1 Wednesday, 18 March 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.18 p.m.
6 JUDGE ROBINSON: At the outset, let me say that in the absence of
7 Judge David, Judge Van den Wyngaert, and I sit pursuant to the provisions
8 of Rule 15 bis.
9 Mr. Groome.
10 MR. GROOME: Thank you, Your Honour. I have just a few areas as
11 a result of the tape that we were provided with yesterday. Your Honour,
12 the first question that I have I think would be appropriately taken in
13 private session, if we could go into private session for that purpose.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session.
15 [Private session]
8 [Open session]
9 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Now, one of the questions I want to ask you is that when I listen
12 to the audio-tape of your conversation with Mr. Alarid, he asked you
13 about whether you heard rumors about Milan Lukic; and I took from your
14 answer that you had heard some reports of what he was doing in the town
15 but that you did not have any conversation with the members of the
16 Kurspahic family in Koritnik in which they told you that they were aware
17 of any rumors regarding Milan Lukic; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Now, the next area I want to talk to you about, I want to talk to
20 you some more about the details about the time that you met Milan Lukic
21 while you were waiting outside the police station for your pass. In the
22 audio-tape that I listened to over lunch, it seems that when you were
23 waiting there, Milan Lukic approached -- was approaching the police
24 station, saw the line of people, and said:
25 "The balijas have come to look for a pass from us."
1 Is that what you recall him saying?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. And "balijas" would be an offensive or derogatory term used to
4 refer to Muslims; is that not correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, after he said that, he then said:
7 "Go ahead, but have Alija give you assistance."
8 And you understood that reference to Alija being
9 Alija Izetbegovic; is that not correct?
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And now, you were issued a pass to leave, but on the pass it said
12 that you were authorised to leave on the 30th of May, 1992; is that not
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Now, we're going to remove the names that you've mentioned so
25 that doesn't -- that's not public and your identity is not compromised.
1 I will just ask -- to be referring to them in terms of relationship to
2 you: Husband, children, and such. So my next question to you is, is
3 that on the single pass, all the members of your immediate family were
4 authorised to leave, all of your children, your husband, and were -- is
5 that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And your father's parents were also authorised to leave on the
8 30th; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, you testified yesterday that you left on the 29th, so my
11 question to you is: Why did you leave on the 29th, the day you got the
12 pass, rather than simply wait to the 30th, the day that the pass
13 authorised you to leave?
22 MR. GROOME: I'd ask for the names to be redacted.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
24 MR. GROOME:
25 Q. Ma'am, it'll also be easier if you can refer to them, now that we
1 do know their names in private session, if you simply refer to them as
2 husband, brother, we won't have any problem with compromising your
3 identity. That leads me to my next question to you - and it's no
4 problem. Don't worry if you do. There's a delay in the tape, and it can
5 be caught before it's made public - it seemed to me from listening to
6 your conversation with Mr. Alarid that the trip to Belgrade, you were on
7 a bus with some members of your family, and your husband and your son
8 were in a vehicle with your husband's brother; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, correct. With my in-laws and with my daughters, I got into
10 that bus. Raketa Uzice was the bus company, and we reached Uzice on that
11 Raketa bus. Then I went to the train station and took the train to
13 Q. My next question for you is, why did your husband and son not
14 travel in the bus? Why -- was there a reason why they were not able to
15 simply just get on the bus and travel with you?
16 A. No. There was no particular reason except that his brother had
17 come, and they wanted to go together, so they went in his brother's car
18 with his driver, and that's what happened.
19 Q. Now, I also take from the -- your conversation that you had with
20 Mr. Alarid that it seems that at Dobrun, which is a small town near the
21 border between Bosnia
22 were not allowed to proceed, but the bus was permitted to proceed on to
24 A. Yes, yes. Right.
25 Q. Now, taking you back to the time when you're outside the police
1 station and you see Milan Lukic, Mr. Alarid asked you that when you saw
2 Milan Lukic, whether you understood him to be a police officer or a
3 reserve police officer, and you said that you were not sure but that he
4 was wearing the same clothes as the police officers in the police
5 station; is that correct?
6 A. Yes, that's correct. I don't know anything about.
7 Q. Well, my question is, do you specifically recall that the
8 clothing that he was wearing at that time was the same clothing as the
9 people who were working in the police station as police officers?
10 A. Well, you have to understand, I'm not sure. All I noticed was
11 that he and the others were dressed in dark blue. That's all I noticed,
12 nothing else, because I was fearful, anxious. You heard the whole story
13 when he came up to us, when he yelled at us.
14 Q. And then the next thing Mr. Alarid asked you was whether
15 Mr. Lukic, Milan Lukic, was associating with other people that you knew
16 to be police officers, and you said yes. Is that true, that you saw him
17 associating, speaking with, interacting with other people you saw -- or
18 you knew to be police officers in the police station?
19 A. I don't know about that. All I know is when he finished talking
20 to me, he went into the police station. What went on inside, I don't
21 know, but he went inside.
22 Q. Also listening to that conversation, it seems that you say that
23 you knew Sredoje Lukic quite well and that you, in fact, sat at the same
24 bench in school with him for I believe you said eight years; is that
1 A. Yes, that's correct. We shared the same bench for eight years.
2 We went to school together for eight years.
3 Q. Did you recognise him in the courtroom yesterday?
4 A. I did.
5 Q. Where was he with respect to the person you identified as
7 A. The first person next to Milan Lukic, on Milan Lukic's left.
8 Q. Did you see Sredoje Lukic in the week before you left Visegrad?
9 A. To be honest, I didn't see Sredoje anywhere while I was there.
10 Q. Now, again, going back to the police station, Mr. Alarid asked
11 you -- after he asked you about Mr. Lukic's appearance, you said they
12 would sometimes call themselves the White Eagles. Do you recall telling
13 Mr. Alarid that the day before yesterday, I believe?
14 A. I don't remember. Maybe I did say that, but for some reason they
15 called them the White Eagles. Why? I have no idea. As soon as a car
16 would pass with them inside, people would get frightened, start talking:
17 There they are, the White Eagles. Everybody was frightened of them.
18 Q. Now, there are some variations about what you -- how you
19 recounted what Mr. Lukic said --
20 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I just notice. There seems to be some
21 problem with the audio for Mr. Lukic. Perhaps I shouldn't continue until
22 that's corrected.
23 JUDGE ROBINSON: Let's wait until that has been resolved.
24 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, it's my understanding he can hear the
25 Prosecutor but not the witness. I can't verify anything.
1 JUDGE ROBINSON: I ask the technical personnel to check into
3 MR. GROOME:
4 Q. Ma'am, could I ask you to simply count one to five just to make
5 sure that the audio systems are working.
6 A. One, two, three.
7 MR. GROOME: Okay. Mr. Lukic has given us a thumbs up that it is
8 working, so I'll proceed.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
10 MR. GROOME:
11 Q. Ma'am, there seems -- there were some differences in how you
12 recounted what was said during that exchange from what I heard on the
13 tape, so I'm going to actually play two minutes of the taped conversation
14 you had with Mr. Alarid, and I want to just ask you a question in
15 follow-up to it. So if you could just listen now to what will be played
16 over the earphones. Thank you.
17 A. All right.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, before I ask the -- thank the Registrar
20 for pointing out, that I'm not the expert the Court believe I am in
21 matters of private sessions. The woman's -- CW1's voice was not
22 distorted on that tape, so could I ask that the entire tape not be played
23 publicly, that it be redacted before the public transmission goes
25 Q. CW1, is that your voice on the tape?
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. And does that accurately reflect the conversation that you had
3 and how you recounted what Milan Lukic said to you on that day before you
4 left Visegrad?
5 A. Well, I didn't even see him anymore. I saw him that once, and
6 then I left for Belgrade
7 Q. But does the tape -- the way you've described what happened in
8 the time that you did see him, is that accurately recounted on the tape
9 that we've just listened to?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, at this time I would tender that tape
12 as a Prosecution exhibit.
13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
14 MR. ALARID: You mean -- are we talking about the excerpt?
15 MR. GROOME: I was tendering the entire prior statement as we
16 would with any statement of a prior statement of a witness.
17 MR. ALARID: Well, we would only object until we have an official
18 transcript of the recording. I think that would be proper in light of
19 how we would not be able to pull it off and whatnot, so I think, one, the
20 transcript speaks for itself. If the excerpt is the only thing being
21 referred to, of course we have no objection as to that because it's
22 become part of the record. But in terms of the entire tape, the witness
23 is here. She can be questioned on relevant portions. However, I don't
24 even have the ability to review it at this point and had reviewed it, but
25 I think it would come in more properly as a transcript.
1 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, perhaps one solution --
2 MR. ALARID: With an official translation, of course, because
3 Mr. Ivetic shouldn't be considered the official translation.
4 JUDGE ROBINSON: Why do you want the entire tape, Mr. Groome?
5 MR. GROOME: Well, Your Honour, it recounts -- it has been the
6 practice in this trial that when prior statements of witnesses have been
7 introduced, they've been introduced entirely. We haven't just introduced
8 particular portions. There's no transcript because I received this
9 yesterday. I certainly can accommodate Mr. Alarid's request for a
10 transcript by asking that one by created, but it would seem to me at this
11 juncture it's entirely appropriate to tender and to admit the taped
12 statement of CW1 on the condition that when a transcript is available
13 that it's also tendered. But for reasons outside of my control, one is
14 not in existence now.
15 And I'd also point out, Your Honour, that this is a little
16 different from other situations in that and this is Mr. Alarid and
17 Mr. Ivetic were actually present. This is a taped conversation that they
18 made while they were present, so it's not a question of them not knowing
19 what's contained on the tape.
20 JUDGE ROBINSON: We'll admit it.
21 THE REGISTRAR: That's Exhibit P272 under seal, Your Honours.
22 MR. GROOME:
23 Q. Now, CW1, the last couple of questions that I have for you relate
24 to the bus trip to Uzice, and my understanding and listening to the
25 conversation with Mr. Alarid was that at some point on that trip,
1 Milan Lukic actually boarded the bus; am I correct in that?
2 A. Yes, you're right. When I travelled to Dobrun, two policemen
3 came in with my brother-in-law to ask me to produce the passes. I showed
4 the passes for myself, for my children, and for my in-laws, and then they
5 got off the bus, and we travelled on. We drove on for another 10 or 15
6 minutes before the bus was stopped again. The bus stopped, and
7 Milan Lukic showed up in the door.
8 He went in, looking around the bus, and he noticed me in the
9 back, and he asked, Are you on your way now? I said, Yes. And where is
10 your husband? And I say, They stopped him in Dobrun. They won't let him
11 go on anymore. And who is it sitting next to you? I said, My
12 father-in-law. And he only said, A-ha. Don't go on, they won't let you
13 through either. And I answered, I'll try. If they don't let me through,
14 I'll turn back and go home. And then he turned around and saw a man
15 sitting just behind the driver. He came up to him and asked, What's your
16 name? And the man said Dermo Momirovic [phoen]. And Milan said, Pick up
17 your stuff and come with me. The man picked up his bag, got off, and
18 followed Milan
19 on our journey towards Uzice.
20 Q. Now, I could hear on the tape that you were asked, Did you see
21 the colour of the car Milan Lukic was in? But I couldn't make out your
22 answer. Do you recall the colour of the car that Milan Lukic put that
23 man into?
24 A. The car was the colour of burgundy, like very ripe -- over-ripe
25 cherry. I don't know how to explain it.
1 Q. Do you have any recollection about the make of the car?
2 A. I don't remember, really.
3 Q. And do you recall whether you saw Milan Lukic get into the
4 driver's side of the car or one of the other doors of the car?
5 A. No, no. Through the passenger door.
6 Q. I do take from your answer that Milan Lukic was not driving the
7 car at that time?
8 A. I really don't know who was driving. I don't know. The car was
9 sitting there.
10 Q. Now, I also heard on the tape that you said that you saw a woman
11 in the car, and my question for you is whether this woman did -- was
12 she -- do you remember anything about how she was dressed? Was she in a
13 uniform, or was she in civilian clothes?
14 A. All I saw was when she opened the boot to put in a travel bag.
15 She had some sort of uniform on. I don't know what kind of uniform. She
16 was not very tall. That's all I could see.
17 Q. Could I ask that you be shown a picture.
18 MR. GROOME: It's 0644-6674.
19 Q. And this is a photograph from the Serbian court in the Severin
20 case against Milan Lukic. It's a photograph of a woman. I'm going to
21 ask you whether you recognise the woman in this photograph.
22 A. All right.
23 Q. It'll just take us a few seconds to bring it up.
24 While that's being brought up, can I just ask you, is it true
25 that the last time you saw your husband and your son was at Dobrun when
1 the bus was allowed to proceed and the car they were driving in was not
2 allowed to proceed?
3 A. The last time he was there, I didn't see them. They were sitting
4 in the car. I didn't see them. The last time I saw them was when I was
5 in the house, and I saw them as they were leaving.
6 Q. Did you see Milan Lukic drive away in the car, this burgundy car
7 that you're referring to?
8 A. No. The bus left. They stayed there. We went off towards
9 Uzice. I don't know where Milan
10 MR. GROOME: Okay. I think we have this picture now. I'm going
11 to ask that we switch to the Sanction system.
12 Q. And if I could draw your attention to the woman on the left-hand
13 side of the picture with a uniform on. Do you recognise that woman?
14 A. Yes. The woman that I saw had a cap. She had a cap. I don't
15 know about this one. I don't know her. I don't know if she was there
16 because the one that was there had a cap on her head.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. Court Witness number 1, the last question that
18 I have for you is there was one thing that was said on the tape that I
19 found quite curious. You posed a question to Mr. Alarid, and I would
20 like to ask you about it. You said to Mr. Alarid whether Milan Lukic
21 knew that you were alive. Do you recall asking Mr. Alarid that?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. Why did you ask that question?
24 A. Because I asked him, Who told you that I was alive? And they
25 said that Milan Lukic told them.
1 Q. Then why did you ask them whether Milan Lukic knew whether you
2 were still alive?
3 A. No. I said how did they know I was alive?
4 Q. Okay. Thank you. I understand.
5 MR. GROOME: Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you,
7 JUDGE ROBINSON: No questions, Mr. Cepic?
8 MR. CEPIC: Thank you, Your Honour. No questions.
9 MR. ALARID: Briefly.
10 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Alarid, you appear to assume that I'm
11 allowing you to ask further questions.
12 MR. ALARID: I thought you might since it would be redirect,
13 Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, she's a Court witness, but I'll allow you
15 to ask some questions.
16 MR. ALARID: Very few and relevant only to the questions
17 Mr. Groome asked.
18 Could we bring up ERN 0641-6042, please, page 2 of 16, Annex C of
19 P119. And could we go to the bottom of the page, please, and could we go
20 into private session so that the details ...
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 5621-5622 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: I was saying to you, Mr. Alarid, that you have
3 no further witnesses you informed me today, and I want the records to
4 show that the Defence is not utilising the time that the has been
5 afforded. It has been afforded the same time as the Prosecution. When
6 the time that has been allotted to you ends and one looks at the record,
7 it will be seen that you would not have called as many witnesses as the
8 Prosecution, and the records will show the reasons for that.
9 The Chamber has been very lenient with you. We have granted you
10 time to find witnesses. I observed that at this stage just five days or
11 three days from the end of your case, you have called about 19 or 20
12 witnesses. Now, the visual impact of that may not be good, but the
13 records will show that the Chamber was as fair to you as it was to the
15 I have a decision to give, which I'll give now:
16 On the 13th of March, 2009, the Prosecution requested a ruling
17 that allows the parties to quote publicly from open-session testimony in
18 the Vasiljevic case, even though that evidence has been admitted as
19 confidential exhibits in this case. Neither Defence team opposed the
21 The Trial Chamber considers that there is no reason for having
22 under seal parts of transcripts from the Vasiljevic case that are public
23 in that case. The Chamber recalls that pursuant to Rule 75(F) protective
24 measures granted in a previous case continue to have effect in subsequent
25 proceedings. The status of those portions of the Vasiljevic transcripts
1 that are currently under seal in the present case but which are public in
2 the Vasiljevic case will, therefore, be changed to public. The
3 Prosecution is ordered to provide to the Registry redacted versions of
4 the Vasiljevic transcripts that are currently under seal in the Lukic and
5 Lukic case. The Defence should be able to review the redactions which
6 will cover only that testimony that is confidential in the Vasiljevic
8 The redacted versions of the transcript will be given exhibit
9 numbers and uploaded into e-court. The Prosecution may wish to consult
10 with the Registry to find the most effective way of discharging this
12 Mr. Groome.
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, thank you for that. Could I just say
14 that operating under time schedule that is we are operating under,
15 there's an awful lot to do in the next two and a half weeks; and I think
16 it'd be impossible to have the redacted versions prior to the close of
17 the case on the 3rd of April. So could I ask that we be permit to quote
18 from the open session portions, use the current exhibit designation
19 number, and as soon as possible, we will be providing the Chamber or the
20 Registrar with redacted versions, but it's simply impossible to have all
21 of those redactions done when people are so busy trying to do the final
22 trial brief and other things that need to be done in the next two and a
23 half weeks.
24 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we'll allow that.
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I do have an application, if I might,
1 at this time. I'm not sure if the Chamber has covered the decisions that
2 it wants to.
3 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have no other decision for today.
4 MR. GROOME: So Your Honour, prior to CW1 giving evidence, I
5 informed Mr. Brammertz of this development in the case and have discussed
6 the matter with deputy Prosecutor Norman Farrell, and they are in
7 agreement with me that Mr. Milan Lukic should not face an accusation that
8 he murdered someone that the Prosecution is satisfied was not a victim of
9 his crimes. Mr. Brammertz has authorised me to make an oral application
10 to strike the names of any victims that I -- were satisfied were, indeed,
11 not victims of the Pionirska fire. I am satisfied after hearing the
12 evidence of CW1 that three people listed on schedule A of the indictment
13 were not victims in the fire, so I would, therefore, move pursuant to
14 Rule 50 to amend schedule A of the 2nd amended indictment to strike
15 through the names of number 36, Latifa; number 37, Lejla; and number 42,
16 Meva, all having the same surname, Kurspahic.
17 Mr. Alarid has also suggested that the evidence of CW1 suggests
18 that the name of Hasiba, listed as number 27, is also in error. I would
19 refer to the closed session testimony of the differences in spelling
20 between Hasiba and the person Mr. Alarid believes is this person.
21 Demographic evidence also supports the conclusion that number 27,
22 Hasiba Kurspahic, listed on schedule A is, in fact, another person who
23 did die in the fire, and so I am specifically not seeking to remove her
24 name from schedule A of the indictment, and I would -- just so that the
25 record is abundantly clear, I am simply moving to strike those names. I
1 am not seeking to amend any of the charges in the indictment. Thank you,
2 Your Honour.
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I'm not sure if the Chamber had an
6 opportunity to review the clarification filed a couple of days ago, but
7 it seems clear that there are two people by that name, and the
8 Prosecution is only proceeding against -- or it's the theory of the
9 Prosecution case that is the one that is listed on the indictment, and
10 all of the reasons are set out --
11 JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. --
12 MR. GROOME: May I just suggest that we redact the father-in-law
14 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes. Please redact that.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, we should probably redact the whole
16 part because they are singling out certain persons on the list who are
17 related by a certain way.
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes.
19 MR. GROOME: Your Honour -- maybe we should go into private
20 session to discuss how mechanically we do this and preserve the
21 protective measures.
22 JUDGE ROBINSON: Private session, yes.
23 [Private session]
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
17 MR. ALARID: Your Honour, the Defence would not consent to the
18 simple remedy of amending the indictment to remove the names of people
19 that we have proven to be alive and well, despite having been assumed to
20 be killed in part of the allegations in the indictment. The interesting
21 and stunning thing is the fact that this is a first-commission case.
22 This is not a general that's accused of a number of people being under
23 the umbrella of responsibility and conspiracy, but this is a
24 direct-commission case of which I think the relationship between the
25 accused and his victims is very personal and very specific.
1 We cannot treat this as a chaos of war scenario, considering the
2 fact that in this case, numbers of the deceased family have attended this
3 court and made affirmations as to lists that have been included in 92 ter
4 submissions without specific clarification name by name.
5 Then in the alternative, the Prosecution offered Ewa Tabeau, a
6 demographics specialist, who put together a list sort of artificially
7 because it began with the same indictment list that was attached to the
8 second amended indictment, and there was a work back investigation done.
9 Well, the problem we have is this, Your Honours. Not only does
10 CW1 unequivocally I think state four people, and I agree with 26, four
11 people on the indictment were alive and well, but raises serious
12 questions that to a certain degree is confirmed by Ms. Tabeau; i.e.,
13 let's just look at Meho Jasarevic. Meho Jasarevic, the only person we've
14 been able to find with regards to Meho Jasarevic, from the area, was a
15 man born in 1933. So the Prosecution's response is simply, Well, you
16 know it's not the same age as the guy we listed in the indictment.
17 Problem: Nobody exists with that name and date of birth period. Well,
18 there's so many Meho Jasarevics in the Bosnian telephone, 26, to be
19 exact, it could be somebody else. Well, where is that person? Where's
20 the proof that they were in Koritnik, and where's the proof that they
21 were in Pionirska, and the impetus and modus of them becoming part of
22 this group.
23 The fact of the matter is, I think the testimony of this witness
24 brings into doubt at least 15 to 16. The unequivocal ones are just a
25 scratching point, but when you think about how this list was generated,
1 never has the OTP brought a witness --
2 JUDGE ROBINSON: What 15 to 16?
3 MR. ALARID: Well, because there's people that she had never
4 heard of, and then if you go --
5 JUDGE ROBINSON: You should specify them for us.
6 MR. ALARID: We are planning on going through -- we have been
7 preparing a table, and we've been preparing an annex to go step by step
8 exactly, because the problem is that some of those people are sort of
9 bolstered by Ms. Ewa Tabeau's data. Why? No date of birth. No JMBG
10 number. Nothing, nothing that points to it.
11 So the Court has to wrestle with the fact that here's a list of
12 60-some people, and some pop up unequivocally alive, and some of them
13 can't be proven to even have existed, and the people that came in to
14 affirm these people never did so on a case-by-case basis such as -- or
15 person-by-person basis.
16 Then what we have here is a potential that the entire list is
17 flawed. This can't be cured. This goes to the entire core of the charge
18 because in a first-commission case, there is a personal relationship
19 between the accused and his victim. It cannot be made vague in the chaos
20 of war. This is a very specific count, and I think that there is more
21 problems that come out of this, including the fact that is this the same
22 Hasan Kurspahic who requested deserted property in 2004? Which one is
23 that? Or is it the same Meho Jasarevic who requested deserted property
24 in the village of Omeragici
25 request for assistance which names people in Drina, people in Varda that
1 have been requesting their property back, and Pionirska, and that's what
2 we're having here. We're having a situation here where I think -- this
3 man was indicted on rumor first, and no one went down and did the real
4 due diligence it would take to prove if everyone's either dead or alive
5 or we can't tell. And if they're either alive or can't tell, they
6 shouldn't have been on this list in the first place, but you cannot just
7 start taking people off as we find them and treat it as that's the
8 smallest amount of impact that this has on this case.
9 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Groome, Mr. Alarid argues that the
10 discrepancies that exist in relation to -- well, you say 3, he says 15,
11 throws into doubt the entire list of 70.
12 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, my simple submission is that it
13 doesn't. So much of what he has said just now is completely inaccurate.
14 It's difficult to respond point by point. The Prosecution has the report
15 as filed -- essentially, Your Honour, as laid out as clarification in the
16 other reports, is the Prosecution relies on the evidence of eye-witnesses
17 saying that they saw relatives, people they knew die in the fire. Over
18 the summer, we asked the demographic unit to take that list and to
19 examine publicly available records to see what could be found out about
20 those people, and that was on Prosecution Exhibit 119. The fact -- I
21 mean, the Chamber now knows all the circumstances with respect to some of
22 those witnesses and why they were on that list, but it seems to me that
23 all of the issues raised by Mr. Alarid are issues for the final
24 judgement. I mean, the Chamber -- it's the Chamber's task when it comes
25 time to adjudicate this case to look at all the evidence suggesting that
1 these people have died, and the Chamber's entitled to rely simply on the
2 eye-witness testimony of a survivor who says, I saw my relative lying
3 face-down in the water. I went back the next day and saw him there. I
4 jumped out a window and I left my mother behind me or my aunt behind me.
5 I never saw her get out. I haven't seen her in the 17 years since the
6 night of the fire. I left her in that room.
7 The Chamber's entitled to do that. The Chamber is also entitled
8 to look at the demographic evidence and say, Does it contradict, shed
9 doubt on the reliability of what the witnesses say, and if it does shed a
10 reasonable doubt on it, then the Chamber is well aware of its duty, then,
11 to not find that Mr. Milan Lukic killed that person.
12 Just one brief comment about the witness that we've heard.
13 Mr. Alarid makes a very big point about, Well, she didn't recognise some
14 of the names here. Well, if you think back to yesterday, Your Honour,
15 when shown the pictures, she said about one woman she said, I recognise
16 her, I know she's one of the -- from Koritnik. I don't recall her name.
17 So it seems clear that there are some people who lived in that village
18 who she was able to say at least she recognised them from the village but
19 was unable to recall their name so. That might be one explanation as to
20 why there are some people on this list who other witnesses saw and knew
21 but that this woman did not know their names. And again, Your Honour, I
22 believe it's a matter for the final -- for the final deliberations by the
23 Chamber on the matter.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ROBINSON: We're going to reserve on the Prosecution's
1 motion for amendment. So we will adjourn until tomorrow at 8.50.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.17 p.m.
3 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th day of
4 March, 2009, at 8.50 a.m.