1 Wednesday, 29 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome.
6 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, earlier today
7 I sent an e-mail to the Defence and your legal officers regarding the
8 discovery this morning of materials disclosed in the Popovic case last
9 week that may contain Rule 68 material with respect to Mr. Masovic, the
10 witness the Prosecution intended on calling this afternoon.
11 It consists of a number of documents and is material that was not
12 reviewed by my staff because when we initiated a computer search on his
13 name, a search of our evidence collection of over 7 million documents,
14 these documents were not flagged as relevant to him.
15 This is in part because the body of material disclosed in the
16 Popovic case relates to the International Commission of Missing Persons
17 or ICMP, and primarily concerns their work on exhumations of Srebrenica
18 in 1995. However, there is a relationship between Mr. Masovic's work and
19 the work of the ICMP, and I believe my obligations under Rule 68 required
20 that I review the material and that I notify the Chamber immediately.
21 I had written earlier that I believed fairness required me to
22 request the postponement of this witness's testimony until these
23 documents could be reviewed and whatever documents containing Rule 68
24 could be disclosed. I assigned several lawyers the task of immediately
25 reviewing these documents. They have done so and have identified eight
1 documents, most of these are letters, a total volume of material is 31
3 These documents primarily concern letters and e-mails written by
4 former employee of Mr. Masovic, expressing dissatisfaction with
5 Mr. Masovic's work. None of it directly related to Visegrad.
6 It is my belief that they can be easily reviewed in approximately
7 30 to 60 minutes by the Defence. Mr. Van Hooydonk has already provided a
8 copy of these documents to the Defence in court, and I have a copy for
9 the Chamber should the Chamber wish to review these documents. I still
10 think that fairness requires the Defence the benefit of having the
11 opportunity to review these documents, and that's why, therefore, I on my
12 own motion am asking the Chamber to postpone the calling of Mr. Masovic
13 until tomorrow. As the Chamber will recall, the Chamber allotted
14 Prosecution very limited time with Mr. Masovic and it was primarily for
15 the introduction of his report and his prior testimony. It seems to me
16 that it would be unfair to ask the Defence at this juncture to express a
17 view as to the admissibility of those exhibits until they have had a
18 chance to review this material.
19 Also on the schedule for tomorrow is Mr. Ib Jul Hansen. While I
20 still have some preparation to do in advance of his evidence, I do know
21 that I will use less than half the time I originally estimated, and I
22 estimate that I will use approximately 40 minutes. So I believe that we
23 will be able to complete both Mr. Masovic's and Mr. Hansen's testimony in
24 tomorrow's session and not lose any time in the Court's schedule. I
25 apologise to the Defence and to the Chamber for this mishap, but I do see
1 it as my duty to bring the attention to the Chamber and the Defence this
2 late of discovery of Rule 68 material. Thank you, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Groome. Of course it's very
4 right and proper that you should bring this matter to the Chamber's
5 attention. I just wanted to have clarified are you then asking for the
6 postponement of Mr. Masovic's evidence until -- is it until next week or?
7 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I mean I'll wait to hear what the
8 Defence have to say, but I believe the volume of material now -- earlier
9 this morning I was unable to ascertain the volume of material. I now
10 can. It is 8 documents, 35 pages. I believe that is something that
11 could be easily reviewed in 30 minutes to 60 minutes. It all relates to
12 a single allegation by a single former employee. So I'm asking for an
13 adjournment until tomorrow for Mr. Masovic's testimony and that tomorrow
14 we would take both Mr. Masovic and Mr. Hansen, and I believe we could
15 complete both of them tomorrow.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see, yes. And you say it could be -- the
17 document, in your view, could be reviewed within an hour, within 60
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, this is the document, single-sided, and
20 this is both the translation and the English. So it's really half of the
21 amount that I'm holding up in court.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: I see. Yes.
23 Yes, Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR.IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. If I could just be heard
25 briefly on this matter. With respect to the other materials that the
1 Office of the Prosecution is in the view are not 68 materials, I would
2 inquire of the total number of pages of the same and the number of
3 attorneys or staff that the Prosecution had to review these to come to
4 the analysis and conclusion that this is Rule 68 material for purposes of
5 determining, of course, what other course of actions the Defence might
6 take. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Groome.
8 MR. GROOME: I do not know the exact number of the other
9 documents. They are quite voluminous. I assigned two attorneys to the
10 task and they did word searches for the name of Mr. Masovic on all the
11 documents, and they identified the documents that had his name and read
12 those. They are continuing to read the other documents, but they are
13 clearly documents that relate to exhumations from Srebrenica, the
14 Srebrenica massacre in 1995. I'm quite confident they have no bearing --
15 they have no mention of Mr. Masovic, have no bearing on this case
16 directly and only concern the work of the ICMP for Srebrenica 1995.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: And so your examination-in-chief would take --
18 your examination of Mr. Masovic would take how long?
19 MR. GROOME: I think approximately 10 minutes, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just 10 minutes. The Defence should then be in
21 a position to proceed with the cross-examination. Mr. Masovic is the
22 last witness or?
23 MR. GROOME: No, there are two witnesses left this week,
24 Your Honour, Mr. Masovic and Mr. Hansen, an investigator who will talk
25 very briefly about identification procedures and -- that were used in the
1 Vasiljevic case. I expect his evidence will be between 30 and 40
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Who is first?
4 MR. GROOME: Masovic was scheduled to be first.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: It might assist the Defence if he came last.
6 MR. GROOME: That is also possible that we could reverse them
7 tomorrow if that would further assist the Defence.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Ivetic, it seems to me that you should be in
9 a position to commence cross-examination.
10 MR.IVETIC: Tomorrow?
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
12 MR.IVETIC: I believe so. I don't know if that's, yeah,
13 that's -- we are not objecting to it.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thanks. Well, we'll proceed in that manner
15 then. If you call the other witness before Mr. Masovic, if that's
17 MR. GROOME: It is, Your Honour. I will do that. So all that
18 remains then today would be the cross-examination of the witness from
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. There's one other matter I wanted to
21 raise, Mr. Groome. In response to an inquiry from the Bench yesterday,
22 or was it the day before, following repeated complaints about the volume
23 of ongoing disclosure, the Prosecution produced a list of the material
24 disclosed to the Defence on Thursday, the 23rd of October. The document
25 is entitled "Disclosure batch 47." It identifies 53 separate items or
1 documents, half of which are said to relate to five witnesses still to
2 testify. VG-094, two documents, Rule 66(a)(ii). Mr. Will Fadzel
3 [phoen], ten documents, Rule 66(a)(ii). VG-042, five documents, two
4 under Rule 66(a)(ii) and three under Rule 68. VG-131, ten documents,
5 Rule 66(a)(ii). And VG-138, one document, Rule 68.
6 The Chamber will require you before the end of the day to say
7 precisely when these documents were disclosed to the Defence.
8 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have been preparing a filing in light
9 of what happened on that day. I didn't get to complete it this morning
10 but I will have a complete filing explaining all of the documents, the
11 disclosure dates and all the information you are requiring.
12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let the witness be called. Mr. Cole.
14 MR. COLE: Yes, excuse me, Your Honour. A brief housekeeping
15 matter in relation to exhibits from yesterday. So that yesterday's
16 exhibits, the exhibits the extracts from the protocol book are dealt with
17 uniformly, I note the Milan Lukic Defence also wanted unredacted versions
18 of the extracts, I propose the following: Exhibit P162 is in redacted
19 form at present, under seal. I therefore ask that Exhibit P162 be
20 unsealed and be made public, and I ask that the unredacted version of
21 those two pages be given a new exhibit number and be under seal. That
22 brings all three extracts into line. And the ERN numbers we are talking
23 about, 05452003 and 2004, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Any comments, Mr. Alarid? No.
25 MR. ALARID: No objection, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic? Yes, we'll do that.
2 Let the witness be called, and it's cross-examination by
3 Mr. Alarid.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid. Mr. Alarid, the Prosecutor
6 spent one hour and 37 minutes in examining the witness, and that is the
7 time that I will allow to you.
8 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: As a maximum. Of course you don't have to use
11 MR. ALARID: Well, I think we'd have an early day if that were
12 the case. I'll do my best, Your Honour.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS VG-133 [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Alarid:
16 Q. Madam, my name is Jason Alarid, and I am the attorney for
17 Milan Lukic. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your testimony as
18 well as your earlier statements. Can we do that today?
19 A. Sure.
20 Q. Ma'am, before we begin I'd like to advise you, have you ever been
21 advised of the penalties for perjury in this case?
22 A. No.
23 Q. You signed the statement back in August of 2008, did you -- were
24 you advised that that statement constituted a statement under oath as if
25 you were testifying in court?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And the fact that that statement could be used against you and
3 that there were penalties for perjury if the statements contained therein
4 were false, were you made aware of that?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You are aware that those same consequences apply to testimony in
7 open court today and yesterday?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, first I'd like to address, and I'm going to use the proofing
10 note given to me by the Prosecution yesterday as a guideline to my
11 cross-examination, and I'd like to refer to paragraph 1 where -- which
12 states specifically: "Prior to the proofing on 27 October 2008 ..." that
13 was two days ago, correct, ma'am?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. When did you arrive in The Hague?
16 A. On the 26th of October.
17 Q. How long did you meet with the Prosecution over the course of two
19 A. On the 27th from 9.00 to half past 12:00 or 1.00, I'm not
20 entirely certain. And yesterday maybe for about an hour and a half, but
21 I'm not positive.
22 Q. And during the meeting between 9.00 until half past 12:00 or
23 1.00, whichever happens, who was present in that meeting?
24 A. Mr. Prosecutor, his assistant, and an interpreter.
25 Q. And what documents, in total, were you asked to review during
1 those proofing sessions?
2 A. Two documents. No, as a matter of fact, two documents and the
3 excerpts from the health centre protocol.
4 Q. And were those two documents an Official Note from August 18th,
5 1992, and a witness statement you gave 18th and 20th of August, 2008?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And in the proofing note that I'm holding before me says
8 specifically that: "The witness had not seen the unsigned document
9 RR154705, dated 18/8/92, concerning an interview with her. She was shown
10 a similar document headed 'Gorazde' by officials in Bosnia-Herzegovina
11 about two months ago. The statements are not her statements but she is
12 familiar with some of the contents." Is that a fair and accurate
13 relation to the 1992 report?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, first I'd like to ask you, tell us about the time you were
16 shown this Gorazde report that's similar to this by Bosnian officials,
17 when did that happen?
18 A. You mean the first time I saw that report?
19 Q. Yes, ma'am. It says a couple of months ago from the officials in
20 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Where did that happen? How did that come about?
21 A. Early September this year agents of SIPA came to see me, and they
22 showed me the note. That's what they said it was, but I'd never seen it
23 before. And this was the very first I'd heard of it.
24 Q. Explain to me what SIPA is.
25 A. Well, the police. State police. It's the police of the BH State
2 Q. Now, ma'am, why did they come to tell you -- see you? Why did
3 they come to show you this statement?
4 A. They were seeking information in relation to an entirely
5 different investigation that was underway. I'm not sure that has any
6 relevance for you in terms of me giving you more on that, but the BH
7 state Prosecutor's Office is investigating a different person altogether.
8 They just wanted to see whether I knew anything about that.
9 Q. Well, if you say that the document you were shown there entitled
10 "Gorazde" was similar to the one you were shown by the Prosecution in
11 your proofing session, was it identical or similar, simply with a
12 different heading?
13 A. It wasn't just a heading. I'll tell you about the first document
14 that I saw in September. It said that I'd provided that statement in
15 Gorazde. It's just that I've never been to Gorazde at all in my entire
16 life; that's the first thing. Secondly, that document reads: "Official
17 Note." In September when I was shown that document, it didn't say
18 "Official Note."
19 Another thing that I observed after I'd gone through the
20 document, that's how you refer to it anyway, so in September I looked at
21 the document and there were four or five references to the 14th of
22 June -- now that I've read it again, I think I only spotted a single
23 reference, if. All I can tell you about that document, I am no lawyer
24 myself, but that is not a statement. It doesn't qualify as a statement,
25 as far as I know.
1 Secondly, I didn't provide that, nor indeed did I provide any
2 statements. I know how the document came about and if necessary, I'd be
3 happy to explain.
4 Q. That would be my next question, ma'am. How were these documents
5 generated even if you -- and explain that you've never been to Gorazde,
6 where were you when you were interviewed?
7 A. I was not the person interviewed, that's the first thing.
8 Secondly, I was in Zenica. The interviewees on that occasion were five
9 or six persons, interviewed all together. No notes were taken. There
10 were two interviewers who interviewed five or six persons who were all in
11 the same room. At a later stage, unbeknownst to us and without informing
12 us, they drew up that document.
13 When we arrived in Zenica in August 1992, there were several
14 people there from several different institutions. We didn't really know
15 who they were because sometimes they introduced themselves and sometimes
16 they didn't. They wanted to know how we got there, how we had fled,
17 where we had found accommodation, that sort of thing. It was that sort
18 of subject matter that was discussed, and this interview took place with
19 several persons all at the same time.
20 Q. So this was a general report, but you understand that the 18th
21 August 1992 appears that it's an interview by yourself? Can you concede
23 A. No, no. I'm not even sure if that was on the 18th of August, and
24 it is not that I was interviewed myself. There was no report and I was
25 not interviewed myself.
1 Q. So you are saying that you gave no information to police
2 authorities in August of 1992?
3 A. No, that's not what I said. I don't think you understood me
4 well. I said there were several of us there and we spoke, but it wasn't
5 before later on that anything was recorded, but they didn't attribute any
6 of the quotes in that document. They drew the whole thing up together,
7 and they just recorded whatever they remembered because they weren't
8 taking any notes during the actual interview when they were interviewing
10 Q. And let me ask you this, though, it says you agree with some of
11 the contents of that report though; correct?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 MR. COLE: Excuse me.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
15 MR. COLE: I just want to be clear, the proofing note says she's
16 familiar with some of the contents. I know she's answered the question,
17 but could I ask my friend be clear when he is putting these suggestions
18 to the witness.
19 MR. ALARID: I'm only going to ask a couple of questions
20 regarding the 1992 note, and then I'm going to move on to 2008.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, let's proceed.
22 MR. ALARID:
23 Q. In the Official Note it states that: "Until the departure of the
24 JNA Yugoslav Army from Visegrad in 19 May 1992, the situation in the area
25 was tolerable, meaning that there were constant identity card checks,
1 inspections, confiscation of vehicles and the like." Is that true?
2 A. I'm not sure the sentence makes sense to me. I don't think I'm
3 even able to understand it.
4 Q. Well, ma'am, during -- before the JNA left, there were constant
5 identity card checks; correct?
6 A. Well, not really.
7 Q. Were there constant inspections of people?
8 A. No, that's not true.
9 Q. Were confiscations of vehicles occurring during the time the JNA
10 was in town?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Not at all?
13 A. Not all the time. Not constantly. Some vehicles were seized but
14 it wasn't by the JNA.
15 Q. And is it true that as the JNA members were leaving, they torched
16 houses of prominent Muslims in Visegrad?
17 A. [No interpretation]
18 Q. So before the Uzice Corps left, there were no homes burning in
19 Visegrad is what you are saying?
20 A. They withdrew from Visegrad. They did not torch houses when
21 they left, but fires did occur while the JNA was in Visegrad as well.
22 Q. Okay. So you wouldn't know if it was the JNA starting those
23 fires or not because you weren't there; correct?
24 A. How do you mean I wasn't there?
25 Q. Well, ma'am, were you a personal witness to every house burning
1 in Visegrad area before the JNA left?
2 A. No.
3 Q. So you don't know who started those fires and it could have been
4 the Uzice Corps; correct?
5 A. No, no.
6 Q. So it could have been the Uzice Corps that were burning houses;
8 A. Everything is possible in the villages. Anybody who wanted to
9 could do torching. Nobody of us knew about that.
10 Q. Now, is it true that as the JNA was leaving the members of the
11 White Eagles remained in Visegrad, who had arrived with the JNA, and were
12 stationed at the Vilina Vlas and later at the Visegrad Hotel?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is it true that the leader of this paramilitary unit was a man
15 known as Cale?
16 A. I have heard of the man, but I never saw him. I heard about him
17 from others but I never saw him personally myself.
18 Q. Be as description and exhaustive as possible, tell me what you
19 heard about Cale from others?
20 A. Well, I didn't hear anything special about him. I heard that
21 somebody by that name was there, that he had arrived, that he was a
22 commander of some kind, that he had been accommodated in the Visegrad
23 Hotel. And that's all. Nothing special.
24 Q. In the Official Note it says that he had a son called Nenad who
25 was -- is that correct?
1 A. I have absolutely no idea.
2 Q. But it was your understanding that Cale was originally from
4 A. Possibly.
5 Q. And had you heard that he was from Obrenovac?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now, there's also a reference to a Branimir Savovic in the
8 statement on page 2. Is it true that he was an economist who worked in
10 A. Yes. He worked with my husband, so I do know him.
11 Q. And is it true that he was the president of the SDS in Visegrad?
12 A. Not quite sure about that.
13 Q. Is it true that he was a leader in Visegrad at the time of the
15 A. I really don't know. I don't know.
16 Q. In the Official Note of 1998, relating to supposedly interviewing
17 you, it states that Branimir Savovic was in direct contact with the
18 White Eagles and he was the main organiser of everything that happened in
19 Visegrad and the consequences that followed. Is that true or had you
20 heard that?
21 A. I do apologise, but I didn't understand you. Where does it say
23 Q. In the Official Note of 1992, ma'am. I'm going off that. I
24 understand you've looked at it. I'm not talking about your statement of
25 2008. This is --
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: 1992 or 1998?
2 MR. ALARID: Excuse me, Judge. That's my faux pas. 1992 is the
3 Official Note. 2008 is her official statement.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never said that.
5 MR. ALARID:
6 Q. But let me just ask you this: Had you heard that? Was there an
7 understanding of that?
8 A. I just told you, I never said that. I didn't say whether I'd
9 heard about it or anything else. I never said anything about that.
10 Q. And, ma'am, in clarification I'm not asking that anymore. What
11 I'm asking you is just other than this statement, had you heard that from
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you -- had you heard that his associate was Dusko Andric?
15 A. I don't know whether Dusko Andric was an associate of his, but I
16 did know Dusko Andric, I knew him personally. Now whether he was an
17 associate of Branimir Savovic, I really don't know.
18 Q. How did you know Mr. Andric?
19 A. Well, everybody knew everybody else in Visegrad.
20 Q. Did you know Risto Perisic?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And isn't it true that he was the commander of the police in
24 A. Yes, he was a professor at the secondary school. Now, when the
25 war began, he was the commander or chief in the police, I don't know what
1 title he had, what it was called at the time, but yes, that's true.
2 Q. Well, and to make a difference between the titles, isn't it true
3 that the chief of police was Drago Tomic? Dragan, excuse me. Commander.
4 A. Dragan Tomic and him. I don't know what their titles were but
5 they held positions, both of them, in the then -- what was it called, the
7 Q. And did you know who Drago Gavrilovic was, Dragomir?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Now, I'd like to forward you to the -- well, actually let me just
10 ask you a few more background questions. You said that you were
11 interviewed in the sense of several people being present in 1992;
13 A. Yes.
19 Q. And so people --
20 MR. ALARID: And I understand, Mr. Cole, I apologise. We can
22 MR. COLE: Yes. Could I just ask that that passage about where
23 she's currently living be redacted, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, that will be done.
25 MR. ALARID:
1 Q. Now, since you've been living in the same place for all this
2 time, would it be fair to say that investigators knew where to find you
3 if they needed you?
4 A. I don't really know. I can't say.
5 Q. And the reason, I guess, I ask you that is because has anyone
6 ever questioned you again on what you witnessed in Visegrad since 1992
7 and between 2008?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Do you keep a journal or any diaries?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you keep a -- so you didn't keep a journal or anything to help
12 you remember things from 1992?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Are you still with your husband?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you still talk to your mother-in-law?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is your mother still around?
19 A. Yes, she is.
20 Q. And is your sister still around?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And do you know if any of them have been interviewed by either
23 Bosnian or ICTY authorities in regards to what they may have witnessed in
24 relation to what you've witnessed?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Because it's my understanding based on your testimony yesterday
2 that your husband had some powerful testimony regarding the Varda
3 situation; correct?
4 A. You didn't understand that properly.
5 Q. Explain it to me then.
6 A. My husband just talked to me about that.
7 Q. No, but my point being is, you've told now investigators that he
8 was around and involved in your situation because you were all fleeing
9 together, and so I'm wondering why no one has spoken to your husband?
10 A. Once again you misunderstood me.
11 Q. So explain it to me again.
12 A. Yes, I can. My husband left Visegrad a month before me. We
13 weren't together. It was only after five months that my husband came to
14 where I was. My husband went towards Gorazde and he was in the village
15 of Nezuci, opposite the Dusce settlement on the other side of the
16 Drina River, the opposite bank. It's about one to one and a half
17 kilometres away from town, whereas I was in town myself and we contacted
18 over the phone.
19 Q. So, ma'am, if your husband left a month before you and you left
20 June 17th, that means he left May 17th?
21 A. Mm-hm. No, it doesn't, because I don't know the exact date.
22 Q. Well, ma'am, but you do know a month; correct? Four weeks?
23 A. I know roughly because the Uzice Corps had still not left town
24 when he left, because the Uzice Corps was still there, and I know that
25 there were some checkpoints at the beginning -- one in both ends of the
1 bridge, and a Serb friend of ours saved my husband and drove him to the
2 village of Nezuk.
3 Q. Who is the -- can you tell me the name of the Serb that helped
4 your husband?
5 A. Yes, I can, but I'd like to state it in private session because I
6 don't want to -- anybody who helped me in that situation to have any
7 problems after my testimony.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
10 [Private session]
4 [Open session]
5 MR. ALARID:
6 Q. And, ma'am, between 1992 and 2008, I think the question I want to
7 ask you is: Did you talk to anybody about what happened in Visegrad that
8 last two or three weeks you were there?
9 A. I'm not sure I understood your question.
10 Q. Did you converse with your family, in passing over the years,
11 about what happened that June of 1992?
12 A. Of course.
13 Q. How often would you talk about it amongst the family over the
15 A. Well, really, I can't really say how many times, but we did
16 discuss it. In recent years, perhaps rarely, but we did discuss it.
17 When the graves were dug up, perhaps a little more, because my sister and
18 her children because of the DNA analysis were called very frequently to
19 give blood samples because they are still searching for her husband. He
20 still hasn't been found. So perhaps we discussed it a little more
21 frequently because of those events.
22 Q. This is the same sister that went with you to find your mother;
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... investigators, and it's also
1 the same sister that was with you when the people were abducted from your
2 mother-in-law's apartment building?
3 A. No, my sister wasn't with me on that occasion. She went back to
4 her own house, to her own flat and her children.
5 Q. Where did your mother go when you got back from finding her?
6 A. My mother stayed where we had found her. She lived with the
7 neighbours. They accommodated her there. They would take some food and
8 then they stayed there for four days, and then they were all taken into a
9 bus and brought to the square in Visegrad and then in the convoy to Olovo
10 four days after we had found her.
11 Q. So at the very least your sister would be able to confirm about
12 finding your mom; correct?
13 A. How do you mean, finding our mom? We went to look for her. She
14 didn't answer the phone, and we weren't able to contact her, and news
15 reached us from the stories being told around town that women in her
16 neighbourhood had been killed. And that's why we went to see what was
17 happening and where our mother was, and we found an empty house when we
18 got there. The house was open, unlocked, but empty. And there's a
19 bridge near my mother's house and there were some Serb neighbours living
20 there who told us that our mother was alive, that they had seen her, and
21 that she was somewhere in the woods in the surrounding parts with a
22 couple of other neighbours. And that's how the two of us went to look
23 for her and found her.
24 Q. Well, first things first. I'd like to go through that day
25 because that's an important day. You say this is June 10th; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you understand that in your statement of just two months ago,
3 being August 18th and 20th of 2008, you didn't give a specific date for
4 that; correct?
5 A. [No Interpretation]
6 Q. Is that a yes?
7 A. Yes, that is a yes.
8 Q. Not only did you give a specific date but you gave a date that
9 you thought it was around June 7th because you looked at the protocol
10 book, according to your statement; correct?
11 A. Correct. That is right, and I didn't say it was on the 7th of
12 June. (redacted)
15 And that's why I said that it might have been that day because her
16 husband and son had been killed so that might have happened that day,
17 although I didn't claim that that was actually the case.
18 Q. Well, let's go through the day you found your mother step by
19 step, okay? What time did you get up in the morning?
20 A. I don't know whether we even went to sleep.
21 Q. Okay. If you didn't go to sleep, regardless of that, when did
22 you find out your mom was missing?
23 A. We knew that she had been missing for two days, or rather, we
24 hadn't had any contact with her for two days. From Sunday -- Sunday,
25 Monday, Tuesday, we didn't have any contact with her. She didn't answer
1 the phone, she didn't ring us. So on the Tuesday we decided -- well,
2 everybody advised us not to go because it's some 7 or 8 kilometres away
3 from town. However, we decided that if we still failed to contact our
4 mother and we had heard -- I think it was a Tuesday, the Tuesday when we
5 heard that an incident had taken place up there, that is to say, when the
6 women were killed and burned in a house, that that was when we decided to
7 go and see what was happening.
8 So we set out on Wednesday morning --
9 Q. Just a moment. Just a moment. Where were you when you were
10 discussing and deciding to go see what was happening?
11 A. Who are you referring to? Who was where?
12 Q. Where were you?
13 A. Who else did you say? My sister, you mean. Did you mean where
14 we were, my sister and I?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. Well, my sister was visiting me with her children in my flat, not
17 my flat actually, but I was with my children at my mother-in-law's
18 because we would move around every three or four days. We wouldn't spend
19 time in the same flat because they would come and search our houses and
20 flats. So we moved around, and I happened to be in my mother-in-law's
21 flat at that particular time.
22 MR. ALARID: Private session, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, private session.
24 MR. ALARID: Can you tell us --
25 THE REGISTRAR: Just a moment. Your Honours, we are in private
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 3014-3020 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 MR. ALARID: And could we go to page 5 of the English, please.
4 And the corresponding page -- and paragraph 17 being the reference, so
5 the corresponding paragraph in Bosnian is on page 6.
6 Q. Can you see paragraph 17, ma'am?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And this statement was typed to you -- for you after two days or
9 a lengthy interview by the Office of the Prosecutor; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you of course had discussed this situation over the years
12 with your family; correct?
13 A. Well, you mean the specific situation?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. Well, not really.
16 Q. Okay. So otherwise, this situation had just sat in your mind, in
17 your memories for 15 years before you got to tell it to the Prosecutor;
19 A. Yes. Of course.
20 Q. I'd ask you to read paragraph 17 for the Court, please.
21 A. You mean the whole thing?
22 Q. Yes, ma'am.
23 A. "In June 1992 --
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I question that procedure. Why do
25 you want her to read the whole thing? Would you like to direct her to a
1 particular sentence?
2 MR. ALARID: I could, Your Honour. It's -- I guess very relevant
3 to read the entire thing, but I'll just ask the questions more pointedly.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. ALARID:
6 Q. Okay. Isn't it true that in paragraph 17 of your original
7 statement, August 2008, you stated that at the time Milan Lukic came to
8 your door, he rang the doorbell; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And according to paragraph 17 of your statement, you could not
11 recall the exact time but: "... I believe it was mid-morning because we
12 had already been out of bed for some time and had eaten our breakfast..."
13 isn't that what you wrote or signed to in August 2008?
14 A. Yes. But I did note that I couldn't remember the exact time. I
15 couldn't remember the exact date either. Nevertheless, I was prompted by
16 my husband and my mother-in-law when I spoke to them. You must
17 understand, it's been 16 years and you need something to jog your memory.
18 You don't remember certain things right off the bat. Your memory needs
19 jogging in order for you to be able to remember certain dates.
20 Another thing that I can tell you, it wasn't just Milan Lukic who
21 came to my home. There were three or four other times that groups of
22 people came. I had no idea who they were, what they were after or who
23 they were after. They walk into your house, they turned the whole place
24 upside-down, they scare your children and you, which is quite a chaotic
25 experience. So sometimes if you mix up a couple of dates or a couple of
1 times of day, I don't think anyone should be surprised. I think you get
2 the point.
24 A. Yes, I'm still saying that.
25 Q. And would you agree that there's a significant difference between
1 mid-morning and after 5.00 p.m.?
2 A. Yes. But I just told you that it wasn't on that day that I could
3 remember the exact date and the exact time.
4 Q. Well, ma'am, according to paragraph 17 of your August 2008
5 statement, it appears that you -- at the time the doorbell rang, you and
6 your family were just hanging around in the flat before the doorbell
7 rang. Isn't that true?
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole. Just a minute, please.
9 MR. COLE: Your Honour, we can all see the statement and as I
10 read it, there's nothing about hanging around in the flat. So I wonder
11 if the question could be specific or a passage put to the witness.
12 MR. ALARID: Pardon my use of slang for "hanging around," but I
13 think the witness understood.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, just rely on the statement. You can't do
15 better than to cite the statement itself, Mr. Alarid.
16 MR. ALARID:
17 Q. Isn't it true that according to paragraph 17, you referenced,
18 even though not knowing the exact time, your belief that it was
19 mid-morning because you had just finished your -- eaten your breakfast,
20 and you had been out of bed for sometime?
21 A. That's not true, not about that day anyway. As I just told you,
22 I mixed up the two events. If necessary, I can explain this development
23 too, one of the two that I got mixed up.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you saying there's been a mix-up? Is that
25 what you are saying?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us hear it.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A day before Milan Lukic's
4 arrival, two men came, showed up at our door in grey uniforms and with
5 Montenegrin accents. They were there that morning. They harassed me and
6 my children. They locked me up in a room. There was this young man who
7 wasn't even 20, I think he tried to rape me. My children were there. My
8 daughter was 9 and a half and my son was 6. They dashed into the room.
9 He then called his mate, who had some sort of a black vest on him, and
10 they both came. This was that morning, and I got the dates mixed up.
11 However, when I brought this up with my husband and my
12 mother-in-law and told them that I couldn't quite remember exactly the
13 date in which Milan Lukic arrived, they reminded me that it was the same
14 day that I went out looking for my mother. When Milan Lukic came and
15 parked outside my mother-in-law's building, at that moment I was talking
16 to my husband on the phone, but there is no link between that and what
17 happened in Varda in my mind. I'm simply remembering that it was the
18 same day that my husband told me that we should run away, that we should
19 leave our flat because there were all those things happening in Dusce and
20 in Varda. He didn't say that it was Milan Lukic that was doing all these
21 things in Varda or in Dusce, because he wasn't there to see it for
22 himself. He was elsewhere.
23 The only reason I'm mentioned this is to cite it as a reason --
24 as the reason I remembered the date when this occurred.
25 MR. ALARID:
1 Q. Well, ma'am, but one thing that's very important is time of day,
2 and you either remember a death being in the morning or in the afternoon,
3 and it appears to me, that according to paragraph 17, the entire incident
4 occurred in the morning.
5 A. That's what I just explained, isn't it? I couldn't remember the
6 time of day. And these developments came in a quick succession and these
7 things would happen, three, four, five times a day, but here is one thing
8 that I could remember because it was that afternoon and I had returned
9 from my mother's village on the 5.00 p.m. bus. I spoke to my husband on
10 the phone as soon as I arrived in the flat. Meaning, I couldn't have
11 reached my flat after that bus in half an hour. It could have been at
12 half past 5.00 or 6.00, at the very earliest, because the bus left my
13 mother's village at 5.00 p.m. and it would have taken me at least 15
14 minutes from the bus terminal to reach my mother-in-law's place, 10 to 15
15 minutes. So it could only have been around that time.
16 MR. ALARID: Could the court assistant please refer to paragraph
17 20 of what is on the screen.
18 Q. And, ma'am, isn't it true that the telephones didn't work during
19 that time period in Visegrad?
20 A. Not true.
21 Q. Isn't it true that there was no telephone communication
22 between -- or it was intermittent due to the war?
23 A. No, they kept operating throughout. The last time I spoke to my
24 husband on the phone was on the 15th of June which was when I decided to
25 leave Visegrad. That very day I spoke to my husband on the phone,
1 therefore the phone lines were very much operating.
2 Q. I'd like you to refer to 20, paragraph 20 of your statement,
3 please. And this is your reference point of which you recalled on
4 August 18th and 20th, 2008, on why you believe the murders, including
5 Alija Selak, occurred around June 7th, not June 10th. And isn't it true
6 that you stated and signed and affirmed that: "I cannot be sure of the
7 exact date of these murders but it was certainly around the 7th of June,
8 and this entry in the protocol book leaves me to believe that this was
9 the date."
10 A. Yes. On or about.
11 Q. But yet, ma'am, again, specifically you recall being at home in
12 the morning according to your statement?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. Correct?
15 A. Which morning do you have in mind?
16 Q. Well, the unknown date in June that you referred to in paragraph
17 17 of your statement, you believe it's mid-morning. I understand you
18 don't know the exact time, but you believed it was mid-morning.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What time did it get dark in Visegrad early June 1992?
21 A. 8.00, 9.00 p.m. thereabouts. It was summer, wasn't it?
22 Q. And so would it be fair to say that after you got off the bus
23 from Uzice, the sun would have been in an entirely different part of the
24 sky than it is in mid-morning?
25 A. Well, to be quite honest, this wasn't exactly the sort of thing
1 that we were keeping track of at the time, the position of the sun. For
2 the most part, you know, the thing that we were viewing were the cellar
3 walls in which we were hiding.
4 Q. I thought you were in a fourth floor flat?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What cellar are you talking about?
7 A. I'm talking about the cellars in which we were sleeping. We
8 hardly ever slept in our flats. We were too scared to sleep in our
9 flats. We would get some clothes, get our kids and then try to locate a
10 basement or a cellar in one of the nearby buildings to spend the night
12 Q. But it's my understanding that you were being harassed in your
13 apartment during the day, and you just accounted for the day before you
14 were almost raped by a soldier in grey. Why would you be in an apartment
15 the very next day to be assaulted in the same way?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Why weren't you in the cellar because of that attack?
18 A. Well, we had to go back to feed our children, get them a change
19 of clothes.
20 Q. Ma'am, according to paragraph 2 of the proofing statement, it
21 states: "The witness has seen some of the Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic
22 trial proceedings on the internet and on television including pictures of
23 Milan Lukic." Isn't that true?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And I'm assuming you have a computer to watch this on the
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you follow the Mitar Vasiljevic trial before?
4 A. No.
5 Q. When did you start following this trial?
6 A. I don't follow this trial on a regular basis either. I use the
7 SENSE Agency covering the work of the Tribunal. Each Saturday morning
8 one of the Bosnian channels shows reports, coverage of this trial. I
9 couldn't follow the whole thing closely on the internet because I'm busy
10 doing other things, I have my work, but I have read a couple of reports
11 from the trial. There are normally images included in these reports and
12 you tend to see the same sort of thing on TV as well.
13 Q. Isn't it true during those Sense reports, they flash current
14 pictures identifying my client Milan Lukic every time?
15 A. I'm not sure if it's every single time, but yes, that has been
16 the case generally speaking.
17 Q. And they identify him by his name as they flash to him here in
18 court? They flash to me as well; correct?
19 A. Well, I really can't remember whether they identify him when they
20 show the image. But what is known is that it's the Lukic case, when they
21 give a report on that. Now, I didn't especially look to see whether they
22 put a name to the face, but we know that it's the trial, they announce
23 the trial as such.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, it appears to me that you are
25 exhausting the questioning that you have of this witness. We're going to
1 take the break now, and you'll have another 10 minutes at a maximum.
2 MR. ALARID: Well --
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: If you don't need 10 minutes, then so be it.
4 Let us adjourn.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.09 p.m.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: I ought to have said from the outset that in the
8 absence of Judge Van den Wyngaert, Judge David and I sit pursuant to the
9 provisions of Rule 15 bis. Now the court deputy would like a few minutes
10 to clarify something.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. Regarding the
12 unredacted version of Exhibit P162, under seal, which bears ERN number
13 05452003-1 will become Exhibit P167. Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Alarid.
15 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Ma'am, I would like to point your attention to a couple of points
17 since my time is running short. Isn't it true, ma'am, that yesterday on
18 direct examination, and I'm referring to page 77 of the transcript, that
19 you said that you never saw anyone but Milan Lukic drive that Passat?
20 Isn't that true?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 MR. ALARID: I'd like the court assistant, please, to go back to
23 the same document we had on the screen, paragraph 25, P161.
24 Q. Now, yesterday you qualified your statement of August 2008 again
25 saying that you didn't know if it was Milan's brother in the car that
1 day; correct? You didn't know Milan's brother?
2 A. Yes, right.
3 Q. But I'd like you to look at the bottom of page 25, please, which
4 would be on the next page of the B/C/S version. The last sentence. I'd
5 just like you to read the last sentence. Now, at this point in time you
6 also said that, of course, you didn't see Sredoje in the car, but you did
7 see Milan's brother following behind in the Passat. Doesn't that mean
8 somebody else was driving the Passat?
9 A. No, no. That is what I wanted to have corrected. I asked to
10 have that corrected. There was a mistake either in understanding or in
11 the translation. Anyway, the Passat was standing at the end of the
12 bridge and the boy who got out of the Passat and leaned against the door
13 to the Passat and stood by the Passat while Milan Lukic was going behind
14 the man that they later took into the Passat. The Passat remained there,
15 remained standing there, and Milan shot up in the air from an automatic
16 rifle. And I don't know how it came to be said here that it was Sredoje,
17 because Sredoje wasn't there at all. The boy was there and passers by
18 said that it was Milan's brother but I didn't know Milan's brother
19 myself, nor did I know that he had a brother or whether that was his
20 brother at all.
21 Q. Now, ma'am, just a few side questions. Are you -- do you
22 associate with or have you ever known a Dragolje Tasic?
23 A. I can't remember now. The name sounds familiar, and there might
24 have been several people with that same name. I certainly didn't
25 socialize with the person, associate with him. But as I say, the name
1 does ring a bell.
2 Q. And I apologise for mispronouncing it, it's Dragolja. Female.
3 A. Dragojla.
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. No, it's not familiar. I don't know that.
6 Q. Do you know Ankica Savovic?
7 A. Yes, I did know Ankica Savovic.
8 Q. How did you know her?
9 A. Well, as we knew everyone. We knew people by sight. We didn't
10 socialize but we all knew each other, and I think that she was
11 Brano Savovic's wife, as far as I remember.
12 Q. And did you ever go to a cafe or did you frequent a cafe owned by
13 Tasic's brother in the company of Smajic Brane, otherwise known as Zika.
14 And it's Smiljic.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Now, ma'am, according to your proofing note, you bring up June
17 14th, and you also, in your original statement of August, you bring up
18 June 14th, but you only bring it up in August in paragraph 28. Can we
19 have 28 on the screen, please.
20 And can you see there in the sentence -- second to the last
21 sentence in paragraph 28: "My mother left in a convoy on 14 June and
22 somewhere near Olovo the Serbs stopped the convoy, took off 64 men and
23 killed them. One of the bus drivers from the convoy of 14 June called me
24 and told me that they had stopped the buses and taken the men." Isn't
25 that what you stated in August 2008?
1 A. Yes, yes.
2 Q. And the paragraph we just looked at before that -- or excuse me,
3 in paragraph 27, you do state that you saw Milan Lukic on the bus that
4 you left on; correct?
5 A. Yes, I saw him in this bus, too, when my mother left, and I also
6 saw him in the bus that I was in on the 17th of June when I left.
7 Q. Well, ma'am, isn't it true in your statement of August 2008, you
8 don't even mention being on the bus with your mother in June 14th, much
9 less seeing Milan Lukic?
10 A. Well, possibly I don't mention it, yes. Perhaps the investigator
11 didn't ask me, or --
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's move on.
13 MR. ALARID:
14 Q. Don't you think it's important? I mean, you are giving a
15 statement to investigator regarding Milan Lukic, don't you think it's
16 important to mention everything about Milan Lukic?
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: Including whether her mother was on the bus with
19 MR. ALARID: No. Whether she was on the bus with her mother and
20 saw Milan Lukic.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: But she just explained, she said she might not
22 have been asked whether her mother was there with her.
23 MR. ALARID:
24 Q. Ma'am, have you read the indictment in this case?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Are you aware of the charges in this case?
2 A. I have not read the indictment.
3 Q. Are you aware of the charges in this case?
4 A. Roughly. For crimes that he committed during that time, I
6 Q. Ma'am, do you know that one of the counts in the indictment
7 coincidentally involves June 10th?
8 A. No, I don't know that.
9 Q. Do you know coincidentally that one of the counts in the
10 indictment involves June 14th?
11 MR. COLE: Your Honour?
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole.
13 MR. COLE: Yes, it's a very loaded question, coincidentally. I'm
14 not sure that I understand what it means. I wonder if my friend could be
15 a little bit more --
16 MR. ALARID: Well, as a proffer, Your Honour, I can make this, is
17 in the original statement of August 2008 and if offered as an alibi
18 witness or an alibi rebuttal witness, this witness originally gave a
19 statement that really just by virtue of authenticating the protocol book
20 of June 7th entry, that I can see how is evidence rebutting the alibi
21 related to our alibi proffer as to that date in particular.
22 Coincidentally, between August of 2008 and her proofing notes of
23 yesterday morning that amount to another statement, she now specifically
24 sees Milan Lukic on two relevant new dates in the indictment that were
25 never mentioned before. June 10th, regarding the day she went to get her
1 mom and then now sees Milan Lukic on the bridge even though she didn't
2 know that before. And June 14th, the day of Pionirska Street and happens
3 to see him in the square the day of the fire --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute. Just a minute. If you want to
5 put to her something in relation to that, put it to her. Don't shy away
6 from it. You put what you want to her, that is your duty.
7 MR. ALARID: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: On the basis of the instructions that you have
9 and you can't be criticized.
10 MR. ALARID:
11 Q. Now, ma'am, isn't it true that in your new statement of yesterday
12 or your proofing notes of yesterday, you mentioned that you heard
13 personally that he was looking for a Kurspahic member of the family;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you also state that he tried to take off a man called
17 Kustura; correct?
18 A. I didn't see that. That was something that I was told by my
19 sister's sister-in-law, and she said that that was a school friend of
20 his. And that this school friend of his called him to come out of the
21 bus and that a neighbour from Bosanska Jagodina prevented him from doing
22 that and told him to leave that Kustura person in the bus. And I was
23 told that he was left in the bus and that he didn't touch him anymore.
24 Q. And ma'am, isn't it true that you have knowledge that the
25 Kurspahic family name was the family name of the victims of the
1 Pionirska Street fire?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, coincidentally though, ma'am, is that you claim to see a
4 large group of civilians from Zupa in the square June 14th; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And you now state as of yesterday that a large number of soldiers
7 herded those people to the Mahala neighbourhood; correct?
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. And the Mahala neighbourhood is where Pionirska Street is;
11 A. Yes. We call that entire settlement Mahala. And as soon as you
12 go over the Rzavski bridge to the exit of Visegrad, the local population
13 called that whole area Mahala.
14 Q. You know that after the Pionirska Street fire the news about it
15 got out; correct?
16 A. Yes. I heard about that on the 15th of June in the morning. I
17 heard about that close to my home and that's why I decided to leave town.
18 Q. Including the fact that the Kurspahic family was the main victims
19 of that fire; correct?
20 A. I don't know that. For many years I worked in the health centre
21 and in the outpatients department in Zupa but I didn't know the
22 population, local population very well. I didn't visit it much. Perhaps
23 I had been on visits to the area maybe just ten times, so it wasn't an
24 area of the municipality that I was well acquainted with.
25 Q. That is not the question I wanted to ask you, ma'am. The
1 question I wanted to ask you is: Isn't it true you knew the name
2 Kurspahic as being the victims in the fire as you heard the rumours
3 spread about the fire the next day?
4 A. No, I didn't know that. At that point in time, we didn't know
5 who the people were. We didn't know that then. Let me explain one thing
6 to you. On that morning, we heard that 50 people had been burnt, and
7 then somebody else turned by and said that 200 people were burned. Then
8 somebody came by and said that three houses with 100 people in them had
9 been burned, and so this gave rise to general panic because we didn't
10 have the real information, the proper information. Somebody heard that
11 it had happened, then it was passed on by word of mouth and the
12 information was distorted. So in the end you didn't know what was
13 correct and what wasn't.
14 Q. Okay. Then going back to a question you answered affirmatively a
15 little while ago which is that you knew -- you now know the Kurspahic's
16 were the victims of that fire. When did you find that out?
17 A. I think I found that out -- maybe that happened while I was in
18 Visoko, in actual fact, when the next group arrived and when the new
19 people arrived, the people who left Visegrad the latest. So it might
20 have been a month later in fact.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, I'll give you another two minutes.
22 MR. ALARID:
23 Q. So wouldn't it be illogical that Milan Lukic would be looking for
24 a Kurspahic before the fire?
25 A. I don't know what would be logical and what not. All I do know
1 is that Milan Lukic looked for a young girl named Kurspahic in that bus,
2 and I don't remember her first name. All I know is that he was looking
3 for the girl. And I know that he took somebody's ID because a woman said
4 that she was there, so he asked a woman to show her ID papers, she showed
5 him her ID and he threw it back to her. Now, what is logical and what
6 isn't, I really wouldn't like to speculate.
7 Q. And ma'am, do you think it's an incredible coincidence that you
8 left August 2008 being an alibi rebuttal for one date June 7th --
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, don't put that question to the witness. I'm
10 not allowing it.
11 MR. ALARID:
12 Q. What jogged your memory specifically to include that you were
13 seeing Milan Lukic on both June 10th and June 14th?
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: That's the question you should have put long
16 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Judge.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you want me to answer?
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please answer.
4 Q. Ma'am, don't you think you should have remembered that before
5 August 2008 since it was such a powerful memory, combined with the
6 powerful memory of being reunited with your mother?
7 A. But I did not remember that. No, I've never forgotten that.
8 It's not that I remembered it, I've never forgotten it, so there was no
9 need for me to remember something that I've never forgotten.
10 Q. Well, apparently you forgot it August 2008.
11 A. No. No, I never forgot that.
12 MR. ALARID: No further questions.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: What do you mean, that wasn't in her statement?
14 MR. ALARID: It was not in her -- excuse me, Your Honour. It was
15 not in her statement of August 2008, the coordination between the rescue
16 of her mother, or the discovery of her mother, rather, and this incident
17 on the bridge, combined with the fact that she placed the incident on the
18 bridge on the mid-morning in her first statement and after she got back
19 after 5.00 p.m. --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, that's what you should have asked her --
21 MR. ALARID: Well, I was trying --
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: -- in my view.
23 MR. ALARID: I was trying to, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Do you have any explanation as to why that
25 wasn't in your statement of August 2008.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do. When I gave my
2 statement to the investigator of the Tribunal, at that point in time we
3 were speaking about convoys and saving the people from Visegrad. And
4 from that time on we discussed the convoy. It was the first convoy --
5 or, rather, the first convoy was around the 25th and 26th of May that
6 left Visegrad, and then the convoy of the 14th of June and the convoy of
7 the 14th of June, so that we did not discuss the details. And when I
8 gave my statement, the investigator didn't ask me about those things
9 because we'd already done that in the sort of abridged statement.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, thank you.
11 MR. ALARID: A couple more questions based on her response to
12 your question, Your Honour. And really just one question.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just one question, yes.
14 MR. ALARID:
15 Q. Ma'am, can you explain to the Court how you were approached to
16 testify in this case?
17 A. You mean who approached me? Who contacted me?
18 Q. Who, the timing, all of that?
19 A. I was called up on the telephone by the Tribunal.
20 Q. When?
21 A. I'm not sure exactly when, but it was some 20 days or one month
22 before I gave my actual statement.
23 Q. Was it discussed in that initial phone conversation what you
24 would be valuable to this Court for?
25 A. Not much. I was only told -- I was only asked whether I would
1 accept giving a statement for The Hague Tribunal, and I was told that it
2 was for the Milan Lukic trial.
3 Q. My point being is, was there any direction given to you as to
4 what you would be talking about, what direction you would be going
5 towards here?
6 A. No, we didn't discuss that. The instructions that I was given
7 referred to my work in the health centre, that's what I was told at the
8 time. That is to say, that it would refer to the treatment of
9 Milan Lukic and my engagement in the health centre at Visegrad.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. You can't take this any further,
11 Mr. Alarid. Mr. Cepic.
12 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, one more question, please.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: No, I'm not allowing any more. You cannot take
14 it any further. You have elicited from the witness as much as you can
15 get. I know what you are trying to get and you can't get anything
16 further. Mr. Cepic.
17 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Cepic:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, madam.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. My name is Djuro Cepic. I'd like to introduce myself, and I'm
22 Defence counsel for Sredoje Lukic. I have to address you with your code
23 name, not out of disrespect to you. Would you listen carefully to my
24 questions. I'll try and be as precise as possible, and could I ask you
25 to give short and precise answers as well so that we can get through what
1 we have here as quickly as possible.
2 Now, my colleague's already mentioned this but you talked to the
3 representatives of the Tribunal on the 27th of October, and during that
4 discussion there was my learned friend Stevan Cole present,
5 Justin Brownstone, his assistant, and Dominique Vorkapic-Kolic as the
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. On that occasion when you discussed the events of the 20th of May
9 when a red Passat came to the health centre, you said that you think that
10 Sredoje Lukic might have been in the back seat of the car.
11 A. Yes, he was. He was sitting on the back seat of the car.
12 However, and I remember this, because Niko Vujicic and Milan Lukic were
13 laughing cynically.
14 Q. Thank you, madam. That is not what I was asking you.
15 A. I wanted to also say --
16 Q. Just wait a moment. Please listen to my questions.
17 A. I was going to answer what you wanted to know about Sredoje.
18 Q. All right. Go ahead.
19 A. I wanted to say that that's why I remembered Sredoje because
20 Sredoje --
21 MR. COLE: Your Honour, rather than having this between the
22 counsel and the witness, if the witness has further material in her
23 answer, she should be allowed to give it without being stopped by counsel
24 and that it seems to me that she's trying to get to the essence of this
25 question even if it's taking a little longer than counsel would like.
1 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I agree. Let her complete the answer. You were
3 saying that you wanted to say that that is why you remembered Sredoje
4 because Sredoje did something. Please complete the answer.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember him because, out of the
6 three of them, it was only Sredoje behaved, if we can say decently then
7 decently. He wasn't making any grimaces, he wasn't laughing cynically,
8 he was just sitting quietly at the back. While the other two,
9 Milan Lukic opened the car window, laughed cynically, and Niko Vujicic
10 did the same, and then they switched the motor on and drove off. Whereas
11 Sredoje Lukic didn't even look at us. And I remember gaining the
12 impression that Sredoje, at that point in time, felt uncomfortable. And
13 that's what I wanted to tell you. Because of the three of them at that
14 point in time, at least that's the impression I gained, because I was
15 upset, we were all crying when that happened and that's why I remember
16 Sredoje. Thank you.
17 Q. Madam, my time is limited so please try and give me short answers
18 so that we can get through all the questions I have to ask you.
19 Now, why did you tell my colleague that you think he was there,
20 not that you claimed that he was there?
21 A. I don't remember I said I think. Maybe I did. While I was
22 recounting the events possibly I used the word "I think," the term "I
23 think," but it's an assertion.
24 Q. Madam, I have no reason to doubt my colleagues either. I believe
25 fervently that they wrote down the truth and wrote down your words. You
1 said you "think." Now, do you still "think" or what?
2 A. I said that it is possible that I used the verb "think." I might
3 have said I think because when you answer questions you can use that sort
4 of expression, but I'm quite certain that he was there.
5 Q. We'll get to that, just in a moment.
6 Madam, yesterday you were shown a piece of paper with the
7 identifying names of two individuals. Could we show that list to the
8 witness again. Do you have it in front of you? Yes, you do. Do you see
9 VG-032 on that list?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now that gentleman worked together with you in the health centre;
13 A. No. He was a dental technician and worked in a completely
14 different building in the dentistry department. He made prosthesis, in
15 actual fact.
16 Q. He worked in the same hospital, didn't he?
17 A. Yes, the same health centre, that's right.
18 Q. And you agree with me that 32 is an honourable and well respected
19 citizen; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You also agree that his assertions and allegations are
23 A. Yes. Why not?
24 Q. You would lend credence to his allegations, would you not, in
25 relation to this specific situation?
1 A. If he claims he is one hundred percent certain, why not?
2 Q. Madam, he testified under oath before this Tribunal?
3 A. So do I.
4 Q. Can you please wait until I finish my question. He testified
5 under oath that he had seen Milan Lukic and another person he didn't know
6 on that day, but when prompted about Sredoje Lukic, he said he had never
7 heard anything bad about that person, and by that same token, he had not
8 seen him that morning. What would you say to that?
9 A. Why would I not agree to this other person saying that he had not
10 seen Sredoje Lukic? No reason for me not to agree; right?
11 Q. Thank you. You will also agree that he was better placed and had
12 a clearer view of the situation than you?
13 A. No, that's not true. He could not possibly have been better
14 placed than me.
15 JUDGE ROBINSON: You still want to say something, Mr. Cole?
16 MR. COLE: No, thank you, sir.
17 JUDGE ROBINSON: I thought not, yes.
18 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, could we go to private session, please.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are in private session.
21 [Private session] [Confidentiality partially lifted by order of Chamber]
22 MR. CEPIC: Sorry, Your Honour. We missed the part of transcript
23 page 56, we missed the answer which would be in the line 24.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the President, please.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Line 24. You said in line 24: "You will also
1 agree that he was better placed and with a better view than you." And
2 her answer was: "That's not true. He could not possibly have been
3 better placed than me."
4 MR. CEPIC: I apologise, Your Honour, but maybe I didn't mark
5 correctly. The question -- previous question than the line 24. Actually
6 that question starts from line 17 and it is quite long question and
7 actually her answer is from 21st row ...
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let me just read it. Line 17 before it
9 goes off my screen. "He testified under oath he had seen Milan Lukic and
10 another person he did not know on that day, but when prompted about
11 Sredoje Lukic, he said he had never heard anything bad about that
12 person." Did you continue the question or? Well, I tell you what just
13 ask the question again, if you think that there was no answer to it.
14 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, let me repeat my question and you please
16 repeat the answer for me. In relation to VG-32, and the situation
17 outside the health centre. His evidence shows clearly that he did not
18 see Sredoje Lukic on that day but rather Milan Lukic and another lad.
19 When prompted about Sredoje Lukic, he said he had never heard anything
20 bad about that person. You'll agree with his assertion; right?
21 A. Yes, yes, I agree with him. He says he didn't hear anything bad.
22 MR. COLE: Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cole.
24 MR. COLE: Yes, I didn't stand, Your Honour, before this question
25 was asked, again, because it was already on the record, but in my
1 submission it's inappropriate to put the testimony of other witnesses to
2 a witness and ask them to comment on them. It's a dangerous area to get
3 into. She doesn't know specifically, it may be paraphrased, so I would
4 object to this type of questioning of the witness, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Cepic, I agree with it. There are times
6 when you can use another witness's evidence, but I think you tend to
7 overdo it. It seems to become the main plank in your cross-examination.
8 MR. CEPIC: No, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. You consistently use that technique. That
10 is the -- that's your main line of questioning, Mr. Cepic. Another
11 witness said so and so, do you agree. So I'd like you to move on to
12 another area.
13 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
14 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, in nature to the Court's comments
15 though, I mean, that is an essential component of this case which is
16 witnesses seeing supposedly the same thing yet having greatly divergent
17 explanations, and that is a problem. How do we address that? Final
18 submissions is one way, but we do need to at times to address it with the
19 witnesses because they see the same things --
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: But you can call those witnesses. And it's for
21 the Chamber to make its own assessment as to who it believes.
22 MR. COLE: If I could add, Your Honour, it's a matter for
23 submissions, not a matter for cross-examination.
24 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, if I may add something.
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, yes.
1 MR. CEPIC: I spent two years in a previous mass case and
2 sometimes, not always, and it was not the base for my cross-examination,
3 I confronted some allegations and statements to other witnesses related
4 to some incidents. Thank you very much. And I will change the topic.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Go ahead.
13 Q. Thank you. And what about this: I find it a little strange that
14 between 1992 and August 2008 you never thought to go to the police, you
15 never thought to get in touch with the ICTY investigators, you never
16 spoke to anyone at all, in fact, although it was your civil duty under
17 the law and criminal procedure in Bosnia-Herzegovina that has been
18 applying throughout to report any crime that you might be aware of and
19 anything you know about that. Why did you violate a provision of the
20 criminal code of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
21 A. I don't think I violated any provision of any code or law,
22 criminal or otherwise. All of these matters had been reported all ready.
23 Not just reported but also debated in the public media. Given the
24 situation, I simply didn't believe that it was my duty to go and report
25 anything at all that I believe was generally known. However, now we are
1 looking at a different situation. I'm summoned by a Tribunal, this
2 Tribunal or any other Tribunal to give evidence. I will always oblige.
3 There's no doubt about that. But I simply didn't see fit for me to go
4 and report something that had already been bandied about in the media and
5 well known to everyone.
6 Q. All right. So your evidence is you didn't feel a need to report
7 a crime, although you knew that this crime was being investigated. You
8 consider yourself an eyewitness; right?
9 A. Yes, I do consider myself an eyewitness. I can't say I didn't
10 see something if I did, can I? Should I be asked to state otherwise, I
11 will refuse.
12 Q. All right. It's been 16 years, isn't it just ever so slightly
13 strange perhaps that in August 2008 suddenly you give evidence?
14 A. Even now I didn't volunteer myself to give evidence. It wasn't
15 me who decided it.
16 Q. How did this reach you, this whole thing?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. We just might get to that. Madam, are you familiar with the lie
19 of the land in Visegrad and its surroundings?
20 A. I certainly hope so.
21 Q. Do you know the location of a village called Povjestaca?
22 A. I might be roughly familiar with its location. I know it's
23 across the Drina. You take the old bridge across the river, but I don't
24 think I could pinpoint it.
25 Q. But it's outside town, it's not a part of Visegrad, is it? You
1 will agree with that; right?
2 A. Yes. Yes, you are right on that.
3 Q. Paragraph 25 of your statement. [In English] In the e-court
4 system there was a statement from 2008, P16 ... [Interpretation] Before
5 the statement shows up just to gain time, Islam Cormehic?
6 A. Yes?
7 Q. He went missing -- the centre of town taken to the bridge and
8 taken towards --
9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't get where.
10 A. Yes. There was this car that took the bridge in the direction of
11 the Mahala and then they took a turning to Visegradska Banja. That is
12 the road to Visegradska Banja.
13 Q. So that's your testimony; right?
14 A. Yes, it is.
15 Q. Thank you. Mr. Cormehic was born sometime in 1956 or 1957,
16 roughly speaking; right?
17 A. I'm not really certain. He was a shopkeeper in the Jugoplastika
19 together because this was a funeral. This was Behija Zukic's funeral and
20 we met there.
21 Q. Right. Thank you. In this paragraph you talk about his
22 disappearance. We may, therefore, conclude that Islam Cormehic
23 disappeared in the centre of town, at the old bridge?
24 A. Not the old bridge, the Rzav bridge which is another one.
25 Q. All right. I know, thank you. The one near the SUP building
2 MR. CEPIC: [In English] 2D04-0070.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, let's see what an ICRC document has to
4 say about this. [In English] Could we have the fourth page, please.
5 Under number 94, please. Zoom in 94?
6 [Interpretation] Madam, the ICRC claims that Mr. Islam Cormehic
7 went missing in Povjestaca. You have just confirmed that this was not in
8 Visegrad, rather outside Visegrad. Your testimony seems to run counter
9 to an ICRC document. Where does this discrepancy come from?
10 A. When it says Povjestaca does it does it mean that he was born
11 there or that he went missing there?
12 Q. He went missing there.
13 A. I don't know about that. I just know what I saw. I saw the
14 people who were there. I talked to Islam Cormehic on the bridge. We
15 were there together, and then he was put into that car.
16 Q. Thank you, madam.
17 And now let's talk about the old bridge. You say you saw
18 Milan Lukic and the persons who were with him. Did they stop midway
19 across the old bridge near sofa?
20 A. Yes, near sofa. Midway across the bridge, but I can't say
21 exactly at which point. Actually, I don't think I even understood. Did
22 you ask me about the car or did you ask me about the persons?
23 Q. The killings that you saw.
24 A. You mean the specific killings that I witnessed? It wasn't at
25 Sofa. If you are asking about the specific killings.
1 Q. We'll get to that later. Madam, we are about to locate the exact
2 paragraph, it's 22, paragraph 22 of your statement.
3 [Previous translation continues] ... Now, as we are waiting for
4 the paragraph to come up, let me just return briefly to the health centre
5 and this situation when you saw Sredoje Lukic, allegedly. You talk about
6 that in your statement, more specifically in paragraph 9 of your
7 statement where you describe Niko Vujicic, Sredoje Lukic --
8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let us see paragraph 9 on the screen, please.
9 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] You provide a description there. You see
11 paragraph 9, madam, don't you?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. You provide a description of Sredoje Lukic, Niko Vujicic. We'll
14 be going back to that later on. And then in paragraph 12, can we have
15 paragraph 12, please.
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: What is it you are pointing out to her in
17 paragraph 9.
18 MR. CEPIC: Just the description of Sredoje Lukic.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: The description. Now we are going to paragraph
21 MR. CEPIC: In paragraph 12, Your Honour, witness describes
22 situation with red Passat, Milan Lukic and others in the front. Just
23 about she testified a couple minutes ago. And it is quite different in
24 the statement than in the testimony which we heard. May I continue,
25 Your Honour, please?
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. What is the question that you wish to put?
2 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour. [Interpretation] I would like to ask
3 the witness how come that in her statement, paragraph 12, when she
4 described the situation she said nothing about Sredoje Lukic being there.
5 There's an important distinction and there is also a discrepancy between
6 the statement and this witness's live evidence.
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please answer.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is this a question?
9 MR. CEPIC:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Indeed, madam.
11 A. Oh, I apologise. I don't know why the name was not included
12 here. Maybe it was simply left out. It could be an error in the actual
13 recording of the statement. Why is it there in number 9 and not in
14 number 12, I don't know. I don't believe this is down to me. Maybe this
15 is a typing error when the statement was copied or a misinterpretation.
16 Q. Number 9 talks about the description. Number 12 is the about
17 Behija Zukic's car alone and Nikola Vujicic's and Milan Lukic's arrival.
18 Just let me ask my question.
19 A. I am sorry. I thought you were waiting for my answer.
20 Q. No. [In English] Just in English scroll down, please.
21 JUDGE ROBINSON: Just I'm trying to understand. Go back to
22 paragraph 12. What is your point, Mr. Cepic? That in paragraph 9 there
23 is a mention of her seeing Sredoje Lukic, and in paragraph 12 there is no
24 mention. Is that it?
25 MR. CEPIC: Yes, Your Honour. Because the point is she knew him
1 before, she even describe him, but when she described the scene in front
2 of hospital, Visegrad hospital, she just recognised Milan Lukic and
3 Niko Vujicic in paragraph 12.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: But why -- it's not clear to me why it's
5 mandatory that it should be mentioned in paragraph 12 because it was
6 mentioned in paragraph 9. It's not very clear.
7 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour, maybe we can forgot paragraph 9. Just
8 to focus on paragraph 12. And just to make a question from that
9 paragraph --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: But that may be the answer. It's already in 9.
11 Anyhow, let's of move on. Let's move on. What is your next question?
12 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Just to see the signature at
13 the bottom of the page, if the court usher could scroll down the page,
15 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, is that your signature at the bottom of
16 the page?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Thank you. Madam, you gave this statement over a period of two
19 days, did you not, to the investigator?
20 A. Yes. Well, one day. It was more or less on one day, and then
21 the next day they read it back to me and I signed it. It took time to
22 translate it and so on, so they came the second day.
23 Q. And did you confirm that the statement is a true rendition of
24 what you said?
25 A. Yes.
11 Pages 3055-3057 redacted. Private session.
18 A. It looks like the square, but at the time the plateau was
19 completely empty, there was nothing on it. Now there is. You had the
20 shops or whatever, the buildings, but at the time there was absolutely
21 nothing there. It was an open space except for the willow tree, that was
22 much smaller at the time. There was nothing else, just the willow and
23 the small house, none of the rest of it.
24 Q. I'm just asking you whether this is the location of the square in
1 A. It could be, but I'm not sure. That's all I'm saying.
2 Q. Madam, what is the bridge called, the old bridge?
3 A. It's the Pase Sokolovica bridge.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 [Videotape played]
6 MR. CEPIC:
7 Q. [Interpretation] Can you recognise whether there are any people
8 on the bridge there or not?
9 A. I can't see anything. I can't make anything out.
10 Q. What does it say there?
11 A. It says Mehmed-Pase Sokolovica Bridge.
12 Q. Madam, can you see anybody on that bridge? Well, if not, how
13 then could you say in paragraph 22 of your statement that from an even
14 greater distance you were able to see somebody coming on to the bridge at
15 night and killing people? How come we have that testimony in paragraph
16 22 of your statement?
17 A. I said that the car came on to the bridge and parked itself there
18 and that shots were heard.
19 Q. Madam, I'm going to quote your statement. [In English] Can we
20 have 22nd paragraph of the statement?
21 MR. COLE: Your Honour, if I could just be heard before we move
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
24 MR. COLE: Sir, could I suggest this is a very dubious technique,
25 presenting a video of nighttime scenes of the area. The witness has
1 indicated she's having some difficulty as indeed I'm sure others are.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, he can put it, it's for us to disregard
3 it. I can't prevent him from put ting it. She will say whether it helps
4 her in recognizing the area or not.
5 MR. COLE: It's just it's a dangerous technique, with respect,
6 Your Honour. Grainy footage like that of an evening we don't -- I
7 certainly asked previously if we could have some indication of the date,
8 and we have that. We don't have any indication of the time of the night
9 or other matters like that. It's just seems to me --
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: It just looks as if you are making a submission
11 that we shouldn't attach much weight to it and maybe we will not. So
12 let's proceed.
13 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Could we have 22nd
14 paragraph, please.
15 Q. [Interpretation] You were very explicit in your statement, and
16 you said that you saw the accused come to the bridge five or six times,
17 bringing people there and killing them?
18 A. Yes, yes. And you could see that quite certainly. You could see
19 that, but you couldn't recognise the people, that's the only thing. You
20 couldn't recognise the people. But it could be seen, the bridge was lit
21 up --
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. COLE: Excuse me.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cole.
25 MR. COLE: Your Honour, I may be at a disadvantage because of the
1 language situation here, but it seems to me that the witness's answers
2 may be being truncated by my learned friend when she wishes to say
3 something more and he indicates thank you. Now --
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: There may be a degree of overlapping. Please
5 observe the pause and of course it will not be proper if parts of the
6 witness's answer were eliminated from the record.
7 Now, what was the last thing you said, Witness? You said you
8 "could see that quite certainly, you could see that but you couldn't
9 recognise the people, that's the only thing. You couldn't recognise the
10 people but it could be seen. The bridge was lit up." Did you have
11 anything more to say?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, the bridge was lit up and
13 the square was too. And you could see him park on the bridge, you could
14 hear shots, you could hear the bodies falling into -- the thump of bodies
15 into the water, that was something that one could hear. You couldn't
16 recognise someone and you couldn't say who had been killed, but you could
17 see it all. And I wasn't the only one to see it. Lots of people were
18 looking at it and saw it.
19 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Cepic. And allow the witness to
20 complete her answer in future.
21 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, you'll agree with me that you couldn't
23 see whether Sredoje Lukic was there or not because it was dark and you
24 just said that you couldn't actually recognise the people?
25 A. In the sentence in which I mentioned Sredoje Lukic in this
1 particular paragraph, I wasn't thinking of that particular incident on
2 the bridge, that Sredoje Lukic was killing. I never saw Sredoje Lukic
3 kill anyone. Never. Nor did anybody tell me that Sredoje Lukic had
4 killed someone. Nobody I ever talked to. However, in this paragraph
5 what I wanted to say is this, and let me repeat it now, that I would see
6 Sredoje Lukic in the company of Milan Lukic, but never, and I state that
7 here and now, I never saw Sredoje Lukic, one, kill anyone, or two, abuse
8 anyone. I never saw that myself and I never said that. I never claimed
10 Q. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: And did anybody ever tell you that?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Pardon?
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Did anybody ever tell you that they saw Sredoje
14 kill anyone or abuse anyone? Did you ever hear that from anybody?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not to me, no. And I can explain a
16 few things. The rumours, when you say somebody said so and so said and
17 then so and so said something else two days later or you heard something
18 else two days later, so I don't want to repeat these rumours from people
19 that would change their accounts from one day to the next. But as I say,
20 no serious-minded person ever told me or nor did I hear them say that
21 Sredoje Lukic killed anybody or abused anybody and towards me his conduct
22 was decent. We came across him in -- I came across him in the MUP. He
23 said hello nicely, warned me not to move around town and left.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Cepic.
25 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. [Interpretation] You will agree with me, won't you, that you
2 probably saw Sredoje with Milan somewhere about town and not on the old
4 A. Yes, yes, that's precisely what I had in mind. I didn't mean the
5 old bridge and the killings there. You see the way the paragraphs break
6 down and how I gave my statement, but I did refer to this several times.
7 I didn't even see Sredoje with Milan very often either. I can't tell you
8 how many times but it wasn't that often.
9 Q. Thank you, madam. [Previous translation continues] ...
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Sorry, what was that?
11 MR. CEPIC: Admission of video clip.
12 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Video clip bearing number 2D040180 will be
14 Exhibit 2D25, Your Honours.
15 MR. CEPIC:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Madam, you will agree with me that Sredoje Lukic
17 is a positive personality, and a pleasant character and he did not fit
18 into this overall war atmosphere that prevailed at the time?
19 A. Yes, that's right. I agree. I could even tell you my husband
22 then, as well as later, I can only say that I'm surprised and I'm not
23 even sure that I can bring myself to believe some things that are being
24 said about Sredoje Lukic in this negative light.
25 Q. Thank you very much, madam.
1 Madam, thank you very much. I have no further questions for you.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Cepic. Mr. Cole.
3 MR. COLE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: We need to move to public session.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
6 [Open session]
7 Re-examination by Mr. Cole:
8 Q. Yes. VG-133, you told counsel in your cross-examination that
9 your husband left Visegrad, I think you indicated sometime in May of
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And what was the village that he went to some distance away?
13 A. Nezuci. The distance being about a kilometre and a half, up to 2
14 kilometres but no more than that. From the town itself. Perhaps even
16 Q. And was that village on the side of the Drina River?
17 A. It wasn't quite on the riverbank. It was further up in the hills
18 on the left-hand riverbank.
19 Q. How far away was that village from the Varda factory?
20 A. Well, as the crow flies maybe 400 or 500 metres.
21 Q. And how long was your husband at this village?
22 A. My husband was there -- well, I had left Visegrad on the 17th of
23 June, and he stayed on until the fighting erupted. So it may have been a
24 total of two or two and a half months.
25 Q. You told the Court also that your sister's husband went missing
1 and that he hasn't been located. What was his name?
2 A. Esad Hajdarevic.
3 Q. When did he go missing?
4 A. He stayed in Visegrad when we left on the 17th of June. He was
5 hiding in the basement of the house in which my sister lived at the time.
6 Nothing has ever been heard of him since.
7 Q. Now, page 36 I'm looking at here, you told the Court that -- and
8 we're talking about the events that you witnessed on the 10th of June,
9 1992, and you've described in detail what you saw from your
10 mother-in-law's apartment balcony that day. You said you mixed up two
11 events when you were describing the events in your statement. You recall
12 saying that in court?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I wonder if the statement could be brought up on the screen,
15 paragraph 17. Can you see paragraph 17 in the Bosnian language before
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So just so clarify what you said in explanation to counsel, the
19 incident that you describe as being in mid-morning, was it the incident
20 with the Montenegrins that occurred in mid-morning on the day previously?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. So the incident with the Montenegrins occurred the mid-morning on
23 the 9th of June, is that what you are saying, the mix-up?
24 A. Yes, yes.
9 A. The killing on the bridge could have occurred between half past
10 6.00 and 7.00 that afternoon. Milan Lukic arrived just before 6.00 p.m.,
11 he entered the building, and how long could this possibly have taken.
12 This may have occurred at about 7.00 p.m. that evening.
13 Q. Right. That was to be my next question. Thank you. You've
14 given us the time, but the date that that occurred was what day?
15 A. 10th of June.
16 Q. And when you witnessed the killing, what time of day was it in
17 terms of daylight or dark? Could you describe the time of day in terms
18 of lightness or darkness?
19 A. It wasn't dark yet. There was a lot of natural light because it
20 was summertime.
21 Q. Thank you. Now, you were asked about the fire at
22 Pionirska Street in June of 1992 by counsel; do you recall that?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you told the Court that there was much discussion about that
25 in Visegrad the morning after it occurred?
1 A. Not much discussion, rather, people talked to one another, would
2 see one another and tell one another about what had occurred. We were
3 warning each other, saying that the best idea was to probably leave town
4 as quickly as possible on account of that event. On the 14th of June, my
5 mother asked me to leave with my children. My sister and I. However, we
6 were all keeping our fingers crossed, hoping that the whole thing would
7 come to a halt. Nevertheless, once this had happened we too decided to
9 Q. Now, you've told the Court, page 48, that you first heard about
10 the fire on the 15th of June, this is 1992, in the morning; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you recall about what time it was you first heard about it?
13 A. Quite early that morning. That same day, right after 9.00, I
14 went to the Red Cross office to register there with my children in order
15 to leave town. Therefore, we must have been told about that very, very
16 early on that day.
17 Q. And when did the fire at the Pionirska Street occur or when did
18 you hear it had occurred in relation to the first time you first heard
19 about it?
20 A. We heard about that that morning. I don't know at what time that
21 occurred. However, this was a word of mouth thing, that's how the news
22 spread. If you knew that there was some other Muslims around, you would
23 go see them to tell them about what was going on and to warn them to move
24 out of the way, as it were, but no one really asked a question as
25 specific as that, when exactly did that occur. The important thing was
1 to inform one another.
2 Q. I am sorry. I may not have made myself clear. When did the
3 Pionirska fire occur? What date?
4 MR. ALARID: Calls for speculation.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, let us see whether she knows. Do you know
6 when the Pionirska fire took place?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 14th of June in the evening.
8 That's what we heard and we were told the morning of the 15th.
9 MR. COLE:
10 Q. I want to ask you about a man that you referred to in your
11 testimony earlier in answer to counsel's question, and my pronunciation
12 may not be the best. A man referred to in your statement at paragraph
13 25, if that could be shown to you, maybe that's the easiest way.
14 Islam Cormehic. Can you see the name Islam Cormehic or something similar
15 in paragraph 25 of your statement?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, how well did you know that man?
18 A. Very well.
19 Q. Did you know or do you know his date of birth?
20 A. No, I don't. He is older than me, perhaps a year or two older,
21 but I can't be more specific than that.
22 Q. Is the surname Cormehic unusual or is it a common name?
23 A. It's not entirely unusual but it's not very common either. There
24 were perhaps a handful of families there and they were all in Njavjestica
25 [phoen], the neighbourhood that was mentioned.
1 Q. Is the first name of Islam a common or uncommon name?
2 A. Well, perhaps not all too common, but you do come across it every
3 now and then.
4 Q. And where did this family come from? Where was their home
5 village, the surname Cormehic?
6 A. I don't really know. But I know that all of them lived in
7 Povjestaca. This was the name of the neighbourhood. But I really can't
8 say where they hail from originally.
9 Q. Could you have a look, please, at paragraph 12 in your statement.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: How much longer will you be because we are at
11 the time for the break?
12 MR. COLE: I'm not sure, sir, maybe 10 minutes, 15 minutes.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, we'll seek the indulgence of the
14 interpreters and just carry on for 10 minutes.
15 MR. COLE: Excuse me, Your Honours.
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MR. COLE:
18 Q. Paragraph 12, there were some questions about why you didn't --
19 or why the name Sredoje Lukic doesn't appear in paragraph 12 as being in
20 the Passat at the health centre that day when you have mentioned that in
21 testimony here that he was in the car. Can you just explain why it
22 doesn't appear in your statement?
23 MR. CEPIC: Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Cepic.
25 MR. CEPIC: We already heard an answer on that question.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's hear it again.
2 MR. CEPIC: Thank you.
3 MR. COLE:
4 Q. If you could just give us your explanation, please, as to why his
5 name doesn't feature in paragraph 12 about that incident?
6 A. Well, when I go through paragraph 12 again and once I reach its
7 end, as far as I can tell, in paragraph 12 I describe the behaviour of
8 Milan Lukic and Niko Vujicic. Maybe I didn't have anything special to
9 add about Sredoje's actions or behaviour and that may have been the
10 reason for my omission. One thing I do know is, when I go through the
11 whole thing now, I describe Milan Lukic rolling the window down and
12 grinning at us, and then I go on to explain how the body of Behija Zukic
13 was removed and how her death was established by Dr. Vasiljevic.
14 It's possible that Sredoje Lukic's name was simply omitted from
15 this paragraph.
16 Q. Yes, thank you. Just a couple of more questions for you.
17 You were shown a video of Visegrad a short time ago and (redacted)
21 A. No, no, no.
22 Q. That was your apartment, the apartment you witnessed those
23 killings was your mother-in-law's apartment?
24 A. Yes. The fourth floor and the building number is 13.
25 Q. You were shown in the video a willow tree that you commented on.
1 16 years ago in 1992, can you recall the size of the willow tree on that
2 occasion? How tall it was?
3 A. Well, it wasn't very tall. If I look at the footage, it's very
4 difficult to say, but you can say that it's a great deal larger than it
5 used to be.
6 Q. In 1992, did the willow tree obstruct any of your view of the
7 bridge from your apartment?
8 A. Looking from this side, I had four windows on that side. And we
9 couldn't see the river from there because of the weeping willow and the
10 house that blocked our view. We could only see the river from the side,
11 the lateral window of my flat. The Visegrad bridge, the hotel, the
12 square, although you could actually see the square from the other windows
13 too but the view was quite poor. The view of the bridge was relatively
14 poor at the time, even when the willow tree was smaller, from those
15 windows, and one couldn't really see the river from those windows. It
16 was only from the side of the building, the windows that were on the side
17 of the building that we could see the river.
18 Q. Just finally, the view that you -- the window that you had the
19 best view from in your apartment, was that shown -- the view from that
20 window shown in the video?
21 A. Yes, but it was all dark. Frankly, I couldn't tell a thing
22 myself. There were some small houses that were built on that square.
23 There is a lot of new construction going on, and I hadn't set eyes on
24 that for 16 years so it all struck me as very new.
25 Q. Right. That last answer, you are referring to what you could see
1 in the video?
2 A. Yes, yes, that's right.
3 MR. COLE: Yes. Thank you, I have no further questions,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Witness. That concludes your
6 testimony. We thank you for giving it and you may now leave.
7 Mr. Groome, are there any other witnesses?
8 MR. GROOME: No, Your Honour. Just the two witnesses I mentioned
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, in that event, we will adjourn until
11 tomorrow at 2.15.
12 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.44 p.m.,
13 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 30th day
14 of October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.