081029ED

Page 2989

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

Page 2990

1 documents, most of these are letters, a total volume of material is 31

2 pages.

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

Page 2991

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

18 minutes.

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

Page 2992

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

Page 2993

1 Vasiljevic case. I expect his evidence will be between 30 and 40

2 minutes.

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

16 practicable.

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

19 yesterday.

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

Page 2994

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.

Page 2995

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

10 it.

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?

Page 2996

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

18 days?

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

Page 2997

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

Page 2998

1 Prosecutor.

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.

Page 2999

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

22 that?

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.

Page 3000

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

9 us.

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,

Page 3001

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

Page 3002

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;

7 correct?

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?

Page 3003

1 A. I have absolutely no idea.

2 Q. But it was your understanding that Cale was originally from

3 Serbia?

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

9 Visegrad?

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

14 war?

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

22 that?

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 --

Page 3004

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

12 anyone?

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

23 Visegrad?

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

Page 3005

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

6 SUP.

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;

12 correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 Q. And so people --

20 MR. ALARID: And I understand, Mr. Cole, I apologise. We can

21 redact.

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:

Page 3006

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.

Page 3007

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

Page 3021

1 (redacted)

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;

18 correct?

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

Page 3022

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

Page 3023

1 times of day, I don't think anyone should be surprised. I think you get

2 the point.

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 A. Yes, I'm still saying that.

25 Q. And would you agree that there's a significant difference between

Page 3024

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?

Page 3025

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:

Page 3026

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,

Page 3027

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

Page 3028

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

11 in.

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

Page 3029

1 internet?

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

Page 3030

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

Page 3031

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

Page 3032

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?

Page 3033

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

18 her?

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.

Page 3034

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

5 assume.

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

Page 3035

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;

14 correct?

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

Page 3036

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;

10 correct?

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

Page 3037

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

Page 3038

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

15 ago.

16 MR. ALARID: Thank you, Judge.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Do you want me to answer?

18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, please answer.

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 3039

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

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.

Page 3040

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

Page 3041

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

Page 3045

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

Page 3046

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

Page 3047

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.

Page 3048

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.

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

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

Page 3049

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

Page 3050

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

18 (redacted)

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

Page 3051

1 right?

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.

Page 3052

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

20 12.

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?

Page 3053

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

Page 3054

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,

14 please.

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.

Page 3055

11 Pages 3055-3057 redacted. Private session.

Page 3058

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

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

25 Visegrad?

Page 3059

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

22 on.

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

Page 3060

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

Page 3061

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

Page 3062

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

9 that.

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.

Page 3063

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

3 bridge?

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

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

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.

Page 3065

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

16 you?

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.

25 (redacted)

Page 3066

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

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?

Page 3067

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

8 leave.

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

Page 3068

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.

Page 3069

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.

Page 3070

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)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (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.

Page 3071

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

Page 3072

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

9 earlier.

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.