1 Tuesday, April 22 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, everyone. We'll continue with the
6 evidence of Mr. Mladenovski, who will now be cross-examined.
7 [The witness entered court]
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Mr. Mladenovski.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: You will now be cross-examined, that is, examined
11 by other counsel. Please remember that the solemn declaration to speak
12 the truth, which you gave yesterday at the beginning of your evidence
13 continues to apply to your evidence today.
14 Mr. Ackerman.
15 MR. ACKERMAN: Thank you, Judge Bonomy.
16 WITNESS: DUSAN MLADENOVSKI [Resumed]
17 [Witness answered through interpreter]
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Ackerman:
19 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Mladenovski.
20 A. Good afternoon.
21 Q. My name is John Ackerman, I represent General Pavkovic. I'm
22 going to ask you just a few questions this afternoon. I think if you
23 listen very carefully to the question, make sure you understand it before
24 you try to answer it, we'll get through this rather quickly, okay. Okay.
25 I saw you nod --
1 A. That's fine.
2 Q. Tell us -- could you tell us where you work now, what you're
3 doing now in your life.
4 A. Well, on the 31st of December, 2006, I stopped working in the
5 army, my service was terminated, that is to say I retired as of the 1st
6 of January, 2007. I'm currently employed. I work on the project of
7 digitalization of the military archives. This project is conducted by
8 non-governmental organization called Jefferson Institute, and I have
9 contract-type work for them.
10 Q. So I assume that involves scanning documents and turning them
11 into computerized documents basically?
12 A. No, no.
13 Q. [Previous translation continues] ...
14 A. My task is --
15 Q. We can go on to something else. Do you know a Professor Aleksic?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So neither he nor anyone else on his behalf has contacted you and
18 asked you for any samples of your handwriting?
19 A. No.
20 Q. And you've not provided any samples of your handwriting to anyone
21 for the use of Professor Aleksic?
22 A. I have not.
23 Q. If we were to ask you to provide handwriting samples for use of
24 an expert witness that we might want to call, would you be willing to do
1 A. You mean here in this court?
2 Q. No, in Belgrade.
3 A. I probably wouldn't, not only to you but to anybody else.
4 Q. All right. Thank you. I'd like 3D1130 then brought up on the
6 JUDGE BONOMY: While we're waiting for that, do you wish to tell
7 us why you would not wish to give handwriting samples?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the question that was
9 put to me whether I would be willing, whether I would wish to provide
10 samples, if I were to be explained why I should give handwriting samples
11 my answer was that I probably wouldn't. However, if it concerns
12 something that I had done, if it were explained to me, if it was
13 necessary to compare to something that I had done previously, then I
14 would provide samples. This is why my answer was: I probably wouldn't.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
16 Mr. Ackerman.
17 MR. ACKERMAN:
18 Q. Well, if we wanted to have our handwriting expert compare your
19 handwriting samples to the writing that you say on this exhibit, 1130,
20 that we should be looking at right now, we wanted him to be able to make
21 those comparisons with handwriting samples from you. Would you then be
22 willing to give him handwriting samples at his direction?
23 A. In that case, yes. If that involved a specific case, just as I
24 have described to His Honour.
25 Q. The specific case is the document we're looking at on the screen,
1 so I take it you'd no objection if Mr. Visnjic gave me your contact
2 details so that we can accomplish that, true?
3 A. Yes.
4 Now, this document --
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just before you move on, Mr. Ackerman, if you have
6 some further procedure in mind, as I know you may from notification given
7 to us, then is there a particular reason why samples cannot be taken
8 here? Have they to be taken in particular circumstances or can you not
9 make use of the presence of the witness to deal with the matter and speed
10 things up?
11 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I am not an expert and I wouldn't
12 know what kind of samples my expert would want to take, what kinds of
13 things he'd want him to write. I assume it would be a series of numbers,
14 but I would really not want to substitute myself for him.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: As long as you bear in mind the urgency of the
16 situation, then we are content.
17 MR. ACKERMAN: I think it can be done pretty quickly, Your
18 Honour, once he returns to Belgrade and we do have our witness organized
19 and prepared I think to do this.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Poised and ready to go.
21 MR. ACKERMAN: I think so. I shouldn't make broad statements
22 like that, but I think that's the situation.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I have to leave for two minutes, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm sorry?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I have to leave for two minutes out of the court.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
4 MR. ACKERMAN: Can we proceed?
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
6 MR. ACKERMAN:
7 Q. You're now looking at 3D1130. Now, I take it this document comes
8 from the archives, that's where it came from; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And how is it you can tell that?
11 A. First of all, these are archive lists which are kept in the
12 military museum together with other documents. Secondly, I see that on
13 page 1 in the upper right corner there is the inventory number that is
14 assigned at the military archives. Then at the end on page 8, yet again
15 I see and recognise my signature, which means that I reviewed this on
16 behalf of the military archives and I received this list together with
17 other documents myself.
18 Q. All right. The reason I asked the question is because you
19 indicate in your statement that -- that there are three or four copies
20 made of the document once you have completed your work with it and it has
21 been given a number, and what -- what I'd like to know from you is: Are
22 all of those copies, three or four, all kept in the archive or do copies
23 go out of the archive?
24 A. Archive lists are produced in three copies in principle. One
25 copy, the original, accompanies original documents and it all constitutes
1 a pile, a set of documents, a bundle; and then one copy remains in the
2 military archives and is used as a source of information in order not to
3 go back to the original bundle every time; and the last copy is returned
4 to the unit which had originally submitted the documents. If this
5 involves a small unit, if this is some independent unit, then a fourth
6 copy is produced for that lower-level unit. But as a said, as a rule it
7 is made in three copies, one, the original, remains in the bundle in the
8 original set; the second copy remains within the archives and is used for
9 information for future; and the third one is returned to the unit. All
10 three copies need to be identical, though.
11 Q. How do you distinguish the one that's on the screen from one that
12 may have been returned to the unit that supplied it in the first place?
13 How can you tell this one is from the archive rather than, say, from the
14 General Staff? Just by looking at it can you tell?
15 A. Well, looking at this photocopy I cannot say whether this is an
16 original or not, but I think that this should be from the archives.
17 However, based on the photocopy one can't tell -- or at least looking at
18 the screen I can't tell.
19 Q. All right. We'll talk about that a little more in just a moment.
20 Where is the archive located physically in Serbia? Where would one find
22 A. You mean right now?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. It is located in the barracks of the military technical
25 institute, Ratka Resanovica number 1, that's the name of the street. I
1 think it's number 1.
2 Q. In Belgrade?
3 A. In Belgrade, yes.
4 Q. Is that where it was in 1999 when you were doing your work?
5 A. No, no.
6 Q. Where was it then?
7 A. Well, at the time when we were involved in this the archive was
8 relocated to several locations because the building where it was housed
9 before had been damaged, so before the bombing began the archive was
10 moved to several locations.
11 Q. And where was it you were doing your work with regard to this
12 particular document as an example?
13 A. We were housed in the military museum in Kalemegdan.
14 Q. How far is that from Belgrade?
15 A. That's in Belgrade.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. Kalemegdan is the prettiest part of Belgrade.
18 Q. I assume I've been there then. What ministry is in control of
19 the archive?
20 A. I don't really know that. I know that for some time the archives
21 was directly within the ministry, and then at some point it was part of
22 the General Staff but I wouldn't be able to tell you at which time it
23 belonged to which institution.
24 Q. So you don't know that in 1999, for instance, and 2000, 2001,
25 through that period that it was under control of the Ministry of Defence?
1 A. I can't remember right now.
2 Q. How about security arrangements at the archive, can anyone just
3 walk in and start looking through documents?
4 A. No, people can't just walk in. There are people who are
5 authorised to handle archive material, they are tasked with it and they
6 work on it, and then everybody else who would like to gain access to
7 enter have to have a special authorisation, which means that they cannot
8 go into the depot where the archive material is; but rather, they need to
9 approach administrators first and gain access. In the archive building
10 there is a reading room and archive material can be made available there
11 upon prior authorisation.
12 Q. And is that room supervised in some way?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So would it be easy for someone to come in and request certain
15 group of archive documents and make changes in them, in the reading room;
16 is that possible?
17 A. I think that's impossible.
18 Q. Okay. At the time you were doing this work that is represented
19 by this exhibit you see in front of you, how many people were working
20 there with you doing the same kind of work?
21 A. I wouldn't be able to give you the exact number, but roughly
22 there were about a dozen of us. We worked in two rooms. We separated
23 along the smoking/non-smoking lines and we worked there under the
24 supervision of superior officers.
25 Q. Okay. Yesterday you were asked by Mr. Visnjic about the two
1 different dates that you can see there on the front of the document and
2 you gave an explanation about that, and that raised some questions I want
3 to ask you. First thing, you said that there was an order from the
4 General Staff that all documents created during the war during the NATO
5 bombing had to be prepared and handed over to the military archives for
6 safekeeping and classification. Do you know when that order was entered,
8 A. Perhaps I said yesterday that it was the General Staff. Now, I
9 don't know whether it was, indeed, the General Staff or the ministry.
10 The answer to your question is that I don't know because it was our
11 superior officers who received that and we dealt with completely
12 different matters. I don't know about that particular order, about
13 gathering and turning over that archive material.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you can just say you don't
15 know and we can move along. You also said during that answer: "There
16 was an enormous quantity of these documents."
17 Do you have any idea of how many documents or pages of documents
18 there were that were turned over created during the NATO bombing? Do you
19 have any idea of the number?
20 A. I don't.
21 Q. Would it have been in the hundreds of thousands or in the
23 A. There probably were hundreds of thousands, but I really don't
24 know the number because these records were kept by another person. It
25 wasn't within our scope of work.
1 Q. All right. You also said in answer to that question these words:
2 "They needed to first of all put them in the right order, then to fill in
3 the archive lists, to pack them in bundles, after that load them on
4 trucks. Usually the material would arrive on trucks for the most part."
5 First of all, who is they who put them in the right order and
6 filled them in the archive lists?
7 A. I don't know who was selected to prepare documents and type up
8 lists. I don't know that. I don't know who gathered and put it in the
9 right order and brought them, I don't.
10 Q. Well, you said they needed to put them in the right order and
11 fill in the archive list, you must have somebody in mind. What group of
12 people were involved in doing that, do you have any idea at all?
13 A. I don't know. I don't know who did it in each unit, how, in
14 which way, because I never went to assist them nor was I made aware of it
15 at all.
16 Q. Your department didn't do any of this kind of work, did it?
17 A. Our service had contract workers, and they were the ones
18 providing assistance. So whenever somebody needed assistance they would
19 get somebody from outside and they were called contract workers who were
20 brought in to assist.
21 Q. I think we're having a communication problem. Somehow these
22 documents got put together and loaded on trucks and sent to where you
23 were working, as I understand it. Somebody organized them and put them
24 in packages and put them on these trucks and sent them to you, and I
25 think you've told me you don't know who did that. But I think you will
1 tell me that this list that we have here on the screen in front of us was
2 not made by you but made by the people who were preparing those documents
3 to send them to you. That's true, isn't it?
4 A. I don't understand your question. What do you mean, archive list
5 that was typed up on a typewriter or what?
6 Q. Look at the document on your screen. That's the document I'm
7 talking about. That wasn't prepared where you were working; it was
8 prepared at another location, wasn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And this one came from the General Staff if you believe the stamp
11 on the upper left-hand corner; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And it came to you with all those blanks down there filled in
14 accompanied by a stack of documents in a folder; that's right, isn't it?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now if we can go rather quickly to the last page of this
17 document. If we look down there at the bottom, doesn't it indicate who
18 it was who actually prepared this list, warrant officer second class
19 Miodrag Jankovic?
20 A. Yes, that is stated and warrant officer Miodrag Jankovic's
21 signature is there, but I don't know whether he was the one who brought
22 it, prepared it, and everything else.
23 Q. Now, there came a time when you were contacted to provide
24 information about this document by, I think, an investigator for
25 Mr. Visnjic perhaps, and you gave a statement, as a matter of fact, about
1 this document. I'm wondering if during that process where you were
2 concerned about this document and being asked about it you had occasion
3 to get in touch with Miodrag Jankovic and ask him if he remembered
4 anything about it; did you do that?
5 A. I didn't.
6 Q. Okay. Now, I take it what would happen then, that you would be
7 handed or you would get somehow this folder to have this list and a bunch
8 of documents and your job was to go through it and check it to make sure
9 it was all together and accurate and everything on it was correct; is
10 that true?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And if we go back to the first page now, which I think we can do
13 fairly quickly, now if we just look right there at that first entry, line
14 number 1, you apparently made a correction there, crossed out a 2 and put
15 in a 3; right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And I take it you did that because the document represented by
18 line 1 was not a two-page document as Mr. Jankovic had indicated but a
19 three-page document. You counted it and said, no, no, no, this has three
20 pages instead of two, right?
21 A. Three leaves because this is not about pages but rather leaves,
23 Q. What's the difference between a leaf and a page? I don't
25 A. Well, in archive work we deal with leaves, that's the term --
1 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... a leaf is a piece of paper
2 that can be printed on both sides, so it can be two pages printed on both
3 sides, right?
4 A. Yes, yes. A leaf has two pages.
5 Q. And then down in line 4 you crossed out a 3 and put in a 4;
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And down in line 6 that requires you to explain that to me. Line
9 6 under log number and date, you seem to have crossed out a 6 and put a
10 5, and then you've written some other number underneath. Why'd you do
12 A. When conducting the check, and let me mention that our superior
13 officers explained to us the procedure we were to follow, they were with
14 us all the time. When we found any irregularities such as this one, the
15 person who prepared this said it was 140/1 to 6 in the log-book. If I
16 had the document before we I could show you, but in any case I
17 established that in the log there was 140-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively,
18 but there was an additional document numbered 217-1. So that whoever
19 prepared this list entered the correct number of documents, but the
20 log-book numbers did not correspond to the actual situation. I don't
21 know whether I've explained it clearly enough.
22 Q. There are -- I counted it and I'm not going to go through every
23 page, but I counted 68 places just in this one document where you had to
24 make corrections. Does that sound about right to you?
25 A. Well, let me tell you, if you counted 68, I can tell you there
1 was some lists without any mistakes and there were others with 60 or 100
2 mistakes. It all depended on who prepared the document and how.
3 Q. I assume that with the war going on and the order to get all
4 these things archived that everybody was working under a bit of pressure
5 to try to get this work done and short-handed and working pretty hard; is
6 that true?
7 A. I think that the war was over by the time these lists were
8 prepared. I think the war was already finished. As to whether they were
9 under a bit of pressure or not, I don't know.
10 Q. Did you feel like you were under a bit of pressure?
11 A. No, because it was in 1999, the documents started arriving. In
12 the meantime the building where the military archive was to be housed
13 came under renovation. We were not under any pressure. Nobody drove us
14 to work quickly. All we had to concentrate on was to work correctly and
15 with precision.
16 Q. If my count is correct, how could it be that Miodrag Jankovic
17 would make 68 mistakes just in this one document if he wasn't under
18 pressure and hurrying? What would account for that?
19 A. Well, you would have to ask Jankovic that; he would probably be
20 able to tell you. But I really don't know how to answer this question.
21 Q. Now, how many of these would you do in a day? How many folders
22 of documents could you do in a day, do you have any idea?
23 A. It would all depend on the number of documents in the folder.
24 There was some with 10 documents, others with 15, others with 50, 500, or
25 1.000. It did not depend on me but on the number of documents in a
2 Q. That makes complete sense. Look at the one we're dealing with
3 here I guess is a relatively small one. How long would you say it would
4 take you to do what you did with this document, how much time would that
5 have taken?
6 A. Well, I couldn't tell you exactly. I'd have to see the
7 documents, and I really don't know how much time I would have needed for
9 Q. I really am not looking for a precise number, but would it take
10 you all day to do this one?
11 A. Probably not. Probably not.
12 Q. So you might do ten like this in a day if they were all the same
14 A. On condition they were put in good order and that there weren't
15 too many corrections. Ten, yes, but if not too many corrections were
17 Q. Now, in -- over this period of time that you did this would you
18 say you did hundreds of these folders or thousands of these folders?
19 What would be your best guess as to how many you did?
20 A. I have no idea, believe me. I haven't a clue. We worked from
21 1999 until we had to move back to the building where the military
22 archives were to be housed.
23 Q. So hundreds at least?
24 A. I don't know, I really don't.
25 Q. That's all right.
1 A. Maybe more, maybe less.
2 Q. All right. At the top you told us yesterday you entered numbers
3 there that resulted from your counting of the number of documents and the
4 number of pages or leaves; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And in this particular one you found that there were 277
7 documents and 735 pages; right?
8 A. Leaves, not pages, correct.
9 Q. All right, leaves, yes. And how did you add these up? Did you
10 have a machine that you added on or did you write the numbers down on
11 paper and add them up, or how did you do the addition?
12 A. Well, I combined methods. First I went down column 5, each page
13 from 1 to 8 - I explained this yesterday - so every page at the bottom of
14 the page I would enter a number, up to page 8. Then I would add all
15 these subtotals, and then we would check it with a calculator. So first
16 we added up manually. I personally would take the first page, I would go
17 from 1 to 6, and then I would go back from 6 to 1 in order to check my
18 own addition. I would go down the page and then up the page, and I would
19 do the same for column 6, the number of leaves.
20 Q. Bearing in mind that Miodrag Jankovic apparently made 68 mistakes
21 in one document, I guess you would concede that it was possible for you
22 to make one or two occasionally; right?
23 A. Well, let me tell you, if I made a mistake the people who then
24 took the documents over and continued working on them would notice. When
25 the bundles were finished they were dealt with further and there would be
1 a person who would check everything probably. I'm not absolutely sure
2 that's what happened, but I was never told I had made any mistakes, to
3 the best of my recollection.
4 Q. I guess what you just said is you're not sure that there was
5 somebody who actually went into a detailed review of your work to see if
6 you had counted correctly and things like that. I think you mentioned
7 yesterday there was one person who got the documents after you finished
8 who entered the archive number and did the additional work. I assume she
9 did that for everybody who was working in your group; true?
10 A. Well, I said yesterday this person was an archivist who was in
11 charge of the complete records. After the procedure was completed there
12 was still things to be done. I don't know precisely what or how, but to
13 the best of my recollection she was supposed to separate out the three
14 copies of the list, put one in the bundle, put one in the archives for
15 information, send one back to the unit, and pack up the bundle, put it in
16 a crate. I'm not sure what she did exactly, how she did it. I'm just
17 assuming this is what was done.
18 Q. Okay. Let's look at page 7 now, it has line 82 on it. We're
19 going to kind of focus in on line 82 there. Now, one thing I guess must
20 be absolutely true, and that is this was long ago and you did many of
21 these and you do not have any specific memory of the work you did on this
22 document at all; all you can do is look at it and draw conclusions from
23 what you see. But in terms of your memory of actually doing this
24 document, you have none, right?
25 A. Well, first of all to the best of my recollection what I can see
1 here is that I signed this list, which means that I was the one who dealt
2 with it; secondly, there are lots of lists that were done, yes. So it's
3 only by looking at my signature I can be sure that I did this one, and
4 then looking at the handwriting, the numbers.
5 Q. Now, if we look at line 82, you told us yesterday that it was
6 done wrong, that those numbers should have been written above the
7 crossed-out numbers instead of below; correct?
8 A. I don't think I said there was an error, it was done wrong; I
9 just said that we were told what procedure we should follow when entering
10 these corrections. We were told that only if there was not enough room
11 in the little box or if the number was very high up in the box and there
12 was no room to enter a number above the number we had crossed out, only
13 then should we write the number below the number we were correcting. And
14 in this case I can see there was enough room to enter the number above.
15 Q. Well, okay, then you're saying whoever did this was not following
16 the correct procedure when they put the number below instead of above; is
17 that a fair statement?
18 A. Yes, after the receipt of this bundle, if somebody was entering
19 corrections these had to be entered but they would have to be initialled.
20 Whoever entered the correction would have to initial it. That's one
21 thing. And secondly, looking at it as a lay person I think that this was
22 done by someone who was not an expert because they forgot that the front
23 page should also then be corrected, the one containing the total number
24 of documents and leaves. That's my opinion.
25 Q. All right. Let me suggest something to you and just tell us
1 whether you think this is possible or not. Before this ever got to you,
2 it was put together by this guy, Miodrag Jankovic, who made several
3 mistakes. Do you think it's possible that he spent a long time typing up
4 this document, a lot of typing on here, a lot of detailed typing and
5 stuff goes into this, spent a long time putting it together, thought he
6 was finished with it, all of a sudden discovered he had left a document
7 out, and rather than retype the whole thing, he just wrote in 248-2 and
8 the number 2 and the number 5. That could have been happened, couldn't
10 A. I don't think so. I don't think so because then the total number
11 of documents and leaves on the front page would have been different;
12 that's my opinion.
13 Q. That's if somebody counted it properly. You can make a mistake
14 counting too, can't you?
15 A. Well, one can make a mistake, but I don't think I did in this
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I ask just one supplementary question on that.
18 If this proposal were correct -- or at least if this had happened and
19 this alteration was made and the front page had been altered, if both of
20 these things had happened, would you have accepted the document in this
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You mean if the numbers tallied on
23 the front page also, the number of documents and leaves?
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Probably I would, yes.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: So --
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But again, looking at all of this
3 it doesn't look like the figures written in my handwriting --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: No, that's -- I -- that's a separate question.
5 And -- so even without an initial a person presenting the document to you
6 can make alterations on it that you would accept as long as the figures
7 were correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I understand your question
9 correctly, that person, if they wanted to add something in my presence, I
10 would enter the correction and initial it.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but could they alter it before they brought
12 it to you in a way that you would accept without any initial?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so, no.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Ackerman.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
16 MR. ACKERMAN:
17 Q. If this had come to you with the 248-2 written in there and the
18 number 2 and the number 5 in place of 1 and 3, you would have noticed
19 that the numbers written on page 1 in terms of pages and documents was
20 wrong, wouldn't you?
21 A. I didn't understand your question, I'm sorry.
22 Q. I'm not even sure I want to take the time to explain it. When
23 you add one document and two pages, like is added at line 82, then the
24 totals on the front page are incorrect?
25 A. In this case, yes.
1 Q. But those totals on the front page are not entered by the person
2 Miodrag Jankovic who prepares the document; those totals on the front
3 page are only entered by you. Correct?
4 A. Miodrag Jankovic was supposed to enter the total number of
5 documents and leaves when he prepared this list. As he had not entered
6 this, our superiors explained to us that in that case we should enter
7 this rather than sending it back for Miodrag Jankovic to do it. So they
8 said that where a column was blank, we should enter whatever had to be
9 entered in it.
10 Q. Okay. Let's go back to page 1 because I think we're confused but
11 I want to make sure. All right. Up there in the upper right-hand corner
12 there is a box, and in that box there's a date and the number of
13 documents and the number of pages. Now, Miodrag Jankovic is supposed to
14 put the number of documents and leaves in that before he gets it to you
15 or is that supposed to be left blank?
16 A. He was supposed to enter the number of documents and leaves in
17 these little boxes where it says documents and leaves, he and everybody
18 else who prepared this list was supposed to do it. There were other
19 documents where the number of documents and leaves had been entered but
20 they were incorrect and we had to correct them. So we would correct that
21 as well as the other things.
22 Q. Well, that's another mistake that he made; true?
23 A. I suppose so.
24 Q. Now, these three copies that are made of this document, did you
25 make any effort to find any of the copies that were made of this document
1 at the time when you were asked questions about this document by the
2 investigator for Mr. Visnjic? Did you see if you could find any copies
3 that had been made?
4 A. No, I didn't.
5 Q. And the last question I want to ask you about this document --
6 well, yes, the last one maybe. Should there not be a stamp on here
7 somewhere showing receipt and the date of receipt of this document by the
8 archive by your organization? Shouldn't that appear on this document?
9 A. I don't understand what you mean by stamp.
10 Q. Just some kind of a stamp that says this document was received by
11 the archive department on such and such a date. Shouldn't there be some
12 kind of an indication when you received it from the General Staff?
13 A. Well, quite honestly, I don't know because that did not fall
14 within my sphere of work, whether the office of the military archives was
15 supposed to enter that or not, I don't know.
16 Q. All right. I want to explore a couple of mysteries now, maybe
17 you can help me solve them. First of all, in the upper right-hand corner
18 of this document you see there on the screen, I take it you don't see any
19 kind of an archive stamp there, do you, a round archive stamp?
20 A. On the photocopy you can't see it, and on the screen I can't see
21 it either.
22 Q. Okay. I want you to now look at another document, it's 3D1108.
23 It will show up here on your document in just a moment. And this is the
24 copy as explained yesterday was supplied by the archive but not in --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We haven't got it yet, Mr. Ackerman. Just a
2 MR. ACKERMAN:
3 Q. You see that? Now, that's the same document we've been looking
4 at but it has an archive stamp, a round archive stamp. How do you
5 explain that that one has an archive stamp and the other one didn't?
6 A. Yes, yes.
7 Q. Can you explain that?
8 A. I think that -- no. I really can't explain that because the
9 person who handed this over is the only one who can explain it. A
10 photocopy has to be certified. Why one has the stamp and the other one
11 doesn't, I really couldn't explain.
12 Q. Okay. I want to look really quickly now at 3D1131. Now, my
13 first question is: Have you ever seen this document before to your
15 A. No.
16 Q. All right. I want to go to page 2. Now, we need to go down
17 about halfway, it's entry number 250 and we need to blow it up as much as
18 possible. On the right-hand side of 250 where it says -- I may have to
19 give you a hard copy for you to be able to see -- you can probably see it
20 now. 250 it has a stamp over there, and it indicates that it was entered
21 in the archives of the VJ in the year 06, 2006. Do you see that?
22 A. Yes, I see it. It's not very legible, but yes I can see it.
23 Q. It says 06 Godina, right? Like 06 Godina?
24 A. I can't see it very well, but it does look like a 6, yes.
25 Q. Would it help if I showed you a hard copy just so you can be
1 sure? Would that make it easier for you to be sure?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Yes, I can see it now, it is 2006, yes.
5 Q. I need to have it back now. Now, if we look over in the
6 left-hand column we're looking at documents that have entry dates of 15
7 and 26 May of 1999; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So can you explain how some 2006 entry was made on this document
10 from those earlier dates, how that happened?
11 A. Well, first of all, let me tell you that I don't know how this
12 happened. As for what it says in columns 9 and 10, that means that they
13 turned over the log-book to the military archives in 2006. Now, as to
14 why they didn't do that earlier, I don't know that.
15 Q. All right. And finally I'd like you to look at IC195, that's the
16 document you wrote on yesterday. And you see your writing there in red,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I have a simple question for you: Were you trying to make the 5
20 you made yesterday look like the one underneath it? Was that something
21 you tried to do or did it just happen naturally?
22 A. Well, first of all I didn't quite understand the question put by
23 Mr. Visnjic so I started writing 3 and that wasn't deliberate. Now, as
24 for me correcting anything, no, I had no intention of doing it.
25 Q. I have no further questions. Thank you.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I'm sorry, I have a question from the Bench. Did
3 you have a microfilming system in the archives, microfilming of the
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I came to the archive
6 on the 13th of July, 1999. It was after the war, after the bombing.
7 Microfiche documents exist, they had been put on microfiche before. As
8 far as I know it wasn't possible to microfilm documents after 1999
9 because the laboratory and the equipment had been destroyed.
10 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Now, the next question for my own understanding
11 is: Who set the criteria, the standard, for putting documents in the
12 archives? I mean, did somebody check the criteria or any document would
13 come? And then the second aspect would be: What system existed for
14 inspection of the documents by anybody who would like to have access to
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Who set the criteria? When it
17 comes to documents, I don't know that. As for the second part of your
18 question, I didn't quite understand it. Did you have in mind how
19 documents can be used or what? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the second
20 part of your question.
21 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I need a document -- I just want to see a
22 document, I go to the archives or whosoever is in charge. What am I to
23 do to make a formal request that I want to see a document and then how
24 would that be inspected? Did you allow somebody to take the pen inside
25 or only a pencil which could be rubbered off or could he take pictures or
1 could he copy it? What happened? I mean, how did you preserve the
2 document after it was given over to somebody for inspection? I mean, how
3 was that done? Who was overseeing what was happening?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I've understood it now. In the
5 military archive there are collections which contain open material, and
6 that material is open for all researchers. In that case persons who are
7 citizens of Serbia need just come in and submit a request to the chief of
8 the military archive and write the topic that they want to research.
9 Then the chief of the military archive would either authorise them or not
10 authorise them. And following that they would receive the documents that
11 they could review. In the reading room where the documents are normally
12 inspected, there mustn't be - at least that's how it used to be - any
13 cameras, all cameras are prohibited, as is all additional equipment. The
14 desks had to be without drawers, and the bags that researchers brought
15 with them had to be kept separately. And there was always a custodian
16 present in the reading room to assist and to supervise. This pertains to
17 the open archive material. When it comes to foreign citizens, then a
18 request needs to be made through an embassy or through the Ministry of
19 Foreign Affairs. At any rate, the request is submitted through the
20 appropriate embassy. When it comes to collections containing closed
21 material, there is the material that has not been put in right order, and
22 that is of classified nature. There is a special procedure for accessing
23 those documents, but unfortunately I'm not very familiar with this field
24 because I worked in the department for open, non-classified material, and
25 the procedure there was different.
1 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I wonder if you can answer this question, but
2 after how long, after what passage of time, a classified material became
3 unclassified and open? Was there a system?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that is done
5 identically at the level of all archives in the world. As far as I know,
6 there is a set period of time that needs to pass before material is
7 opened up for research. Until that is done, the material needs to be put
8 in order and prepared in order to be made available to the researchers.
9 That's all that I know.
10 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Thank you.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, do you have any questions?
12 MR. HANNIS: I do, if I may, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
14 Cross-examination by Mr. Hannis:
15 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, you described how there were -- there was one
16 original and then I think there were three copies made of this inventory
17 that's in Exhibit 3D1130.
18 MR. HANNIS: If we could have that on the screen again.
19 Q. Is that right, there are three copies made in addition to the one
21 A. I said in principle there were three copies in total. And when
22 necessary, when an independent unit needed it, then a fourth copy would
23 be produced; but in principle, there existed only three copies.
24 Q. And were the copies made with a colour copier or is it a
25 black-and-white copy?
1 A. As far as I could observe, they were all black and white. You
2 know, while we used typewriters one could see that a copy is made through
3 a carbon paper. But when we improved the equipment, I think that people
4 made one copy and then made copies based on that or they saved it as an
5 original and then made additional copies; but I'm not fully familiar with
7 Q. The reason I ask is the copy we have on the screen now we can see
8 the stamp in the upper left-hand corner is red with some blue ink
9 writing, and the handwritten changes you told us you made and the totals
10 appear to be in blue ink. So that leads me to wonder: Is this the
11 original or is this a colour copy of the original?
12 A. Well, looking at this I would say that this is the original, but
13 this is by no means certain because when three copies are produced these
14 identical stamps can be placed on all three of them and numbers entered.
15 Q. But the handwriting in blue ink would only be on the original and
16 the copies would appear in black, as in a photocopy; right?
17 A. For example, we had three archive lists. We weren't allowed to
18 copy them. We weren't allowed to do it in any other way. After
19 correcting the first copy, we had to correct the second and the third
20 copy. So basically all of them had blue ink, which means that there was
21 no photocopying. We were not allowed to photocopy this because this was
22 not our document.
23 Q. Okay. Now I think I understand. So in essence you made three
24 originals at the same time with the handwritten changes on each of the
25 three copies; right?
1 A. Based on how this was done, yes. But, for example, if the person
2 preparing the lists, he may have made one as the original and then the
3 authorised officer signed the original and then second and third copy
4 were the photocopies. So when we corrected something, then they were all
5 considered originals; but when things were signed, it's possible that the
6 person signing signed just the first copy and the second and third were
8 Q. Okay. But as far as the handwritten changes you made, did you
9 make them on three separate copies, or did you make them on one copy and
10 then photocopy that one that you had made handwritten changes on?
11 A. We would first do it on the one copy, we would make corrections
12 and check the document. Once we were done with the first one, then we
13 would take the second one and do the same and then the third one.
14 Q. And so you made handwriting on a second copy and a third copy
15 where you filled in the number of documents and the number of leaves in
16 your own handwriting, in blue ink?
17 JUDGE BONOMY: He's answered that twice, Mr. Hannis.
18 MR. HANNIS: Okay. I'm sorry, Your Honour, I didn't --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
20 MR. HANNIS: -- follow that.
21 Q. All right. So if this one entry that you told us you did not
22 make was made by another individual at a later date, wouldn't we be able
23 to understand that by obtaining the other two copies to see if the same
24 change had been made on those two?
25 A. I would need to see all copies. Perhaps it is visible there, but
1 I don't know it right now. I don't know whether it was done on all
2 copies or not.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it may be that we have one of them, which is
5 MR. HANNIS: I see Mr. Visnjic on his feet.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
7 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have an explanation
8 for this, for why there is a stamp in the upper corner. The explanation
9 is of a technical nature, but I can do it later --
10 JUDGE BONOMY: You can deal with it in re-examination I take it.
11 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I don't think that this is a
12 question that should be put to the witness. It's a matter of technical
13 nature explaining how the documents are provided by the government to the
14 Tribunal, and the witness doesn't know anything about that.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, we can hear that later. Thank you.
16 Mr. Hannis.
17 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
18 Q. On this document in the upper left-hand corner where we have a
19 stamp from the Supreme Command Staff, could you read that number for me?
20 It's a confidential number and the date is the 10th of August. Could you
21 read the number that's on that original?
22 A. 400-6, if I can see this well on the monitor.
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I know it's been translated in the
24 English version as 100-K. I think if we look at 3D1108 you'll see that
25 copy, the quality I guess is so much different that I can understand how
1 the number on 1108 might have gotten translated as 100-K instead of
2 400-6. I think you see that now.
3 Q. I'm sorry, Witness, I don't have another question for you about
4 that. But I did want to ask you, in terms of when people are in the
5 reading room in the archive, is there some kind of log or guest book or
6 register kept of who came to look at documents and which documents they
7 looked at?
8 A. I can tell you as far as the department where I was an
9 administrator, there are full records concerning the open material kept
10 there about persons who worked in the reading room. It is normally
11 recorded exactly what documents they inspected, what they photocopied,
12 what was issued to them, and so on. As for the other department, I don't
13 know since I didn't work there.
14 Q. Okay. I notice the date in the stamp in the left-hand corner
15 from the Supreme Command Staff is the 10th of August and then the date I
16 guess that you checked this group of documents in is the 24th of
17 September, 1999. Do you know any reason why there was a six-week
18 difference? Was it just typed up and it took them six weeks to bring it
19 to you, or do you know?
20 A. I think that I answered that question yesterday when Defence
21 counsel asked me what I thought about the time-period between the 10th of
22 August and the 24th. Should I repeat that?
23 Q. Yeah, because I didn't hear it or I forget.
24 A. Well, as I explained yesterday, when the list was prepared and
25 when all the bundles were packed up, loaded on a truck, because there was
1 a lot of material and it was mostly brought in by trucks, most likely
2 they needed to load it up and to come to the location where we were
3 housed and then it needed to be unloaded there and then it needed to be
4 put in right order before we proceeded with inspecting and receiving
5 these documents. Physically it was impossible to inspect the amount of
6 material that was brought in. Physically it was impossible. Most likely
7 this is why there is this situation with the dates.
8 Q. I take it it's not unusual for there to be a gap of time between
9 the date it's typed up and the time that you receive it, right?
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Hannis, the witness started working in the
11 archive after the war and this seemed to be an exceptional situation
12 where there were piles of documents which had been compiled during the
13 war which had to be dealt with as I understand.
14 MR. HANNIS: That's satisfactory.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: This wasn't a routine situation.
16 MR. HANNIS:
17 Q. And the last one --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that correct or is that ...
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes. Because if you
20 were to receive a large number of documents, you would need a certain
21 amount of time to go over it, to prepare it. So it's very similar. One
22 couldn't do it from one day to the next one, and this is not something
23 that can be done in haste. It needs to be done properly because it is
24 retained permanently and there shouldn't be any mistakes there.
25 MR. HANNIS:
1 Q. Thank you. And the last topic I wanted to ask you about at page
2 18, line 20, Mr. Ackerman asked you about a possibility of
3 Milorad [sic] Jankovic who typed up this list, if in doing that he
4 realized he had made a mistake and perhaps made that handwritten change
5 and wrote in 248-2 and changed the number from 1 and 3 to 2 and 5 before
6 he brought it to you. Wouldn't you have noticed that there was a
7 handwritten change made by somebody before it reached you?
8 A. First of all, his name is Miodrag. I think that you used another
9 first name.
10 Q. I did.
11 A. What I said is this: Had he corrected it, this would have been
12 taken into account when adding up documents and leaves on the first page.
13 Q. But if he had made that change where he had entered the
14 handwritten entry below the number instead of above, would you have
15 changed that and moved it to above the typewritten number in accordance
16 with your standard procedures?
17 A. I'm telling you that if he had entered the correction, he should
18 have initialled it.
19 Q. And you had seen some corrections on there, when you received it
20 you would have asked him to put his initials on it, right?
21 A. If he had not initialled it, I would have told my immediate
22 superior, then he would have taken action. But if he corrected it and
23 didn't initial it, then ...
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Sorry, could you complete that answer. In fact,
25 answer that again, please. What you -- what's been recorded here doesn't
1 make sense. The question is: Would you have asked him to put his
2 initials beside any correction he had made?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that if I were to come
4 across such a situation where it was entered in this way and that there
5 were no initials indicating who had made the correction, then I would
6 have given it to my immediate supervisor for him to take appropriate
7 action. And if there were initials indicating who had made the
8 correction, then I would have accepted it; and if there were no initials,
9 I would have given it to my superior, because our superiors were there to
10 handle situations of this nature, a situation where things were unclear
11 to us and where we didn't know how to proceed, they would take over then.
12 MR. HANNIS:
13 Q. And if you had a document like this where the changes were made
14 below the number instead of above the number by someone else other than
15 you, you wouldn't have let that go through, would you, because you know
16 your bosses would have complained to you about not following procedure;
18 JUDGE BONOMY: You see, that's a meaningless question,
19 Mr. Hannis, with all due respect, because what matters is the initial.
20 So let's ask the question on the basis that the number is below and is
21 initialled, if you think there's any point in asking that question.
22 MR. HANNIS: No, Your Honour, I'll stop there. Thank you.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 Now, Mr. Visnjic, is there re-examination?
25 MR. VISNJIC: Yes, Your Honour, I have some questions.
1 Re-examination by Mr. Visnjic:
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could we see in e-court the same
3 exhibit, that is to say the one we see now, and would it be possible to
4 see pages 7 and 8 in B/C/S on the screen simultaneously?
5 On the left half could we zoom in to row 82, especially the
6 figures in that row. A bit more, a bit more. This is fine. And then on
7 the right side we need the following page, page 9. I apologise. [In
8 English] Right, the last page, the last page on the right side -- oh,
9 then down. I'm sorry. Then [Interpretation] scroll down, please,
10 towards the bottom, we need the signature in the left corner. Could we
11 enlarge the signature as much as possible. A bit more. Thank you.
12 Q. Sir, Mr. Mladenovski, in your career how many times did it happen
13 that one person made corrections in one type of pencil and then takes a
14 fountain pen and signs it?
15 A. It happened often, especially when it comes to signing because
16 it's much nicer to sign in a fountain pen.
17 Q. Mr. Ackerman asked you whether you worked under pressure and how
18 much time you needed to do the archive lists, and you started giving an
19 answer on page 15. And you said that you worked on this type of material
20 from 1999. Can you tell us how long was this material worked on? You
21 said from 1999 until it was time to move into the building.
22 A. Well, it could have been late 2000 or early 2001, when the
23 building was ready to be moved in. It could have been June or July 2001
24 that we moved into the building, the building that had been renovated.
25 Naturally we had to make preparations to move everything that had been
1 placed elsewhere, to put it back into the building, to pack everything so
2 that the archive could work properly.
3 Q. So if I understood you well, it could have been at least a year
4 and a half to two years?
5 A. Something like that. And as for us working under pressure, I
6 said that we didn't. Nobody really drove us to work --
7 Q. Yes, that's fine. Mr. Ackerman asked you about the possibility
8 of having some person, let's say Miodrag Jankovic, making a correction of
9 the document before the document reached you. The Prosecutor asked you
10 the same thing. I'm asking you this now: Based on what you said today,
11 when could a correction in the archive list be made at the earliest?
12 A. The earliest it could have been made was after the 24th of
13 September, that is to say the 25th of September, 1999. Theoretically the
14 latest it could have been done was until the date the archive list was
15 photocopied, but I'm saying theoretically that is.
16 Q. Thank you.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: I am not understanding that, I'm afraid. This is
18 between -- the date you've got is between the arrival in the office, is
19 it? I think I'm now not understanding what the relevance of the 24th of
20 September is.
21 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] As far as I understood based on
22 what the witness said, Your Honours, the correction in row 82 could have
23 been done after the 24th of September until today, until the photocopy
24 was made, not before the 24th of September.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes. So what I've now not understood is the
1 significance of the 24th of September.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] If you look on page 1 when this
3 archive list was made up, if you look at the first page --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I understand the idea, but it's what the
5 relevance of the 24th of September is.
6 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That's the day when the inspection
7 was made and the archive list was signed, where there was no correction
8 in that document.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: The day it's signed by whom?
10 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, who signed this archive list on the 24th of
12 September, 1999?
13 A. I did.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: So how could an alteration be made after that
15 date? I'm sorry, it must be my stupidity, but I'm not understanding how
16 after the 24th - where is your question? - your question was: When
17 could -- make a correction before the document reached the witness.
18 "When could a correction in the archive list be made by Jankovic?" And
19 the answer is: After the 24th. Now, I have to say, Mr. Visnjic, I do
20 not understand that. I thought that was impossible on what we've been
21 told so far. So please try to help me or explain where I'm being stupid.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my question may have
23 been a rhetorical one. What we are claiming is that after the 24th of
24 September, 1999, which includes the imaginary Miodrag Jankovic, somebody
25 entered a correction in the archive list without authorisation to do so,
1 and that could have been done between the 24th of September and the day
2 when the photocopy arrived at the Tribunal.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's not the question in English, so it
4 may be a translation difficulty. The question was: "Mr. Ackerman asked
5 you about the possibility of having some person, let's say Jankovic,
6 making a correction of the document before it reached you. The
7 Prosecutor asked you the same thing. I'm asking you this now: Based on
8 what you said today, when could a correction in the archive list be made
9 at the earliest?"
10 I assumed that question related to the same issue, but you're
11 saying it relates to a different issue.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's more a conclusion
13 than fact so I'll move on.
14 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
15 Are you going to be much longer because we'll run out of -- we're
16 already well past the break and we'll run out of -- it would be nice to
17 finish with the witness and I thought that's what you were trying to do.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: It would help not to complicate things.
20 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Could I please ask the witness to
21 be shown 3D1131, page 2, and could we show column 248, the B/C/S version
22 will suffice, the right-hand side. Could we have the right-hand corner
23 of row 248, a bit more. A bit more.
24 Q. Mr. Mladenovski, do you see the stamp in red ink in column number
25 9, line 248?
1 A. Well, it's not very clear, but it looks like the 31st of --
2 Q. Can we zoom in a little bit. A bit more, please. Thank you.
3 Can you see it now?
4 A. Could we please scroll up a little bit or down, down.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 A. The 31st of July, 1999.
7 Q. And what does it say next to that?
8 A. It says keep permanently, military archives, inventory number
9 21606/99 and there are initials there.
10 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us what in your view this date
11 represents, the 31st of July, 1999?
12 A. I assume this should be the date to the best of my recollection
13 in the log-book. That's when the document is handed over to the person
14 in charge of archiving the material.
15 Q. Thank you. And could we take another look at 3D1130, please,
16 page 5. Could we look at number 5 in the B/C/S version, correction where
17 the number 5 has been entered. [In English] Yes. Thank you.
18 [Interpretation] Could we have IC197, please -- 5, sorry.
19 Mr. Mladenovski, have you ever used an electronic pen to write on
21 A. The first time.
22 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
23 questions for this witness. Could I give you my explanation after the
24 break in connection with the stamp?
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
1 Mr. Mladenovski, that completes your evidence. Thank you for
2 coming to the Tribunal to give evidence. You may now leave the courtroom
3 with the usher.
4 [The witness withdrew]
5 JUDGE BONOMY: And we shall take the break now and resume at 20
6 minutes past 4.00.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.58 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Visnjic.
10 MR. ACKERMAN: Excuse me just a moment. I don't want interrupt
11 and I hesitate doing this, but what Mr. Visnjic is fixing to explain to
12 you all is of evidentiary significance, then I think it's improper for
13 him to be explaining it, it should come from a witness. But I leave that
14 judgement to your wisdom, Your Honour. I think it's evidentiary
15 significance, but you're a better judge of that than me.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
17 Mr. Visnjic.
18 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] I don't know whether I should
19 continue. I only want you to look at some documents which we received
20 from the Government of Serbia where you will see the differences and why
21 the differences are there. I don't know whether we need the witness
22 because these documents do not concern the witness and his testimony. I
23 can explain to you what the procedure is when documents are obtained from
24 the Government of Serbia, and then it's up to you to draw a conclusion
25 from that.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: The stamp you're now showing on the left-hand side
2 of the screen looks like the same stamp as was on the top right-hand
3 corner of one of the copies of the document.
4 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honours. When you
5 receive documents from the Government of Serbia, the archive certifies
6 every copy leaving the archives.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: So you stole the unstamped one, did you?
8 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] No, no. For forensic reasons we
9 asked to get a special photocopy, and you can see that in Exhibit 1134
10 when for forensic reasons we asked for the photocopy to be in colour and
11 without any markings so that it can be used for an expert report. We
12 asked for the document which looks just as it looks in the archives,
13 without any stamps, extra stamps on it. And I can show you on the
14 example we have before us, this is the log-book of the office of the
15 Chief of the General Staff and there's one copy with a stamp and one
16 without it. There are two log -- there's -- this is a whole log-book and
17 you can't have two documents, one with a stamp and one without. And
18 you'll see that two months ago we received this document without a stamp,
19 and the ones we received before were certified with a stamp as evidence
20 that the documents reached us directly from the archives.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: So is this another one you asked for especially
22 for your forensic science purposes?
23 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honours, and
24 we explained all this in our submission of the 29th of February, 2008, in
25 paragraph 10.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you very much.
2 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Where we specified in detail what
3 we requested.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
5 Now, Mr. Zecevic, is it now your turn?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe so, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: And the next witness?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: The witness, the joint expert witness, Mr. --
9 Professor Branimir Jokic, but maybe before the witness comes in we have
10 the issue with the -- our motion for -- to amend the 65 ter list.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, I'm really sorry that we -- that we filed
13 this motion this late, and I understand the problem that Mr. Hannis is
14 having. But, Your Honours, in all honesty, we tried -- I tried myself to
15 understand this report which is more than 1600 pages now -- with all
16 annexes. Now, Your Honours, when -- during the proofing I insisted with
17 the expert that he gives me the concrete examples because that was the
18 only way how I would probably understand his position taken in report.
19 Now when he -- to my satisfaction explained me the -- on the concrete
20 examples, I then decided that it is probably the best way to present and
21 to -- to present his expert report in court and to be able to assist all
22 the parties -- to all the parties in understanding this relatively, at
23 least for me relatively complicated science.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well --
25 MR. ZECEVIC: And -- yeah, sorry.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Let's try to get this in some sort of perspective.
2 Mr. Hannis, the only averments in this indictment about buildings
3 in the cultural sense relate to mosques. 77(d) is the only place I can
4 find any reference to damage to cultural structures.
5 MR. HANNIS: That's correct, Your Honour.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: So mosques only?
7 MR. HANNIS: Um --
8 JUDGE BONOMY: And we've got this elaborate report about Kulas
9 and town centres and so on, but that doesn't seem to feature in any
10 aspect of the indictment. So we're not letting -- going to let this grow
11 arms and legs at this stage on the basis of a report going to over a
12 thousand pages about an issue that doesn't exist if we're -- there's no
13 point in shadow boxing around this, is there?
14 MR. HANNIS: Well, I don't think so, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: I know that there has been evidence about Kulas.
16 I can't find any oral evidence about anything else beyond that apart from
18 MR. HANNIS: Well, I think Mr. Riedlmayer talked about perhaps a
19 library and archive, but they're mostly related to the mosque or Islamic
20 religious buildings.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
22 MR. HANNIS: And I think there was talk about the old town in
23 Djakovica as well, old town centre.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Was there actually oral evidence about that or is
25 it confined to the report?
1 MR. HANNIS: I think he spoke about that when looking at one of
2 the photographs.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: But where is your averment that's got anything to
4 do with that?
5 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, perhaps it only relates to the
6 general averment about persecutions on religious grounds and ethnic
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay. Now, a number of these exhibits proposed do
9 relate to mosques or Orthodox places of worship, and therefore are
10 potentially relevant. I take it there's been some effort made to try to
11 reach agreement on this, but that has foundered, has it?
12 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I'll tell you from my point of
13 view it was -- I didn't realize until looking at the list, and I'm
14 talking about Exhibits I think 1D777 through 799. 799 is the one that I
15 just received at 1.00 this afternoon.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
17 MR. HANNIS: That's a photograph of some monument in Landovica, I
18 think. And just looking at what they are I'm not sure how that fits into
19 the evidence. That's what makes me uncomfortable. I haven't had time to
20 talk to Mr. Zecevic and say what do you want this for, perhaps we could
21 have resolved this. But now at this late stage, this is an expert, and
22 it just seems like it's the kind of thing that I shouldn't have to get
23 last-minute notice of when I'm trying to deal with a report that includes
24 with 1600 pages, et cetera. I do not have an objection to 1D796, which
25 is a CV of Andrew Herscher, which you might understand why I have no
1 objection to. It's in English, I know who he is, and I don't have a
2 problem with that.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: What about 1D797 which relates to something you
4 just mentioned?
5 MR. HANNIS: I object to that if that's the statement of Mr. Ilic
6 concerning a photograph he took in the presence or nonpresence of UN
7 troops on the 13th of June. That's a statement of a witness outside of
8 court. If that doesn't comply with the requirements of Rule 92 and I
9 don't think it should be permitted.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I take it you won't be relying on the account
11 of what Mr. Riedlmayer gives of what Mr. Ilic had to say in that event
12 because it did seem to be part of the basis for the suggestion that there
13 was Serb involvement in the damage to this building.
14 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honour, I guess I take issue with the
15 part of Mr. Ilic's statement that there were no Serb police. I'm not
16 sure -- I don't have the statement in front of me at the moment. I may
17 be mistaking that with what Mr. Jokic says in his report, suggesting that
18 there were no Serb police present in the city on that day.
19 JUDGE BONOMY: All right. Thank you.
20 Now, Mr. Zecevic, just one other matter. The only charge to
21 which this can be relevant is a charge under Article 5 of the Statute, a
22 crime against humanity.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: But the report's been written very much as if it
25 was dealing with a war crime allegation under Article 3.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: I -- well, I do agree with Your Honour, but the
2 concept of the report was actually like -- like an answer to Riedlmayer
3 and Herscher report, and it is actually named evaluation of the report.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, indeed. But it's not been presented as a
5 report supporting a charge under Article 3. However, turning to your
6 documents --
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, if I may give another comment on that, Your
9 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah.
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, basically all the documents that Mr. Hannis
11 is actually referring to, which he has a problem -- and which are
12 definitely relevant have been included because of my endeavour to present
13 to you on a -- on examples in court because I think that would be the
14 most effective. On the other hand, all the data contained in these
15 documents is already a part of the report. It is all part of the annex 5
16 of the report which is the MNEMOSYNE report from 2001, and I can give my
17 friend, Mr. Hannis, relevant pages. I just -- based on these facts I
18 thought that this is not going to be an issue between us and our friends
19 from Prosecutor's side because these are just the documents on which --
20 of which contents -- contents of which are already in the report -- a
21 part of the report, so these are just actual documents. And I can
22 provide the relevant pages right now if you want me to, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE BONOMY: We take the view that it's too late now to tender
1 documents about which there is contention where the Prosecutor is unable
2 because of lack of time to prepare himself adequately to deal with them,
3 and therefore the only one we will add to the 65 ter list is 1D796, which
4 is by agreement of the parties. The others will not be added to the 65
5 ter list.
6 MR. HANNIS: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.
8 MR. HANNIS: One other matter, if I may. We found an objection
9 to the report and ask that this witness be called for cross-examine. I
10 do have an issue with about six of the annexes, and I don't know if you
11 want to me to address that now or after you've heard from the witnesses
12 on direct, but they have to do with the position that most of them go to
13 post-war destruction, and therefore I don't think they're relevant. One
14 of them is listed as a draft document on its face and is missing 25 pages
15 in the middle; so I have some concerns about that. I don't know if you
16 want to hear that now or at the end of direct.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No, we'll deal with the admission of annexes to
18 this report once we've heard the evidence, but it's by no means a
19 foregone conclusion that all these annexes will be thought by us to be of
20 probative value in the context of the case. There's no doubt they're
21 retaliate, but what probative value they have is the real issue.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE BONOMY: So can we now have the witness, Mr. Zecevic?
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
25 [The witness entered court]
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Good afternoon, Professor Jokic.
2 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Would you please make the solemn declaration to
4 speak the truth by reading aloud the document which will now be shown to
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
7 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. Please be seated.
9 You'll now be examined by Mr. Zecevic.
10 Mr. Zecevic.
11 WITNESS: BRANIMIR JOKIC
12 [Witness answered through interpreter]
13 Examination by Mr. Zecevic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Professor.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. Professor, we intended to give you a binder of documents in the
17 courtroom for you to use in the course of your testimony, but by a
18 decision of the Trial Chamber we are unable to use these documents. So I
19 will put questions to you based on your expert report. Do you have your
20 expert report with you?
21 A. With me?
22 Q. Yes.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you have it here in the courtroom?
25 A. No, I have it in my hotel.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Can we have just one minute, Your Honour, to
2 organize --
3 MR. HANNIS: I have an extra copy in B/C/S.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: In B/C/S, thank you. We're very grateful.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Jokic, please take a look and tell us whether this is the
7 report compiled by you, and here it's marked 1D743.
8 A. I hope it is because I can't look at all of it right now, but yes
9 it looks like that's what it is.
10 Q. Can we have the report on the monitor. Do you see it on the
11 monitor, Professor?
12 A. Well, it's easier for me to look at the hard copy.
13 Q. Well, look at the last page, leaf through it, look at some
14 features that will enable you to identify it so that we can tender it.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to move to
16 little closer to the microphones, please.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In essence that's it. Maybe some
18 photographs are missing, which I had included.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Where were the photographs, at the end of the report?
21 A. Yes, at the very end.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have that particular page on the screen,
23 please, it is page -- it is page 37.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I apologise.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Have you found the photographs?
2 A. Yes, I do apologise, the two pages were stuck together. I found
3 them now.
4 Q. Very well. Professor, is this your report?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. And you accept it as yours. Do you have anything to add or
7 change perhaps?
8 A. No, I have nothing to add, and through your questions probably I
9 will touch on everything that's necessary.
10 Q. But, Professor, would you add anything to the text itself?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Could we have 1D743 without the annexes admitted as
14 report as an exhibit.
15 JUDGE BONOMY: We have no problem with that, Mr. Zecevic.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Professor Jokic, within the scope of your report is your CV, and
18 from it it's evident that between 1998 and 1999 you were the director of
19 the museum in Pristina?
20 A. That's correct, in that period, I was the director of the museum
21 in Pristina, which I still am but now in the Displaced Museum with its
22 headquarters in Belgrade. That's it's official title now.
23 Q. I'm pausing for the interpretation, just so you know.
24 Mr. Jokic, can you tell us how many Albanians were employed in
25 the museum between 1998 and 1999 while you were the director in Pristina?
1 A. At the time I was appointed director of the museum in Pristina,
2 the situation I found was the following: The ethnic breakdown of the
3 employees was approximately equal. If one looks at the numbers of Serbs,
4 Albanians, Turks, Roma, and other ethnicities, it was an exemplary team
5 if one looks at inter-ethnic relations and professional attitudes to
7 Q. But my question was how many Albanians?
8 A. About 15.
9 Q. How many members of the Serbian ethnic group?
10 A. Well, there were 13 members of the Serbian ethnic groups I think
11 and then there were also Roma, Turks, and Muslims.
12 Q. Thank you.
13 A. You're welcome.
14 Q. Does the name Fatmir Peja mean anything to you; and if so, can
15 you tell us what duty this gentleman performed in the museum while you
16 were the director?
17 A. Mr. Fatmir Peja is a colleague of mine, he was the custodian --
18 he was the curator, that is, and he was in charge of numismatics. We had
19 excellent working relations and excellent communication and we still do
20 to this day.
21 Q. As it is not -- has not entered the transcript, what was his duty
22 in the museum?
23 A. He was the curator, that was his profession.
24 Q. And in the bodies of management?
25 A. He was a member of the management board, which is the
1 highest-ranking organ of management in an organization, in an
3 Q. Mr. Kemal Ljuci, what can you tell me about him, was he employed
4 there while you were the director? What do you know about him after you
5 left Pristina?
6 A. Kemal Ljuci was also a curator, he was an archaeologist. He was
7 one of the most active employees, and professionally he cooperated with
8 all archaeologists from the territory of the Republic of Serbia. In 1998
9 in the -- at the Assembly -- at the gathering of archaeologists of Serbia
10 in Subotica he presided. He --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Could you repeat the end of that answer, please,
13 the interpreter didn't catch it. It might be an idea if you come closer
14 to the microphone, please, so that everything is heard. But you told us
15 that in 1998 at the gathering of archaeologists of Serbia in Subotica he
16 presided, and then you said something else which the interpreter did not
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He presided at the assembly of
19 archaeologists of Serbia, and at the exhibition which was held at the
20 Gallery of the Serbian Academy of Sciences in Belgrade, he was a
21 commissioner of that exhibition, which means that he was the main expert
22 in charge of implementing and organizing the exhibition.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Professor, when was this exhibition held, the one that you
25 mention, where he was a commissioner of the exhibition?
1 A. That exhibition was held in February of 1999.
2 Q. In Belgrade?
3 A. Yes, in Belgrade in the gallery of the Serbian academy of arts
4 and sciences.
5 Q. Thank you. And the last name we have here, Xhafer Lokaj, that
6 person is mentioned by Mr. Riedlmayer and Mr. Herscher in their report.
7 What can you tell us about Xhafer Lokaj first of all, was he employed at
8 the museum and then everything else that's relevant? Please keep it at a
9 slow pace for the sake of the interpreters.
10 A. Xhafer Lokaj was employed in the provincial institute for the
11 protection of monuments in Pristina. He worked there as a person in
12 charge of preserving -- preservationist, and he was also a contract
13 worker of the museum in Pristina. I personally hired him to perform
14 certain tasks based on his expertise.
15 Q. Mr. Lokaj and the fact that he was of a certain profession and
16 that he worked at the museum, was he familiar with the documents of the
17 museum, with its standards, with the methodology that was used at the
18 museum and at the institute for preservation -- for protection of
19 monuments in Pristina, where he worked?
20 A. I can tell you that Mr. Xhafer Lokaj was a very well-respected
21 painter and preservationist. He restored frescos in many monasteries in
22 Kosovo and Metohija. Given that he worked in that field for some 20
23 years, everything that concerns the methodology of work and standards on
24 which the preservation work is based and given his long-term experience
25 in this field, based on all of that I believe that he was well familiar
1 with everything in the field of methodology and standards when it comes
2 to protection of cultural property.
3 Q. Thank you. On page 56-30 of your report, or rather, page 30,
4 item 6-30, there is a statement given by you which stems from the UNESCO
5 report which is annex to your opinion, to your expert opinion, where it
6 says that allegedly the Albanians didn't hold high positions and
7 responsible positions in the institutions aimed at preserving cultural
8 property in Kosovo from 1990 to about 1999. Can you tell us what your
9 opinion is about this claim?
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Where do we find that in English, Mr. Zecevic?
11 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, 5.6-30 -- page 30, it is in the
12 column called arguments, arguments, and I believe it's the third
13 paragraph from the end. It starts with: "The Albanians ..."
14 5.6-30 -- it is the page 29 in e-court, and it starts after the
15 [indiscernible] the Albanians with the word Albanians, argumentation
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it the page that's now on the screen?
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honour. So the ultimate column to the
19 right --
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes --
21 MR. ZECEVIC: -- called argumentation, halfway down.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah. Thank you.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Can the witness answer?
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, please continue.
25 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Please go ahead, Professor, please give us a reply if you
2 remember the question.
3 A. I remember the question but it's difficult to me -- for me to
4 orient myself in the document because it has both English and Serbian.
5 These are arbitrary conclusions and I will tell you why. There is no
6 overall insight into the situation in various institutions. This amounts
7 to various research projects, one of which was performed by
8 representative of UNESCO, Mr. Borath. Based on that we can conclude what
9 the national composition or ethnic composition was in various
10 institutions from 1975 until 1999. If the Trial Chamber is interested, I
11 can give you details, I can elaborate on this, but only if you think that
12 that would be of assistance; if not, I will just stand by my earlier
13 answer, namely, that such a statement is not fully correct.
14 Q. Professor, do you wish to say that -- let us now focus on 1998
15 and 1999, when you were there personally. Are you trying to say that the
16 Albanians held responsible positions in the institutions dealing with
17 culture in Kosovo and Metohija?
18 A. They did hold responsible positions. When it comes to leading
19 positions, the situation there is somewhat different. It's a process, as
20 I have said to you, that lasted for a number of years, from 1975 until
21 1990 the dominant, leading staff was made up of Albanians; however, then
22 certain changes came about and the political situation was what it was
23 and changes were implemented. As for the nature of those changes, I
24 don't know if it's up to me to discuss them.
25 Q. Professor, please tell me, was there an institute for Albanology
1 in Pristina and who led that institute?
2 A. There certainly was the institute for Albanology and it was
3 natural for such an institute to be led by an Albanian. It's quite a
4 natural thing.
5 Q. Professor, let us now turn to a different topic. Tell me,
6 please, do you know when the first law on cultural property for the
7 territory of the entire Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia was
8 adopted? We don't need the exact date, just roughly?
9 A. Well, in the archives, in the documentation, we see years 1952,
10 1954, both years figure due to the procedure that was in place at the
12 Q. Based on that law, Professor, the institute for protection of
13 cultural and historical monuments was established in the territory of
14 each republic and province including Kosovo; correct?
15 A. Certainly. All of the republics had their own laws and
16 institutes. They had their own services dealing with the protection of
17 cultural heritage. In 1977 the institutions for protecting cultural
18 property were joined at the level of Yugoslavia. The entire system of
19 protection of cultural property was based on that principle until the
20 competencies were divided again and until it was placed under the
21 jurisdiction of each republic again.
22 Q. The other law that regulated this field was adopted in 1977;
24 A. Yes, that's correct, that law was adopted in 1977, and that is
25 the year when for the first time in the service for protection of
1 cultural monuments the cultural monuments were classified.
2 Q. When you say "classified," do you mean that they were
4 A. Yes, they were categorized. There existed three categories in
5 protecting monuments. One was a monument, one was a monument of great
6 importance, and the third one was monument of exceptional importance.
7 Q. Professor, and then there was a law that was passed in 1994 about
8 cultural property?
9 A. Yes, correct, there was the law that was passed in 1994 as well,
10 and it was amended to a certain extent but that did not affect the system
11 of protection of cultural heritage in Serbia.
12 Q. When you say that it was amended to a certain extent, do you mean
13 to say that in 1994 the law that was passed in 1994 amended to some
14 extent the law from 1977 but that did not affect the system of protection
15 of cultural property. Did I understand you well?
16 A. When I said that it did not affect the system, I meant it did not
17 adversely affect the system. And there was a positive influence because
18 that system of protection of cultural heritage was improved and that
19 amendment included the improvements as specified by UNESCO and other
20 institutions. All laws are amended in order to be improved and kept in
21 line with the standards at the global level.
22 Q. Professor, very briefly, the regulations from 1994 as well as the
23 law from 1977, does this legislation accept the standards that are in
24 place in UNESCO and is it in compliance with the rules of profession with
25 professional standards. Do these laws, in fact, implement these
2 A. Yes, they absolutely do and that was done at the level of the
3 entire Yugoslavia. The system of protection was the same, there was no
4 difference in the system.
5 Q. Thank you. This law from 1994, does it regulate what is a
6 cultural and historical property? Just yes or no.
7 A. Yes, it does define it.
8 Q. Thank you. The law from 1994, does it envisage an identical
9 criterion for all monuments regardless of their provenance, yes or no?
10 A. Yes. Monuments were not discriminated against regardless of
11 their provenance.
12 Q. Thank you. Does this law also set forth the method of
13 establishing how a certain facility or a certain site is declared to be a
14 cultural and historical property?
15 A. Yes, certainly.
16 Q. Does this law also envisage a register or the register of
17 cultural and historical properties in the territory of Serbia?
18 A. Yes, just like any other law because this is unavoidable, we need
19 the register of cultural property, it's an obligation.
20 Q. Thank you. Does this law also set forth some sort of
21 supervision, a supervision mechanism by a ministry; and if so, which
22 ministry if the answer is yes?
23 A. Yes, the implementation of this law is in the hands of the
24 appropriate ministry, Ministry of Culture in this particular case.
25 Q. Professor, annex 8 of your report is, in fact, a bulletin of
1 statistics from the 31st of December, 1994, where all immovable cultural
2 property is registered. Could we please see annex 8 which is page 1.123
3 of e-court.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the exhibit number.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Annex 8, page 1.123,
6 Exhibit 1D743. [In English] If the Court would permit me, I would like
7 to give to the witness -- could we hand him --
8 Q. [Interpretation] I will give you the original so that it's easier
9 for you to follow.
10 A. Thank you.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: Is it page 1. --
12 MR. ZECEVIC: 1.123 in the e-court.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you. And that's the same in both B/C/S and
14 English, is it?
15 MR. ZECEVIC: That is in B/C/S, Your Honour. It is -- I'm
16 informed here that -- let me consult, Your Honour, just one second.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 MR. ZECEVIC: What we can provide at this point is the ID number,
19 it's 1D09-1643. You have it.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, please tell me, what is the total
23 number of registered cultural property according to the statistical
24 bulletin of the Republic of Serbia dated the 31st of December, 1994?
25 A. Up until the time the statistics were compiled, the number of
1 cultural properties in Kosovo was 410.
2 Q. Thank you, Professor. Out of this total number, how many
3 registered cultural properties were of Islamic provenance?
4 A. Islamic provenance, 91.
5 Q. Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer in their report speak of 15
6 allegedly protected monuments of Islamic provenance in Kosovo and you
7 give us the figure of 91. Who's correct?
8 A. Well, it's not me, it's the statistics that's correct. It's not
9 about me. I don't think that they could give you that number and that it
10 was correct because I don't think that Mr. Herscher had insight into the
11 entire number.
12 Q. And how many monuments there are of Orthodox provenance according
13 to the statistics -- to the statistical bulletin?
14 A. 151.
15 Q. What about the rest that make up the total of 410?
16 A. 168 cultural properties were of general importance, those were
17 bridges, bazaars, and other types of monuments, monuments from Second
18 World War and so on.
19 Q. Thank you, Professor. Tell me, please, according to your
20 records, according to your knowledge, how many are there unregistered
21 immovables cultural properties of Orthodox provenance in Kosovo, meaning
22 the ones that were not included in this list because they were of a
23 lesser importance or there was some other reason?
24 A. There are over 1.000 such sites of religious character.
25 Q. Thank you. Professor, please tell me, in relation to the total
1 number, how many unregistered -- or rather, registered cultural
2 properties in that bulletin originate from the 20th century, do they
3 represent a minority or a majority?
4 A. The number is small. I will tell you exactly. When it comes to
5 the 20th century -- so when it comes to monuments of Christian or Serbian
6 provenance in the 20th century, the ones that originate from the 20th
7 century, none of them were declared a cultural property.
8 Q. What about the monuments of Islamic provenance that were created
9 in the 20th century, are some of them included in that list; and if so,
10 which ones are they, please?
11 A. In this list there are just two monuments of Islamic provenance
12 that were declared cultural property and that were created between 1901
13 and 1913, and those are imperial mosque in Pristina and Ati [phoen]
14 mosque in Gnjilane. This is something that contradicts, that denies.
15 Q. So if I understood you well, in the list, or rather, pursuant to
16 the decision of the Government of the Republic of Serbia just two
17 religious sites from the 20th century were included in the list of
18 protected cultural properties, and both of them are of Islamic
19 provenance; correct?
20 A. Yes, that's correct, and they were declared so in 1993.
21 Q. On page 5215 -- or rather, page 15, 5.2 of your report, which is
22 page 15 in English, e-court, of your report, which is 1D743. There you
23 responded to the claims of Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher - I'm going to
24 paraphrase - that the protocols -- Hague Protocols to the Geneva
25 Conventions from 1949, that they make it necessary to use the cultural
1 standards in declaring a facility to be -- have you found that,
3 A. I don't need to find that. I know of that.
4 Q. Do you agree with that?
5 A. Yes, I absolutely agree. A broader interpretation of conventions
6 only lead to improvement of the system of protection and assessment, and
7 the existing standards can only be improved in that way, they cannot be
9 Q. Thank you. Tell me, please -- tell me, please, according to you
10 what would serve as a standard for categorizing a religious facility?
11 The -- let me see if I can enumerate this. Would it be as -- would it be
12 a criterion that it's a facility or an area where a religious service is
13 performed, would that be a criterion?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I think 62, 2, I said would it be a facility or an area where
16 religious service is performed.
17 Secondly, according to you, would it necessarily serve as a
18 feature of a religious facility the fact that that facility is so
19 declared by the religious community to which it belongs --
20 MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... and say are
21 those the criteria.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: I was -- I understand -- I accept that. I
23 actually -- I said that I would try to speed the things up, that's why I
24 wanted --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Well.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: That's why I have --
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Now that we have the Prosecution position then
3 perhaps you would ask open questions, Mr. Zecevic.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Would you tell me, please, according to you what else is a
6 feature, basic feature, of a religious facility?
7 A. Well, the main feature of a religious facility is that it needs
8 to be so declared by a religious community, Islamic community in this
9 particular case.
10 Q. The religious community to which it belongs?
11 A. Yes, correct.
12 Q. Does this mean that the head, the leader, or the religious
13 official at the head of that religious facility also needs to be accepted
14 and recognised by the religious community to which he belongs?
15 A. Yes, absolutely. Every religious community has its own hierarchy
16 and the manner in which it functions.
17 Q. Thank you. Is there a law regulating the status of religious
18 communities and religious buildings so that religious ceremonies can take
19 place and so on?
20 A. Yes, at republican level there is a law regulating the work of
21 religious communities without drawing any distinctions between the origin
22 of these communities.
23 Q. Is it perhaps the law on the legal status of religious
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Are you aware, Professor, of whether that law
2 envisages the existence of approval by appropriate municipal organs for a
3 religious building to be declared as such and for religious rights to be
4 carried out in it?
5 A. Like every other building, a building of religious character has
6 to go through a certain procedure and get approval from certain organs at
7 the municipal level and it acquires the attribute of religious building
8 by a decision of the religious community.
9 Q. Professor, I'll take you back to your report, page 5, paragraph
10 5, page 21, that's page 20 in e-court in English, and 1D743 again, where
11 you stated the selection Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher based their
12 conclusions on in their report. To avoid repetition -- to avoid
13 repeating what is already in your report, let me just remind you that
14 there was mention of ethnic colouring of sources and also you criticized
15 the statement by Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher that local teams carried
16 out observations and assisted them in compiling this report. That's on
17 page -- the page before this, 54 --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Can I just ask one question of the Professor.
19 Can you name for us any mosque -- or rather, any building with a
20 minaret that looks like a mosque which you say is not approved for
21 religious purposes in Kosovo?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I included in my report what
23 was available to me from the documentation. I would not like to make an
24 evaluation if I cannot support it with facts. I suggested that certain
25 documents be presented, and I hope that they're at your disposal, Your
2 JUDGE BONOMY: You know, we've limited time in this institution
3 to deal with this and there's a handful of mosques mentioned in the
4 indictment and we're going to spend an interminable length of time going
5 through records and statistics for some elusive feature. You know, if
6 it's called a cat and looks like a cat, it's likely to be a cat. So can
7 you help me on your experience of Kosovo whether mosque-like structures
8 tended not to be properly authorised for religious purposes?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can only tell you
10 what is in the documentation and what I can confirm. There is a mosque
11 in Dobrivo, in Peduha, if you look at this you will see that these are
12 the mosques in question, in Dzabari.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: What do you mean these are the mosques in
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the fact that I
16 was unable to get proper documentation to confirm that these are really
17 religious buildings.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: All right.
19 Well, it's time for our break.
20 We have to break at this stage for half an hour, Professor.
21 While we have that break, could you please leave the courtroom with the
22 usher and we'll see you again at 6.00.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.01 p.m.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, before we start I would just -- I
2 talked to my friend Mr. Hannis. We would like to substitute with the
3 Serbian copy, the whole Serbian copy, of the expert report and give it to
4 the witness. Because he -- thank you very much. It's already with the
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Professor, the usher will now hand you a full version of your
9 report in the Serbian language to make things easier for you, to make it
10 easier for you to follow, that is.
11 A. Thank you.
12 Q. Thank you. Just a small digression. Judge Bonomy asked you a
13 little while ago, just before the break, Professor in your opinion in a
14 hypothetical situation if in some area of Serbia where there is no strict
15 town planning in place I were to build a residential building resembling
16 a church in architecture with domes, for example, and placed a cross on
17 it, would it be a religious building in your view or not?
18 A. Well, that's what I wanted to say. We probably didn't understand
19 one another very well. I didn't say in advance whether something can or
20 cannot be a religious building, that would not be very serious on my
21 part. But if one wants to give an expert opinion, one has to have the
22 prerequisites, the basic prerequisites for a religious building in view
23 of the nature of its architecture, it has to have the proper
24 documentation in order to be identified as a religious or cultural
25 building, it has to be recognised as such by the state; otherwise,
1 there's no other way we can tell that's what it is. And this gives rise
2 to confusion because churches all follow the same architectural design,
3 for example. So out of a hundred churches or buildings, if one doesn't
4 have the appropriate documentation we can't really tell what it is.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: But you're the person who's done the research and
6 we would like to know if you've come across any example of a building
7 that looks like a church but isn't one. You can't come here as an expert
8 and hide behind the law and say, Well, I don't know because I haven't had
9 access to the documents. That doesn't help us in the least. We need to
10 know what conclusions and opinions you as an expert have formed about
11 whether there are buildings in Kosovo which look like mosques but are not
12 according to the law. Now, that would help us if you could tell us that.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did my expert
14 opinion on the documentation and the report of Messrs. Riedlmayer and
15 Herscher. I was not tasked with carrying out investigations in the
16 field. I compiled my report based on the documentation I was given and
17 it is confusing. I cannot state an opinion on something for which I have
18 no parameters. Where the parameters exist I offered the documentation
19 from the land registry books.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that may help in some instances. As far as
21 the law is concerned then lawyers can present the law to us in advance of
22 their arguments and we can make an assessment of the situation whether we
23 accept that -- if the law requires certain procedure and it has not been
24 complied with then the building is not a religious building. But we
25 don't need a professor from a museum to tell us about the law on the
1 matter. We can read that and draw our own conclusions. We thought you
2 would be coming to tell us something about the existence of apparently
3 religious buildings which aren't religious buildings, but it doesn't look
4 as though we're going to have that assistance so let's proceed with what
5 we can hear from you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may be of
7 assistance, I would only say that Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher
8 conducted -- had they compiled their report as the service requires, it
9 would have been supported by the proper documents. I can tell you what
10 sort of documents are needed for a religious or cultural property to be
11 identified as such.
12 JUDGE BONOMY: And your report tells us that as I understand it.
13 But, you see, this indictment refers to specific places. Now, it refers
14 to mosques in 1, 2 -- I think 14 municipalities and it would be of
15 interest to hear from you if you had an opinion about whether these were
16 mosques or not. If you're not in a position to tell us that, then we can
17 move on to other things that Mr. Zecevic wants to ask you.
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, if I can be of assistance, Your Honours,
19 there is a part where we are talking about the concrete examples, that is
20 why I wanted to present these exhibits in order to facilitate that. But
21 in any case, it would take us a bit longer but we will get there
22 definitely --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: You'll have your two hours, Mr. Zecevic. At the
24 moment we're not persuaded that this investigation requires longer. If
25 by the end of it we're making some progress on something really material,
1 then the position may be different.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, we started talking about the
4 selection of sources, the sources used by Messrs. Herscher and
5 Riedlmayer. You spoke about this on page 18 of your report, they
6 referred to local teams. Do you have a brief comment to make as our time
7 is limited, as you have heard?
8 A. I do have a comment on this. In view of my experience and my
9 work on the protection of the cultural heritage, I don't see that there
10 was a team.
11 Q. Thank you. Tell me, in your opinion, including you as an expert,
12 is it possible to identify a building if you are not familiar with it, it
13 hasn't been described in the literature, and you're not familiar with the
14 location, could you identify such a building?
15 A. No, the -- it's not just me but the protection service doesn't
16 work that way.
17 Q. Does that mean that professional practice requires that these
18 buildings be presented in such a way that an expert can identify them, do
19 I understand you correctly?
20 A. Certainly. Every religious property and cultural property has
21 its documentation which is published and is available to the
22 professional -- to the profession of large -- at large. So any service
23 dealing with protection of such buildings has to have at its disposal the
24 documentation pertaining to the building.
25 Q. But if we were to discuss buildings not on the list, not
1 protected as immovable cultural goods, if they are simply religious
2 buildings, in that case is some sort of identification necessary or is it
3 sufficient for someone to tell you something about such a building or
4 draw your attention to it? Would you accept that as evidence for you to
5 be able to identify the building?
6 A. Well, it wouldn't be according to my will, but according to the
7 rules of the service every such building, whether religious or
8 non-religious, has to have a licence in order to be used, it has to have
9 its plans, the plans for its building, and this also applies to civilian
11 Q. Does your profession require verification of certain data or not
12 when conducting the sort of investigation Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer
14 A. Certainly, that has to be done. Before you set out on a trip you
15 have to know what building you're going to visit, you have to have
16 certain technical documentation on the basis of which you can identify
17 the building on the ground; without that, it's impossible to establish,
18 it's absolutely impossible to establish the identity of the building.
19 Q. Professor, you calculated in your report on page 22 how much time
20 Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer spent in the field, in Kosovo, and you
21 related this to the number of buildings they described. Can you give me
22 some information about this, and in your view how much time would be
23 needed for a correct, well-founded professional report to be compiled?
24 A. I can give you my opinion based on my personal experience and the
25 experience of my colleagues. It's impossible to visit -- it's physically
1 impossible to visit this number of buildings in that time, especially if
2 we know that the terrain in Kosovo and Metohija is what it is and what
3 the roads are like. It's impossible to reach all these buildings in that
4 amount of time. It's even impossible to prepare the technical and expert
5 documentation to go out on the field because you can't put your hands in
6 your pocket and go out on the ground because you can't identify a
7 building. We know what sort of problems we faced when we went looking
8 for a building in the field on the ground, we lost hours looking for the
9 building. So probably Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer were in a
10 difficult situation and I understand what situation they were in. It
11 wasn't easy for them to cope with that problem and they probably didn't
12 have the proper associates who could help them carry out their work
13 faster and more expeditiously and more thoroughly.
14 Q. Professor, bearing in mind that Messrs. Riedlmayer and Herscher
15 described 230 buildings throughout Kosovo and Metohija, tell me, in your
16 professional practice and according to what you know, how much time would
17 be needed for an optimal investigation --
18 MR. HANNIS: [Previous translation continues] ... for that
19 question. Identifying 230 buildings throughout Kosovo, maybe 200 of them
20 are all in Pristina. It's vague, it's -- I don't think it's something
21 that can be answered without some further elaboration.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's already been answered in the report as
23 I understand it. We've got a time --
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Does it not say he spent less than an hour
1 investigating each one?
2 MR. ZECEVIC: That is it exactly.
3 JUDGE BONOMY: Why do we need to ask him again? You just get an
4 objection --
5 MR. ZECEVIC: I understand, Your Honours.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, you participated in the MNEMOSYNE
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Tell me, that project had a task broader than the project engaged
10 in by Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Tell me, how many experts of various sorts were included in that
14 A. Well, to carry out this project in a professional and qualified
15 way you needed at least five or six experts, an architect -- that was the
16 number of experts needed and you needed a professional photographer, that
17 was very important because no amateur photograph can be used to identify
18 a building. Whoever has engaged in such work can confirm this. If that
19 was the way buildings could be identified, then you wouldn't need to have
20 a professional photographer with you, that wouldn't be a condition.
21 Q. How many teams of experts did you have at your disposal when
22 working on the MNEMOSYNE project?
23 A. We had four teams which changed, one worked in the morning, one
24 in the afternoon, and we were barely able to visit the area of Metohija
25 in almost six months. So to visit almost -- to visit all of Kosovo and
1 Metohija properly you would need at least a year to work on all these
2 buildings. Someone might find this strange, but I'll tell you that this
3 is exhausting work and very demanding work if you want to do everything
4 that the protection of such buildings requires to give a proper opinion,
5 a professional opinion, on a cultural or religious building.
6 Q. So if I understand you correctly - and just answer with a yes or
7 no answer - you had about 30 experts at your disposal and four teams
8 worked in parallel and you needed six months in order to complete only
9 Metohija; is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Now that we're dealing with Metohija, Professor, what
12 does the word "Metohija" mean, and what is the origin of this word?
13 Where is its root?
14 A. The root goes back to the early middle ages. Metohija comes from
15 the word "Metoh," which means ecclesiastical state, it was a land
16 belonging to a monastery, all of Metohija belonged to the Decani
17 monastery together with a part of Albania and the western part of what is
18 now Montenegro. There are documents and there is a charter from 1330,
19 the document that we translated into English and it is available to the
20 general public.
21 Q. What is the name of the charter?
22 A. The Decani Charter or the Founding Charter of the Decani
23 Monastery from 1330.
24 Q. Thank you. We will now turn to a different topic. The
25 methodology of a report is how important in your opinion for the
1 conclusion of that report to be drawn?
2 A. The methodology is not important only for the conclusion, it is
3 important for the entire work process, when working on these buildings.
4 Because if the methodology is not correct and if people -- or rather, if
5 methodology is not in compliance with the professional rules, then you
6 will not get a proper result because a proper approach is needed.
7 Q. Tell me, please, when you were studying the Herscher and
8 Riedlmayer report, were you able to find what methodology they used and
9 is there any reference to methodology in their report, in your opinion?
10 A. Reading the report of Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer, I never
11 came across any methodology that they used and that they referred to. At
12 least I was unable to find any reference to the methodological approach
13 that they used. They never mentioned any methodology applied in their
14 text. If you go out in the field collecting information from
15 non-competent people, basically passers-by, then that is not proper
16 methodology, that is not how the work should be done. There are
17 well-known standards in the protection service. I don't need to remind
18 them. Every profession has it, just like the legal profession, ours does
20 Q. In your opinion, the absence of appropriate methodology ...
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE BONOMY: Please continue, Mr. Zecevic.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
24 Q. [Interpretation] My question was: In your opinion does the
25 absence of methodology that should have been defined and adhered to in
1 the report, methodology that is recognised in the profession, can lead to
2 incorrect profession conclusions. So can the absence of this methodology
3 lead to absence of conclusions?
4 A. Well, not only are the mistakes possible but they're evident. A
5 lot of time has passed since 1999, it's already 2008, and there have been
6 reports that are contradictory. And nowadays, looking from this
7 distance, we are not able to establish which mosque was destroyed in
8 Pristina. Mr. Riedlmayer and Mr. Herscher name it using one name and
9 other experts use different names. Had they applied the recognised
10 methodology in the professional that mosque could have been identified
11 instantly and now it's been six years and it still hasn't been identified
12 and it's mentioned indeed the report.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a minute.
14 Have you ever been able to establish whether any mosque in
15 Pristina was destroyed?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the war operations and
17 during the bombing I was in Pristina, and I can tell you that all of us
18 were proud of the fact that not a single cultural and historical monument
19 was damaged. All of us felt proud of it regardless of our ethnic
20 background, because we were happy that there was an area in Kosovo and
21 Metohija that hadn't been damaged. And what we as professionals could
22 observe up until the 12th of June, 1999, in the territory of the Pristina
23 municipality not a single religious building of any provenance was
25 JUDGE BONOMY: So are they lying about the damage that they have
1 presented to us?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wouldn't talk about
3 whether they're lying or not. I'm just simply saying that something can
4 be confirmed only on the basis of valid documentation. Where the
5 archives in Pristina was burned, that was on the 13th of June, and that
6 even happened under very suspicious circumstances that I wouldn't like to
7 speculate about. It is almost impossible to accept the explanation
8 provided by the Islamic community, which was absolutely accepted by
9 Mr. Herscher and Riedlmayer.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that what you're talking about when you say
11 that there is disagreement about the identification of the mosque in
12 Pristina that was destroyed?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely. You will come across
14 reports stating that it was destroyed and stating that it wasn't
15 destroyed, and that's where the problem lies. When was it destroyed
16 because to claim that it was on the 13th --
17 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, that's not what you said -- you may be
18 saying that as well, but you did say that there was disagreement about
19 which mosque it was. That's how this started.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but this is -- there is a
21 causal link. If you start from a wrong premise, then you cannot draw an
22 accurate conclusion. This is why they're --
23 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no. This particular example appears in your
24 report, and you know which building they are talking about. Your
25 evidence suggests there's confusion about the identity of the building in
1 question. Are you saying other experts are talking about some other
2 mosque being destroyed?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: And which mosque is that?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: But which mosque are other experts -- tell me
7 which report I can find reference to another mosque in Pristina being
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You have the report of
10 Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer when they say the Vranjevac mosque, and
11 then there is another report where it says it's the mosque called Llap
12 mosque. Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer and the Islamic community all
13 claim that only one mosque was damaged in Pristina, but which one and
14 when; that's the question. It is there that we cannot seem to agree
16 JUDGE BONOMY: And which one was it in your -- as a result of
17 your research?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on the documentation offered
19 to me by both researchers, I'm unable to identify the building. We
20 should start on the basis of documents which would clearly identify the
21 building. None of the authors of reports supported this with any
22 document except that they claim that this was such and such particular
23 building, and that's the wrong methodological approach that I referred
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Now, this is something different from the archive,
1 is it, this is a different place that we're talking about from the
2 archive that was burned down --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, another place at some 500
4 metres' distance.
5 MR. HANNIS: Your Honour, I just wanted to indicate for the
6 record that I think the mosque was referred to as being damaged not
8 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, the witness used the word destroyed and
9 that's why I've used the word destroyed, but I note what you say,
10 Mr. Hannis.
11 I, speaking for myself at the moment, Mr. Zecevic, I am not happy
12 about this approach of an expert to giving evidence here dancing around
13 the documents and not actually addressing the real issue, and that is
14 whether mosques were damaged or not.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, let me -- let me briefly just
16 respond. You are very well aware of the fact that due to the situation
17 we and our experts or investigators were not able to go on site visit.
18 So therefore, the only way how we could present the expert is to give his
19 evaluation of the report where Mr. Riedlmayer and Herscher allegedly
20 went. That was the only --
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, I for one do not accept that there is
22 no way of carrying out research in Pristina to establish the damage to
23 mosques. I entirely accept that there may be parts of Kosovo where there
24 are difficulties, but I have freely walked the streets of Pristina myself
25 and therefore I do not accept there's not a methodology available of
1 carrying out research there. I think we are being mocked at the moment,
2 but I'm expressing the view on my behalf only and not on behalf of my
3 colleagues, but I feel I'm being led a merry dance on this issue.
4 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Let me also point out that he has a premise and
5 the premise is only confined to documentation, whereas a religious place
6 has a feature, it has a -- all religious places have their features.
7 Now, I mean it could be ascertained from even if it is destroyed or half
8 destroyed from the special features a place has to identify this place as
9 a religious place to any of the groups, and to say that because certain
10 things didn't have the documentation -- I mean, it looks very naive.
11 Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I give my opinion? Your
13 Honours, may I?
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not for one second did I challenge
16 that religious buildings were destroyed. I would never make such a
17 mistake. Please trust me. I'm speaking on the basis of professional
18 rules and the confusion that is created if you do not use appropriate
19 methodology and documents, because then we cannot establish the identity
20 of the building and this is where wrong conclusions are drawn. So I'm
21 not denying that these buildings or those buildings were damaged, it
22 would never occur to me to deny that. All I'm saying is that we need to
23 establish specifically what happened, how it happened, under what
24 circumstances, and which particular facility is in question. I don't
25 deny that there was destruction. I'm not going into that because that's
1 not part of my job.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: That's not what's coming over to us at the moment.
3 We are acutely aware of the difficulty of attributing damage to any
4 religious building to any personnel in the case. We know that
5 difficulty, we've mentioned it before, and there is not a great deal of
6 evidence about it. And it's on evidence that's reliable that we will
7 make our decisions. But you -- what we are -- the message we are getting
8 just now is that Riedlmayer and Herscher haven't identified the status of
9 buildings as religious buildings because they haven't got the appropriate
10 documentation, and that's what I'm concerned about that seems to me quite
11 valueless in our work at this stage to be told how difficult our job
12 is - which we know - rather than to be assisted by being told in respect
13 of which particular mosques it might be said that they are not actually
14 religious buildings. This case has long since advanced since Riedlmayer
15 was here and we would hope it had become more focused in that time.
16 Mr. Zecevic, please try to help us.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you very much. I will endeavour, Your
19 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, in the addendum to your report, annex
20 11, there is a list of documents -- or rather, a list of all locations
21 that Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer commented upon, that's page 1.223,
22 that's where it starts, 1D743, if we can have it on the screen, please.
23 Could we see e-court page 1.223, 1D743. [In English] Next page, please.
24 This is where it starts.
25 [Interpretation] For illustration purposes we will go over some
1 items. Under 41 of this list, the authors, Riedlmayer and Herscher, use
2 the following name: Tekija Melani Dervis [phoen], the facility under
3 that name, the building known under that name. Can you give us your
5 A. That building does not exist in documentation at all.
6 Q. Number 52 --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Just one second.
8 Does it actually exist in fact?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wouldn't be able to
10 say whether it exists in fact or not. It is clear that there was major
11 confusion in identifying buildings. There are dozens of such examples
12 throughout the report where one cannot identify the building.
13 JUDGE BONOMY: I understand that, but you don't know the answer
14 to that, is that correct, you don't know if that building exists? Now --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I certainly don't know because not
16 a single piece of information concerning it was offered to me.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, what evidence is there in this case
18 about that building and how it might have been damaged?
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Apart from Riedlmayer and Herscher report there is
20 no evidence.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: And it's not in the indictment, so why are we
22 wasting time on it?
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honours, we are trying to illustrate
24 the --
25 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, but would it not be an idea to illustrate it
1 with one of the mosques about which we have had some evidence and then
2 see the weaknesses there which would really help us.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm coming to that, Your Honour, trust me.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Okay.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: In two minutes.
6 JUDGE CHOWHAN: No, but let me inform you what does this mean.
7 Takija is a place which is like a sitting place, it means like a pillow,
8 you know, you sit, squat about; now the name of that person is Melani,
9 and Dervis is a hermit, like you have the Dervis -- so this means a
10 place, this would not be a mosque. This will be a place where this
11 Dervis sat and had his religious things, it may have a room or something
12 else, but Takija Melani Dervis would mean not a mosque but it is a
13 Takija. Thank you. I thought I should inform you about that.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. [Interpretation] Let's move on.
16 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, you were going to 52 I think.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm jumping now to a concrete because --
18 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, and I quite accept I invited you to do that,
19 but 52 is at least an attempt, whatever else you might say, an attempt by
20 the authors to be fair and objective, bearing in mind that the Professor
21 thinks they had an agenda about NATO. But it's certainly not supported
22 by what they say about -- in number 52.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: The point of the matter I would not like to be
24 interpreted as giving evidence instead of the expert here, but according
25 to my knowledge because I was proofing the expert, he has the very same
1 objection as to the previous one. Dzamija Epetimet [phoen] doesn't give
2 a clue and it's not explained so he doesn't -- he doesn't really know
3 about that --
4 JUDGE BONOMY: Oh, sorry, that's 51, that's my mistake. I
5 thought it was 52 you were going to. Sorry.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Okay.
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Thank you.
8 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Professor, we prepared some documents anticipating this but we
10 will not be able to use them. Tell me, please, with respect to some of
11 these locations such as the Bajrakli mosque in Pec, did you manage to
12 identify this mosque with an excerpt from the land registry book and
13 other documents? Is there such documentation for the Bajrakli mosque?
14 A. Yes, of course, and our team used precisely that methodology.
15 Before visiting the building we had all the necessary and valid
16 documentation, including technical documentation, an excerpt from the
17 land registry book, the history, the photograph, and it was not a problem
18 for us to establish the identity of the building and everything connected
19 with it.
20 Q. To avoid wasting time that's annex 5 of your report, page 484 in
21 e-court, which refers to the church of St. Nicolas is Djurakovac which
22 also has an excerpt from the land register book and other documents than
23 the church of St. John in Foca --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel slow down, please, the interpret
25 did not catch the number in e-court.
1 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, you're too quick for the interpreter.
2 Will you go back, please, you will see where the interpretation has
3 stopped. We'll credit you with the time that we've occupied in
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Much obliged, Your Honours. Thank you very much.
6 [Interpretation] Let's go back to the church of St. Nicolas in
7 Djurakovac, that's 484 in e-court where there is an excerpt from the land
8 registry book, a description, and a decision; and the same applies to the
9 church of St. John in Velika Hoca from the same document, page 280 in
10 e-court; and also for the monastery of the Vabidenja [phoen] of Our Lady
11 in Dolac, which is on page 494 in e-court.
12 Q. Let's move on. Professor, recently, just a little while ago, you
13 mentioned three mosques, I think, specific mosques, the mosques in Gornje
14 Dobrivo, in Gornje Peduha, Donje Zaberi [phoen], Vlastica, and Celine.
15 As -- well, could you explain to us because of the situation concerning
16 the documents we have been unable to exhibit, we will have to concentrate
17 on the ones my learned friend, Mr. Hannis, has not objected to. So we
18 are now dealing with a mosque in Celine, P2703 [as interpreted], that's a
19 photograph, could we have it in e-court.
20 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel repeat the number of the exhibit,
21 the interpreter is not absolutely certain she got it right.
22 MR. ZECEVIC: P1773, please.
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Zecevic, on your list of exhibits you wished
24 to add to your 65 ter list, is there any referring to a mosque that has
25 featured in the evidence in this case?
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
2 JUDGE BONOMY: Which one?
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Vlastica, Celine, and I'm actually getting to
4 Celine right now.
5 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a second. Which are these?
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Mosque in Celine --
7 JUDGE BONOMY: Yeah, which numbers, sorry?
8 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry -- the mosque in Celine is -- are the
9 P77 -- no, those are not -- those are the documents which are -- which
10 are from the --
11 JUDGE BONOMY: No, I want to know whether on the list you asked
12 us to allow you to add --
13 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: -- today, is there any that refers to a mosque
15 that has featured in the evidence in this case?
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Under number 13 of the list, there are three
17 documents, P documents, all P documents.
18 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, you're -- it's not that, it's your motion
19 I'm talking about, your motion to amend the 65 ter list to include
20 additional exhibits. Do any of these exhibits relate to any mosque that
21 has featured in the case?
22 MR. ZECEVIC: Please bear with me, Your Honours, just one moment.
23 No, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, that's fine. My conscience remains clear.
25 Please continue.
1 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, do you see this photograph of a
3 mosque, this is allegedly a mosque that was destroyed in Celine?
4 A. Yes, I see it.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Can we have in e-court P2445.
6 Q. Professor, in the documentation shown to you just a little while
7 ago there was a photograph of a location with a building that had been
8 destroyed, and according to the report by Messrs. Herscher and Riedlmayer
9 they did not visit the site but they based their report on the
10 photograph. And next to the photograph is this photograph which is said
11 to be a photograph of the mosque before it was destroyed.
12 Professor, based on these two photographs, can you identify this
13 building with the ruin we saw in the previous exhibit?
14 A. Based on these two photographs and the documentation, it's
15 impossible to establish what building this is. I feel very uncomfortable
16 having to say this, I'm uncomfortable because this is a religious
17 building, and I do not want anyone to think for a moment that I have bad
18 intentions or that I want to deny something that actually happened. That
19 is my attitude towards the cultural heritage in general. You saw that we
20 placed the Bajrakli dzamija in the first place on our list, and had this
21 been documented properly for all the buildings this would not have been a
23 JUDGE BONOMY: Do you think the two photographs are of the same
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's impossible to say. I feel
1 very uncomfortable, but the documentation offers by Messrs. Herscher and
2 Riedlmayer, who did not visit the site at all, and they offered this and
3 the problem is that some of this work was done by amateurs so now there
4 is total confusion in the documentation. You can trust me on this
5 because I spent a lot of time dealing with these problems.
6 JUDGE BONOMY: Can we go back to P1773, please.
7 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may be of assistance, the bigger
8 picture is P1800, so maybe that should be put together with the P2445.
9 And on the right-hand side if we could have P2445 -- no - in
10 order to compare the two.
11 JUDGE BONOMY: No, no, no, no.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: No. Keep the two photographs. On the left-hand
13 side --
14 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes.
15 MR. ZECEVIC: -- P1800, please. Okay. That's it. Thank you
16 very much.
17 JUDGE BONOMY: Now would you replace that one with P1773, please.
18 No, no, the one on the right with P1773, please. Keep the left as it
19 was. That's not what I want but as long as I get on the left-hand side
20 P1773 that will be satisfactory. Thank you.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Professor Jokic, I'd like to ask you a
23 question. In reaching a finding whether or not it's the same building
24 that was damaged, what characteristics would you look for in the damage
25 in order to be able to reach your finding?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for your question.
2 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: You're welcome.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Based on my experience and my
4 insistence on following procedure when identifying buildings, I never did
5 this on my own, I always had a professional photographer accompanying me.
6 A professional photographer knows from what angle he should take a
7 photograph of the building and what markers he should include in the
8 photograph for the building to be identified, and he always takes
9 photographs from several positions. And then there is no doubt because
10 there are markers, so-called markers included, these are nearby
11 buildings, other buildings. And when these photographs are taken from
12 several angles you get all the proper information about the building.
13 Those were the principles and criteria we used for all buildings
14 regardless of their provenance because the profession and the
15 professional approach excludes every other parameter except professional
16 expert parameters. You can find that in our report. All the mosques and
17 Kulas and other buildings that we visited were done according to the
18 methodology as the churches were. And we are always proud to point this
19 out. The European Union recognised the project as valid and gave it an
20 award. Excuse me for saying this but I do have to defend my profession.
21 I am now speaking on behalf of my profession.
22 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: That would be nice. But I would like you to be
23 a little more pointed for me if you could. You look at the picture on
24 the right of a mosque which appears to be intact. What I want to
25 discover from you, when you're looking at the picture on the left what
1 are you looking to see to make you determine whether or not it is one and
2 the same mosque or not as the intact mosque? That is what I really
3 wanted to get from you, what you, the expert and the professional, are
4 looking at the photograph to extract from it?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can only speculate but I wouldn't
6 like to do that because if everything had been done properly there would
7 have been no doubt. Had the picture been taken professionally even a lay
8 person would have been able to establish what this was, but I would like
9 to refrain from answering this because it would be against my conscience.
10 JUDGE NOSWORTHY: Thank you, Professor Jokic.
11 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Professor, I have a question for you. Do you
12 know the difference between a mosque and a "dzamija"? You mentioned
13 about the "dzamija" in the past, you mentioned it again. Your learned
14 counsel also mentioned it at page 82, line 16. What is the difference
15 between "dzamija" and mosque?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course there is a difference in
17 architecture and in the purpose for which the building is used.
18 JUDGE CHOWHAN: What is the purpose of a "dzamija"?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, both are religious buildings,
20 both a mosque and a "dzamija" are religious buildings, but a "dzamija" is
21 a building where religious ceremonies are carried out more extensively
22 and in larger number.
23 JUDGE CHOWHAN: I'm sorry to tell you that this is not correct.
24 "Dzamija" is the seminary. It's a place where students get education,
25 and side by side they're also praying there. So that's the "dzamija."
1 Dzamija Islamija, this famous one in Cairo, Al-Azhar and various places.
2 So "dzamija" is not what you are thinking. So this is the problem
3 because had you studied this and then went on discovering whether there
4 is a building which doesn't have the feature of a mosque but is a
5 religious place or where religion is taught, I think things must have
6 been much simpler. Now, "dzamija" is a seminary and a "dzamija" Azhar
7 the famous place in Cairo. So "dzamija" is that, again in this picture
8 on the left it could have been very -- it could have been easily
9 discovered whether this is the demolished mosque or not because there
10 would be the residual parts of the minaret somewhere lying here, those
11 could have been seen and discovered, there would have been the signs of
12 the mijrab and so on and so forth. As an expert you should have seen
13 that. I'm very sorry to have treaded on that line, but I thought I
14 should at least inquire from you your expertise on the subject. I
15 apologise if I --
16 JUDGE BONOMY: I think perhaps I've understood things rather
17 differently from my colleague. I thought the very point you were making
18 was that no one had actually gone to look at the site to compare the two.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly.
20 JUDGE BONOMY: Is that not your point?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is my point, nobody went
22 on site to check, but I wish to thank His Honour for his explanation,
23 which I fully accept. But in the case of Kosovo and Metohija even a
24 practicing religious ethnic Albanian will not be able to explain this to
25 you and would not know this. Of course I fully appreciate your knowledge
1 of this issue, but unfortunately in Kosovo that would be the case.
2 JUDGE CHOWHAN: Thank you very much.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: I believe it's time.
4 JUDGE BONOMY: I'm afraid we have to end our proceedings for
5 today at this stage, Professor, and resume them tomorrow. That will be
6 at 9.00 tomorrow morning in this courtroom. I'm sorry about that, but
7 you will require to return then to complete your evidence. Could you now
8 please leave the courtroom with the usher.
9 MR. VISNJIC: Your Honour, excuse me.
10 JUDGE BONOMY: Just a moment.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 JUDGE BONOMY: Yes, Mr. Visnjic.
13 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't want to
14 interrupt the examination by Mr. Zecevic, but I wanted to give a comment
15 for the record. We were prevented from doing our work in Pristina. We
16 were unable to move throughout the town, unable to move throughout
17 Kosovo. As soon as we were identified as to who we are, we became
18 unsafe -- it became unsafe for us to work there and this was confirmed to
19 us by representatives of authorities, including representatives of UNMIK.
20 That's what I wanted to say and I wanted to make sure that that's
21 recorded in the transcript. Thank you.
22 JUDGE BONOMY: I also want to make it clear to you, Mr. Visnjic,
23 that we have not had it brought to our attention that you had
24 difficulties in Pristina, and also to make it clear to you that there is
25 more than one way to skin a cat and that there are other ways of carrying
1 out investigations in Pristina that are not provocative or cannot even be
2 considered to begin to begin to be provocative as long as you engage the
3 right people to carry out your inquiries in the right way then you will
4 achieve your objective. No inquiry was made of us for assistance to
5 enable you to carry out inquiries there. We would take a very firm
6 stance on any impediment to inquiries.
7 You know also the efforts we made before when you ran into
8 personal difficulties which ought never to have beset you, but our
9 efforts in that regard were not exhausted and I -- we don't accept that
10 we have not done what we can and would have done more to ensure that your
11 inquiries were completed.
12 MR. VISNJIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm grateful to the
13 Trial Chamber, and I didn't address the Chamber. I just wanted the fact
14 to be recorded. As soon as one of us is identified as the person doing
15 its work there, then we could encounter certain problems, safety-related,
16 and I wanted that to be recorded. Now, whether this was something to
17 be -- this was something that should have been done by an expert or an
18 investigator engaged by us, we can make our own conclusions regarding
19 that. But I wanted to make sure that this is officially on the record.
20 Thank you.
21 JUDGE BONOMY: Well, it's on the record with clear reservations
22 about the extent to which you exhausted the possibilities open to you.
23 We'll adjourn now and we'll resume at 9.00 tomorrow.
24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.07 p.m.,
25 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 23rd day of
1 April, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.