page numbers 1
8 and 2, the second title is "Methodology of work with war victims,"
9 under II. And then on pages 2 and 3 of the English version, there is one
10 segment of the text that I would like to speak about. The method of
11 taking statements has several goals. The main ones are -- I hope that the
12 Trial Chamber has been able to locate this part of the text in your expert
14 You were talking about your research and about taking statements
15 from victims. You say that you had two -- several goals and the main
16 goal, and this can be found in the B/C/S version on the page ending with
17 number 656, under 1, the main goal of taking statements was research
18 of -- your research of international human rights conventions, and you're
19 saying that the statement was done as a legal document.
20 In this regard, I would like to know whether you as a psychiatrist
21 spoke to your patients with a view to shaping their testimonials as legal
23 A. Your Honour, allow me to say something briefly in response to
24 Mr. Milovancevic's question. On the previous page, in the document that I
25 have before me, I showed the historical overview of all the testimonials
1 and how data was collected. I can briefly repeat what the method of
2 taking statements and testimonial is in order to be clear what we're
3 talking about. And if the Trial Chamber will allow me to do this, I would
4 like to provide a brief explanation.
5 The method of taking testimonials dates back from the years '70,
6 and it was initiated in Chile during the dictatorship when the first
7 papers were published based on the data collected on traumas and the
8 authors realised there was some therapeutical effect in doing that.
9 From then onwards until this very day, and I can provide some
10 references to the Trial Chamber, this method of taking testimonials has
11 been used and such papers have been published in scientific papers in this
12 area and in some other areas. Amongst other things, the method has been
13 used in -- in the States by American experts on a group of refugees, and
14 this is something that has been quoted in professional and scientific
16 Second of all, Your Honours, if I need to talk about psychological
17 and therapeutical aspects of testimonial taking methods, I can say that
18 this does indeed have a therapeutical effect.
19 As for the legal shaping of documents I can provide a short
20 explanation. A medical history taken for every patient that presents
21 themselves in the hospital is an -- also an historical document and a
22 legal document as well. The difference, if you want to simplify the
23 matter, what is the difference between the method of testimonials and a
24 patient history taken at the hospital. When a hospital -- when a patient
25 presents themselves at the hospital, every doctor will start taking data
1 on that patient, when his complaint started and how they developed. The
2 only difference between the testimonial and the patient history is the
3 fact that the testimonials are taken from victims. The principle is the
4 same. You start talking to the victim. You start writing something
5 together with the victim covering the period when the trauma started to
6 the very end of that trauma. That is why -- that is why I said that the
7 legal -- that the documents were shaped as legal documents because they
8 have credibility in medicine, in our profession, as a medical documents
9 that have to be a medical secret, and this is not me or anybody else
10 playing prosecutors or judges or investigators. This is just for the
11 victim to verbalise their traumatic experiences under safe circumstances
12 and to go back to the reality of everyday life.
13 Your Honours, what I can say based on my experience of working
14 with the victims the first thing that you have to do is to write a
15 testimonial, and I can say that I am proud of the fact that such patients
16 were feeling better after providing those testimonials. None of them were
17 angry. None of them felt the need to retaliate. They tried to
18 re-socialise them, to give them back to the society and to restore their
19 status, to remove the feeling of shame from them, and we gave them this
20 impression that they were witnessing a certain period of history, and we
21 tried to remove the feeling of shame that is very often present in the
22 victims of rape, for example. And this is the first and the biggest
23 success of this method.
24 From that method we arrived at the documents that are historical
25 documents, legal documents, if you will, and based on that we could see
1 the intensity of the traumatic experience. We could assess how -- to what
2 degree that person, that victim had to be -- had to undergo additional
3 medical treatment.
4 Q. Thank you, Mr. Loncar. You have provided a lot of detail about
5 the essence of the testimonials that are taken from victims. With regard
6 to your explanation given to the Trial Chamber, on page 1 of the English
7 text there is a title "Testimonial or statement." This is in chapter 2,
8 the methodology of work with war victims, and you've explained to us that
9 one of the main goals was to take testimonials from the victims.
10 Am I right in saying or in quoting a part of your expert report in
11 which you say that the historical overview of the creation -- of a method
12 for taking statement shows that this was as early as 1970s in Chile in
13 order to help the victims of dictatorship, and the method of statement --
14 the essence of the method is a therapeutical goal?
15 A. Yes. The main goal of any statement taken is therapeutical
17 Q. If that is the main goal, the therapeutical effect that is, why do
18 you say on the following page that the main method -- that the main goal
19 of statement taking was research of violation of international human
20 rights conventions and that therefore the statement was done as a legal
21 document. If the main goal is therapy then this should be the main goal
23 MS. VALABHJI: I would just point out that I think this is the
24 second time my learned friend characterises the first point under the list
25 of methods as the main goal. In fact, the heading says the main ones are.
1 So there is in fact -- there are several goals listed, and the one under
2 the number 1 is just one of them, so I would not characterise that as the
3 only goal. I would point that out.
4 Thank you, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
6 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with this remark put
7 forward by my learned friend, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Under item 2 when you're talking about several main goals of the
11 method of taking testimonials from victims, you say that by taking
12 statements from victims you achieve a therapeutical effect. My question
13 is relative to the rest of that sentence in which you say when you take a
14 statement from a victim you turn the victim into a witness, which is the
15 first step towards the person's reintegration into society. Is that a way
16 to lift the burden from the victim's shoulder, and that's why the person
17 came to you as a psychiatrist?
18 A. What I meant was that this is a psychological condition that the
19 victim changes. Not in legal terms but in psychological terms. When a
20 victim provides their testimonial and when they go through this
21 therapeutical procedure, in other words, when the victim tells a story to
22 somebody, that person is no longer a victim. Not in legal terms but also
23 becomes a witness which, in psychological terms, is much better for a
24 victim. And I'm sure you will appreciate that as a lawyer, that nobody
25 likes to be a victim. Nobody wants to be a victim with all the things
1 that such a status brings.
2 Q. In connection with these several main goals under point 3, you say
3 that one of the main goals is to collect information for statistical
4 studies and that these studies brought new insight into the use of torture
5 as a weapon of war. Is that a correct understanding of what you wrote
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. You go on to say under point 3 that the data collected
9 showed or demonstrated the use of torture as a weapon of war to implement
10 the strategy of ethnic cleansing. Is that a conclusion you arrived at as
11 a psychiatrist?
12 A. I showed the causal link between the applied methods of torture
13 and the strategy of ethnic cleansing.
14 Q. Ethnic cleansing is something that has to be established before
15 this Tribunal or other courts of law. You instead take it as a matter of
16 fact, or is it something that you yourself established?
17 A. I repeat, and I quote from the text, they pointed out cause and
18 effect, let us say the causal link between the applied methods of torture
19 and the strategy of ethnic cleansing.
20 Q. Under point 4, you state that the method of taking statements has
21 several goals, among them the goal listed under point 4, which is
22 classification of the types of torture with special emphasis on sexual
23 abuse, both of women and men. Do you also believe sexual abuse to have
24 been a weapon of war to further the strategy of ethnic cleansing?
25 A. As I stated in my report, I said that I established a causal link,
1 a link of cause and effect between the applied methods of torture,
2 including sexual abuse, and ethnic cleansing.
3 Q. The method of statement-taking with these several goals you
4 enumerated, did it apply to the territory of the then SAO Krajina or the
5 RSK, although this area was under the protection of the United Nations'
6 forces or, as they were called, the UNPAs?
7 A. I will reply by saying that we worked with those victims that we
8 were able to get in touch with, all of those victims that approached us.
9 Q. The victims hailed from which areas?
10 A. They were from the territory of the Republic of Croatia. These
11 persons were displaced because they were driven away, and there were
12 persons from Bosnia-Herzegovina who were refugees, who had fled the area.
13 Q. Since you are now presenting your expertise in the Martic case,
14 are these four goals or the information you conveyed to us relative to or
15 are -- do they apply to the areas listed in the indictment?
16 A. This report applies to the UNPA areas, that is to say the areas
17 under the control of Serbian forces. The persons involved were persons
18 who were expelled from the area and whom we were able to make contact with
19 and talk to.
20 Q. To clarify the matter completely, on the basis of your
21 conversations with persons from these areas, you arrived at the conclusion
22 in this expert report of yours that torture, methods of torture applied in
23 the war were directly connected with the strategies of ethnic cleansing
24 that were being implemented there, and you place special emphasis on the
25 sexual abuse of both women and men as a strategy or as a weapon of war and
1 part of this strategy of ethnic cleansing. Is that a correct
3 A. Yes, it is.
4 Q. Thank you. Could we please have Prosecution 65 ter document
5 number 327 on our screens. That is the UNCIVPOL report for Sector South.
6 Before the document comes up on our screens, and that's
7 document 327 from the 65 ter list, this is a document by the UNCIVPOL
8 which contains a summary overview of crimes committed against members of
9 the Croatian community in Sector South over a longer period of time. I
10 will refer you to one portion of the document.
11 I believe we are seeing the text of the document on the screen.
12 Yes, that's correct. That's the document.
13 Mr. Loncar, you have before you a document by the United Nations,
14 UNPROFOR, sent by John McElligott to Mr. Thornberry. Apologies. The
15 document is dated 27 July 1993, and the subject is "Crimes complimented
16 against Croats in Sector South." Could we please look at page 3 of the
17 document. Yes, could we have the whole table blown up, please.
18 Mr. Loncar, you see here a list of crimes recorded by UNPROFOR
19 over a long period of time. For instance, we have August 1992 and May
20 1993. So that's the period.
21 Now, entry 29 lists all -- or, rather, the second column shows all
22 sorts of crime, arson, assault, all the way to even murder. We already
23 discussed this. But please look at entry number 20, which says "Rape."
24 Now, you see that throughout the period between August 1992 and May 1993,
25 the population reporting forest arson, theft of flour sacks and so on and
1 so forth, there were different types of crime, but not a single one of
2 them reported rape as a crime. At least it wasn't recorded by UNPROFOR.
3 And do you see that on the screen?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
6 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, I just -- I think I object -- I object
7 to this question. The witness has testified that the victims were from
8 the territory of Croatia, and there were others of course from
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, but these are the territories to which he referred.
10 Now, this report is from Sector South. This is quite a different
11 geographic scope from the territories described by the witness. I'm
12 not -- I disagree with this line of questioning, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in answering my
15 questions, Mr. Loncar said that sexual abuse as a weapon of war also
16 applied to the UNPAs. I'm now presenting him with a report covering one
17 such area, a very large one, where some -- a range of some 20 crimes were
18 reported, and I don't see why my learned friend should object to that.
19 This is a relevant matter. Between August of one year and the May of the
20 next year not a single incidence of rape was reported.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Doctor, did you do any research in this area that's
22 being shown on the screen?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. By your leave, I
24 shall try to answer the question by giving you some facts.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: I just wanted to know if you did research here.
1 And did you do your research in collaboration with the people who compiled
2 this report that's on the screen? Did you work hand-in-hand with them?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sector South covers the Knin area,
4 if I'm well aware of that.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you work with --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I do know from my work with
7 victims, there was sexual abuse precisely in the Knin camps. And I'm not
8 surprised that UNCIVPOL was unable to get hold of such information,
9 because I suspect that victims of such crimes were not within UNCIVPOL's
10 reach. That's the first part of my answer.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Just before you go to your second part,
12 are you able to answer my question with a simple yes or no: Did you work
13 in collaboration with the people who --
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. In that event, then, your
16 question's become irrelevant -- I beg your pardon, disallowed,
17 Mr. Milovancevic. Put it this way, let me rephrase, the objection is
19 You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could we please
21 look at the next page of the document. Could you please blow up the text
22 a bit.
23 Q. Mr. Loncar, we were looking at this other page where I wasn't
24 allowed to put a question to you. We saw that the report was relative to
25 Vrlika, Drnis, Bratiskovci, Smokovic, Medak, Teslingard, Zaluznica, Knin,
1 Kistanja, Benkovac, Obrovac, Gracac, Donji Lapac, and Korenica. Not just
2 Knin. Did you work with victims from these areas?
3 A. Your Honours, when I said Knin I meant what we normally call UNPA
4 south, and based on the document I saw a moment ago, in addition to the
5 numbers of people who reported such incidences of crimes, I repeat that
6 I'm not surprised that no incidence of sexual abuse was reported on, and I
7 say that for the following reasons: As we know on the basis of our
8 medical statistics, only 1 in 5 or 1 out of 6 rape incidences would be
9 reported in peacetime. One can well expect that in wartime, and
10 especially in the circumstances of being held in prison or in a camp, the
11 numbers of reported incidences of rape should be even lower.
12 And I would like to finish off by saying that the figure that
13 Mr. Milovancevic referred us to under 20 where there are no cases of rape
14 reported is something that does not come as a surprise to me.
15 Q. It comes as a surprise to me that UNCIVPOL, who registered every
16 single crime from petty theft to any other, that he would not report on
17 this. But there was one witness, a lady, who testified before the
18 Tribunal, whose husband and father had been killed. In answering the
19 question put by the Defence as to whether she had heard of rape in her
20 area, she responded -- in Saborsko, she said, "Well, there were all sorts
21 of crime but not that of rape."
22 Do you have any information to that effect?
23 A. I did not hear any such thing from the Prosecutor.
24 Q. Thank you very much. That is enough.
25 Witness, we are going to move on to another topic. In answering
1 the Prosecutor's question, you said that you were arrested in 1993.
2 Actually, that you were brought to the police station on the pretext that
3 you had to change your ID. Who was who arrested you? Whose authorities?
4 A. Your Honour, I've already answered that question. I was brought
5 in for an interview.
6 Q. Who was it who brought you in?
7 A. It was the Croatian police.
8 Q. The Croatian police brought you in for an interview? You
9 explained that this was supposedly because your ID was not in order, but
10 the matter of the fact was the nature of your work, i.e., your research of
11 crime. You only talk about crimes committed against the Croats. Why
12 would then the Croat authorities bring you in? Why would they be bothered
13 by that?
14 A. I can only speculate what bothered whom. That -- that time I did
15 what I did, what I'm talking about today. And as you yourself have asked
16 me, and you have alleged that my work is some sort of a quasi-prosecution,
17 I suppose, but I can only suppose that out of ignorance or out of I don't
18 know what the Croatian authorities had doubts about my work, just like you
19 do here.
20 And as for the victims themselves, I worked with everybody
21 regardless of their religion or ethnic background because I believe that
22 being a victim is a universal thing.
23 I also believe that perpetrators have to be punished regardless of
24 their religious or ethnic affiliation and that they should be named.
25 Q. In the English version of your expert report, on page 1, under II,
1 we have the following title, "Methodology of work with war victims," and
2 in B/C/S the page is 655. Have you been able to locate that part of the
4 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours.
5 Q. And you -- you explain in this part, in the first paragraph, that
6 the medical centre for human rights in its work with victims of aggression
7 against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina used several methods of data
8 collection. With regard to this term "aggression against Croatia and
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina," could you please tell us who the aggressor was? What
10 period of time was that?
11 A. I did that between 1991 and 1995. When I used the
12 term "aggression," that's the period of time that I had in mind.
13 Q. In connection with that qualification, the work with victims of
14 aggression against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, you portray Croatia and
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina as those who suffered aggression. Who was the
16 aggressor in your view?
17 A. Your Honours, when we're talking about the aggression and the
18 aggressor, this is a notorious fact. If I say that somebody attacked
19 Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, it has to be somebody from the outside,
20 and it is a notorious fact who attacked those two countries.
21 Q. I'm really curious to hear it from you who it was if you say that
22 it is a notorious fact. I would like to hear this from you.
23 A. Your Honours, this goes beyond the scope of my expert report on
24 the victims of war. I have my personal opinion that I can share with you
25 if that is necessary.
1 Q. Mr. Loncar, you provided an expert report which was admitted as
2 evidence in another case, and based on your opinion a valid sentence was
3 passed, and here another person is being tried based on your expert report
4 in which you say that you used the methodology of work with victims of
5 war, which was based on the collection of data from war victims of
6 aggression against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. If you wrote this in
7 your report, I expect from you not to avoid providing me an answer.
8 A. I can provide you any answers about victims.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe this is
10 a convenient moment for our first break.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is indeed, Mr. Milovancevic. We will take a
12 short break and come back at 4.00.
13 Court adjourned.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.30 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.01 p.m.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
17 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Mr. Loncar, the OTP has provided us with a statement that you gave
19 to the OTP. This is part of the disclosed material. And with it has
20 provided us with a set of colour photos. I have those documents only in
21 this form. I would kindly ask the usher to display these photos on the
22 screen. Those photos are closely connected with the topic that we were
23 discussing, that is developments during the war and the situation on the
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] And if we could see these
1 photos displayed on the ELMO, if you will allow this, Your Honour. You
2 can display one by one photo?
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before the photographs are displayed, can we hear
4 what Ms. Valabhji has got to say.
5 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 I'm just wondering what the relevance of this is. Yesterday my
7 learned colleague touched very briefly on the subject of this statement
8 given in October 2005, and it concerns areas that are simply not relevant
9 to this indictment. I believe those areas are in Bosnia-Herzegovina. So
10 my first objection is on the grounds of relevance.
11 And second, Your Honour, I think now we are probably going beyond
12 the scope of the expert's evidence in this case.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Naturally, the Bench doesn't know what those
14 pictures are all about.
15 Mr. Milovancevic, there is an objection raised.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the intention of
17 the Defence counsel is to present these photos, which are photos of
18 victims of whom this witness has direct knowledge in order to check the
19 objectivity of the witness and to check his words in chapter II on
20 methodology of work with war victims, that he spoke with victims of
21 aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. In other words,
22 from the very beginning of his work the witness started from a fact that
23 the situation was what it was, which the Defence wants to challenge and
24 prove that this was indeed not the fact. We are trying to test the
25 credibility of the witness that we have here today, and this is the idea
1 behind the intention to show the photos to the witness.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do the photos relate to the report that the witness
3 has filed in this case? Are they about the victims that he says he
4 interviewed relating to this specific case?
5 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] These are photos of victims
6 from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The photos are relative to the
7 persons, i.e., victims of whom the expert has direct knowledge and of whom
8 he spoke before this Tribunal in a different case. These photos were
9 provided to us by the OTP as accompanying material.
10 With this regard, we would like to put questions to the witness in
11 order to test his way of thinking while dealing with the subject. In
12 other words, we want to see what his approach was to the matter at hand.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Were these accompanying material to the report that
14 this witness gave in this matter or accompanying material in which case?
15 I notice you, Ms. Valabhji, but I just want to get an answer.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if your question
17 was put to you, I would like to say that this is part of the material that
18 has been provided to us by the OTP in connection with the expert report of
19 this witness, and any material provided to us in connection with this
20 witness is relevant, in our view. This is part of the material that has
21 been provided to us with the OTP. The material is relevant to victims,
22 the victims of war in Croatia and in Bosnia.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
25 MS. VALABHJI: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 I think there might be some misunderstanding on the part of my
2 learned colleague as to the disclosure that took place with regard to this
3 particular witness statement. Under Rule 66 of the Rules, witness
4 statements of witnesses who testify here are required to be disclosed, and
5 I believe the disclosure took place under this Rule. So I'm not really
6 sure about the characterisation of this accompanying material or material
7 that is provided in connection with the expert report, which is how my
8 learned colleague identified it. It's simply Rule 66 disclosure, Your
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: And in terms of Rule 66, you disclosed this
11 material to the Defence in this case?
12 MS. VALABHJI: That's correct, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
14 The objection is overruled. You may proceed, Mr. Milovancevic.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Can we
16 have the first photo on the ELMO, Mr. Usher, in the same order you have
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you would know better, is this
19 something that we must -- that we need to go into private session about,
20 or is it something that we can do in open session, what we are about to do
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] There is no need for private
23 session, Your Honour. There is no ID material in this.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Do you recognise this photo, Mr. Loncar?
2 A. I can't see it yet on the ELMO, if I'm supposed to see it on the
4 Q. It should be on the ELMO. If not, then you can look at the photo
5 next to you.
6 A. Yes, Your Honour, I recognise this.
7 Q. Where does this photo originate from and what does it represent?
8 A. It represents victims from Doljani, the year is 1993.
9 Q. The victim is who, of what ethnic background?
10 A. Those are Croats.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: We don't see it on the screen.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I
13 had the photo on the screen just briefly and now it has disappeared.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. We now have it.
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Doljani is in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and this is a Croatian victim,
17 and the victim is a Muslim?
18 THE INTERPRETER: And he was victimised by Muslims? The
19 interpreter's apology.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we go to the next photo,
22 THE INTERPRETER: The answer was "yes."
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. In this photo you can see the lorry that transported those
25 Croatian victims; is that correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can we display the next photo, please.
3 A number of victims are seen here, and we can see people working
4 around them in order to identify them. Am I right, sir?
5 A. As far as I can remember, this was a doctor affiliated with
6 UNPROFOR, if my memory serves me well.
7 Q. Again, these are Croatian victims who suffered at the hands of the
8 Muslim forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can we move on to the next photo, please.
11 What is the characteristic of this victim in the photo? Can you
12 recognise anything?
13 A. I don't know. It's very hard for me to say.
14 Q. Does that person have burns?
15 A. Yes. I would say that, but I can't remember.
16 Q. And this is a Croat again?
17 A. Yes, as far as I can remember.
18 Q. Can we move on? Next photo, please.
19 What is the hand in the white glove pointing to? I suppose it is
20 pointing to the injuries on the skins of victim?
21 A. I suppose so. I could agree with you, although I'm not sure.
22 Q. Thank you. Can we move on and show the next photo?
23 Here we can see a victim in civilian clothes, I believe. And
24 those are all victims from -- from one location?
25 A. Yes. The village is Doljani, as far as I know.
1 Q. This is a village where the Croatian population suffered at the
2 hands of the Muslim forces; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Can we move on? The next photo, please.
5 Another victim that was found there?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. Move on.
8 Another photo of those victims from Doljani?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Thank you. Move on.
11 What can you tell us about the upper body of this victim? Can you
12 tell us from the photo?
13 A. The first victim?
14 Q. Yes, the first victim.
15 A. At the front of the photo. This one?
16 Q. Yes.
17 A. It's very difficult for me to say. I must -- I must admit, Your
19 Q. Can you see the victim's head? Can you see whether the head is
20 there or not? Is it clear from the photo?
21 A. No, it's not clear.
22 Q. Can we move on? Next photo, please.
23 In this photo you can see a victim whose legs are closer to us, if
24 I may put it that way.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Another victim from Doljani?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In uniform or in civilian clothes; can you tell?
4 A. I believe that the person is wearing a uniform.
5 Q. Can we go on, please?
6 Another victim from Doljani, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. Move on, please.
9 This is a photo depicting the lorry in which the victims were
10 brought to the place of the examination?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can we move on?
13 The same lorry, isn't it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you. Move on.
16 A different angle, the same lorry?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. Thank you. Let's move on.
19 This victim suffered head injuries, as far as you can tell?
20 A. Yes, as far as I can tell.
21 Q. Move on, please. Thank you.
22 Move on, please. This one is not very clear. It shows a person
23 manipulating another person or a victim.
24 This is the same lorry, and a victim is being removed from the
1 A. Yes, as far as I can see.
2 Q. Can we go on?
3 This is the room to which these two lorries carrying victims
4 bodies were brought to. Isn't that correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Can we move on, please? Thank you.
7 Under the clothes of the victim, you can see abdominal injuries
8 and also head injuries?
9 A. Yes, as far as I can tell.
10 Q. Can you tell something about the nature of these wounds, how they
11 were inflicted?
12 A. Judging by the photo, I suppose that those were firearm wounds.
13 Q. Can we move on? Thank you. There is just a few more. We'll be
14 over soon.
15 These are all the victims in a photo.
16 A. Yes, that is the case.
17 Q. Thank you. Thank you. I believe that this was the last photo.
18 I would like to thank the usher for helping us.
19 These photos were shown to you, Mr. Loncar, because I wanted to
20 ask you this: Do they show that in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
21 1993 there was an armed conflict in which the Muslim forces created so
22 many and such victims on the Croatian side?
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
24 MS. VALABHJI: My apologies, Your Honour. I object. What is the
25 relevance of this line of questioning?
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's -- what is the relevance of this line of
2 questioning, Mr. Milovancevic?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the relevance
4 lies in the very first sentence of the second chapter of the expert
5 report, on page 1 in the English version, titled "Methodology of work with
6 war victims." The point of departure of this expert witness is that these
7 were victims of aggression on Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The
8 photographs show that in this specific case there was a Muslim attack on
9 Croat civilian population and members of armed forces. The assertion
10 contained in this first sentence that what was the case was in fact an
11 aggression by Serbs against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina is something
12 that directly affects one's reasoning and conclusions.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Can you just read again that very sentence on which
14 you say the relevance is based? I didn't hear you mention the
15 word "Serbian" when you read that sentence.
16 You said to us the point of departure of this expert witness is
17 that the photographs show that in this specific case there was -- I beg
18 your pardon, that these were victims of aggression on Croatia and Bosnia
19 and Herzegovina. Full stop. That's where you stopped. You didn't
20 mention Serbs. And right through your showing these photographs, you were
21 telling the witness that these -- the ethnicity of these people and where
22 they came from, that they came from Doljani. I have questions to ask him
23 about those questions that you put to him.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in his report, the
25 expert speaks of an aggression on Croatia and Croats and on Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina and on Bosniak Muslim population carried out by a third party.
2 Now, based on these photographs, we came to the conclusion that in Bosnia
3 where Croats, Muslims and Serbs lived, in this particular case it was the
4 Muslim forces who massacred Croatian population.
5 Now, I wanted to ask the expert to explain to us who the aggressor
6 was and who the victims were and what was involved there. I'm simply
7 trying to verify this expert's point of departure.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: But, Mr. Milovancevic, has this witness said in his
9 report who the aggressor was? You know, these photographs that you have
10 shown us, I don't know what time they relate to. I don't know how this
11 witness determines the ethnicity of these people by looking at the
12 photographs, and how he determines where they come from other than that
13 you told him who they were and where they came from and he just agreed
14 with you. And if that first sentence is anything to go by, he says it's
15 an aggression perpetrated on Croats and Bosnia and Herzegovinian people.
16 He hasn't sort of indicated by who. And remember, the purpose for this
17 witness's testimony, it's not -- he's not giving factual evidence. He's
18 giving expert opinion evidence on the effects of trauma. Now you want him
19 to be an eyewitness.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- no, Your Honour.
21 No. To my direct question as to who committed the aggression the witness
22 answered that this was a notorious fact. Since to me this is not a
23 notorious fact, I had to present him with material that he himself
24 submitted to the Prosecution, where he spoke of Croat victims suffering at
25 the hands of the Muslim armed forces.
1 The entire expert report, Your Honour, and we can see that in the
2 next chapter, that there was a cause and effect link between methods of
3 torture and the strategy of ethnic cleansing. This entire report is
4 talking about the Serb joint criminal enterprise, and the Prosecutor is
5 trying to establish this through the report. And what I'm asking is
6 whether this witness has the minimum required level of objectivity and
7 impartiality in establishing facts and drawing conclusions.
8 If in his first sentence of the report he states that this was an
9 aggression against Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and he refuses to answer
10 my question as to who committed the aggression, he simply answers by
11 saying, "Well, it is a well known fact," I had to refer him to a specific
12 case and ask him, well, who the perpetrator in this particular case was.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. But for him to be able to answer you yes or
14 no on that question, he must be able to tell us whether he witnessed the
15 aggression perpetrated on these people shown on the picture. Not as an
16 expert but as an eyewitness. He must be able to tell us that he saw it
17 happen; otherwise he can't tell us who perpetrated the aggression on those
18 people, can he? And the sentence in his report that you referred us to
19 does not mention any aggressor.
20 Now, you've got to tell this Bench the link that you establish
21 between his report and these photographs.
22 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have so far
23 been discussing the objection by the Prosecution as to the relevance of my
24 questions to this witness. We have not arrived at the answers to the
25 questions that -- the one that you have just touched upon. We were just
1 about to receive these answers from the witness. We don't know them as
3 In our discussion, we have gone ahead of us. At least that's the
4 way I see it.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Maybe you went ahead of yourself by showing these
6 photographs before you established the basis for showing them. You were
7 allowed to show those photographs because you said they were disclosed to
8 you by the OTP, but you don't seem to have established any basis. If you
9 had established a basis by the time you showed those photographs, we would
10 have understood where you were going. We didn't understand where you were
11 going. I still don't understand where you are going. And it's a basic
12 rule of prosecution that you've got to lay a foundation for whatever
13 exhibit you'd like to tender in court. So if you give us exhibits for
14 which you have laid no foundation, obviously they cannot be accepted until
15 and unless you establish the basis for their coming in, and you can't tell
16 us, can't tell the Court, that we have run ahead of ourselves. You are in
17 control of the proceedings at this point in time.
18 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully agree with
19 what you've just said. I withdraw what I said.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much. Then if you do want to ask
21 this witness questions relating to those photographs, lay the foundation,
22 because you just sprung photographs on us. We don't know where they come
23 from, what the -- what the basis of producing them is.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, I will do so and
25 very briefly.
1 Q. Mr. Loncar, on the 25th and 26th of October --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry, just for the record, in this respect then
3 the objection is upheld.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Witness, did you give a statement to the OTP on the 25th and
6 26th of October, 2005 concerning the victims in this particular village
7 that we have just looked at?
8 A. I have to be frank and tell you that I contacted the Prosecution
9 on several occasions. I don't recall the dates. That is why I cannot
10 recall that specific document, but I do trust the OTP.
11 Q. The OTP gave the Defence your statement given on the 25th and 26th
12 of October, 2005 in the B/C/S version, where in 38 paragraphs you --
13 interpreter's correction, in 28 paragraphs you speak of the massacre
14 committed on the Croat population in Doljani, 1993. Do you agree that
15 that is indeed the case?
16 A. I don't have the document with me, but I do know that I gave a
17 statement. I just can't be sure about the document. I don't have it here
18 with me.
19 Q. You spoke of the work of the centre, that is to say the medical
20 centre for human rights, and in paragraph 12 of your statement you say
21 that all the investigations are well documented in archives in the centre.
22 You say that the bodies were brought over from Doljani where you, together
23 with your colleague Marko Rados and a British doctor from UNPROFOR's
24 British contingent, examined the dead bodies. Since it was apparently a
25 case of war crimes, that is why UNPROFOR was associated. That's at
1 paragraph 18.
2 And then at paragraph 20, you say, "I'm handing over a report
3 titled 'Report on the massacre in Doljani near Jablanica,' dated 4 August
4 1993 in Medjugorje." I'm sorry, I've been speeding.
5 Therefore, you state in paragraph 20 that you were handing over a
6 report titled "Report on the massacre in Doljani near Jablanica," dated
7 4 August 1993, and a subsequent investigative report titled "Report on the
8 Muslim crimes in Doljani village, Jablanica municipality." And then you
9 go on to explain the photographs that I just showed you. The photographs
10 are part of your statement, and my questions had to do with them.
11 Do you remember the context of the statement, of the photographs,
12 and the event itself?
13 A. I do recall that I reported on the massacre together with my
14 colleagues, but I find it difficult to speak of the specific document
15 because I don't have it with me here. Is this document a report by the
16 centre? Is it a testimonial or --
17 Q. Mr. Loncar, I apologise for interrupting you. The point of my
18 question was not to try and force you to recall a document without giving
19 it to you. I admit that it is difficult. My question to you in
20 connection with it was who was the aggressor who committed this crime on
21 the Croat population?
22 A. Just as you --
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: That question has been ruled out of order until you
24 have laid a basis for it. Just lay a basis. You said you were going to
25 do so in five minutes or in a short while.
1 I said to you this witness is not an eyewitness. The part of the
2 report that you quoted to this Court which you say you rely on to suggest
3 that somebody else, a third party attacked these people doesn't mention
4 the name of the aggressor. He just said aggression on Croats and
5 Bosniaks. He doesn't say who the aggressor is. And he's not an
6 eyewitness. He didn't witness the massacre. He's dealing with
7 post-traumatic stress situations, I suppose.
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes.
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I only thought of the fact that
11 the OTP provided us with the statement that the person -- the witness
12 himself was involved being there on the spot when the victims were brought
13 over by UNPROFOR, and that the victims suffered at the hands of Muslim
14 armed forces. I merely wanted to hear from the witness whether he had
15 heard of that. Of course, I did not mean to imply that he was an
16 eyewitness, that he was there witnessing the massacre.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, now I don't understand what
18 you're saying. You want to -- why can't you get that answer from other
19 witnesses? This witness has told us what he told us in his report. If
20 you can refer me to his report where he says that these victims were
21 attacked by a particular third party, then you can put your question, and
22 in fact your question would be redundant because the answer will be in the
23 statement itself, the written statement itself. Yes.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will finish with
25 this topic, but I don't want to leave the situation unclear. What I had
1 in mind was the document given by the OTP, which was the statement by
2 Mladen Loncar, the witness present here, which was taken by the OTP on the
3 25th and 26th of October, 2005, where in paragraph 20 this witness states,
4 and I quote: "I'm handing over a report," he says to the OTP, "titled
5 report on the massacre at Doljani near Jablanica," dated the 4th
6 of August, 1993, as well as a subsequent investigating report titled
7 'report on the Muslim crimes in Doljani village, Jablanica
8 municipality.'" This is verbatim what the witness stated in his statement
9 for the OTP, and my question to him was whether these photographs had
10 anything to do with his report.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just let me read you what you have just quoted.
12 You say: "I am handing over a report," he says to the OTP, "titled
13 'report on the massacre at Doljani near Jablanica dated the 4th of
14 August, 1993, as well as a subsequent report entitled 'report on the
15 Muslim crimes.'"
16 So the criminals here are Muslims. He tells you. He's given
17 you the answer there. Muslim crimes. I'm quoting what you have just
18 quoted to us. In Doljani village. So it looks like the criminals were
19 the Muslims in this report that he's talking about.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And this is
21 precisely the answer that I wanted to get from the witness, whether he
22 said that in his report.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, now you've got it. You've found it yourself
24 in the report.
25 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Q. My next question for the witness: Does the witness know that the
2 six persons from Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the Croatian leadership of
3 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jadranko Prlic and others, are being tried at this
4 Tribunal for the crimes committed by the armed forces of Croatia against
5 the Muslim population? Are you aware of that?
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the relevance of that question?
7 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] The relevance is in the fact
8 that the witness has been talking about the Serbian aggression in Croatia
9 and in Bosnia and Herzegovina all this time, and the essence of his
10 finding that we have before us is the fact that the Serbs launched the
11 aggression and committed all the crimes in Croatia.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Again, you have not referred this Court to a
13 Serbian -- to an allegation by this witness against Serbs, and you are now
14 saying that there are -- he's making allegations against Serbs. We have
15 just established through your own effort that he says it is Muslim crimes
16 in Doljani, whatever that place is called, and I do not now understand why
17 you're asking the question that you're asking, and I don't see the
18 relevance of that question, to ask him about people who are being tried
19 before this Tribunal.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honour, if
21 the Muslim forces in this specific village, in Doljani, committed this
22 crime against Croats was said by the witness in another case, and in yet
23 another case it is being tried that Croats committed crimes against the
24 Muslims, and the witness knows it all too well. But in his finding, in
25 his report, he only speaks about the Serbian aggression, and this is his
1 starting point. This is a condition sine qua non. Let us first establish
2 that and then we will go on to more specific things. And this is the
3 essence of my cross-examination of this witness. This is what I'm trying
4 to check with the witness.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you are perfectly entitled to ask
6 if I question to this witness provided that the question is relevant, and
7 if it is not relevant, I'm afraid the Chamber cannot allow it. You have
8 not established the relevance of the question you've just put about other
9 people who are being tried in this Tribunal. It has nothing to do with
10 this witness's report, and that question will not be allowed until and
11 unless you establish the relevance.
12 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you too.
14 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Loncar, you were an expert witness in the trial against
16 Mr. Babic; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, Your Honours.
18 Q. During that trial the OTP examined you about the report that we
19 have before you; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, that is correct, Your Honours.
21 Q. During that trial, during the Babic case, Mr. Babic's Defence did
22 not cross-examine you. They did not have a single question for you. Is
23 that correct?
24 A. As far as I can remember, they did have some questions.
25 Q. Can I now ask the usher to distribute the transcript from the
1 Babic case. We have ample number of copies for all the participants in
2 the trial as well as for the interpreters.
3 Before you, Mr. Loncar, as well as before all the others in the
4 courtroom, you have the transcript from the trial on the 1st of April,
5 2004, in the Babic case. In connection with this -- just bear with me for
6 a moment, please.
7 If you look at page 70 of the transcript, and the transcript
8 starts with page 66, you will see that Mr. Whiting starts his introduction
9 on page 70. Mr. Whiting says that he will take -- that he will make the
10 brief opening remarks, and then he will examine the witness, and he only
11 has one witness, Mr. Mladen Loncar. Do you agree with that? This is on
12 page 70. You will find the number in the top right-hand corner.
13 In the first third of the text --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. The only thing that is wrong here, and it is an error in the
16 transcript, your name is written incorrectly.
17 On pages 71, 72, and 73, Mr. Whiting talks about the agreement
18 that has been reached with Mr. Babic, and on page 74, Mr. Whiting refers
19 to the statement of the first witness. This is at the bottom of page 74,
20 and it starts with line 21, and in that part of the transcript Mr. Whiting
21 informs the Trial Chamber that a witness from Dubica describes how many
22 Croats fled his village, the village of Dubica, during the conflict and
23 that on the 20th of October, 1991, 53 civilians were killed. Those were
24 accommodated in the local fire station where they were guarded by the
25 local Serbs and the JNA.
1 When you drafted your expert report, did -- is this something that
2 you came by?
3 A. Your Honours, I have to compare the data, whether they concur.
4 Can the counsel repeat his question, please, Your Honours? I
5 found everything in my report.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Loncar. It is very difficult to find things in the
8 On page 74, line 21, Mr. Whiting speaks about a witness from
9 Dubica who describes how many Croats fled the village of Dubica during the
10 conflict and that on the 20th of October, 53 civilians were accommodated
11 in the fire station where they were guarded by local Serbs and the JNA.
12 Is this what is -- what you found?
13 A. Yes. Fifty-three civilians in the village of Dubica who were
14 detained in the local fire station. This is what I found.
15 Q. Thank you. On page 76 of this transcript, line 8 of the
16 transcript, Mr. Whiting quotes a second witness. This is on page 76, if
17 you can find this for me, please. Line 8. And he says here a second
18 witness provides records about the attack by Serb forces on Skabrnja. A
19 second witness provides evidence about the attack by Serb forces on
20 Skabrnja on the 18th November 1991.
21 Mr. Whiting goes on to say this witness tells how Serb soldiers,
22 including JNA soldiers and SAO Krajina soldiers, intentionally,
23 deliberately executed civilians during the attack, including elderly and
25 Is this information that concurs with what you state in your
1 expert report based on your research?
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: What does he state in his expert report?
3 Mr. Milovancevic, what does he state in his expert report that he's
4 supposed to concur with this? You're telling him what Mr. Whiting told
5 him. You're not telling him what he said.
6 You see, you're seeking -- you're seeking confirmation through --
7 from this witness of things that eyewitness -- are factual evidence. This
8 witness is an expert, Mr. Milovancevic. He has come here to give expert
9 evidence. Will you please be relevant and stay within the purpose of this
10 witness's testimony.
11 You're seeking this witness's confirmation of a statement made in
12 court by a Prosecutor. That statement by a Prosecutor is a mere
13 allegation. The Prosecutor still has to call a witness to testify on
14 those -- on those allegations. This witness was not an eyewitness in that
15 trial either.
16 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in his report, on
17 page of 6 -- 68 in B/C/S version and on page 12 of the English version,
18 this witness speaks about the attack on Skabrnja, and he describes what he
19 established based on his conversations with the survivors, and I'm merely
20 asking whether what he established concurs with what Mr. Whiting said at
21 the Babic trial.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Fine. That's why I asked you my question. Does
23 this concur with what you said where, what? Quote him exactly what he
24 said so that he knows where to go and he can be able to answer you to say
25 he does agree it, or he doesn't agree it. But if you just say what you
1 wrote, and you're telling him what the Prosecutor said in court it's not
2 very helpful, Mr. Milovancevic.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Q. On page 12 of the English version and page 668 of the B/C/S
5 version in the last paragraph, you speak about Skabrnja and Nadin, and you
6 say that: "It has been revealed that members of the JNA and Serbian
7 paramilitary forces randomly chose villagers, the only criteria being that
8 it was discovered" -- I am speeding and the interpreters are having a hard
9 time. "It has been discovered that after entering the villages members of
10 the JNA and Serbian paramilitary forces randomly chose villagers, the only
11 criteria being their nationality, and killed them."
12 And my question is whether this statement of yours concurs with
13 what Mr. Whiting said at the Babic trial. Is that the case, Mr. Loncar?
14 A. I must admit, Your Honours, it is very difficult for me to follow
15 the two things at the same time, and it's very difficult for me to see who
16 said what. Let me consult my report first.
17 Q. What I'm asking you is whether this part of your statement -- is
18 this a part of your statement relative to Skabrnja?
19 A. This is indeed relative to Skabrnja and --
20 Q. Yes, this is Skabrnja, English page 12.
21 A. I'm reading B/C/S.
22 Q. Mr. Whiting spoke about that on page 76 in the transcript from the
23 Babic trial. Page 76 of the transcript. Can you see that?
24 A. I don't see Skabrnja anywhere.
25 Q. Page 76, line 9. A second witness provides evidence about the
1 attack by Serb forces on Skabrnja on the 18th of November.
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. The Serbian soldiers, including JNA soldiers and SAO Krajina
4 soldiers, intentionally executed civilians during the attack, including
5 elderly and women."
6 And this is the exact same information that you provided in your
7 report. Isn't that the case?
8 A. I have my information that I received from the victims.
9 Q. Thank you. On the same page, page 76 of the transcript,
10 Mr. Whiting, in lines 13 and 14, speaks about a crime in Bruska, in Bruska
11 and about the Krajina milicija that came to the village of Bruska on the
12 21st of December, 1991 and massacred 10 civilians.
13 On page 669 in the B/C/S version, I believe that it is on page 12
14 in the English version, you also speak about Bruska, and you speak about
15 persons coming to the door, introducing themselves as members of the
16 Martic milicija, and killed people there. Is that what it says in your
18 A. If I have been able to get my bearings between one paper and the
19 other, which is very confusing Your Honours -- hold on just a moment.
20 Let's me see. The village -- yes. Yes. This is from a statement of the
21 survivors, of the eyewitnesses of the crime.
22 Q. And let's finish with this page 76 before the break. I'm sorry,
23 we still have another 15 minutes to go.
24 The second witness quoted on this page by the Prosecutor Whiting
25 speaks about Poljanak and how civilians were executed there.
1 And finally in lines 21 and 22, the Prosecutor speaks about a
2 witness who provides evidence about the arrest by Martic's milicija and
3 his detention in the old hospital in Knin.
4 Were you aware of these events? Did you hear about these events
5 from the victims?
6 A. Yes. Still, I have to offer my apologies to the Trial Chamber,
7 because I find it quite difficult. And if I may ask you to clarify your
8 question first before I try and answer it.
9 Q. Is what Mr. Whiting is stating here before the case against Milan
10 Babic the same sort of evidence you received in your work with witnesses?
11 A. On the basis of just a cursory glance of this -- well, I find it
12 quite difficult to juggle between the two papers.
13 Q. I thank you for your answer, and I do agree with you that it is a
14 bit difficult to follow.
15 On page 77 of the transcript dating back to 2004, Mr. Whiting says
16 that the Prosecution and Defence invited a joint witness where the name of
17 Dr. Mladen Loncar is mentioned - that's on page 77 in lines 13 and 14 -
18 who is a psychiatrist with expertise in dealing with victims of war or war
19 crimes and who will testify about the effects on the victims of the crimes
20 in Croatia that occurred in this case. Is that the task you were given in
21 giving your expertise in the Babic case?
22 A. I've been telling you all this time, Your Honour, that my task was
23 to talk about the health impact on victims of these crimes.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Milovancevic please repeat the
25 references to the page numbers.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you're being asked to repeat the
2 reference to the page number because the interpreters have lost it or they
3 didn't hear it.
4 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Page 79 of the transcript, lines 14 and 15.
6 Q. Mr. Whiting describes your role as an expert witness in the
7 following way: "Mr. Mladen Loncar will testify not only about the effects
8 of the crimes on the victims but also about the positive effects from the
9 accused's guilty plea and his acknowledgement of responsibility."
10 Was that your task as well, Mr. Loncar?
11 A. It was my task to say what sort of an effect Mr. Babic's guilty
12 plea would have on both sides, on both ethnic groups.
13 Q. Thank you. We have just established what your task was in
14 developing this expert report.
15 Could we please look at page 116 of the transcript? At the very
16 top of page 116, when the Prosecutor completed his cross-examination --
17 Mr. Loncar, you have the page numeration there?
18 A. I seem to have several copies of the same page. That's why I'm
19 confused. You said 116?
20 Q. Yes. Lines 5 and 6. In response to the question put by the
21 Presiding Judge whether there was any need for the Defence to
22 cross-examine Dr. Loncar, the Defence counsel for Mr. Babic answered that
23 there were no questions from the Defence side. Therefore, Mr. Mueller did
24 not put any questions to you. Isn't that correct?
25 A. As far as I remember, there was one question. That's why I said
1 that I thought I was examined by Mr. Mueller. It was a very brief one,
3 Q. But in principle, there was no cross-examination, was there?
4 A. I must admit that I can't really judge to what extent one has to
5 be examined to be considered as -- for that to be considered as
7 Q. Do you wish to call into doubt the text that you have before you
8 on page 111, lines 5, 6, where Mr. Mueller says that there are no
9 questions from the Defence side?
10 A. No. I simply don't remember anymore. There was discussion. Now,
11 whether that was an actual discussion or a question-answer situation, I
12 don't know.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: For the guidance of the witness, is it possible
14 that you might be referring to the question that you were asked by the
15 Judge? Because I see according to the transcript that Judge El Mahdi
16 asked the question: "Doctor, I would like to ask you --" well, first of
17 all, Judge Orie said: "Judge El Mahdi has one more question for you."
18 That's the one question that came from Judge El Mahdi.
19 Could you be confusing the question from Judge El Mahdi as a
20 question from the Defence?
21 Did you hear my question, Doctor?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour. I
23 apologise. I thought the question was put to the Defence.
24 Yes, that's quite possible, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you see that, Mr. Milovancevic, that Dr. -- I
1 beg your pardon, Judge El Mahdi asked one question to the witness? I
2 don't know whether that's the one question he's referring to when he says
3 he was cross-examined by the asking of one question. But your opposite
4 number is on her feet.
5 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
6 MS. VALABHJI: Yes, Your Honour. Looking further along on the
7 transcript, I don't know if my learned friend intended to go this far, but
8 at page 123 there is a question by counsel Mr. Fogelnest.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: And who was Mr. Fogelnest?
10 MS. VALABHJI: Defence counsel for Mr. Babic, Your Honour.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be of
12 assistance? This was part of re-examination in view of the fact that the
13 Defence stated that it had no questions during cross-examination, next
14 followed questions from the Bench, and then the Defence counsel stood up
15 for re-examination, but that cannot be considered as cross-examination.
16 Perhaps that's what the witness was referred to.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: That is true, but this witness is not going to know
18 the distinction between all those things.
19 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
20 MS. VALABHJI: I was actually going to say that, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see, all he will remember is that a lawyer
22 stood up on the opposite side and asked me questions. What stage of the
23 trial that is he may not be able to tell.
24 Be that as it may, I think everybody in court here does accept
25 that there was no cross-examination, that questions were asked arising
1 from questions asked by the Bench.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We
3 have finished with the transcript.
4 Q. Witness, I will now put to you some questions concerning your
5 expert report. We have already mentioned pages 2 and 3 where the lines
6 could be found concerning the method of taking statements, which had
7 several goals. And then -- this was at page 656. And then the next
8 chapter is entitled "The victims of incarceration," which in the English
9 version can be found on page 3.
10 Witness, have you found the page?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Thank you. In the introduction itself, you say that: "From a
13 moral and humanistic aspect, camps have always been places of the greatest
14 devaluation of people, therefore, they are also the greatest systematic
15 degradations of the code of ethics."
16 I'm interested in the following: Is this your position vis-a-vis
17 victims who were held in camps regardless of their ethnicity and
18 regardless of the whereabouts of these camps? Is this a universal
19 characteristic shared by all victims?
20 A. Your Honour, what I stated here, it does not imply that not all
21 the victims are the same whatever their ethnicity.
22 Q. Thank you. On the next page, in the B/C/S it's page 657 and in
23 the English version that's page 3, and I'm referring to the second
24 paragraph from the bottom where you say: "Between 650 and 700 non-Serbs
25 were incarcerated in Knin camps."
1 Have you found that part of the text?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In paragraph 39 of the indictment against Mr. Martic, the
4 allegations by the OTP include the following facilities, and I will now
5 quote the indictment allegations. Short-term and long-term detention
6 facilities are mentioned. That's at paragraph 39 of the indictment. And
7 as such the detention centres include the Knin prison run by the JNA,
8 which had about 150 detainees. That's under (a). And under (b), the old
9 hospital in Knin, which as the indictment alleges was run by Martic's
10 police and had about 120 detainees. Under (c) of paragraph 39 of the
11 indictment lists the police station at Titova Korenica which had 10
12 detainees. Under (d) of the same paragraph, the police station at
13 Bosanska Kostajnica is alleged with 8 -- 10 -- 8 to 10 detainees. Under
14 (e), the police station at Bosanski Novi with 50 detainees. And lastly,
15 under (f), the shoe factory Sloga at Prnjavor with 180 detainees.
16 I put this to you in order to demonstrate one fact. When you sum
17 up all of the figures in the indictment, you arrive at about 500 people in
18 all. In this expert report of yours, you give the figure of 650 and -- to
19 700 persons in the Knin camps. What was the basis for this figure of
21 A. As I stated yesterday, during the period when I had contacts with
22 people who were in the area in the period between 1991 and 1995 and from
23 conversations with them, I arrived at this approximate figure of 650 to
24 700 persons.
25 Another explanation for this figure is that the victims themselves
1 stated that the victims included not only citizens of Croatia but also of
2 Bosnia and Herzegovina, from the Bihac area. I did not state all these
3 details here, but I'm simply explaining how I arrive at the figure here.
4 One part of the victims were allegedly exchanged to Kupres.
5 That's what I heard from the stories of those who were in these
7 Q. But this figure is not consistent with what the Prosecutor
8 alleges, but I believe we shall deal with this after the break.
9 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think it's the
10 time now.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: We will deal with that, and just be thinking during
12 the break whether that question will be relevant, Mr. Milovancevic. This
13 witness is an expert witness. His figures are estimates which have
14 nothing to do with the case. It's the effects of the trauma. Just think
15 about that.
16 Court adjourned. We will come back at a quarter to.
17 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 5.47 p.m.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
20 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Mr. Loncar, before the break we stopped with the third chapter,
22 the victims of detention and its general characteristics and how it
23 affects people.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. In your expert report on page 659 in B/C/S and page 4 of the
1 English version, in the last paragraph you dealt with the most common
2 psychological impairments, and you say that there is anxiety. And the
3 third impairment is depressive reactions and similar symptoms. With this
4 regard I don't have any questions, because I assume that this is a general
5 picture of all the people who have ever been detained in the institutions
6 of the sort described in this report. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. In the English version, page 6 of your report, and in B/C/S on
9 page 660, this is where the fourth chapter starts, and this is where you
10 speak about the victims of displacement and victims whose homes were
11 destroyed and who lost everything.
12 In this paragraph, you say that those are refugees and displaced
13 persons who experienced the so-called dislocation stress which is one of
14 the most difficult or gravest stresses for a human being, and this is
15 something that every human being finds very difficult to deal with as a
16 change that affects a human being. Is that correct?
17 A. Yes, that's correct.
18 Q. In the Secretary-General of the United Nations' report, it says
19 that towards the end of 1991 in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
20 there were 500.000 refugees and displaced persons. Are you aware of that
22 A. I am aware of the fact that at one point in time in the territory,
23 and I don't know when that was, in the territory of Croatia alone there
24 were between 400 and 500.000 refugees and displaced persons. So I
25 wouldn't go into your information. I don't know anything about it.
1 Q. Regardless of the figures, the conclusions that you offer in your
2 report with regard to the so-called dislocation stress apply to all these
4 A. Yes, in principle.
5 Q. On page 661 of your report in the B/C/S version, and in the
6 English version this is on page 6, paragraph 3, you say that from the
7 territory of SAO Krajina -- I apologise. I started talking without a mic.
8 On the English page 6 of your report, and on page 661 of the
9 B/C/S, you say that tens of thousands of Croats and non-Serbs were
10 displaced or fled from the so-called Krajina SAO. Practically the entire
11 non-Serb population was deported, forcefully removed or killed. There was
12 intentional destruction of homes, private property, public and cultural
13 institutions, cultural monuments and sacral buildings of the Croatian and
14 other non-Serbian population, especially in Dubica, Cerovljani, Bacin,
15 Saborsko, Poljanak, Lipovaca, and the hamlets of Vaganac, Skabrnja, Nadin,
16 and Bruska in Krajina SAO.
17 Did you notice that this paragraph in your expert report is almost
18 identical of paragraph 23(j) in the indictment against Mr. Martic? Is
19 this your finding or is this something that you copied from the
21 A. This is my authentic finding that I drafted in order to describe
22 the dramatic experience of this group, and this experience assumed the
23 proportions of an epidemic.
24 Q. Based on your conversations with the certain numbers of victims,
25 you were able to establish that several tens of thousands, as you say, of
1 Croats and non-Serbs, or practically the entire non-Serbian population was
2 deported, forcefully removed or killed. And also that their property was
3 intentionally destroyed. And this is what you could establish based on
4 your conversations with the victims.
5 A. If I may repeat, deported, forcefully removed -- or forcibly
6 removed or killed, and this is the exact wording in my report.
7 Q. I will read to you paragraph 23 of the indictment, which under
8 item (e) says: "Deportations or forcible removal of tens of thousands of
9 Croatian and other non-Serb civilians," and under item (j), it says, and
10 that is something that you also say in your paragraph, "intentional
11 destruction of residential buildings, private and public property,
12 cultural institutions, cultural monuments, and sacral buildings of the
13 Croatian, Muslim, and other non-Serb population, especially in Dubica,
14 Cerovljani, Bacin, Saborsko ..." Let me not repeat the names of the
15 villages that you mention in your report.
16 Did you take that text over from the indictment? Did you take
17 this over from Mr. Whiting or did he take this over from you?
18 A. I didn't take this anything from anybody. And as you were reading
19 the text of the indictment, I cannot say that the two are identical. They
20 are not the same.
21 Q. Can you say that they're almost 100 per cent identical, the two
23 A. No, no.
24 Q. In your view, they're not identical?
25 A. No, they're not.
1 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Mr. Milovancevic, I do hate to interrupt you,
2 but what further evidential value do the answers have other than what is
3 already contained in the report? Are these points which you're attempting
4 to make not better made in the course of an address by way of a comparison
5 of the two documents whilst you will have the opportunity at a later stage
6 to bring this to the attention of the Court? Is it suitable for
7 cross-examination in this way?
8 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I am
9 agreeable with your suggestion entirely.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. On the same page, which is pages 6 and 7 of the English version,
13 you explain the stages in the stress-building that the refugees have to go
14 through. Since you have providing a great detail in that description, at
15 this moment I will not asking any questions about that part of your
17 I'm interested in your allegation on page 7, which is 662 in the
18 B/C/S version, and the English page 7, where you say: "A majority of the
19 displaced persons left their homes during the armed conflict. Many were
20 forced to leave their homes because of physical abuse or direct
21 endangerment of their lives."
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What paragraph must we look at on page 7, and where
23 in --
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I will tell you in a second,
25 Your Honours. This is the last paragraph on page 7, Your Honours, below
1 items 1, 3, 4 [as interpreted]. The last paragraph on page 7.
2 Q. This information is it based on your conversations with the
3 victims. Is that correct, Mr. Loncar?
4 A. Yes, that is correct, Your Honours.
5 Q. On pages 7 and 8 of the English and page 663 of the B/C/S version,
6 you speak about these symptoms that the displaced persons experience.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you say that they fall under the international
9 classification 10 and that they occur as a consequence of an acute stress
10 or trauma, and this is a general characteristic of all the people that
11 went through such an experience. Is that correct, Mr. Loncar?
12 A. Yes. In my sample this was absolutely the case.
13 Q. Thank you. On page 664 of the B/C/S version, and in English this
14 is on page 9, you speak about the municipality of Hrvatska Dubica, and you
15 explain its make-up as consisting of the following places: Dubica, Bacin,
16 Slavinja, Zivaja, and Cerovljani. Slavinja and Zivaja are Serbian
17 villages, villages with a majority Serbian population. Are you aware of
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. When you were talking about the effects of persecution, you, I
21 suppose, had in mind their lot, the lot of these villages.
22 A. It was not my intention to deal with villages geographically but
23 primarily with traumatised people, and within that -- that context I
24 wanted to see what had happened to certain groups, to the groups of the
25 people with whom I had had contact during the war, with whom I had spoken
1 during the war. And initially I wanted to see what caused their possible
2 health complaints and problems. Hence the short introduction, just as an
3 illustration as to what I'm going to say next.
4 Q. Thank you. When you mentioned the village of Bacin and the
5 village of Cerovljani in the same paragraph, as well as the village of
6 Pregore, you're talking about the consequences of the events that these
7 people had been through. Do you deal with them as the victims of
8 persecution or the victims of something else, some other sort of victims?
9 A. When I mention these villages and the entire paragraph on
10 page 660, under IV, I'm talking about the victims of deportation whose
11 homes were destroyed. I'm talking about displaced persons who -- whose
12 homes were destroyed.
13 Q. Since you mentioned the villages of Bacin, Cerovljani and Dubica,
14 are you aware of the fact that yesterday we had a witness who explained
15 that the population was not expelled from those villages, that they went
16 from the village on the 13th and 14th of September 1991 pursuant to the
17 HDZ's and Crisis Staff instruction, and that what happened in Bacin with
18 the graveyard, that happened in October 1991. Are you aware of that?
19 A. If I understood you well, you said that somebody from the HDZ sent
20 them away. I don't know that. I'm not aware of that information.
21 Q. Mr. Loncar, we've had other witnesses here who spoke about a
22 person called Matilja from Hrvatska Kostajnica and his implementation of
23 Tudjman's order. Did you not hear of that?
24 A. No, I didn't.
25 Q. Two paragraphs below the one that we were looking at just now you
1 mention the village of Cerovljani, and you spoke about the persecution of
2 some 180 Croats. There was a Prosecution witness here who told us that
3 the population had left the village before the conflict, in the first half
4 of September, and if I put it to you this way, would you still say that
5 this was a case of persecution?
6 A. Your Honours, when I was writing this, I used a general wording,
7 and it was not my intention to legally define their position. What I was
8 interested in as a doctor who worked with that group of displaced persons
9 is the fact that they could not go home. They could not return to their
10 homes, that they had problems as a result of that, and that their homes
11 had been destroyed. And what I found important and what I wrote about was
12 what health complaints prevailed in this group of people.
13 Q. Thank you, Mr. Loncar. When you mentioned these villages, Bacin,
14 Dubica, and Cerovljani, you mention on the following page, which is the
15 English page 10, and in B/C/S this is page 665, the penultimate paragraph,
16 you say that about 95 per cent of the displaced persons returned to that
17 area. Do you know what happened to the Serbs from this area? Did they
18 ever return?
19 A. This is the information that was not broken down according to
20 ethnic affiliation.
21 Q. On page 466 -- or 666 in the upper right corner, and we're talking
22 about relatives, victims, relatives of those who were killed. In the
23 first paragraph -- have you been able to locate this, Mr. Loncar? In the
24 first paragraph here you're talking about what the relatives of the
25 victims experienced, and you talk about their general and specific
2 On the following page marked as 667 in B/C/S, and on page 11 of
3 the English version, in the penultimate paragraph -- did you find it?
4 A. 667?
5 Q. Yes. It says here that: "From the beginning of August 1991 to
6 the end of February 1992 Serbian forces in the so-called Krajina SAO or
7 RSK consisted of the JNA, the local Serbian TO and TO units from Serbia
8 and Montenegro, as well as local police units and police units of the
9 Serbian MUP and Serbian paramilitary units. They attacked and took
10 control in towns and villages. After taking control, they established a
11 government that intentionally displaced the Croatian and non-Serb
12 population and drove them out of these areas. These expulsions were based
13 on political, natural and religious factors."
14 Are you aware of the fact that this text is identical to -- with
15 paragraph 22 of the indictment and 23 of the indictment?
16 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
17 Q. Are you saying that the existence of an identical text is the
18 result of your work rather than of using the indictment of the -- itself?
19 Is that the way I am supposed to understand your answer?
20 A. I apologise, Your Honours. Can the Defence repeat the question?
21 What is identical to what?
22 Q. I have before me the text of the indictment and what you wrote
23 about what happened between August and so on and so forth, and what
24 follows is the verbatim part of the indictment, absolutely identical to
25 the indictment.
1 A. What is the question? Your Honours, can you help me? Can you ask
2 the Defence counsel to tell me what the question is?
3 Q. How do you account for the fact that one part of your text is
4 identical to one part of the indictment?
5 A. I'll try to answer by providing you two answers. First of all,
6 I'm not aware of that; and secondly, this is not important. This is just
7 an illustration. Every time I described the health problems, I introduced
8 that by some illustrations in order to establish that introduction with
9 the health problems that I found important.
10 Q. If I understand you well, you find irrelevant the fact that the
11 general climate of persecutions, which allegedly exist in a given area,
12 you analyse in a piece of text which is practically identical to the text
13 in the indictment and that is the piece of text you place in the context
14 of your expert report. Can this piece of text with the position expressed
15 therein, can it not have an impact on your expert report overall?
16 A. No. I based my expert report on the stories told by hundreds of
17 victims who had gone through their experiences on the basis of their
18 ethnicity and so on and so forth.
19 Q. Except for two or three examples, I did not see tens or hundreds
20 and let alone tens of thousands of testimonials that you speak of which
21 would account for the displacement of these people. You state that you
22 base your report on about 100 testimonials.
23 A. Well, on a bit more than that, Mr. Milovancevic.
24 Q. However, you put parts of the indictment in your expert report.
25 A. Well, the indictment itself does not speak of the health condition
1 of these people, and I wouldn't have any point in taking that text. The
2 victims told me how they felt, and medically speaking they are entitled to
3 their own subjective opinion as to what their experiences were like.
4 Q. A bit below the text we just looked at we have another paragraph
5 which is at page 668 in the B/C/S, and that's the paragraph starting on
6 page 11 and continuing on to page 12 in the English. You state: "That is
7 how the following crimes occurred: In October 1991 in Hrvatska Kostajnica
8 municipality, Serbian forces consisting of the JNA, the local Serb TO, and
9 Martic's police captured 53 civilians in Dubica village and incarcerated
10 them at the village fire station. On the 21st of October, 1991, members
11 of the Serb forces took the 43 captured Croats to an area near the village
12 of Bacin where they brought over 13 more non-Serb civilians from Bacin and
13 Cerovljani and there they killed these 56 people. At the same time, Serb
14 forces took 30 more civilians from Bacin and 24 civilians from Dubica and
15 Cerovljani villages to an unknown location and killed them."
16 This is what you write in your report.
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. That is the quotation from your report. I find quite telling the
19 fact that this text is identical to the text that can be found in
20 paragraph 26 of the indictment. Is this the sort of text you arrived at
21 based on the testimonials of the victims?
22 A. Roughly speaking, yes, from the victims I listened to who told me
23 their experiences and told me how they were taken over and detained at the
24 local fire department. That is literally the statement of victims.
25 Q. Two paragraphs down from the text we looked at on page 12 you
1 speak of Saborsko. Next you speak of Lipovaca and Vukovici.
2 Interestingly, the text concerning Saborsko, Lipovaca and Vukovici is
3 identical to the one to be found in the indictment; paragraph 30 for
4 Saborsko and paragraphs 28 and 29 for Lipovaca and Vukovici. Do you
5 believe this to be a coincidence?
6 A. The information I drew upon was the information I received from
7 victims, and this can be double-checked. I can be called again to testify
8 on that.
9 Q. You state that at least 31 persons were killed in Saborsko. In
10 the indictment there's the figure of 20. You state that seven civilians
11 were killed in Lipovaca, and the indictment it is said that eight of them
12 were killed. You state that 10 civilians were killed in Vukovici, whereas
13 the indictment alleges that 9 of them were killed. And that's the only
14 difference. But all of the information contained here is the result of
15 your work, is it not?
16 A. Yes. The figures which are the indicators of the subject are the
17 ones that I arrived at from victims, and they are in fact just the way of
18 introducing the topic of the health condition of these workers.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Milovancevic, please.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic.
21 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. The reason I'm asking you this question, Mr. Loncar, is that I, as
23 a Defence counsel, find it interesting that you draw upon the text which
24 is identical to that of the indictment in order to illustrate the
25 situation on the ground.
1 On page 668, the last sentence of the last paragraph, which is at
2 page 12 in the English version, you state the following: "During the
3 month of November of 1991, the Serb forces entered Skabrnja and they went
4 from house to house killing 38 non-Serb civilians in their homes and out
5 in the street. And in the period between 18 November 1991 and February
6 1992, the remainder of the infirm civilians in Skabrnja were killed."
7 What I find interesting in this text is that it seems to have been
8 copied from paragraph 31 of the indictment. You are not aware of any such
10 A. No, I'm not. Your Honours, allow me to explain this further. I
11 happen to have visited Skabrnja a month ago, and I can tell you that the
12 figures are relevant because they can be read out from the memorials that
13 were raised there, erected there, in the memory of these victims.
14 Unfortunately, these same figures were etched in marble there.
15 Q. You also state that 56 remaining infirm civilians were killed in
16 Skabrnja, whereas the Prosecutor speaks of 26 civilians killed. How did
17 you arrive at the figures here?
18 A. Well, the methodology was the same. It was the information
19 conveyed to me by victims who related their experience. And again I
20 repeat this was simply an introduction to what was to follow, which was
21 the impact of these events on the health of this particular group of
23 Q. Do you become a fact witness by drawing upon the facts on the
24 ground? Because you seem to be testifying on a whole lot of facts in your
25 expert report. Isn't that the case?
1 A. Well, I do not share your view. These facts serve only as an
2 illustration to point to the cause and effect link between the events and
3 the problems experienced by these victims.
4 Q. On page 14 of the English version, and in the B/C/S that's
5 page 671 of your report -- have you found that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. There's chapter 6, "Victims - relatives of missing persons."
8 There you are referring to the period during which most of the persons
9 went missing.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You also go on to explain how the fact that family members have
12 persons missing influences their own health condition, and that's the way
13 in which normally a person reacts to such a situation.
14 A. Generally speaking, I can say that that's correct, but that's the
15 information that I was able to arrive at on the basis of the group of
16 victims I analysed. I cannot say for a fact that a different group of
17 victims would not have reacted differently. Of course, the cultural
18 background also comes into play. But generally speaking, I agree.
19 Q. On page 673, which in the English version can be found at page 16,
20 Your Honours, paragraph 3, you speak of the impossibility for the family
21 whose member went missing to return to the location where the person was
22 last seen because it re-traumatises them. You draw the following
23 conclusion from there: That this kind of situation additionally enhances
24 the lack of confidence vis-a-vis members of Serb ethnicity which makes any
25 form of reconciliation difficult. Which members of Serb ethnicity are you
1 referring to?
2 A. I'm referring to the areas where such persons looking after
3 missing persons could not feel safe in going back to. And these are some
4 parts of the Republic of Croatia, on the border between Croatia and
5 Serbia. These are persons who actually follow clues or hints telling them
6 that this is where their missing family members could be found.
7 Q. You go on to say that this lack of trust on the part of Croats
8 vis-a-vis Serbs living in the areas that you just mentioned exists because
9 they, the victims, believe that persons of Serb ethnicity who were staying
10 in the area where their family members went missing during the war know
11 what happened to these missing members of their family but do not wish to
12 speak about it. Is that correct?
13 A. Yes. That's the view of these relatives of the victims, yes.
14 Q. Thank you. In your conclusion, chapter 7, English page 17, 674 is
15 the B/C/S page, you're talking about the effect of the confession on
16 the -- on the victims. And at the very end of this second paragraph below
17 the title, which is on English 17, last page -- last paragraph, and in
18 B/C/S this is 675, you say that at the -- Mr. Babic's confession conveys a
19 message that it is not the person that has to be hated but the sin
20 committed by the person. Mr. Babic's confession in which he says that
21 there is a person rather than a nation in every crime committed and that
22 the person commits the crime hiding behind the nation and the ideology,
23 and this has helped victims to see the crimes not through the prism of a
24 nation but through the person who committed them.
25 Does it apply not only to Mr. Babic but also to every other such
1 perpetrator of a crime?
2 A. Mr. Milovancevic, could you please be more succinct. Are you
3 referring to Mr. Babic's confession or something else?
4 Q. I apologise. I quoted a very long part of your own text. When
5 you say that Mr. Babic's confession shows that there is a person, not a
6 nation behind every crime and that it helps victims to see the crimes not
7 through the prism of a nation but through the prism of a person who
8 committed them, this position of yours the result of a principle according
9 to which every perpetrator of every crime has a name?
10 A. I've already said that in the course of my testimony.
11 Q. In the next chapter you speak about the effect of Babic's
12 confession on the Croatian population, and below that we see the effect of
13 the confession on the Serbian population. You explain that only one's
14 admission of guilt for the crimes committed allows for the lifting of
15 responsibility from the whole nation. And then you continue to say when
16 this is done by a leader, this may be a relief for his subordinates who
17 have followed his orders, and perhaps they will be able to assume their
18 personal responsibility and to allow the Serbian people to turn towards
19 the future.
20 What subordinates did you have in mind?
21 A. When we speak about subordinates, I'm talking about the hierarchy,
22 and we have to make two distinctions here. In these areas, leadership,
23 regardless of the ethnic background, is made equal with the national
24 affiliation. That's why I said that national affiliation has to be
25 dissociated from the perpetrator of a crime. The perpetrators of crimes
1 will often say that they are committing crimes with a cause, the cause
2 being a national interest, although in reality this is not true. For that
3 reason, a commission -- a confession removes this prejudice that all the
4 crimes of that kind are committed for a nation. And crimes are often
5 perceived by victims as crimes committed by one nation against another.
6 It is our task and our job to individualise, to personalise the
7 perpetrators of a crime which may be of a certain ethnic background, but
8 that doesn't mean that this ethnic group is a group of criminals. That
9 doesn't exist.
10 Q. I agree with that completely, but I'm interested in the rest of
11 your sentence or the paragraph in which you say that the assumption of
12 individual responsibility for the acts committed will enable the Serbian
13 people to turn to the future and take on a level of compassion which will
14 allow their crimes to be forgiven.
15 Who is -- who is it who is supposed to forgive the Serbian people
16 in order for them to be able to continue their life?
17 A. Mr. Milovancevic, they are psychological categories, not legal
18 categories. In other words, what happened in the psychology of an ethnic
19 group, either one or the other. As we both know, it often happens that in
20 a nation which results from a lack of caution or for some other reasons,
21 when the perpetrator is a Serb, all of a sudden there is an identification
22 process with the Serbian nation. In order to avoid that, because this is
23 wrong, if the true perpetrator of a crime is found, is identified, then
24 this psychological dimension that is hanging in the air in the territory
25 of the former Yugoslavia is automatically removed. It disappears. And
1 this is the context into which you have to put this sentence.
2 This will allow our people to turn to the future rather than to
3 reflect on the legacies of the crimes committed by groups or individuals
4 in the past.
5 Q. When you're talking about Mr. Babic's confession, I would like to
6 ask you whether you ever spoke to Mr. Babic to talk about that, or did you
7 analyse his personality?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Based on your report and based on Prosecutor's word, Mr. Babic was
10 sentenced to 13 words -- to 13 years, not to 11, as was proposed, and
11 the -- his Defence counsel did not cross-examine you. At that moment, he
12 was an accused who was staying in a private house, not in the Detention
13 Unit, but we are going to ask Mr. Whiting and Mrs. Vesna [phoen] about
14 that when our case comes.
15 I would like to know whether the announcement of suicide of
16 Mr. Babic after all this was the result of failed expectations or some
17 other impairments? Do you have any idea of the health of Mr. Babic?
18 A. I said that in the Babic case that I did not have any insight into
19 his health condition, none whatsoever.
20 Q. In the report of the committee that investigated his death, it --
21 it says that he spoke to his family and that he told them that it was his
22 impression that he was being abused or ill-used by the Prosecution. It is
23 also known that when he testified in the Martic case the OTP was in the
24 process of dealing with the -- his family situation, the situation of his
25 family and their whereabouts. Would you say that this was --
1 MS. VALABHJI: Objection, Your Honour.
2 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] -- relevant and the situation
3 of his family could have had an impact on Mr. Babic and what he did?
4 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yes. There is an objection be raised. Yes,
5 Ms. Valabhji.
6 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, the OTP was not dealing with his
7 family. That was the province of the registry. This is an inaccurate
8 statement on the part of my learned friend.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, do you have any response to that?
10 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] In the report of the so-called
11 Parker's committee, it says that Mr. Babic was under a great deal of
12 stress as a result of the fact that during his testimony the situation and
13 status of his family was being dealt with. The question of the status of
14 his family and the place where he would serve his sentence was part of the
15 agreement with the OTP at the time when Mr. Babic struck the deal with
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I'll ask you to please stay
18 focused yourself. The objection is simply this: That the OTP was not
19 dealing with Mr. Babic's family, that that was the province of the
20 Registry. Now, you either accept that or you dispute that. Just answer
21 to that and just don't tell us a lot of history. There is just one little
22 point that is being made. Deal with that point.
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I agree with that, Your Honour.
24 Precisely so.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Do you always agree after going all over the show?
1 Okay. Just deal with that point then. Was it the province of the
2 Registry, or was it the province of the OTP?
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree that this
4 is and different subject, but my question was --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: No, no. Don't go to your question,
6 Mr. Milovancevic. Just respond to the objection, please. Was it the
7 province of the Registry, or was it the province of the OTP? I don't want
8 to circumvent and repeat your question before you've dealt with the
9 objection. Deal with the objection and let's get over it, then you can
10 ask your question.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I find it absolutely relevant,
12 Your Honour, because this was happening at the moment when the OTP was
13 examining Babic in the Martic case, and he complained to his family that
14 he felt abused. And coincidentally the status of his family was being
15 dealt with, and this all hangs like a sword above his head. And just by
16 pure accident the guy killed himself at the moment. I'm asking the
17 psychiatrist whether such a situation could have an impact on that.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, I rule out of order the whole
19 statement that you have made right now. You have not answered my
20 question. My question to you is: Was his family being dealt with by the
21 OTP or was it dealt with by the Registry? Now stop going behind the
22 objection, and --
23 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I
24 understand. I understand. I read the text of the so-called Parker's
25 commission, and I understood it --
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Milovancevic, you are not answering my
2 question. I disallow you from further talking on that point.
3 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I believe, I fully believe that
4 it was the OTP who was dealing with that. Thank you, and I apologise.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: You either believe or you have facts to state that
6 on. If it's a belief on and we are having a statement that it has been
7 stated by the OTP, they said clearly that they didn't deal with his
8 family. Now, you go check your beliefs, and when you have checked them
9 you can come to court with your questions, but for now the Court forbids
10 you from asking questions on that point, and the objection is upheld.
11 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 Q. Mr. Loncar, we have come almost to the end of the
13 cross-examination. In your expert report, at the very end of this
14 report -- I apologise. Just bear with me for a moment and I will give you
15 the page indication. When you speak -- and this is on page 675 in B/C/S
16 and page 18 in the English version. And when you speak about the effect
17 of the confession on the Serbian population, you are quoting testimonial
18 of an 11-year-old girl about how she perceived the situation. And you
19 continue to say that this was a case, and you say that this is a case, and
20 it's a child from Skabrnja whose parents and grandparents were killed.
21 She writes in a school composition: "It all happened very quickly. Black
22 birds of prey set off, towards the sun, switched it off and in one day I
23 lost my father, grandmother, and both my grandfathers."
24 At the end of that quotation you go on to say: "Who is it who
25 spilled the black colour of misfortune of my childhood, and is this how it
1 should have happened?"
2 And this is the statement of the child from Skabrnja. Can you
3 confirm that?
4 A. Yes, this is a school composition that the child wrote at school.
5 Q. Do you think that this paint, the black paint of unhappiness all
6 over her childhood, the childhood of this child and all the other
7 childhood [as interpreted], was spilled by the person who issued an order
8 to form a -- the Skabrnja battalion that will attack the regular JNA
9 forces in that area and who had turned the village into a fortress?
10 A. Your Honour, this short poem or a composition written by a child
11 was quoted by me for the reason that it contains suffering, the loss that
12 the child had experienced, and because of the ending. I was very partial
13 to the ending where she says that the child -- the child says that the
14 world is merciless. In her imagination, in her fairy tale she wants
15 everything to be nicer and good to over -- to always win over the evil,
16 and because of that I included this into my report.
17 This is universal. The good always win over -- win over evil. We
18 have a saying in our -- in my language that says after rain, sun, but I
19 like this better. And this is why I included it after I had come into
20 contact with that child. When I had read that composition, I realised
21 that the child had problems and that she is sending universal messages,
22 and this is the essence of that story.
23 Q. Can this sort of question be also addressed to the president of
24 Croatia, Tudjman, who in 1991 stated that there would have been no war had
25 Croatia not wanted it? And that was the -- in 1992 the anniversary of
1 Croatia's secession. Is that the sort of thing that should also be
2 addressed to him?
3 A. Well, I did not investigate into the causes of these events. I
4 merely looked at the consequences. And I repeat that I chose this because
5 of the universal message contained there, that the good should always win
6 over the evil.
7 Q. Thank you, Witness. I have completed my cross-examination. Thank
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic.
10 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
11 MS. VALABHJI: Your Honour, I'd like a moment to confer.
12 [Prosecution counsel confer]
13 MS. VALABHJI: No further questions from the Prosecution of this
14 witness, Your Honour. Thank you.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Ms. Valabhji.
17 Questioned by the Court:
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Are either post-traumatic stress disorder or
19 acute stress disorder permanent state and conditions in respect of
21 A. Your Honour, this is what the situation is like: Acute stress
22 reaction to torture, which is something that was shown in our area, is
23 something that lasts from six months to one year at the most. This is an
24 acute disorder which is limited in duration, whereas the post-traumatic
25 stress disorder with all the symptoms inherent to it can also have an
1 acute stage which is normally quite short and falls within this time frame
2 of six months to one year where you find these symptoms.
3 However, its permanent effect can last for life in some victims
4 and in others it may disappear. It depends on the person's disposition,
5 predilection. It depends on how strong the person is. It depends also on
6 the social, economic, and other conditions and the sort of support the
7 person receives. If there is no re-traumatisation in the person, then
8 there is a likelihood that the disorder and its symptoms will disappear.
9 I also wish to say that the post-traumatic stress disorder can
10 have its mild forms, moderate forms, up to the very serious and grave
11 forms. This is also something that will affect the prognosis of the
12 disorder and its duration.
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The victims who form the subject matter of your
14 report, are you still in touch with them clinically?
15 A. Yes. I do work with victims a great deal.
16 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I'm speaking of the ones who form the subject
17 matter of your report, who you interviewed for the basis of your report.
18 A. Yes, I am in touch with them.
19 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Can you speak to the percentage of recovery, of
20 complete recovery? Is it possible?
21 A. What we frequently say in psychiatry is that if the -- in the case
22 of the post-traumatic stress disorder, this is the sort of recovery -- or
23 the sort of criteria we use to establish whether there is any recovery.
24 This is, first of all, criterion A under DSM-IV, which is the American
25 classification, and then we have the other, MKB-10, which is the
1 requirement that the person has had to go through an extreme trauma that
2 placed her life in danger or that it involved such an amount of fear of
3 such intensity that it caused a threat to the person's life. Such
4 reactions normally remain registered in our engrams, that is to say in the
5 persons who went through the experience. However, if they have symptoms
6 from the third, fourth, and fifth categories, then we can easily take them
7 through the treatment procedure to deal with their flashbacks,
8 re-traumatisations and so on.
9 The second group of symptoms are hyper-sensitivity, sleeplessness,
10 insomnia, acting out reactions, decreased emotional control, and prominent
11 expression of emotions.
12 The third group of symptoms include the so-called symptoms of
13 evasion which associate the person or remind the person of the trauma.
14 These can normally be easily controlled either through psychiatric therapy
15 or through medicines. We did not deal with permanent memories, the
16 permanent scars, but we can treat these groups of symptoms I mentioned.
17 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: All right. Now, you have been asked many
18 questions in cross-examination concerning the contents of your report as
19 against the contents of sections of the indictment. Had you seen the
20 indictment at the time that you prepared your report? Had you perused it
21 and read it?
22 A. Yes, I have, on the internet. However, I was looking at the
23 indictment against Mr. Babic. I'm not aware of the indictment against
24 Mr. Babic -- Martic. I don't believe that I have perused it.
25 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: I was speaking concerning the indictment in this
1 case, in this case against the accused Milan Martic.
2 A. No. I know that the indictment can be found on the internet, but
3 I did not read it. I saw it, but I did not read it. I'm not privy to the
4 details therefore. I really did not read it, because I was told to deal
5 with the health condition and so on and so forth. So I did not think it
6 necessary to look into that.
7 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: One moment, please.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Had you discussed with the OTP the contents of
10 the indictment before or at the time that you were compiling your report?
11 A. Your Honour, are you referring to the indictment against
12 Mr. Martic?
13 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: The indictment against Mr. Martic which I
14 understood to be the indictment than learned counsel for the Defence was
15 referring to when he cross-examined you.
16 A. No. I did not discussed anything in particular of that sort with
17 the Prosecution save for the matters upon which I was called to come here.
18 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: In the entire contents of your report as it
19 relates to the areas in the indictment that counsel referred you to would
20 be based on your clinical experience with the victims? Is that a fact or
21 is it not so?
22 A. When we're talking about the impact on the health of the victims,
23 these were the findings based on my work with victims. I can explain in
24 terms of the fact that I did not include in my report all the information
25 concerning the health of these victims. If the Trial Chamber is
1 interested, I can tell you which these are. I did mention them. I
2 outlined them, but I did not consider it necessary to go into that great a
3 detail as I was asked to produce a report covering some 15 to 20 pages.
4 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Judge.
6 Doctor, can I -- are you able to explain to us how you came into
7 contact with your interviewees for purposes of this report?
8 A. The information on the health condition of these victims as I
9 explained in the introductory part of my report, and there has been some
10 confusion regarding that in my testimony, I arrived at on the basis of the
11 methodology that I also used in drafting my report. I stated that I
12 collected the information from victims of whom I took statements,
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Let me -- let me try to rephrase my question. How
15 did you come into initial contact with each victim that you interviewed?
16 A. Your Honour, there were two main ways in which these persons were
17 contacted. Most often we would go to refugee centres or centres holding
18 displaced persons where we first of all wanted to inquire as to how we
19 could be of assistance to them. This was normally the first contact.
20 The second type of contact was with the so-called inmates, camp
21 inmates, former camp inmates, and we would get in touch with them in the
22 centres where they would put up -- where they were put up after having
23 been exchanged. We also discussed with them ways of assisting them. We
24 also collected different information from refugees and displaced persons
25 as well as former detainees, and on the basis of that information we got
1 in touch with their families and tried to assist them anyway we could.
2 We would also get in touch with them in the following way: In the
3 case of victims of sexual abuse, for instance, women, we would get in
4 touch with the social institutions under whose care these women were, and
5 that was how we would get in touch with them and talk to them.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is it -- do I understand you to be saying that
7 victims of sexual abuse you sought out?
8 A. Some of them, yes, whereas a smaller number of them approached us
9 in search of assistance.
10 As for the victims of sexual abuse, if I may be allowed to
11 proceed, Your Honour, just a few more remarks. The most important thing
12 was to gain their trust and to have more than one contact with them in
13 order for us to become closer to the person, win their trust, and then by
14 talking to the persons we would get an insight into their trauma. We
15 would then proceed to treat such victims in the best way we knew.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: In other words, they did not up front,
17 voluntarily -- let me rephrase. They did not volunteer up front the fact
18 of their sexual abuse. You had to gain their confidence and trust before
19 they could volunteer this information.
20 A. Precisely so, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: You were shown pictures this afternoon on the ELMO.
22 I'm not quite sure -- I just wanted to find out how -- you were asked
23 about the ethnicity of some of the people. How do you recognise -- I beg
24 your pardon. How do you determine the ethnicity of a person by looking on
25 a picture on the ELMO there? You might as well tell me also how you
1 determine where the person comes from by the same process.
2 A. Your Honour, you are absolutely right. When I said earlier today
3 and "recognised" these bodies, it was just my assumption because those
4 people had been brought from the village of Doljani, and the photos were
5 taken by a friend of mine, a doctor, and that's why I provided the answer
6 that I did.
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, these people whose pictures you were being
8 shown today, were they alive? Have you seen them in life, or when you saw
9 them, if you did see them at all, were they already dead?
10 A. They were dead already, Your Honour, at the moment when I saw the
11 photos, that is. And the fellow villagers who were displaced from the
12 village recognised them on those photos, and there was also subsequent
13 identification of the bodies with the assistance of UNPROFOR.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: So in fact, the people you saw -- that we saw this
15 afternoon on the pictures here were never the subject of your report or
16 your interviews. You didn't interview them. They were corpses when you
17 first saw their pictures.
18 A. No, no, no.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Tell us what happened.
20 A. I never got in contact with them because I never saw them alive.
21 That's what I'm saying. No.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you. You had seen these photographs
23 before today, had you?
24 A. Yes. Yes. A colleague of mine took these photos, and I did see
25 them before. That's why I found it easy to recognise them, although I had
1 not seen them in a long time before that.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: In other words, when you characterised them in
3 terms of ethnicity and residence, you did so on what you were told by
4 other people? You had no independent knowledge of that? Or, rather, let
5 me put it this way: It's not -- it's not information that you got from an
6 interview with these people?
7 A. No, Your Honour. It was the second-hand knowledge based on the
8 information from the survivors. I repeat, the persons that we saw on
9 those photos earlier today, I never spoke to them when they were alive,
10 never spoke to them.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: If you can just give me a moment. I'm sorry, I'm
12 not finding what I'm looking for. The numbering is different.
13 Thank you very much. That concludes the questions from -- sorry,
14 I think Judge Nosworthy has a question to ask just before I ...
15 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Doctor, you're in the peculiar position of
16 having been a victim of certain experiences as well as an expert who has
17 produced a report and given findings. Could you tell the Trial Chamber
18 whether your personal experience affected or impacted in any way in the
19 compilation of your report, in any process at all in relation to your
20 report, and how, if at all, you were able to distinguish between the
21 personal self and your professional self in terms of your experiences for
22 the purposes of the preparation and settling of your report.
23 A. Your Honour, I'll try to answer your several questions, and I'll
24 start with an illustration.
25 In this case, I did not touch upon the part of the work that was
1 not relevant for this case, because this was my instruction, to stick to
2 the subject. I spoke about all victims in a book that was published in
3 Zagreb, regardless of their ethnicity and who the perpetrators of the
4 crimes were. And I also speak about the victims on the Croatian side, the
5 Serb side, on all the sides.
6 Let me try and answer your question more directly, Your Honour.
7 My experience that I went through has helped me to supplement my education
8 and to experience the universality of the victim and to understand fully
9 that the victims cannot be segregated on no basis, and also I found
10 confirmation that a criminal cannot hide behind their nationality. For
11 that reason, I believe I have not had any problems with my dual status.
12 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you very much.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Judge Hoepfel also has yet another question to ask,
14 and I have found what I wanted to ask.
15 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Dr. Loncar, could you in addition to what you just
16 explained to Judge Nosworthy make a temporal relation between the time of
17 your personal experience and the time when you prepared the report? Just
18 an overall temporal structure, a time line.
19 A. Well, the two experiences coincide in a way. What I went through
20 helped me to understand what the cause is, and when I gained my education
21 in -- in psychiatry, I could understand everything better, and this is the
22 context in which I would put my report. One was history, and these are
23 the consequences that I've described herein, and my personal experience
24 has helped me in the way that the victims found it easier to believe me
25 and trust me. They empathised with me, and they could sense that I
1 understood them better than others.
2 It is a very common occurrence, not only in my case, and that is
3 that victims perceive a certain number of experts in whom they find more
4 empathy for their suffering and their problems. This is at least what the
5 victims experience, which doesn't necessarily mean there is a difference
6 in the quality and the qualification of the doctor that is treating them.
7 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Would you give an overall time structure for your
8 personal experiences and the time of preparation of the report? You may
9 have said that, but my memory may be weak, so please could you clarify
10 that? Did we have a time? Can you give us the time when that happened
11 and when you prepared your report?
12 A. The time difference is some 13, 14 years, if we're talking about
13 the time difference. I was arrested in 1991, and the report was written
14 two years ago. So we're talking about a time difference of some 13, 14
16 JUDGE HOEPFEL: Thank you. That's all.
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Judge.
18 If everybody can indulge me, please, let me go back to the
19 question I was looking for.
20 Sometime today you indicated that the 53 civilians in the village
21 of Dubica who were detained in the local fire station -- you referred to
22 those people, and then you said after making that reference, "This is what
23 I found." I assumed when you said, "This is what I found," you mean the
24 53 civilians, and I want to find out where did you find them?
25 A. Yes. Yes.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where did you find them?
2 A. Your Honour, let me just clarify this. When we're working in this
3 way, when we're talking to victims like I did, and yesterday more than
4 today we were talking about statistics. This is not so much about
5 scientific statistics. In my job, I'm not an investigator but the victim
6 has this need to talk to me, and I have to listen through to them, and
7 sometimes it happens that victims volunteer certain numbers, and then
8 another victim gives me a different number which may differ by one or two.
9 Since I'm not an investigator, I'm just a doctor who spoke to the
10 survivors of certain events, I took these numbers, these figures, as a
11 mere illustration and as a starting point for the traumatic experience
12 that I'm --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: I probably didn't express myself clearly. My
14 question is simply where did you find them? Did you find them in the fire
15 station, or did you find them elsewhere? I'm not asking you about the
16 numbers and what have you. I understand you're not an investigator.
17 You're just a doctor -- not just a doctor. You are a doctor. But I
18 understand that. What I want is know is where physically did you find
19 these people when you made contact with them for the first time?
20 A. When they were still displaced persons and refugees, and these
21 people spoke to me about the victims, if this is what you're asking me, if
22 I understand your question well. These people, refugees and displaced
23 persons, spoke to me about those victims, and they gave me the figures.
24 JUDGE MOLOTO: I see. You did not speak to the 53 civilians who
25 were in the fire station. You spoke to those who knew about them.
1 A. Yes. That is the case, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: It didn't look -- it didn't look like that on the
3 record. Thank you so much. That concludes my questions.
4 Any -- not that you may ask the questions, I just want to find out
5 if you do have any questions arising from the Bench's questions.
6 MS. VALABHJI: I have no questions, Your Honour, but I just would
7 like to note in relation to a question posed by Her Honour Judge Nosworthy
8 that the Babic indictment is Exhibit 173 in evidence in this case, and
9 there is, I believe, considerable overlap with the indictment in this
10 case. Thank you.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Ms. Valabhji.
12 Mr. Milovancevic, any -- do you have any questions arising? We
13 have gone far beyond the time. I just want to establish so that I know
14 what to say to the witness. Do you have any questions?
15 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, please bear with
16 me for a minute. I have a very brief question.
17 Q. Is the witness aware of the fact that both Babic and Martic are
18 indicted for the same joint criminal enterprise and that the basis of the
19 crime is the same in both indictments? So the temporal and geographical
20 reference is the same.
21 A. I know that in Mr. Babic's indictment Mr. Martic is referred to.
22 He is mentioned. This is what I know.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
24 MR. MILOVANCEVIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions,
25 Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Milovancevic. I'm sorry to have
2 kept everybody beyond the time. I hope you can bear with us. We just
3 wanted to finish with this witness so we can release him today.
4 Doctor, this brings us to the ends of your testimony. We will not
5 need you any further, but we want to say thank you very much for coming to
6 testify in the matter. You are now excused. You may stand down. Thank
7 you very much.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: The Court will adjourn to tomorrow at quarter
12 past 2.00 in the afternoon.
13 Yes, Ms. Valabhji.
14 MS. VALABHJI: I rose too early, Your Honour. My apologies.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you. Mr. Milovancevic, I thought you rose
16 too. Okay. Thank you.
17 Well, then, court adjourned until tomorrow at quarter past 2.00.
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.20 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 14th day
20 of June, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.