1 Monday, 29 October 2012
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused not present]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.39 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-09-92-T, The Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 The accused is not present in the courtroom at this moment.
12 Mr. Lukic, have you been informed about the reason why he is not present
13 at this moment?
14 MR. LUKIC: I'm not clear, Your Honour, what's the reason why
15 Mr. Mladic is not in the courtroom.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, let me tell you what information the
17 Chamber received.
18 Mr. Mladic was invited to come to the Tribunal at 8.30 this
19 morning. He then said that he wanted to continue and to finish his
20 breakfast. Then at 9.10, approximately, he was still not -- had still
21 not finished his breakfast, and I do understand that he is on his way now
22 to the Tribunal. But the Chamber under the present circumstances is
23 inclined to proceed, at least for the first session, without Mr. Mladic
24 because preferring to finish your breakfast for more than 40 minutes
25 rather than to come to court is considered by this Chamber to be a waiver
1 of your right to be present, a right which is a right of an accused.
2 If there's any further comment on that, I'd like to hear, but
3 apparently you were not informed, Mr. Lukic, about the events.
4 MR. LUKIC: I really am not in details. I just heard it from
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then assuming that this information the
7 Chamber received through the Registry is accurate, we'll start, and after
8 the first break, if Mr. Mladic has arrived, of course, he is welcome to
9 further attend the proceedings.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then is the Prosecution ready to call its next
13 MR. GROOME: Good morning, Your Honours. Your Honours, we are.
14 Mr. Jeremy will be handling the next witness, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness be escorted into the
16 courtroom. No protective measures. Mr. Stojic is the next witness?
17 MR. JEREMY: That's right, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Stojic. Before you give evidence,
21 the Rules require that you make a solemn declaration, the text of which
22 is now handed out to you by Madam Usher.
23 May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
25 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
1 WITNESS: GRGO STOJIC
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stojic. Please be seated.
4 Mr. Stojic, you will first -- you will be first examined by
5 Mr. Jeremy. You'll find him to your right. Mr. Jeremy is counsel for
6 the Prosecution.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Jeremy.
8 MR. JEREMY: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Examination by Mr. Jeremy:
10 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stojic. Could you please state your full name
11 for the record.
12 A. Good morning, Your Honours. My name is Grgo Stojic.
13 Q. Mr. Stojic, do you recall testifying before this Tribunal in the
14 case of Brdjanin et al. on the 6th and 7th of June, 2002?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. I would ask that 65 ter 28453 be called up on the screens. This
17 is a redacted copy of the transcript of this witness's testimony given
18 before this Tribunal in the Brdjanin case.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any technical problem with it to appear on
20 our screens? There we are.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. JEREMY:
23 Q. Mr. Stojic, have you recently had an opportunity to listen to an
24 audio recording of your testimony in the Brdjanin case?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. Following your proofing on the 26th and 27th of October, 2012, I
2 understand that you wish to clarify the names of two of the victims from
3 the incident on the 2nd of November, 1992.
4 Firstly, I understand that at transcript page 6779, line 20,
5 which is e-court page 19, the reference to Adlo Tadic should be, instead,
6 to Karlo Tadic. Is that correct, Mr. Stojic?
7 A. Yes, it is.
8 Q. And on line 21 on the same page, the reference to
9 Josip Fertalac [phoen] should be to Tomika Potalac [phoen]. Is that
10 correct, Mr. Stojic?
11 A. It should be Tomica Potalac [phoen].
12 Q. Thank you. I also understand you that you want to make a
13 clarification in relation to your testimony about a conversation between
14 a Bono Tutic and a Tomo Delic concerning weapons which we'll discuss in
15 your testimony. Specifically at transcript page 6771, line 6 [Realtime
16 transcript read in error "67"], which is e-court page 11, you wish to
17 insert the word "now" between the word "discussion" and the word "that"
18 so that the sentence now reads: "Delic literally told Bono and the
19 others that he had done this because we were friends and that there would
20 be no further discussion now that weapons had started talking." Is that
21 correct, Mr. Stojic?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 Q. Aside from the clarifications just made, if you were asked the
24 same questions today that you were asked in the Brdjanin case, would you
25 give the same answers, in substance?
1 A. Yes, basically I would give the same answers.
2 Q. And do you today affirm the truthfulness and accuracy of your
3 prior testimony?
4 A. Yes, I do. I confirm that it was truthful and accurate.
5 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, at this time the Prosecution tenders
6 the redacted version of the witness's testimony in the Brdjanin case,
7 65 ter 28453, as the next Prosecution Exhibit pursuant to our Rule 92
8 application of 28 September 2012.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before I give an opportunity to Mr. Ivetic to make
10 any submission, the reference to line 67 should be line 6, I take it, on
11 page 6771.
12 Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: No objection to the tender of the redacted
14 transcript under Rule 92 ter.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then ...
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, could you please assign a number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Document 28453 becomes Exhibit P365,
19 Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P365 is admitted into evidence.
21 Mr. Jeremy.
22 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, with your leave I will now read a
23 short summary of Mr. Stojic's written evidence.
24 JUDGE ORIE: You have explained to Mr. Stojic the purpose of
25 doing so.
1 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
3 MR. JEREMY: In 1992, Grgo Stojic was a Bosnian Croat farmer
4 living in the village of Skrljevita, Sanski Most. The witness gives
5 general evidence about the persecution of non-Serbs within Sanski Most,
6 including Sanski Most Crisis Staff demands and radio broadcasts stating
7 that non-Serbs must surrender their weapons.
8 The witness describes the killing of a number of men near the
9 village of Skrljevita on 2 November, 1992, referred to as
10 Scheduled Incident A.7.5 in the indictment. During this attack, the
11 witness, together with five other men from his village, were captured by
12 four Bosnian Serb soldiers who were armed with machine-guns and who
13 described themselves as Seselj's army. The witness and his five fellow
14 villagers were questioned by these men, searched, and beaten. They were
15 then lined up and shot. The witness was shot in the arm, hip, and
16 stomach, and together with the five fellow villagers, left for dead by
17 the attackers.
18 When the witness regained consciousness, he realised that he was
19 the only survivor of the attack. He later learned that four other men
20 from this area were killed by these same attackers that same day.
21 The witness went to Banja Luka hospital, where, after treatment,
22 he was detained in a cell that was guarded by Bosnian Serb soldiers.
23 There, he and other non-Serbs were beaten by Bosnian Serb soldiers and
24 civilians on a number of occasions.
25 The witness was finally released on 11 December 1992 and shortly
1 after he travelled to Croatia, where he remains to this day.
2 That concludes the summary, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
4 MR. JEREMY:
5 Q. Mr. Stojic, I will now ask a few questions relating to the
6 requests made to non-Bosnian Serbs in Sanski Most and in particular in
7 your village in Skrljevita to surrender any weapons. This is discussed
8 in your Brdjanin testimony now in evidence as P365 at transcript page
9 6768 to 6771; e-court pages 8 to 11.
10 And, Your Honours, in case it is helpful, Sanski Most
11 municipality and Skrljevita village are identified on page 36 of the
12 Prosecution's municipalities court binder, P00178.
13 Mr. Stojic, in your Brdjanin testimony at transcript page 6770 to
14 771, e-court pages 10 to 11, you discuss three men from your village,
15 namely, Ilija Tutic, Bono Tutic, and Ivica Tutic being called to a
16 meeting by someone by the name of Tomo Delic together with a military
17 officer. Mr. Stojic, who was Tomo Delic?
18 A. Tomo Delic was initially the commander of the Crisis Staff and
19 representative of the Serb armed forces in Sanski Most.
20 Q. At transcript page 6771, you state that Bono Tutic told you that
21 at that meeting Tomo Delic had requested that your village surrender a
22 number of rifles that he alleged your village had obtained from Croatia.
23 Were you aware of your village obtaining these weapons from Croatia?
24 A. We were not aware of any weapons having been obtained, nor did we
25 receive any.
1 Q. And were you aware of Ilija Tutic, Bono Tutic, or Ivica Tutic
2 being involved in the military in 1992?
3 A. They had no connections to the army in 1992. Just like myself,
4 they were civilians.
5 Q. In your Brdjanin testimony, at 67 -- at transcript page 6769,
6 line 21, e-court page 10, you refer to the disappearance of Ivica Tutic
7 at the beginning of July 1992 after he had been asked to report to a
8 police station in Sanski Most. How long after this meeting with Tomo
9 Delic did Ivica Tutic disappear?
10 A. After the meeting, Ivica disappeared after one and a half months
11 ago, i.e, sometime in mid-July.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, if I look at my own screen, page 10 in
13 e-court is page 6770 in the transcript pages. So, therefore, there seems
14 to be a discrepancy between what -- because you said it was 6769 to be
15 found on page 10 of e-court. Now which of the two would be the better
17 MR. JEREMY: That's my mistake, Your Honours. It should be
18 e-court page 9.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Page 9. Thank you.
20 MR. JEREMY: Thank you for the clarification.
21 Q. Mr. Stojic, I'd now like to ask a few questions relating to the
22 events on the 2nd of November, 1992, that left you permanently disabled
23 and resulted in the deaths of a number of your neighbours.
24 In your Brdjanin testimony, at transcript page 6777, e-court page
25 17, you describe being questioned by four soldiers shortly before the
1 execution began. In particular, you state that before the shooting
2 started, you were each asked about the whereabouts of Ilija Tutic and
3 Bono Tutic. Were these two of the three men the same two men that
4 Tomo Delic met at the meeting that we've just discussed?
5 A. Yes, those were the two men.
6 Q. In your Brdjanin testimony at transcript page 6779, line 20,
7 e-court page 19, you describe later hearing about the death of four other
8 men from your village that day. You refer to one of them as Bruno Tutic.
9 Is Bruno Tutic the same man as Bono Tutic?
10 A. Bono Tutic -- or, rather, Bruno Tutic is a non-existent name. It
11 must have been a mistake.
12 Q. So the correct name is Bono Tutic, not Bruno Tutic?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. I'd now like to discuss briefly certain aspects of your
15 experience in Banja Luka hospital where you stayed from the 2nd of
16 November, 1992, to the 11th of December, 1992.
17 Shortly after your initial treatment for your injuries, you were
18 transferred to what you describe in your Brdjanin testimony at transcript
19 page 6783, e-court page 23, as prison cells within the urology ward,
20 firstly to cell number 8 and then criminal number 9. In cell number 9
21 you describe, in transcript page 6789, being beaten on a number of
22 occasions by "civilians and by soldiers and by anyone who could enter
23 that cell."
24 Mr. Stojic, how were people able to enter that cell?
25 A. These people could enter the cell in the following way. The
1 guards would let them in. They would take the door handle out, and
2 that's how they let them in.
3 Q. And when you refer to "the guards," who were these guards?
4 A. These guards were soldiers.
5 Q. Was it possible to gain access to these cells without the
6 permission of the soldier guards outside?
7 A. Unfortunately, no.
8 Q. And were you ever attacked by one of these soldiers guarding your
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you please provide details of that attack.
12 A. Yes. I was attacked around day break, say, about 4.00 in the
13 morning, by a soldier named Slobodan. However his nickname was Zuco. He
14 beat me. He beat me up. Before that, when some of them came in, they
15 would also beat --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note, it is ambiguous. Either
17 the witness personally or other prisoners as well, on their wounds, too.
18 MR. JEREMY:
19 Q. Mr. Stojic, when you refer to the beatings on your wounds, were
20 you referring to just yourself or to fellow detainees within the cell
21 within the hospital?
22 A. I was referring to the others as well. The others who had been
23 detained with me. They beat up people using whatever they could lay
24 their hands on. They would kick them, they would hit them with
25 rifle-butts, with crutches, whatever. Everybody did whatever they
2 Q. Mr. Stojic, in your Brdjanin testimony, at transcript page 6831,
3 line 13, e-court page 63, you state that:
4 "When I left the prison, the hospital, Mrs. Nada came to me and
5 she helped me. She helped get me out."
6 How did Mrs. Nada help you get out?
7 A. This is the way it was. On the 2nd of December - or was it the
8 3rd of December? I do not remember the date exactly - the main nurse
9 walked in, Slobodanka Brankovic, that's her maiden name. Her married
10 name was Samardzija. She said that we were free, that we could go home
11 once we paid the hospital expenses. However, on the 9th of December, a
12 guard by the name of Dragan was on duty. He came into that room and he
13 said that Ivo Nikic could go home because he was in cell number 8.
14 However, I asked him to have this woman come to see me so that I could
15 send a message to Mrs. Nada, if she could come and bring money so that I
16 could cover expenses so that they could let us go. However, this man was
17 confused this. This was Miroslava Grgic, also a Croat, from
18 Poljaci [phoen]. And on the 9th of November, Mrs. Nada came to see me in
19 this cell. We exchanged greetings in the morning and she said that
20 everything would be all right. She went to this person, Slobodanka, that
21 head nurse, and she sent her to the military command in Banja Luka. She
22 spent some time there and she said that she also had lunch there with
23 them, and then she came to me and then I was released. She took me out
24 of hospital. Me and this Ivo Nikic as well. In front of the hospital we
25 were met with Adolf Visaticki, a priest, and he took us to Caritas in
1 Banja Luka.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojic.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I interrupt you for a moment, Mr. Jeremy,
4 just for one clarification.
5 I would like to take you back for a moment to the situation in
6 cell number 9 where you were detained together with other prisoners and
7 you were asked about the beatings on the wounds, and then you said, "I
8 was referring to the others as well."
9 Does that mean you were beaten in the same way on your wounds by
10 the guards? You personally?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
13 MR. JEREMY: Could the Court Officer please bring 65 ter 07062 to
14 our screens.
15 Q. Mr. Stojic, the document being brought up on the screen before
16 you is a letter written by Danilusko Kajtez, whom you describe in your
17 Brdjanin testimony as one of your attackers on the 2nd of November, 1992.
18 In this letter, Mr. Kajtez requests for various people to intervene on
19 his behalf in order to obtain his release from Pre-Trial detention in
20 connection with the event that resulted in your being shot on the 2nd of
21 November, 1992. One of the men he refers to in that letter is Tomo Delic
22 whom you discuss at various points in your Brdjanin testimony and who we
23 have discussed today.
24 I'd like to go to bullet 10 on page 1 in the English version, and
25 in the B/C/S version it's page 2 and the second asterisk.
1 Mr. Stojic, in the paragraph on the screen before you Mr. Kajtez
3 "If you fail to get me out of here, I will say that I killed on
4 the orders of Tomo Delic and Vlado Vrkes with the intention of resettling
5 the village of Skrljevita as soon as possible. All of which could be
6 easily proven in court."
7 Mr. Stojic, the nine men killed by Kajtez and his fellow soldiers
8 on 2nd of November, 1992, which village were they from?
9 A. I mean all of them were from the village of Skrljevita except for
10 these three, Zalko, Nikic Tutic, and Ivo Tutic. They are from Kruhari
11 which borders with Skrljevita. There's just a road there.
12 Q. And what happened to the village of Skrljevita after these
13 killings on 2nd of November, 1992? Briefly, please.
14 A. I mean, well, the villagers had to leave because they were being
15 intimidated. Their property was looted. Part of the population moved to
16 Sasenac [phoen] or to Kruhari until they all went to the Republic of
17 Croatia. They all tried to get out in any which way. However, relatives
18 in Croatia had to provide letters of guarantee, or rather visas, and then
19 everybody moved out. Whoever could. And those who stayed on, well,
20 there were killings all the way up until the end of the war there. In
21 Skrljevita the total number of killed persons is 18, five of which are
22 women, and there's one child too.
23 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, I'd like to tender this exhibit,
24 65 ter 07062 as the next Prosecution Exhibit.
25 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we would object on the basis that the
1 proofing statement that we were given for this witness confirms that this
2 witness has never seen this document before. Therefore, he is not in a
3 position to authenticate the document or to give any personal details
4 that would lend some kind of meaning to the document. We therefore
5 submit this document is not properly being tendered through this witness.
6 And perhaps through the bar table or through some other witness to lay
7 some foundation for document it would be appropriate, but under the --
8 under the law of the case as it has been to date, I don't believe this
9 document is appropriate through this witness.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
11 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, the subject of the letter concerns an
12 incident which resulted in -- in this witness being shot. The witness is
13 aware of the man who wrote the letter. He is aware of the various
14 recipients of the letter and men mentioned in this letter.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would ask then is the Prosecution
16 presenting this letter for the truth of the matters asserted within it?
17 If so, I would object on that basis as well. That would be an improper
18 attempt to introduce a written statement without going through their
19 92 bis, 92 ter, or 92 quater.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Would this be a statement under 92 bis, 92 ter, and
21 92 quater? Isn't it true that it is mainly for statements which are made
22 for the Tribunal. This seems to be of a totally different nature, or am
23 I wrong?
24 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, I understood the comments of
25 counsel that they're -- that they're presenting the letter and what's
1 presented in the letter as if it's being presented for truth of the
2 matters asserted, in which case it therefore must be a statement and must
3 comply with one of the rules that this Tribunal has for the introduction
4 of statements. If it's being presented for that are purpose.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will consider the tendering and the
7 objections raised by the Defence and the document should be marked for
8 identification at this moment.
9 Madam Registrar, the number would be?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 07062 becomes Exhibit P366, MFI'd, Your
12 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status for the time being.
13 Mr. Jeremy.
14 MR. JEREMY:
15 Q. Mr. Stojic, to finish I'd like to ask a few questions about the
16 treatment that you received for your injuries and the consequences of
17 those injuries for you.
18 MR. JEREMY: Could the Court officer please bring 65 ter 15709 to
19 our screens.
20 Q. Mr. Stojic, being brought up on the screen before you is a
21 newspaper article that details the operation that you had on your arm in
22 Oklahoma City in the United States in October 1994, almost two years
23 after you sustained your injuries.
24 MR. JEREMY: Could we please zoom in on the photographs of
25 Mr. Stojic which show his arm before and after the operation in the US.
1 Q. Mr. Stojic, does this article and, in particular, the pictures
2 contained within it accurately describe the operation that you had to
3 undergo in the US for your injuries?
4 A. Yes, it is accurately described.
5 Q. I'd like to tender this exhibit, 65 ter 07062 as the next
6 Prosecution public exhibit.
7 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be?
9 MR. JEREMY: Forgive me, Your Honours. The 65 ter is 15709.
10 JUDGE ORIE: 15709 will receive number?
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P367, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: P367 is admitted into evidence.
13 MR. JEREMY:
14 Q. Mr. Stojic, this Friday will mark the 20th anniversary of those
15 events on 2nd of November, 1992. What impact has that attack had on the
16 life that you have led over the past 20 years?
17 A. That attack left an all-ought mark on me. I am disabled, 70
18 per cent disabled, physically, mentally. I have nightmares on account of
19 that. Sometimes I have problems with my digestion too. I mean, I do not
20 have any proper satisfaction. I did not receive anything financially. I
21 can only thank the Republic of Croatia for the fact that I now have
22 health insurance.
23 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojic.
24 MR. JEREMY: I have no further questions at this time,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Jeremy.
2 MR. JEREMY: I am prepared to deal with the associated exhibits
3 for this witness now if it's an appropriate time.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at them.
5 Yes, please.
6 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, following proofing with this witness
7 over the weekend, I'd now like to tender ten of the 17 associated
8 exhibits for this witness. And I am prepared to list these exhibits on
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Would you please take them one by one.
11 MR. JEREMY: The first exhibit is 06377.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Any objections?
13 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: 06377 becomes Exhibit P368, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: P368 is admitted into evidence.
17 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 07074.
18 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Becomes Exhibit P369, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
22 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 15705.
23 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: 15705 becomes Exhibit P370, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
2 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 15706.
3 MR. IVETIC: Again, no objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: 15706 becomes Exhibit P371, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
7 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 18446.
8 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
10 THE REGISTRAR: 18446 becomes Exhibit P372, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
12 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 18447.
13 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: 18447 becomes Exhibit P373, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
17 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 18543.
18 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
20 THE REGISTRAR: 18543 becomes Exhibit P374, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
22 MR. JEREMY: The next exhibit is 18544.
23 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: 18544 becomes Exhibit P375, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
2 MR. JEREMY: And the last exhibit is 18572.
3 MR. IVETIC: Also no objection.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: 18572 becomes Exhibit P376, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
7 That was it, Mr. Jeremy?
8 MR. JEREMY: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, are you ready to start your
10 cross-examination before we take a break in approximately seven minutes
11 from now?
12 MR. IVETIC: I am, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stojic, you will now be cross-examined by
14 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic and
15 you'll find him to your left.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
17 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
18 Q. Good day, Mr. Stojic. The Defence appreciates all that you've
19 gone through and endured and wishes to ask you some questions to get a
20 better understanding of these events.
21 First of all, I know that it is mentioned in your testimony and
22 some of your statements that you did your military service in the JNA. I
23 want to ask you was this part of your compulsory service that every male
24 in the former Yugoslavia had to undergo at the time?
25 A. Yes, yes. That's it.
1 Q. And for those that might be unfamiliar with the structure of the
2 compulsory military service in the former Yugoslavia, could you tell us
3 at what age, or ages, was compulsory military service mandatory for males
4 in the former Yugoslavia?
5 A. All able-bodied men of the age of 18 had that obligation.
6 Q. Thank you, sir. And at the time that you completed your service
7 in December of 1991, would you agree with me that within the JNA unit
8 that you served in, there were not any tensions between the conscripts
9 and officers of various ethnicities?
10 A. Yes, I can say that.
11 Q. Thank you. Now I would like to get your clarification of some of
12 the people that were mentioned from Sanski Most.
13 First of all, with respect to Danilusko Kajtez, am I correct that
14 at the time that you encountered him in the woods on the 2nd of
15 November 1992 when he and his cohorts did the crime that you have
16 testified about, at that time you did not know this individual or his
17 name; is that accurate?
18 A. That is accurate.
19 Q. Am I correct that the first time that you heard the name of
20 Danilusko Kajtez in relation to this incident was from Ms. Nada Ilicic at
21 the hospital in Banja Luka?
22 A. No, that is not correct. I first heard of it from
23 Mile Dosenovic, an inspector who came to see me in the hospital in
24 Banja Luka on the 7th of December, 1992.
25 Q. And did Ms. Nada Ilicic also mention the name of Danilusko Kajtez
1 to you at some point in the hospital in Banja Luka?
2 A. She did not mention that name in hospital because -- I mean, she
3 visited me only once up there, at the surgery department. She did not
4 know of him at all.
5 Q. And at the time of the incident in the woods this individual,
6 Mr. Kajtez, he was the one dressed entirely in civilian clothes; is that
8 A. That is accurate. But she had a submachine-gun.
9 Q. Just for clarifying the record, sir, the transcript reflects that
10 you had referred to "she" having "a machine-gun." Are you talking about
11 Danilusko Kajtez having the submachine-gun?
12 A. It's not that I think so. I am saying that he did have one.
13 Q. Okay. Now, am I correct that you have in some of your other
14 statements detailed other crimes committed by this Danilusko Kajtez,
15 including the killing of Mate Barac on the 18th of October 1992 at the
16 request of a neighbour who wanted to steal the land of Mr. Barac?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. And with regard to this killing of Mr. Barac, this
19 Danilusko Kajtez was given a payment by this private citizen, this
20 neighbour who wanted to steal the land; is that accurate?
21 A. Yes, he was given a reward of 10 metres of chopped wood.
22 Q. Would you agree with me that when talking about Kajtez,
23 Danilusko Kajtez, we are talking about someone who is a common criminal
24 used to doing things for his own financial gain?
25 A. I cannot exactly agree with that. I mean, well, a criminal does
1 not do such horrible things. A criminal does tend to hide that.
2 Q. Now the other individuals that were with Danilusko Kajtez that
3 participated in the crime in the forest, they were all known to you as
4 fellow residents of Sanski Most; is that accurate?
5 A. Are you referring to the persons who were killed or those who
6 were there with him to kill others?
7 Q. I'm asking about those individuals who were with Danilusko Kajtez
8 and who participated in the crime of killing your neighbours and wounding
10 A. I didn't know them. I mean, well, the inspector who came to see
11 me in Banja Luka told me about that, and then all of these names were
12 identified on the basis of the statement that I gave to him.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I see that we're at the 10.31 mark.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But before we take a break -- we'll take a
16 break of 20 minutes.
17 Witness, would you please follow the usher.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile, I put on the record the information which
20 the Chamber now has received not yet in an official report but
21 unofficially. The information being that when the transport police was
22 ready to pick up Mr. Mladic at the UNDU at 8.30 this morning, that the
23 transport police were informed by the United Nations Detention Unit
24 Mr. Mladic is having breakfast at the moment and that he indicated he is
25 not ready for transport yet.
1 At 9.20 the transport police passed on the information that the
2 UNDU security personnel were making attempts to make Mr. Mladic ready for
3 transport but that Mr. Mladic was not showing any intention to make any
4 hurry to get ready, and finally at 9.30 that the transport police gave
5 information available to them that they had Mr. Mladic inside their
6 vehicle, going to leave the UNDU to make their way towards the ICTY
8 In addition to these reports, Mr. Mladic was informed once he had
9 arrived at the ICTY premises, that he is welcome to enter the courtroom
10 after the first break, and he was also offered by security to follow the
11 proceedings from the holding cell where a monitor is placed until the
12 first break takes place, and that Mr. Mladic has indicated that he does
13 not want to follow the proceedings from the holding cell, but, rather,
14 stay inside cell 10.
15 That's the information which the Chamber has by now.
16 We will take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to 11.00.
17 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
18 [The accused entered court]
19 --- On resuming at 10.59 a.m.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
21 Meanwhile, I put on the record that Mr. Mladic is present in
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, if you are ready to proceed, please do
1 MR. IVETIC: I am, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Stojic, I'd like to continue asking you now about the other
3 individuals that assisted Mr. Kajtez in performing the crime, the
5 I'd like to focus for the time being on the one individual who
6 was across the river by the sand-bed with a machine-gun. Am I correct
7 that I am referring to Todor, Tode Vokic?
8 A. Yes, I heard that his name was Tode Vokic. However, his real
9 name is Todor.
10 Q. And this Todor, or Tode, Vokic, at the time of the incident he
11 was a minor; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. And would it also be correct that as a minor he would officially
14 be too young to serve in the army?
15 A. As far as serving in the army is concerned, yes, he was too
16 young. But I don't know how come that he had a submachine-gun and was
17 wearing a camouflage uniform.
18 Q. Okay. I'd like to explore that.
19 MR. IVETIC: If we can call up in e-court document 1D385.
20 Q. And while we wait for that, sir, I'd like to introduce for you
21 that this is the statement given by yourself before the court in
22 Sanski Most on the 8th of March, 1996. And I'd like to turn to page 2 in
23 the B/C/S, and page 3 in the English, and I'd like to focus on the middle
24 of the page in both versions.
25 And the part in English begins:
1 "There was also Todor Vokic..."
2 And in the B/C/S it starts -- in B/C/S: [B/C/S spoken].
3 Sir, I think that there is a slight variance between the B/C/S
4 original and the English translation of this section, so I would ask you
5 to read for us the selection that begins at the part that I have just
6 referenced and continues to describe this individual, Todor Vokic, and
7 it's the first three sentences.
8 A. Can you mark the exact paragraph and can I have it enlarged,
10 Q. Yes. In the B/C/S it is right now located in the middle of the
11 page. And the -- the -- the defining text is referencing Vokic, Mirka,
12 and Dragica, Todor zvani [phoen] Tode.
13 A. "Todor Vokic, aka Tode, son of Mirko and Dragica, was there as
14 well. He was 4 to 5 metres away from us across the stream."
15 Q. If you could continue, sir.
16 JUDGE ORIE: The witness apparently has difficulties in reading
17 it. Could it be enlarged so that it's easier for him to ...
18 Are you able to read it, Mr. Stojic?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But if it can be enlarged
20 just a little bit more, please.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
23 Has the witness only the B/C/S version on his screen? If not,
24 then we should use that facility to enable him to better read. Yes.
25 Is it better now, Mr. Stojic?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it is. Only ...
2 JUDGE ORIE: You had read up to the point that he was at the
3 other side of the stream. If you can find it ...
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
5 "... on a sandy patch. He was in charge and he would be the one
6 who would commit the killings, or rather the shooting. He was a minor.
7 He was also dressed in a Chetnik uniform and had insignia like the rest
8 of them. He was standing on that sandy embankment, pointing
9 submachine-gun towards the four men. When we were approaching this
10 location where the crime would take place, when we were brought there,
11 Niki, Zarko started shouting, My poor kids, and he started crying.
12 However, the Chetniks showed no sympathy and Nikic, Pero was crying too."
13 MR. IVETIC:
14 Q. Thank you, sir. Now if we can focus back on this description
15 that you gave of this described, Todor Vokic. Does this selection that
16 you have read for us from your statement to the Sanski Most Court in
17 March of 1996 accurately identify Todor Vokic as the main shooter or the
18 one in charge?
19 A. I cannot know exactly because I had my back turned to those who
20 were shooting. Whether the others ...
21 Q. Okay. Fair enough. Could you describe for us the type of
22 weapon, or it's described here as either a light machine-gun or a
23 submachine-gun. Could you clarify for us what type of weapon this
24 individual, Todor Vokic, had in his possession?
25 A. All four of them had submachine-guns.
1 Q. Were you familiar with the type of submachine-gun, based upon
2 your time spent in the JNA?
3 A. Yes, that's right.
4 Q. Are you able to identify the type of submachine-gun?
5 A. The submachine-gun was the one on which I am forgetting at the
6 moment how you pronounce it, but it's a rifle grenade. And it has a --
7 two legs that can be stretched, and a person shooting from it can do so
8 whilst lying on the ground. There were no other types of submachine-guns
9 at the time.
10 Q. Am I correct that the submachine-guns that these individuals were
11 carrying had some modifications to the butt of the rifle, some carvings?
12 A. The insignia were etched; perhaps the four Ss, if I remember
14 Q. Would you agree with me from your time spent in the JNA that it
15 would not be normally permitted for soldiers to carve any kind of
16 lettering into the butt of their issued rifle?
17 A. Well, you're now going back to regular service in the army and a
18 state of war is a completely different thing. And it's been distributed
19 in such a way that it can be carried on held in that manner.
20 When people served in army as regular soldiers, it was not even
21 allowed to take weapons outside of the army premises and people were held
22 accountable for even one bullet missing or any other item missing.
23 Q. Thank you, sir. And now you've described that this individual,
24 Todor Vokic, the minor, had a camouflage uniform, a Chetnik uniform with
25 the insignia, as you've described it. Could you describe for us, as best
1 as you can, the particular Chetnik uniform that Todor Vokic was wearing
2 that day, including any insignia or emblems?
3 JUDGE ORIE: No consultations in court. Little notes.
4 Mr. Lukic. Mr. Lukic, Mr. Ivetic, no consultations in court, that's the
5 regime. Little notes, if need be.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: Perhaps it would assist if I repeat the question.
8 Q. Sir, you've described that this individual, Todor Vokic, the
9 minor, had a camouflage uniform, a Chetnik uniform with the insignia as
10 you described it. Could you describe for us as best as you can the
11 particular Chetnik uniform that Todor Vokic was wearing that day,
12 including any insignia?
13 A. Unfortunately, it was not described. He had a camouflage
14 uniform, he had no cap on the head, but the description was given of the
15 other one who was dressed in military police uniform. He had a white
16 belt, a submachine-gun, a pistol, handcuffs, and a cap on his head, with
17 a cockade on it, and he was the one who searched us.
18 Q. Am I correct that only one of the individuals there in a
19 camouflage uniform had the white belt and white pistol holster?
20 A. Yes, you are right. And that is true.
21 Q. Okay. I'd like to now turn to 1D384. And when that document
22 comes up I would be focussing on the first page in both languages in
24 And, sir, for your information the document that is now coming up
25 is a news article from the "Dnevni Avaz's" paper's crime section.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, before you continue, what do you want to
2 do with the previous document or did you only want to use it?
3 MR. IVETIC: I might actually come back to it, but for the -- I
4 thought -- I was only using it for that one section and so --
5 JUDGE ORIE: You have read that out to him and that's --
6 MR. IVETIC: Correct.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
8 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
9 Q. And now we have this document before us - and I apologise, the
10 B/C/S looks a little bit less clear than I remember it. But if we could
11 focus on the -- first of all, this is an article from February of 1998 in
12 the "Dnevni Avaz," sir. Looking at the caption or the title of this --
13 of this article, are you familiar with the article; that is to say, have
14 you seen this article previously?
15 A. There's a big lettering which says "Serbs kill nine Croats";
16 whereas the rest of it is invisible.
17 Q. Okay. If we look at the second full paragraph, and perhaps we
18 can try to enlarge the B/C/S.
19 MR. IVETIC: It's going to be the second -- yeah, there we go.
20 In that section. And it starts off the criminal charges -- we had it.
21 Q. Do you see there, sir, where it starts off with the criminal
22 charges were filed, have been filed against Todor, Todo, father's name
23 Mirko Vokic, born in Germany in 1977; Goran, father's name
24 Radivoje Vukojevic, born in Prijedor in 1975; and Dane Danilusko,
25 father's name Gojko Kajtez, born in Sanski Most in 1968. These men were
1 resident in the Kruhari settlement during the entire occupation of Sanski
2 Most. Criminal charges have also been filed against Milos, father's name
3 Milorad, Maksimovic born in 1972 in Banja Luka where he has a permanent
5 Now --
6 A. Yes, I can see that.
7 Q. And we've already previously discussed Mr. Todor, Tode, Vokic.
8 Now we see that would have been 15 at the time of the incident. We also
9 see that the individual Milos Maksimovic was born in 1972. That would
10 make him 17 years old at the time of the shooting. Would you agree that
11 Mr. Maksimovic at 17 years of age would have been too young to officially
12 serve in the army, according to the conscription and mobilisation rules?
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Excuse me, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: You say a person born in 1972 would have been 17
16 by 1992?
17 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, 20.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
19 MR. IVETIC: It might be a different document. We'll get to it.
20 Q. In any event, is this the same -- if we could focus on the Todor,
21 Todo, Vokic, would this be the same person - they list a different
22 nickname, "Todo" instead of "Tode" - is that your understanding to be the
23 same individual that we talked about previously?
24 A. Yes, that is the same individual.
25 Q. And now if can I correctly focus on Goran Vukojevic, born in
1 Prijedor in 1975, that would be the individual who was 17 at the time of
2 the shooting and which I would ask you: Based upon him being 17 years of
3 age, would you agree that he would be too young to serve officially in
4 the army based upon the rules of conscription and mobilisation as you
5 knew them in the former Yugoslavia?
6 A. Yes. That's too young under regular circumstances and when a
7 country is in a regular state. It is known that these people were
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We are not able to
10 understand the answer. Can the witness please rephrase.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. Sir, the interpreters have interrupted that they did not
13 understand and follow your answer. Could you please begin your answer
14 from the beginning and give it in its entirety.
15 A. Speaking of regular army, as the situation was when the country
16 was in normal state, they were too young. However, this is not a regular
17 army. We are talking here about criminals who were armed and were
18 committing crimes at the time.
19 Q. Thank you, sir.
20 Can we -- can we have this document introduced as the next
21 available 1D exhibit number.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we do so. What's the year of this
24 MR. IVETIC: I believe it's 1998. If we scroll up to the
25 original on the top there is an "8." I note that the English translation
1 that was provided to us for this document does not appear to have the
2 date, but if we focus there in the middle of the top of the page in the
3 B/C/S, and if we can zoom in, I think we might be able to see it,
4 although this copy is a lot less clearer than the copy I was working off
5 of. So on the left-hand side if we can zoom on the top, after
6 "Crna Hronika" or crime diary there's two lines that gives the date of
7 this publication.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I did this before and that's the reason I am asking
9 you, because I fully understand those translated this to be unable -- I
10 see a 1, a 9, another 9 but very vaguely, and what then follows is pretty
11 unclear to me. If you further enlarge it --
12 MR. IVETIC: It doesn't come clear on here. What I could do is I
13 could at the next break have a paper version printed and I can do it off
14 the copy that I had on the computer screen.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, any objections against?
16 MR. JEREMY: We have no objections, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And do you have -- do you agree with Mr. Ivetic that
18 it should be 1998.
19 MR. JEREMY: I agree that the date is unclear.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, that's a different kind of agreement
21 than I had in my mind. But, okay.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D384 becomes Exhibit D76, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence, but the Chamber would
1 like to receive a better legible copy, and perhaps then even we could
2 have a new translation on the basis of that new version.
3 MR. IVETIC: I will -- I will make sure that that is done,
4 Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. Sir, this article also mentions the filing of charges by the
8 police of the Una-Sana canton of the federation of BiH after the war's
9 end. Do you have knowledge of such criminal charges having actually been
11 A. I heard of that, but I learned about this from the press. Just
12 like you did.
13 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, for the record, the Una-Sana canton, that's
14 within the federation of BiH, not within the Republika Srpska; isn't that
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. Now if we can turn to Prosecution 65 ter number
18 19481, and should be a statement dated 10th of February 1993, which you
19 gave to some authorities in BiH, and if my notes are accurate this one
20 was not tendered by the Prosecution, so it should still be under the
21 65 ter number 19481.
22 And once we get that document, I would be interested in page 5 in
23 the English --
24 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you repeated the number, it is recorded
25 incorrectly, so that we have it clear on the record.
1 MR. IVETIC: Absolutely. Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Prosecution 65 ter number 19481. And the fifth page in English
3 and the -- this will be a corresponding to the sixth page in the B/C/S.
4 Q. And, sir, here I would direct your attention to the discussion
5 where you mention a number and are recorded as saying "that you know
6 exactly that a man by the name of Rade Kondic shot at you from behind."
7 Do you see that part in this --
8 A. Yes, I can see it. And I said that I made a mistake when I
9 mentioned his name. I was wrong about the name.
10 Q. Okay. I apologise. When you said you had made a mistake, you
11 mentioned his name. Was Rade Kondic not one of the individuals that was
13 A. Yes, that is correct.
14 Q. Do you have a correction for who was there instead of Rade Kondic
15 that this refers to?
16 A. Instead of him, Todor Vokic was there.
17 Q. Thank you, sir. That is what I had thought but wanted to make
18 sure. Now, I think that we don't need this document. That's been
19 cleared up sufficiently.
20 Now, am I correct that you did not actually hear who it was that
21 gave the command for the shooting to start in the forest on the date of
22 the crime?
23 A. I said that we had our backs turned. When we were lined up, we
24 were actually shot at from the back. I don't know which one of the four
25 issued the order. I just heard the command, "Start."
1 Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say that either Danilusko Kajtez or
2 Tomo -- Todor, Tode, Vokic appeared to be in charge for everything up to
3 and leading up to the shooting, the parts that you did see?
4 A. As for what I saw, I described that. I already described that,
5 where this Todor Vokic stood opposite the stream. Then Danilusko Kajtez
6 and those other two were searching us, just before the execution. And
7 they beat us too and they took away our documents and everything that we
8 had on us.
9 Q. I appreciate that, sir. And based upon that description, I was
10 asking -- did it appear that at the time that Danilusko Kajtez and/or
11 Todor Vokic were in charge of and giving instructions to the men who
12 searched you and beat you, the other two?
13 A. We were beaten by this person who was dressed like a military
14 policeman and this Danilusko. As for this other one, on the other side,
15 he took the things that were being taken away from us.
16 Q. Let's focus then on this Danilusko. Did Danilusko Kajtez appear
17 to be in charge of the events leading up to the shooting. I understand
18 that you could not see the shooting, but everything that occurred
19 previously, did it appear to you that Danilusko Kajtez was in charge?
20 A. It's not that it appeared to me that way. I heard that from
21 people who knew him and from Serbs who said that he left from Kruhari and
22 that he was going up to Skrljevita to cleanse Glamocnica.
23 Q. And when you say "he," are we talking about Danilusko Kajtez, the
24 one who was dressed in a civilian outfit?
25 A. Yes, that's right.
1 Q. And just prior to when they opened up fire on you and your
2 neighbours, they proclaimed that they were Seselj's army; is that
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. And after the shooting, all four of these individuals that had
6 participated in the crime that were in the camouflage uniforms and the
7 one that was in a civilian uniform that you have identified as the
8 perpetrators, am I correct that they fled the scene of this crime?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Okay. And I'd like to return to 1D385, which we have looked at
11 previously. This is again, sir, the report that you gave to the
12 investigating judge Adil Draganovic of the Sanski Most Court on 8 March,
14 MR. IVETIC: And now I'd like to turn to page 3 in the B/C/S, and
15 3 in the English as well.
16 Q. And perhaps the easiest way to locate the part that I'd like to
17 focus on would be for me to read the English and allow you to then find
18 that in the B/C/S, as it's -- it's typed rather busily on the paper.
19 Perhaps even we could have the B/C/S up for the witness and zoomed in,
20 and I will read the part that begins:
21 "While I was lying down, I heard them say, Let's run. When they
22 had run away, I lay still for another minute or two and I heard the
23 clattering of weapons as they ran."
24 Sir, have you and able to locate that portion of this statement?
25 A. If can you enlarge it a bit.
1 All right. "When they ran away, I remained there lying for
2 another minute or two. I heard the rattling of weapons when they were
3 running away, and I lifted my head, and I looked around to see whether
4 they were still there somewhere nearby. Again, I laid down, and I got up
5 again, and then I saw that they were no longer there. Then I got up and
6 I saw a terrible sight."
7 Q. Thank you, sir. Does this selection that first I started and
8 then you read the remainder of it, does this accurately reflect your
9 recollection of precisely what you saw immediately after you and the
10 others were shot and also what you heard?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. Did it seem to you that these individuals, these perpetrators of
13 this crime, were worried about being found out?
14 A. I couldn't know it then that that is what they were worried
15 about. Had they been worried, they wouldn't have done it in the first
17 Q. Okay.
18 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, I would at this time tender this
19 statement given by the witness before the Sanski Most court, dated
20 8th March 1996 as the next 1D exhibit number.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. JEREMY: No objection, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Ivetic, for what purpose do you tender it?
24 For the accuracy of the content or ...
25 MR. IVETIC: No. Just for the sections that I've read. But in
1 so far as -- as for completeness of the -- since the witness did correct
2 the one section from previous where there was a word missing in the
3 English so that we can have that all before us and we can understand the
4 testimony that he has given. Not for the accuracy of the statement as a
5 whole. Just the --
6 JUDGE ORIE: But for the accuracy of the portions.
7 MR. IVETIC: Portions, correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 Madam Registrar, the number would be.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Document 1D385 becomes Exhibit D77, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
12 Mr. Ivetic, I was asking you about this because it -- to have
13 portions of a document which are there in translation, to have the
14 translation corrected by reading out the English and then have it
15 interpreted in court is not the way in which we should proceed. If
16 there's any problem with a statement or a translation, then the
17 translation should be verified. But interpreters do not have the task
18 here to improve the translation of documents and then exactly if it is --
19 if then the document is admitted into evidence, then we have even two
20 versions. The one in translation, the one as interpreted. And that's
21 not what is in the standard work procedure for our interpreters and
23 Please be aware of that. And if you think that the translation
24 needs to be corrected, then take care that it will.
25 MR. IVETIC: I would Your Honour, but this is a Prosecution
1 document and therefore a Prosecution translation. My understanding is
2 I'm not allowed to ask for re-translation of documents that CLSS has
3 already translated for the Prosecution.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Not retranslation. But if you think there is an
5 inaccuracy, then you can ask for a correction. That's a totally
6 different matter. Everyone I take it, even the Prosecution, would
7 appreciate that the accuracy of the translation is improved.
8 Having dealt with the matter, please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
10 Q. Mr. Stojic, am I correct that you later learned that when these
11 individuals, these four killers, ran away, they encountered another
12 individual, Karlo Tadic, an individual who knew them by sight, and that
13 they killed him, too, in order not to be found out as having committed
14 this crime?
15 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.
16 JUDGE ORIE: What is right: That you heard this from other
17 persons or that it happened? You're not an eye-witness to that, are you?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not an eye-witness
19 of that. But I heard later that they met him as they were going towards
20 Sanski Most, that they came across him on the road, killed him, and threw
21 him into the bushes.
22 JUDGE ORIE: And do you know why they killed him? Were you told
23 why they killed him?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know why they killed him.
25 They killed him because they were killing Croats that day.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 Mr. Ivetic, by this additional question it may be clear to you
3 that putting such a composite question on what the witness may have heard
4 is not the way to proceed.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: Then I'd like to call up 1D383, the statement given
7 by the witness to the Zagreb authorities from ones I pooled this
8 selection. And I also note that Karlo Tadic is one of the victims that
9 the Prosecution has presented for this case and indeed was part of their
10 direct examination with regard to this witness, so...
11 JUDGE ORIE: Of course, I do not know what appears there, but you
12 asked the witness whether they killed him because, and that's the only
13 thing I commented on. That.
14 MR. IVETIC: I know.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Not that. Okay. We will see what we find in the
17 MR. IVETIC: And if we could turn to page 7 in the English and
18 page 7 in the B/C/S, at the middle of the page in both versions.
19 Q. And, sir, I'm focussing on the paragraph that begins:
20 "Karlo Tadic was killed when the murderers returned to throw away
21 the personal documents belonging to the executed people and when they saw
22 that I was not there. They ran towards Sanski Most and near
23 Stanoje Ninic's house, by the pear tree, they murdered Karlo, and threw
24 his body into the bushes. They killed him simply because they had met
25 him and were afraid that he would find out what they had done since he
1 knew these people better than I did."
2 And I'd like to ask you, sir, to verify: Is this entire account
3 based upon what you heard after the event; that is to say, you did not
4 actually eye-witness any of these portions?
5 A. Yes, that is correct. It is as it was described.
6 Q. And do you have knowledge that Karlo Tadic knew these individuals
7 or could recognise them?
8 A. Yes, I have knowledge of that kind.
9 Q. And when you say have knowledge, would that be your personal
10 knowledge or would that be something that you gained from third parties
11 who told you that fact?
12 A. No, this Karlo Tadic knew these people specifically. He went to
13 work in that village before these unfortunate events and he moved around
14 more than I did.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question, Witness.
17 You earlier, when I asked you whether you knew why they killed
18 Karlo Tadic, you said, Well, they were killing Croats on that day, and
19 you do not know for any other reason.
20 Now in the statement we find the specific reason is that they
21 feared to be recognised by Karlo Tadic and that for that reason they
22 killed him.
23 Now, is it the one or the other? You see, the two answers, as
24 far as the reasons for killing Karlo, are not entirely consistent. Could
25 you explain to me and to my colleagues what is the true version?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This version, given in this
3 JUDGE ORIE: That is, that they did not kill Karlo just because
4 they were killing Croats but because they feared that he would -- he had
5 recognised them and would tell what he had seen?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
8 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: Thank you. If we could turn briefly to page 7 of
10 this document in the English in e-court and page 7 also in the B/C/S.
11 Oh, that's the same page, I guess. It's the next paragraph in the
12 English and it should be the next paragraph in the B/C/S as well.
13 Q. You are recorded here as saying, sir, and I will read the portion
14 to you so you do not have to:
15 "The most notorious Chetniks came from parts of Kruhari and
16 Tramosnja, and the village of Susnjar. Everyone there was armed
17 including women, children, and the elderly. They were all under arms."
18 First of all, sir, do you stand by this selection from this
19 statement as being -- as accurately reflecting your knowledge of these
21 A. Yes, I stand by that. I stand by what I said already in that
22 statement. Just one thing, it's not the village of Susnjar. It's a
23 hamlet in Kruhari, close to Sanski Most.
24 Q. Thank you for that correction. And you identify then in this
25 document individuals - specifically Nikola Jokic, Nedeljko Rasula,
1 Vlado Vrkes, and Tomo Delis - as being the persons who were responsible
2 for arming these individuals.
3 First of all, I would like to ask you about Nikola Jokic,
4 Nedeljko Rasula, Vlado Krkes. Am I correct that these were all
6 A. This gentleman is not Krkes. It is Vrkes. Vlado Vrkes. I mean,
7 I don't know whether they were civilians. As for this Bono who was
8 killed, I heard that Tomo Delic was in uniform.
9 Q. We'll get to Mr. Delic. I was focussing on these three
10 individuals. Are you finished answering as to these three individuals,
11 Mr. Vlado Vrkes, Nikola Jokic, and Nedeljko Rasula?
12 A. Nedeljko Rasula was the president of the municipal council in
13 Sanski Most. So he was the mayor. Now whether he was in uniform or not,
14 I mean, well, that I don't know. I did know that he went to the church
15 in Sasina. He and other delegations. He went there to look for weapons,
16 whether there were any in the church. I heard that from Vlado Tomic, the
17 priest. That happened after Croats were killed in the village of Brisevo
18 towards the end of July, the 26th, the 27th of July.
19 Q. Okay. And I'd like to now focus on the individual you've
20 identified as Tomo Delic. Previously today you identified him as being
21 the commander of the Serb armed forces in -- in Sanski Most. Am I
22 correct that we are talking about the SOS?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And would you agree with me that the SOS was a private military;
25 that is to say, not the regular army, the Army of Republika Srpska.
1 A. Private army, could be. But I don't know who you mean by regular
2 army. Because when the Republika Srpska was formed -- I mean, are you
3 referring to Republika Srpska or Yugoslavia?
4 Q. Either, or. Am I correct that the SOS was a separate formation
5 from either the JNA or the VRS?
6 A. It was separate from the JNA, yes.
7 Q. And I put it to that you it was separate from VRS as well. Do
8 you agree or disagree, or do you not know?
9 A. I would not agree with that. I would not agree that that is the
11 Q. Fair enough. If we can now focus on the months prior to the
12 incident where you were wounded and your neighbours were killed, during
13 that time-period, you --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, before we enter a new subject.
15 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We usually take the break after one hour. So,
17 therefore, this would be the appropriate time for a break.
18 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom. We'd like to
19 see you back in 20 minutes.
20 Could you please follow the usher.
21 [The witness stands down]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I'd like to hear from you where we are
23 as far as timing is concerned.
24 MR. IVETIC: I should be able to finish, I think, within the next
25 half-hour to 40 minutes, so in the next session I will be finished.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we'll take a break and we resume at a
2 quarter past 12.00.
3 --- Recess taken at 11.55 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
6 Perhaps we could use the time. There was an issue, Mr. Ivetic,
7 the video which was MFI'd under number D43. There have been long
8 discussions about the video, and I think that the latest was that the
9 parties seemed to agree that the soundtrack of the video was a
10 fabrication, and the Chamber wondered whether you still, under these
11 circumstances, intend to tender D43?
12 MR. IVETIC: I believe it's not necessary to tender it under that
13 circumstances, although it was already tendered and it received a number.
14 So I don't know if -- what the procedure would be to --
15 JUDGE ORIE: It was MFI'd.
16 MR. IVETIC: It was MFI'd. Then we would not be asking for that
17 to be entered as an exhibit based upon the subsequent information that we
18 learned that the audio track was not the original.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's hereby on the record.
20 Mr. Groome.
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just to remind the Chamber of the
22 Prosecution's position that we -- the Prosecution believes it's important
23 for the Chamber to still have access to that be -- in the event that
24 other evidence from this particular web site is tendered so that the
25 Chamber may properly evaluate it. We are happy for it to remained MFI'd
1 wouldn't want it removed from the evidence in the case.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think the Chamber even asked for the matter to be
3 investigated further, which -- therefore it's not done. It's just the
4 procedural position of the Defence at this moment.
5 MR. GROOME: Okay. I apologise, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Apologies, Mr. Stojic, for dealing with other
9 matters when you entered the courtroom. Mr. Ivetic will now continue his
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. Sir, I'd like to focus on the time-period leading up to the
13 incident in the woods, the killings, that you survived. Am I correct
14 that in the time-period leading up to the 2nd of November, 1992, that
15 there were no military operations by the army in your home village or the
16 area where the crime took place?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. And at the time of the murder, there were no tanks or military
19 vehicles to be seen anywhere near the area where you survived the
20 attempted killing.
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. And, in fact, these criminals that shot at you and killed your
23 neighbours in the woods, they never expressed or said that they were
24 taking part in any planned activities of the army of the
25 Republika Srpska; is that right?
1 A. I don't know if they said that or not, but when they shot us,
2 they told us that they were Seselj's army.
3 Q. Okay. When the -- strike that.
4 MR. IVETIC: If we can look at Prosecution 65 ter number 06374.
5 Q. And while we wait for that document, sir, this is the report of
6 the investigation performed by the investigative judge of the Sanski Most
7 lower court, and it is dated the 3rd of November, 1992.
8 Would you agree with me that it would seem that the authorities
9 in Sanski Most undertook to investigate this crime the very next day
10 after it occurred?
11 A. That's what it says here in this report.
12 Q. Fair enough. And in fact, you had spoken with the police from
13 Sanski Most and told them what had happened when they directed you to the
14 hospital for further treatment; is that accurate?
15 A. Yes, that is accurate.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the report is dated the 9th of November,
17 and deals with, I think, an investigation which took place on the 3rd of
19 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, I misspoke, Your Honours. I
20 apologise for that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
22 MR. IVETIC: And if we can look at Prosecution 65 ter number
23 07050. And the B/C/S is a little bit faint, but I believe the date can
24 be seen, and it would appear to be the 7th of December, 1992, a little
25 over one month after the incident in question when the Banja Luka
1 Military Court ordered that the suspects Danilusko Kajtez and
2 Milos Maksimovic be detained into custody for this murder.
3 Q. Would you agree with me that only -- it is possible that only
4 these two individuals were listed because the military court only had
5 jurisdiction over these two rather than the two others who were minors?
6 MR. JEREMY: [Microphone not activated]
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot interpret whether that's
8 the case or not.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That was perhaps part of what you wanted to --
10 MR. JEREMY: Yes, I was going [Overlapping speakers] ... so the
11 witness can answer this question.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. But the witness has answered the question.
13 This resolves the issue you wanted to raise.
14 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
16 MR. IVETIC: If we can call up Prosecution 65 ter number 06375 in
17 e-court, the first page in both the B/C/S and the English.
18 Q. And this document, sir, is dated the 7th of December, 1992, just
19 over one month after the -- the -- the crime. And it is a report
20 submitted by the military police company of the 6th Krajina Brigade of
21 the VRS, and you will note here it lists the four persons responsible for
22 the killing, including their dates of birth. Would you agree with me
23 that the Tode Bokic who is listed there has the same father's name and
24 the same date of birth as Tode Vokic whom we previously identified as the
25 15-year-old involved in the shooting?
1 A. Yes, yes, that is correct.
2 Q. Okay. Now, this document details or mentions that an on-site
3 investigation was conducted, that the weapons were seized, and an
4 analysis of the weapons and empty cartridges was made. Would you agree
5 with me that this would be the procedure you would expect for a
6 legitimate investigation?
7 A. Yes, that is right. That's how it should be.
8 Q. And this document says that all of the above persons were
9 apprehended and processed. Would you agree with me that that would be
10 the procedure that you would expect from a legitimate investigation.
11 A. When investigation was ordered, then a proper procedure is only
12 to be expected to be conducted.
13 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can return to the "Dnevni Avaz" news
14 article that is now Exhibit D76, and if we could focus on the first page
15 in e-court.
16 And when this comes up, if we can look at the bottom of the page
17 in the English and the bottom of the first column in the B/C/S.
18 And, sir, I will read out for so you do not have to, but you can
19 locate then the text in the B/C/S. I want to focus on the part that
20 begins as and reads as follows:
21 "On the fatal day, Goran Vukojevic and Dane Kajtez Danilusko,
22 armed with machine-guns, went to the house of Todor, Todo, Vokic with
23 whom they had allegedly arranged to ambush and kill Croats of the
24 Skrljevita village and thus avenge their friends who had been killed in
25 [sic] the battle-field. Vokic accepted the plan." And then it
2 Is it correct, sir, that this is precisely the information that
3 has come out in the investigation of the MUP of the Federation of BiH
4 into this since; namely, that Kajtez and the 17-year-old Vukojevic agreed
5 with the 15-year-old Vokic to ambush and kill some Croats to avenge the
6 deaths of their friends in the battle-field?
7 A. I heard that it was exactly as you described it.
8 Q. Thank you, sir.
9 MR. IVETIC: Now I'd like to turn to Prosecution 65 ter number
10 07074. This has been, I believe, marked as Exhibit P369. And it will be
11 page 1 in both languages that we need to look at first.
12 Q. And, sir, for the first question I'd like to ask you about this
13 document is the date. Would you agree with me that the date is the 2nd
14 of June, 1993, and that this indictment was issued by the military
15 prosecutors of the Republika Srpska less than eight months after the
16 crime in question?
17 A. That's what the document that I have in front of me says.
18 Q. And if we can now turn to the second page in both languages.
19 There is a list of proposals on that page. And I would direct for the
20 time being to focus on number 7, which is a proposal to find these men
21 guilty of the crime and to sentence them to the appropriate legal
22 sanction and to base the same on the law.
23 If we look at -- first of all, would you agree with me that that
24 would be -- that it would appear that the military prosecutors are, in
25 fact, condemning the crime, not condoning the crime?
1 A. That's what the document reads.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, the witness has now several times
3 answered the question by saying, That's what the document reads. He
4 apparently is not familiar with the document. You're asking him to draw
5 conclusions from what is found in the document. Apparently you consider
6 this relevant information for the Chamber, which I can fully understand.
7 Why not agree with the Prosecution that this document was produced at the
8 time that this happened. Apart from how it then continued, whether this
9 was the end of the story or not. But the cause of death was examined on
10 the spot, the witness seems to have no specific knowledge about that.
11 I mean, these kind of documentary evidence, why not agree on this
12 is the steps that were taken at the time, were recorded, and then where
13 it stops or where it doesn't stop we'll then -- perhaps there it becomes
14 interesting as well.
15 Why is there any problem with that, Mr. Jeremy? To say, Well,
16 this was an indictment that was brought against these persons.
17 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, this is a document that I've tendered
18 as an exhibit.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 So why ask the witness what the prosecution, at the time here by
21 doing this, may have thought? Does the witness know anything about who
22 the prosecutor was, what he had on his mind? What we know is the
23 documents that were created at the time and seem to indicate that the
24 prosecution at least was started, was initiated.
25 I mean, I'm asking myself - and perhaps my colleagues as well -
1 why ask the witness about all this?
2 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honours, it highlights that the
3 documentation presented by the Prosecution does not support their summary
4 of the events in question --
5 JUDGE ORIE: But that's a discussion with the Prosecution.
6 MR. IVETIC: Agreed. But I'm also -- and trying to see with the
7 witness. The part I would like to ask him now is the description of the
8 crime --
9 JUDGE ORIE: No. But let's -- if it doesn't support the case of
10 the Prosecution, that's a matter for argument because this is what the
11 document -- what the Prosecution itself puts forward as well. So
12 apparently what does exists is a difference of interpretation on what
13 these documents mean. Now, the witness cannot tell us anything about it.
14 I mean, I only intervened after he had said a couple of times well,
15 that's what the document says.
16 Let's try to -- let's try to come to the core of what keeps the
17 parties apart rather than to present highlighting portions to the witness
18 who doesn't know anything about it.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
21 If we can look at the first paragraph under the statement of
23 Q. And here, again, it is reported that the first and second accused
24 were intending, allegedly, to take revenge for their friends killed in
25 combat against Croatian and Muslim paramilitary formations in the war,
1 and so they decided to waylay the inhabitants of the village of
2 Skrljevita near the village of Glamocnica.
3 Is it your understanding that this is what came out also now in
4 the investigation conducted by the authorities of Republika Srpska into
5 the crime that you were a victim of?
6 A. Your Honours, you have just said - and it is true - that this is
7 the first that I'm seeing these documents. And it is true that these
8 documents truthfully describe what happened on the 2nd November 1992.
9 However, this is the first time that I'm seeing these documents in this
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, your last question to the witness -- I
12 invited you to proceed but it seems that you proceeded more or less
13 ignoring what I said to you before. Isn't it? Because to ask the
14 witness --
15 MR. IVETIC: He was a witness in that case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- is this your understanding of what also came out
17 also in the investigation conducted -- what we see here, this is reported
18 as the outcome of the investigation conducted by the authorities.
19 What -- what -- if the witness has any specific knowledge whether it
20 really reflects what they had on their minds, then, of course, it would
21 make sense to ask him. But what is there which -- you're more or less
22 asking whether this is what is reported as the result, isn't it?
23 MR. IVETIC: Your Honour, this witness was a witness in these
24 proceedings before the authorities on this indictment. He was a witness.
25 He testified. There was a judgement -- in fact, two judgements based
1 upon this witness's testimony and testimony of others relating to the
2 Scheduled Incident from the indictment, which I'm going into, which I'm
3 asking about. I believe they're relevant. I believe they demonstrate
4 that the charges cannot be related to my client and I'm entitled to ask
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But this witness, if you ask him, Is this the
7 result of the investigations, if this is a report describing apparently
8 the result of the investigations. And if the witness doesn't know
9 anything about the investigations, then just agree with the Prosecution
10 that this was reported at the time. We can then read what was reported
11 and whether it supports your case or whether it supports the
12 Prosecution's case is then a matter for argument.
13 But I do not see how this witness can assist us in this respect.
14 I'm not saying that witness is unable to testify about the events or
15 about these proceedings, but here apparently the witness cannot assist us
16 and that's what I tried to bring to your attention and which I now,
17 again, tried to bring to your attention.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Mr. Stojic, is it true that the authorities of Republika Srpska
21 actually held a trial against Danilusko Kajtez now known by his new name,
22 Nikola Kovacevic, who was arrested, and also against Milos Maksimovic,
23 who was arrested, in 2007?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any dispute about this, Mr. Ivetic?
25 MR. IVETIC: It was not disclosed to me by the Prosecution,
1 Your Honours, so I believe there might be.
2 MR. JEREMY: I'm not aware of this trial at this stage,
3 Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: You're not aware of the trial held against
5 Danilusko Kajtez. Then there's no agreement on that. Please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC:
7 Q. I apologise, Mr. Stojic. Am I correct, sir, that the authorities
8 of Republika Srpska, the courts held a trial against Danilusko Kajtez,
9 now known by his new name Nikola Kovacevic, and against Milos Maksimovic
10 in 2007?
11 A. As I already said, according to the documents in front of me, one
12 can read that. But I personally didn't have any knowledge about this.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the sake of the record, I think you referred
14 to the year 2007.
15 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Page 54, line 2, at the end it should read 2007
17 instead. Thank you.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I missed that in the
20 Q. Sir, am I correct that you actually testified in the trial before
21 the district court in Banja Luka in 2007 in the case against
22 Mr. Danilusko Kajtez, now known as Nikola Kovacevic, and
23 Mr. Milos Maksimovic?
24 A. Yes, that is correct.
25 Q. Is it also correct that other representatives of the other named
1 victims also testified as part of these trial proceedings against
2 Danilusko Kajtez, now known as Nikola Kovacevic, and Milos Maksimovic in
4 A. Who are you referring to when you say "the other".
5 Q. For instance Nevenka Tutic?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. I believe also Nada Ilicic.
8 A. Nada Ilicic? That's not correct.
9 Q. I apologise. Perhaps it's not that relevant. I'd like to focus
10 on your testimony during that trial. Is it correct, as it is record in
11 the judgement of that case, that you were unable to identify
12 Danilusko Kajtez, now known Nikola Kovacevic, as one of the persons who
13 perpetrated the crime against you?
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. And is it also correct that you are unable to identify
16 Milos Maksimovic, the other accused, as having been one of the
17 perpetrators in the crime that was committed against you?
18 A. Yes, that is correct as well.
19 Q. And do you know that on the 13th of December, 2007, the
20 district court in Banja Luka acquitted both defendants?
21 A. Unfortunately, I saw that on Croatian TV, Nova. And it wasn't
22 the basic court in Banja Luka. It was the district court in Banja Luka.
23 And it said -- I mean, they described it -- these crimes correctly, and
24 the district court of Banja Luka set them free. When they went out to
25 take their revenge against the Croats.
1 Q. And do you know that on 19 June 2008 the Supreme Court affirmed
2 this acquittal judgement of these two persons?
3 A. This is the first time I hear of this, before this Honourable
5 Q. Thank you for clearing that up. Now I'd like to go over some
6 points --
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, may I interrupt you.
8 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I would like to put one question in relation to
10 the last matter.
11 Sir, can you help me: How was it you were asked to identify
12 these two people? How were you supposed to identify them in that court
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what they asked for. They
15 asked me to identify their faces or their voices. That is how they asked
16 me to identify them. When this crime took place, it was a matter of
17 seconds, because that moment, had I known them, I would have said during
18 the first investigation in Sanski Most what their names were. I would
19 not have identified them -- I mean, the investigation that went on, that
20 continued, showed that these were the persons that I had described, to
21 the best of my recollection.
22 Before this court, I testified just like here. I said whatever
23 it was that I had to say. The only thing was that I recognised their
24 faces, their voices, whether I can remember that, whether I can remember
25 their voices, at that moment when they were searching us and mistreating
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Were you asked to identify their faces and voices
3 during the proceedings in the courtroom?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right.
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Did you have seen these two people before in the
6 time before the -- the events you testified about and where you were
7 injured? In the time between the murder operation and the -- and the
8 court proceedings, did you see these two people at any point in time?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I only saw them on
10 the day when I suffered so much. When they wanted to execute us.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for this clarification.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 Q. Sir, I'd now like to briefly cover some points relating to your
15 testimony in relation to the time-period that you spent in the hospital
16 in Banja Luka.
17 Am I correct that the soldier guarding your room in the hospital
18 kept the doorknob to your door on his person; that is to say, in his
20 A. Yes, that's right. He kept it. I don't know whether he kept it
21 in his pocket though.
22 Q. Would you agree with me that this would seem to indicate his job
23 was to keep people out of your room rather than to keep you in your room?
24 A. Well, that should have been his job. However, unfortunately,
25 different things happened.
1 Q. Can we also agree that the guard, or guards, who let people in to
2 mistreat you were therefore not properly doing their job to protect you
3 from such abuse?
4 A. That's right. If their job was to protect us, then they
5 shouldn't have been allowed in without his approval.
6 Q. And isn't it correct that while you were being transported from
7 the medical centre in Sanski Most to the hospital in Banja Luka, that a
8 policeman was escorting you in the ambulance, and you were told that this
9 was for your safety, to keep you safe from extremists?
10 A. Yes, that is correct.
11 Q. And in the ambulance you were not mistreated.
12 A. I was not.
13 Q. If we can also talk about the soldiers that you said used to come
14 in and beat you in the hospital, if we can -- if I can ask you this: In
15 the Brdjanin trial, at transcript page 6789, lines 13 through 12 [sic],
16 that would be page 29 in e-court of P365, I will read for you, sir, what
17 you said there because we do not have the transcript in B/C/S. And
18 please follow along.
19 "Q. Who did the beating?
20 "A. We were beaten by civilians and by soldiers and by anyone who
21 could enter that cell.
22 "Q. And when you are referring to soldiers, can you be more
23 specific? What kind of soldiers?
24 "A. Serbian soldiers.
25 "Q. Can you even be more specific. Were they regular, reservist,
1 military police?
2 "A. Who knows what they were like. I think they were the ones
3 who were sent away, who weren't under control. They were out of
5 Does -- do you agree with me that --
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We did not understand what
8 the witness said.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please finish your question.
10 And could you please carefully listen to the question.
11 MR. IVETIC:
12 Q. My question for you, sir: Does this selection that I've just
13 read for you, does it comport with your recollection and your impression
14 as to these soldiers that would come in to mistreat you?
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you answer the question?
16 MR. IVETIC: I'm told maybe there was not a translation of the
17 question so perhaps I could repeat it.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could you please then repeat the whole of the
19 question, Mr. Ivetic.
20 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
21 Q. My question is as follows, sir: Does this selection that I've
22 just read to you, does it comport with your recollection and your
23 impression as to these soldiers that would come in to mistreat you?
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. And the hospital in Banja Luka, was it a civilian institution or
1 a military hospital?
2 A. It was a civilian hospital. The clinical centre in the very
3 centre of the town of Banja Luka.
4 Q. Thank you, sir, for clarifying that. During the total
5 time-period that you were at the hospital, am I correct that you were
6 only exposed to physical harassment or beating on a total of two
8 A. That's what I stated and that is how I remember it.
9 Q. And how long was your stay in the hospital, sir, if you -- if you
10 can give us an indication?
11 A. 32 days in a cell. Nine days all together. I mean, 39 days all
12 together. But out of the 39, 32 in a cell.
13 Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification, sir.
14 Now, in the --
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Sorry for interrupting you, but I'm now a little
16 bit confused. Please clarify for me. I understood you were in a
17 civilian hospital. Was there a cell?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I said cell, number
19 8. And number 9. That's what was established.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Yes. But were you locked up in the cell?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I'd also like to -- was this a real cell or was
24 it a room which was locked which you couldn't leave; or was it really
25 like - I don't know to what extent you are familiar with what a prison
1 cell looks like, but that means very heavy locks and usually a small
2 window and a door - was that the situation, or was it a room locked and
3 with not much furniture?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a hospital room that was
5 turned into a prison, into a cell.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Was there a window in that room?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Were there bars before the window?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. But, after all, it is a
10 hospital, isn't it?
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say you were staying in a room. Was
12 it a small room or a large room?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it wasn't a large room.
14 There were four beds there, and I was lying in one of these beds. And
15 next to me this gentleman who was a victim of Manjaca; he had no legs.
16 And in those two other beds there were two other men. There was another
17 man with an amputated leg; and in yet another bed, there were two
18 Bosniaks in that one bed. So the total was five. There were five of us
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And you couldn't leave that room because the
21 handle was not available to you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. And we were
23 guarded there.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. How did doctors enter that room and leave that
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Again, it was the soldier who would
2 let them in.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So the doctors themselves could not open the door to
4 come in or to leave the room you were in?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, they couldn't.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 Q. The -- during the time-period that you were at the hospital, the
9 two occasions that you identify when you were physically mistreated, were
10 they on the same day or were they on two separate days out of the 39?
11 A. On two separate days.
12 Q. Am I correct on one of the occasions it was an inebriated
14 A. Yes, that's right.
15 Q. And am I correct that on -- on the other occasion it was not a
16 soldier but was a member of the hospital staff?
17 A. Not a member of the hospital staff. It was a soldier, too, the
18 person who beat me.
19 Q. If I can ask you one more question in relation to the entire
20 time-period when the individuals who you have described as
21 Danilusko Kajtez and the other three individuals who were in camouflage
22 uniforms, during the incident in the forest where they took aside,
23 mistreated you, and then killed your colleagues and attempted to kill
24 you, at no time did Mr. Kajtez or any of his cohorts ever mention the
25 names of General Talic, General Mladic, or Radovan Karadzic, did they?
1 A. That's right. They asked about people from my area.
2 Q. Sir, I would like to again express sympathy for myself and my
3 client for all you have endured. I thank you for helping us to
4 illuminate this matter today and I have no further questions for you at
5 this time.
6 A. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
8 Mr. Ivetic, just to clarify, the documents you used, you do not
9 intend to tender them. You used 65 ter 19481, which is the BiH witness
10 statement, 10th of February, 1993.
11 MR. IVETIC: I believe I only -- I used one selection from that
12 document, and it's a document that I think seven pages in total. So I
13 would -- I wasn't going to tender it. The one paragraph that we read
14 into it was the extent of what I wanted to focus the witness, but if Your
15 Honours would like to [overlapping speakers] --
16 JUDGE ORIE: I just wanted to have everything clear that what you
17 used. If you do not tender it we just stick to the portion you read.
18 The same would be true for the statement of the witness given on
19 the 20th of January, 1994, to the centre for collection of documents and
20 processing of data on the homeland war, 1D00383.
21 MR. IVETIC: That is correct. In so far as the witness
22 identified the error in personam of the individual and that's been
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then the report by Dr. Prosic [phoen] on the
25 nine persons that were killed in the forest.
1 MR. IVETIC: I don't know that the witness can authenticate a
2 report or provide any additional information about that, so that was why
3 I didn't tender it.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. 07050, ruling of the Banja Luka military court
5 investigating judge and -- finding that two accused, including
6 Danilusko Kajtez should be detained.
7 MR. IVETIC: Correct. And again, that would be something that
8 the witness would not --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I'm just -- you don't to explain. And the same
10 would be true then for 06375, a report from Prejdag [phoen] Lasic.
11 MR. IVETIC: That is correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
13 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Jeremy, any need to put further questions
15 to the witness.
16 MR. JEREMY: Yes I have a few questions in re-direct,
17 Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
19 Re-examination by Mr. Jeremy:
20 Q. Mr. Stojic, at temporary transcript page 11, line 16, you state
21 that a Mrs. Nada visited you on 9 November and helped you to be released
22 from hospital. Firstly, is the date 9 November the correct date?
23 A. No. On the 11th. I mean, on the 11th of December.
24 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojic. In addition, in connection with this
25 release, at temporary page 11, line 19 of the transcript, you describe
1 Mrs. Nada having lunch with "them." Who were you referring to by "them"?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
3 MR. IVETIC: I don't recall this arising out of the
4 cross-examination, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy.
6 MR. JEREMY: Your Honours, this is a clarification to the
7 transcript. My recollection is that the witness at the time named who he
8 had lunch with and I'd like to make that clarification now.
9 JUDGE ORIE: If -- so you're seeking to clarify the transcript
10 which you --
11 MR. JEREMY: Yes, Your Honours.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, would you please repeat the question and then
14 the witness may answer the question.
15 MR. JEREMY:
16 Q. Mr. Stojic, in connection with your release from hospital, at
17 temporary page 11, line 19, you described Mrs. Nada having lunch with
18 "them." Who were you referring to by "them"?
19 A. What I meant was when she went to the military command in order
20 to get approval to set me free, she said that she had lunch at the
21 military command. They offered lunch and she did have lunch there.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Stojic.
23 Mr. Stojic, at temporary transcript page 58 and 59, you were
24 asked about soldiers who beat you in your cell in Banja Luka hospital.
25 Specifically you referred to those who were sent away. Were these the
1 same soldiers who were guarding your cell in Banja Luka hospital?
2 A. What do you mean? Who are you referring to? Sent away, what do
3 you mean?
4 Q. Defence counsel quoted a section of your testimony in the
5 Brdjanin case where you referred to being beaten by soldiers who were
6 sent away. Were these soldiers who were sent away - to use your words -
7 the same soldiers who were guarding your cell in Banja Luka hospital?
8 A. Yes, that's right. I meant them.
9 Q. So when you referred to being beaten by an inebriated soldier,
10 was this the soldier who was guarding your cell?
11 A. No, it wasn't the one who was on guard. It was one from the
12 street who was let in.
13 Q. And who let this man in to your cell?
14 A. The guard.
15 Q. Mr. Stojic, you'll recall at temporary transcript page 21, line
16 12 to 14, Mr. Ivetic stated:
17 "When talking about Kajtez, Danilusko Kajtez, we can talk about
18 someone who was a common criminal, who used to do things for his own
19 financial gain."
20 MR. JEREMY: Your Honour, while I don't propose to ask the
21 witness questions about Mr. Kajtez's military affiliation, I would simply
22 like to point out for the record that a number of the documents from the
23 Banja Luka military court, for example --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is there -- if you're drawing our attention to that,
25 does the witness need to hear that at this moment? You were about, I
1 take it, to ask a question, and that's something different from
2 addressing the Court and pointing out certain matters. You can do that
3 perhaps after the witness has answered your question.
4 MR. JEREMY: I can do that if you would prefer, Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please.
6 MR. JEREMY: There wasn't a follow-up question to the witness. I
7 simply wanted to make an observation relevant to this question for the
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But once the witness is here -- I mean, you're
10 still examining him, then to address the Court and draw our attention to
11 matters may draw the attention of the witness to certain matters as well
12 and that's, of course, not what we're trying to do.
13 MR. JEREMY: That's understood, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed.
15 MR. JEREMY: On that basis, I have no further questions.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, have the questions in re-examination
19 triggered any need for further questions on your part.
20 MR. IVETIC: No, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Stojic, this concludes your evidence in
22 this court. I'd like to thank you very much for travelling along way to
23 The Hague and for answering all the questions that were put to you by the
24 parties and by the Judges, and I wish you a safe return home again.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, too, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: You may follow the usher.
2 [The witness withdrew]
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jeremy, of course, I wouldn't know what at this
4 moment you would like to bring to the attention of the Chamber and
5 whether it's appropriately done at this moment or whether you leave it
6 for later when argument is -- really starts.
7 MR. JEREMY: It's just a very short observation that I would like
8 to make at this stage.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please to do.
10 MR. JEREMY: It is simply there were questions put to the witness
11 about Mr. Kajtez's being a common criminal, and I simply wanted to point
12 out that contained within exhibits before this Court tendered through
13 this witness from the Banja Luka military court are details about the
14 affiliation that Danilusko Kajtez and Milos Maksimovic had to the 6th
15 Krajina Brigade.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, in full fairness, Mr. Ivetic, if you
17 would like to address as matter as well without going into full argument
18 then, of course, you have an opportunity to do so.
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour. The documents do indicate that
20 soldiers in their personal time engaged in personal events that were
21 considered a crime by the prosecutors of that same army that they were --
22 that an indictment was issued with respect to the crimes committed by
23 these individuals who will -- were affiliated with the 5th or 6th, I
24 forget, there was one mentioned, it was 6th Krajina Brigade, in the
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I think it is time to take a break.
3 After the break, the Chamber would like to deliver a few
4 decisions also relevant in relation to the next witness, although not
5 exclusively, which will take some -- I think up to some 12 minutes.
6 And would the Prosecution then be ready to call its next witness?
7 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 1.17 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.37 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: As I said before the break, I'd like to deliver a
12 few decisions.
13 The first one is a decision on the Prosecution motion to admit
14 exhibits associated with Rule 92 ter statements of Witness RM-066 and
15 guidance related to that matter.
16 It's a decision with regard to the Prosecution motion to admit
17 into evidence five documents associated with the witness statement of
18 Witness RM-066 and will provide additional guidance to the parties on the
19 admissibility of documents used with witnesses.
20 On the 17th of September, 2012, the Prosecution sought to tender
21 into evidence five documents associated with the statement of
22 Witness RM-066. The Defence objected to the documents' admission on the
23 grounds that Witness RM-066 did not have a sufficient personal basis of
24 knowledge about them and was not a "good source" to confirm their
25 authenticity. The Chamber marked these documents for identification as
1 P186, P188, P189, P190, and P192. On the 17th of September, 2012, the
2 Defence elaborated on its objections to which the Prosecution responded
3 on the 18th of September.
4 On the 19th of September, the Prosecution provided the Chamber
5 with additional information on the provenance of the documents.
6 The Defence submits that it is improper for these five documents
7 to be admitted through Witness RM-066 because the witness does not have
8 sufficient personal knowledge to meet the foundational requirements for
9 such admission. The Defence submits that the Chamber's evidentiary
10 standard has been that unless a witness can demonstrate personal
11 knowledge or experience regarding the entirety of a document, the
12 document should not be admitted through that witness and only the
13 witness's testimony about the limited part of the document upon which he
14 has knowledge should form part of the record.
15 The Prosecution submits that the parties may seek to tender into
16 evidence documents which have been discussed by the witness in the
17 statement or in previous testimony, and that any document which forms an
18 inseparable and indispensable part of the witness's written evidence may
19 be admitted into evidence.
20 The Prosecution submits that this test for admissibility is met
21 if the witness discusses the document or if the written statement or
22 transcript would have less probative value without the admission of the
24 The Chamber will now clarify the standard for the admission of
25 documents through witnesses.
1 The Chamber generally prefers that a witness, through whom a
2 document is tendered, has personal knowledge about the document.
3 However, the Chamber clarifies that a document's probative value may also
4 be established by having a witness testify about events described in a
5 certain document. If the content of a document used during a witness's
6 examination is sufficiently linked to the content of that witness's
7 testimony, the document may be appropriately tendered and admitted with
8 that witness, even if the witness is unfamiliar with the specific
10 This standard is also in line with the Chamber's previous
11 guidance where it indicated a preference for documentary evidence to be
12 tendered in court with witnesses, rather than from the bar table.
13 In light of this additional guidance, the Chamber hereby admits
14 MFI'd documents P186, P188, P189, P190, and P192 into evidence.
15 The Prosecution also tendered 65 ter number 6931 as a closely
16 related document to P189. This document is also admitted into evidence,
17 but we still need a number for that.
18 Madam Registrar, 65 ter number 6931 would receive number.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Number P377, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P377 is admitted into evidence.
21 Finally, document P201 was MFI'd due to very similar
22 circumstances during the testimony of Witness Vulliamy. In light of the
23 Chamber's additional guidance, this document is also admitted into
25 And this concludes the Chamber's discussion.
1 Now, in relation to a similar issue which arose today, that is in
2 relation to P366, marked for identification, for the same reasons as
3 given for the other documents in the decision I delivered on behalf of
4 the Chamber, P366 is admitted into evidence. The Chamber rejects the
5 position taken by the Defence that statements taken and to be used in
6 evidence for the truth of their contents should always be under 92 bis,
7 92 ter, or 92 quater. If they're not taken for the purposes of the
8 proceedings of this Tribunal, the case law does not applies [sic] such a
9 strict test. Further, the handwritten letter, because that's what we are
10 talking about, Mr. Ivetic, one of the documents you tendered and which
11 was admitted into evidence, which is a newspaper article, which, of
12 course, the witness didn't have any specific knowledge about the
13 newspaper article, even refers to that same letter, and that would be a
14 far more indirect way of bringing this letter to the attention of the
15 Chamber than to have the letter itself admitted into evidence. P366 is,
16 therefore, admitted into evidence.
17 Then more directly linked to the next witness, I would now like
18 to deliver the Chamber's decision with regard to the Defence notice
19 objection and motion to bar witness Dorothea Hanson from testifying as an
20 expert, a motion which was filed on the 15th of October, 2012.
21 The Prosecution responded on the 22nd of October, and the Chamber
22 will also decide on the Prosecution's request to add a number of
23 documents referred to in the Hanson report to its Rule 92 ter exhibit
24 list. The request was made in the Prosecution notice of disclosure of
25 the Hanson report which was filed on the 17th of September 2012. The
1 Defence has not responded to this request.
2 As for the applicable law concerning expert evidence and
3 additions to the Rule 65 ter exhibit list, the Chamber refers to its
4 decision concerning Richard Butler, a decision of the 19th of
5 October 2012, and its decision on the Prosecution second motion to amend
6 Rule 65 ter exhibit list, a decision delivered on the 27th of June, 2012.
7 Finally with regard to the Defence requests to cross-examine the
8 witness, the Chamber notes that the witness will be called to testify and
9 the Defence will therefore have the opportunity to cross-examine her.
10 Based on the foregoing, the Chamber decides that witness Hanson may
11 testify as an expert witness and denies the Defence request to bar the
12 Prosecution from presenting her evidence. The Chamber defers its
13 decision on admission of the Hanson report until the time of the
14 witness's testimony.
15 With regard to the addition of 39 documents to the Prosecution's
16 Rule 65 ter exhibit list, the Chamber considers that the documents are
17 prima facie relevant and of probative value and that the Prosecution has
18 provided good cause as to why these documents were not added prior to the
19 finalisation of the Hanson report. The Chamber notes that the Defence
20 did not respond to the request and did therefore not make any submissions
21 as to whether the addition would cause any burden on them.
22 The Chamber further considers that most of the documents are only
23 one or two pages long. And based on the forgoing, the Chamber finds that
24 it is in the interests of justice to add the documents to the
25 Prosecution's exhibit list.
1 The Chamber therefore grants the Prosecution's request.
2 That concludes the Chamber's decision on this matter.
3 The third and last one ...
4 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I have to re-read the -- at least parts of the
6 recent decision. Apparently it takes some effort to be back in court
7 after not having been in court for two days. I missed the back part of
8 this decision.
9 I referred to the applicable law concerning expert evidence and
10 additions to the Rule 65 ter list and that the Chamber refers to its
11 decision concerning Richard Butler, a decision of the 19th of October,
12 and a decision on the Prosecution second motion to amend Rule 65 ter
13 exhibit list, a decision of the 27th of June 2012.
14 The Defence has argued in this context that Witness Hanson is not
15 an expert and should therefore not be allowed to present expert evidence
16 before the Chamber. The witness's CV and the submissions by the
17 Prosecution indicate that the witness has completed advanced studies and
18 has extensive working experience in the field of modern Balkan history.
19 In particular, the witness has worked as a research officer at the Office
20 of the Prosecutor for the past 13 years, where she has studied Bosnian
21 Serb institutions, including Crisis Staffs.
22 On this basis, the Chamber is satisfied that the witness is a
23 historical expert who can assist the Chamber on matters related to
24 Crisis Staffs, War Presidencies, and war commissions in the Bosnian Serb
25 Republic during 1991 to 1995.
1 The Defence further argues that, and I quote, "it cannot be
2 excluded that Ms. Hanson personally, as well as professionally, is a
3 potentially biased participant in this case," and that's the end of the
4 quote. The only basis for this assertion is the witness's employment
5 with the Office of the Prosecutor. In this respect, the Chamber refers
6 to its decision on the matter of bias in the decision concerning
7 Richard Butler of the 19th of October, 2012; paragraph 16. The Chamber
8 finds the Defence`s allegation of bias to be unsubstantiated.
9 As for any arguments related to the methodology, drafting, and
10 content of the Hanson report, the Chamber considers that these are
11 matters that can be and should be addressed during the examination of the
12 witness. And then I continued with the portion I read already:
13 "Finally, with regard to the Defence requests to cross-examine the
14 witness, the Chamber notes that the witness will be called to testify and
15 the Defence will therefore have the opportunity to cross-examine her."
16 And what remains of the decision that Ms. Hanson may testify and
17 also in relation to the 39 documents, the Prosecution wishes to add to
18 its Rule 65 ter exhibit list, that part of the decision has been read
20 Then I now move to the third decision I wanted to deliver.
21 It is a decision and guidance on tendering of material underlying
22 proposed expert reports.
23 On the 10th of October, 2012, the Prosecution requested to be
24 permitted to file an early bar table motion in relation to underlying
25 documents of proposed expert reports. The Defence did not respond to
1 this request. The Chamber will provide the parties with some further
2 guidance in relation to this matter.
3 Material underlying proposed expert reports should be accessible
4 to all parties and may be used in court when examining the proposed
5 expert witness. However, as a general rule, the Chamber expects the
6 calling party not to tender such material just because a proposed expert
7 referred to or used that document in compiling his or her report. If the
8 Chamber determines a witness to be an expert, it requires full
9 transparency of the facts the expert relied upon and of the methods used
10 to form opinions and conclusions but does not require and will generally
11 not accept that all this material is tendered. A proposed expert report
12 should be clear enough in relation to describing and drawing conclusions
13 from the underlying documents, so as to make the additional tendering of
14 certain source and underlying material unnecessary.
15 Notwithstanding this, the cross-examining party may tender
16 certain materials when challenging the conclusions of the witness on the
17 basis of the underlying documents. The Chamber itself may also wish to
18 have certain documents in evidence. Furthermore, once a proposed expert
19 witness's conclusions are challenged by the cross-examining party, the
20 Chamber will also allow the calling party to tender certain underlying
22 As a result, the Prosecution should not file an early bar table
23 motion in relation to underlying material of proposed experts. And the
24 Chamber hereby denies the request.
25 And this concludes the Chamber's decision and further guidance.
1 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness, as I
2 understand, Ms. Hanson.
3 MS. BIBLES: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Ms. Hanson.
8 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
10 make a solemn declaration. The text is handed out to you. May I invite
11 you to make that solemn declaration.
12 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
13 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
14 WITNESS: DOROTHEA HANSON
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated.
16 You will first be examined by Ms. Bibles. You certainly are
17 aware that Ms. Bibles is counsel for the Prosecution in this case. We
18 have only a limited time left for today but we'll continue tomorrow.
19 Ms. Bibles, if you're ready, please proceed.
20 MS. BIBLES: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Examination by Ms. Bibles:
22 Q. Can I first ask you to state your full name for the record.
23 A. Dorothea Curtis Hanson.
24 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, I would ask the Court Officer to call
25 up 65 ter 11219, Ms. Hanson's curriculum vitae.
1 Q. While we're pulling this up, I'll ask if this is a copy of your
2 CV that was prepared in 2008.
3 A. Yes, that's what it appears to be.
4 Q. And have you continued since 2008 to work in the OTP Leadership
5 Research Team as a research officer?
6 A. Yes, I have.
7 Q. And as you look at the documents in front of you, are there any
8 changes or additions that you make to these documents today?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 11219.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I do not know from whom I expect whether there is
12 any objection.
13 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
14 Miodrag Stojanovic.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the number would be.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Document 11219 becomes Exhibit P378, Your
18 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
19 MS. BIBLES:
20 Q. Did you prepare a report in this case?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And can you describe for us how it relates to the report that you
23 prepared in the case of Radovan Karadzic?
24 A. It is essentially the same report with just a few very minor
25 corrections that I had noted in -- in my testimony at the time that
1 needed correcting.
2 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, I would ask the Court Officer to call
3 up the first page of 65 ter 28454.
4 Q. Could you look at the first page of this document and tell us if
5 this is the report that you prepared in this case.
6 A. Yes, it appears to be.
7 Q. Are there any changes or corrections that you would make at this
8 time to the report that's prepared in front of us?
9 A. It's not a change. It is just one explanation I would like to
10 make, if I might, in paragraph 10. And under taskings and methodology.
11 Q. I believe that's page 3 in e-court. I believe... yes.
12 A. Yeah, it's just the last two sentences there obviously apply to
13 the Karadzic report, whereas it incorporates new evidence and a new
14 section; that is, applies to the Karadzic report. The Mladic report does
15 not differ from the Karadzic report, so that's -- the sentences perhaps
16 are slightly misleading here. That's all I wanted to clarify.
17 Q. Thank you. Could you briefly summarise for us how this
18 particular report was developed.
19 A. Well, many years ago now, at the time of the preparation of the
20 Krajisnik case, I was tasked to research and explain to the Prosecution
21 what were the structures and functions of Bosnian Serb Crisis Staffs.
22 Out of my original research report, the Prosecution team decided to use
23 it as an expert report so it became an expert report for Krajisnik. I
24 continued working on it, updating it with new research, and a later --
25 another version was used when I testified based on this report for
1 Stanisic Zupljanin -- or in the Stanisic Zupljanin case in the case
2 against Gojko Klickovic at the Bosnian Serb state court -- I mean the
3 Bosnian state court. I'm used to saying Bosnian Serbs all the time. The
4 Bosnian state court in Sarajevo and then in the Karadzic case.
5 Q. In preparing --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters. Thank
8 THE WITNESS: My apologies.
9 MS. BIBLES:
10 Q. In preparing this report, could you tell us how you determined
11 which materials to rely on in drawing your opinions?
12 A. Well, as I say, my original tasking was Bosnian Serb Crisis
13 Staffs, so I had at my disposal various kinds of documents in the
14 possession of the OTP. In some cases, entire collections of Crisis Staff
15 minutes. In some cases, scattered examples of Crisis Staff decisions or
16 minutes. In other cases, municipal gazettes. Some contemporary press I
17 also looked at. And then just various documents collected by the OTP
18 relating to Crisis Staffs. Obviously, the complete sets of minutes were
19 the most useful, but in order to get as geographically and
20 chronologically broad account I also -- I cast my net as wide as I could.
21 Q. And could you tell us whether you worked with original documents
22 or with translations.
23 A. I worked with original documents preferably.
24 Q. And just to clarify, you do read and understand B/C/S language
25 and the Cyrillic alphabet?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. As you reviewed documents, if you found documents which might be
3 exculpatory, could you tell us what you did with those?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Ms. Hanson, could I ask you to make a short break
5 between question and answer and Ms. Bibles will do the same.
6 THE WITNESS: I was trying, Your Honour.
7 Exculpatory documents, any document that seemed to me in my
8 reading as potentially exculpatory I would flag, I would notify the
9 attorneys on the case, give them the ERN and a summary of the document or
10 the reason why I saw it as exculpatory. And that's not only in my
11 writing for this report but all of our research in the LRT. We always
12 have that in mind.
13 MS. BIBLES:
14 Q. Have any of these such documents changed your understanding of
15 the patterns as you've described them throughout your report?
16 A. No. My -- as I've continued to do my research, I have found
17 further examples of what I have, but nothing that has changed my original
18 understanding of the patterns, and the exculpatory documents might relate
19 to particular incidents but not -- they did not change my understanding
20 of the overall pattern.
21 MS. BIBLES: Your Honour, at this time, I would tender 65 ter
22 28454 or at least MFI it for these purposes at this time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: In view of the -- what I understood to be a standing
24 objection against the report, Mr. Stojanovic, the Chamber indicated that
25 it would decide on the admission of the report once the witness had given
1 her testimony. Do you still object?
2 MR. STOJANOVIC: [Interpretation] That's right, Your Honour. In
3 accordance with your decision that you have just read out, we are going
4 to state our views once we've completed the cross-examination of the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, the report, 65 ter 28454 would
7 receive number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit number P379, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is marked for identification.
10 Please proceed, Ms. Bibles.
11 MS. BIBLES:
12 Q. Before we discuss some of the aspects of your report, I'd like to
13 ask you about the term "Crisis Staff" as it's used in your report. Could
14 you tell us what you're referring to when you used the term "Crisis
16 A. As I note in my report, I use it as an umbrella term for the
17 municipal authorities acting in -- under emergency conditions, not the
18 regular municipal assembly but a small emergency body claiming authority
19 over the municipality, whether it be a Crisis Staff or War Presidency or
20 war commission. All of those terms were used. They were
21 slightly different -- there was an evolution in the terminology used, but
22 all the sources I see emphasise the continuity between those terms, so
23 from that -- from basing myself on that evidence, I use Crisis Staffs
24 here as an umbrella term for War Presidencies and war commissions as
1 Q. From mid-to late May of 1992, were there changes in how the
2 Bosnian Serb leadership viewed the municipal-level Crisis Staffs?
3 A. I wouldn't say it was a change in how they viewed them but what
4 we do see a formalisation of the status of the Crisis Staffs. We see
5 even as the republic level organs are formalising the Bosnian Serb state
6 and establishing the authority over other organs they've created, they're
7 doing the same with the Crisis Staffs. As you see in my report,
8 Crisis Staffs were originally formed within the SDS party as party
9 organs, but we see in May 1992 in -- in an -- in a -- increasing a number
10 of instructions formalising their role -- the role in the state of these
11 Crisis Staffs and the authority of the republican level over them.
12 MS. BIBLES: Your Honours, I'm mindful of the clock and note that
13 this would be a good time to break.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Ms. Bibles, it is.
15 Ms. Hanson, before we adjourn, I'd like to instruct you that you
16 should not speak with anyone about your testimony or communicate in any
17 other way with whomever about your testimony, whether that is testimony -
18 as it little as it may be - given already today or still to be given
19 tomorrow and perhaps the day after tomorrow.
20 Is that clear to you?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And we'd like to see you back tomorrow morning
23 at 9.30, but not in this courtroom but in courtroom II.
24 THE WITNESS: II?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Courtroom II, yes. You may follow the usher.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: We adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow,
3 Tuesday, the 30th of October, at 9.30 in the morning, in Courtroom II.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 30th day of
6 October, 2012, at 9.30 a.m.