1 Tuesday, 4 June 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.41 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. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
11 We'll start with an administrative hearing in which Dr. Falke
12 will respond to any remaining questions. Now --
13 MR. GROOME: Your Honours, is it your intention to do this in
14 open session?
15 JUDGE ORIE: That was my next line, whether the Defence --
16 MR. GROOME: Okay.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I know that the line often has been that there's
18 nothing to be hidden and therefore we could deal with matters in open
19 session, but I want to verify again whether that is also true for the
20 present situation. It is. Then we'll remain in open session.
21 Yes, but before we ask Dr. Falke to come in, I would like to deal
22 with one matter about health reports. At the end of yesterday's session,
23 the Registry was invited to provide the Prosecution with any additional
24 information related to the health of the accused which it had not yet
25 received. The latest report by the RMO which was filed before the
1 parties just yesterday is dated the 29th of May, 2013. The Chamber
2 hereby instructs the Registry to file any such future reports on the
3 record until further notice, subject - I would say of course - to the
4 accused's consent.
5 Having dealt with that, could Dr. Falke be escorted into the
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Dr. Falke, please be seated. Good morning to you.
9 Could you put on your earphones. Yes. We asked the -- to receive -- to
10 obtain further information about the recent reports, various reports,
11 about the health of Mr. Mladic and the recommendations made therein.
12 Dr. Falke, could I first ask you, have you read the report of the 29th of
13 May, that is, the last report?
14 MR. FALKE: Yes, I did. All reports are written and discussed
15 by -- with me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps before we start, for those who
17 are not familiar with your position, could you please explain in one or
18 two lines what your position is.
19 MR. FALKE: Yes, sure, Your Honour. I'm the medical officer at
20 the United Nations Detention Unit for the last 15 years. My main role is
21 being the treating physician for the accused, detained persons, for the
22 ICTY. And in that role, I am end responsible for the given health care
23 to these detained persons.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We usually receive the reports, as you know,
25 from the medical officer. We have a few questions, focusing primarily on
1 what has changed since the arrival of Mr. Mladic; and second, what has
2 changed since the April report in which you come with new
3 recommendations -- well, at least the reporting medical officer comes
4 with new recommendations to reduce the sitting schedule to four days a
6 First, during the first period of time, apart from periods of ill
7 health, such as pneumonia, I remember there was a small surgical
8 intervention once, but apart from these incidental matters, what has from
9 a medical point of view changed since the arrival of Mr. Mladic?
10 MR. FALKE: Yes, Your Honour. Maybe I take the risk to talk as a
11 physician, as a medical physician, to judicial trained people and often
12 there is a different level of understanding. So I try to be as clear as
14 In medicine we differentiate evidence-based and experience-based
15 medicine, and I think it's important to understand that not everything in
16 health care and in medicine can be proven by diagnostic tests as black
17 and white as it sounds. Often diagnoses are made by observations,
18 discussions between physicians and other care-takers, and that is more of
19 an experience-based level.
20 As you may aware of, taking in account the earlier reports,
21 Mr. Mladic is known to have had two strokes in the past and is a man of
22 an age of 71 years old. That is, those are objective findings. Also,
23 earlier CT scans made of the brain show some damage due to these strokes,
24 so there is a permanent change and damage. Nevertheless, recent CT scan
25 did not show further abnormalities. So there seems to be a stable
1 situation. Recent performed neuropsychological assessment did not show
2 explicit or major lesion in the cognition or other cerebral dysfunction.
3 Cardiac assessment did show a reasonable good condition of his heart,
4 taking into account his age. And his blood pressure, which is mentioned
5 quite often, though fluctuating under stress, recuperates well to normal
6 levels in rest periods. He did develop somewhat of diabetes over time
7 with us and he experienced some weight loss, be it discreet there is some
8 weight loss. And earlier performed imaging shows general arthrosclerosis
9 of the neck and cerebral arteries and some peripheral arteries as well.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Is there any change in that?
11 MR. FALKE: No, no. There is no change in that. And maybe I
12 could come back to that later, but that's partly due to the close
13 monitoring since he arrived at the UNDU and the treatment he gets.
14 The reason -- what we noticed, not only me but also members of my
15 medical team, although less objective findings but observations by
16 clinical experienced people, sometimes based on validated assessments,
17 assessment tests, nevertheless, is a discreet increase of his residual
18 symptoms after the strokes, like an increase of slower and slurred
19 speech, reduced muscle strength, especially after a working day --
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may just ask, Doctor, is that something that
21 is normal after a stroke for anybody?
22 MR. FALKE: Yes, partly. Yeah. And most of the people who
23 experience a stroke, therefore, do not work or do not work any more
24 because often experience fatigue which happens much quicker in people who
25 experience strokes show more of the residual symptoms, yeah.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. You said observations
2 by clinical experienced people. Who do you have in mind?
3 MR. FALKE: Sorry, I should have explained the team members. The
4 treatment team consists of three groups. There is the group at the
5 medical service, so the MO and my deputy; the nurses and the RMOs on
6 certain distance; there is the psycho medical overview team that means on
7 a weekly basis most of the time, and that includes next to them teams of
8 the medical service, a psychiatrist. And there is the team of the
9 clinical physicians, mainly at Bronovo Hospital that consist of a
10 neurologist, a cardiologist, a gerontologist, radiologist, urologist, and
11 a neuropsychologist. And they all helped me to assess the present
12 situation of Mr. Mladic.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Let me then. You are giving us the composition of
14 the team. My question was clinical experienced people. Now who do you
15 mean by those? Would that include the urologist, for example?
16 MR. FALKE: Yes, although he has not a major input in the
17 questions involved here today.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the radiologist?
19 MR. FALKE: Yeah, it's the same, but he's part of the team of all
20 the --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But my question was you rely on, as you said,
22 clinical experienced people and their observations, so therefore I would
23 like to know which ones do play a role and which ones do not play a role.
24 MR. FALKE: When it comes to explaining the performed diagnostic
25 tests, of course, also radiology is --
1 JUDGE ORIE: That's the second. You said sometimes supported by.
2 I'll come to that in my next question.
3 MR. FALKE: Yeah. But mainly, mainly -- well, myself and my
4 deputy medical officer being general practitioners and judicial
5 physicians for a long time. The psychiatrist involved, it's a Dutch
6 psychiatrist who works for the NIFP, Dutch forensic psychiatric service,
7 and also the RMOs, one of the RMO is in a very experienced occupational
8 and forensic physician and the other is an experienced general
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so you say it's mainly you, the forensics --
11 the psychiatrist and the reporting medical officer, that is the core.
12 Could you tell us for how long in a week -- how often would you
13 see Mr. Mladic for how long?
14 MR. FALKE: It differs from week to week, but I'm in on Monday
15 afternoon and Wednesday and Friday, and most of the time I see him for a
16 short or a longer period during that week.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And all together how many minutes? Half-hours?
18 Quarters of an hour would that be on average in a week?
19 MR. FALKE: On average, I would say between 30 minutes and one
20 and one half hours, something like that.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. FALKE: And that's just me.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That's just you, yes.
24 You explained about these observations. You said they were
25 supported by clinical tests. Could you further elaborate on the clinical
2 MR. FALKE: Yes, the neurologist performed another CT scan of the
3 brain. The cardiologist made a CT scan of the transformation to see if
4 the coronary arteries -- in what condition they were in. The
5 gerontologist and the neuropsychologist, they performed a
6 neuropsychological assessment. I think those are the main assessments
7 performed by the clinical physicians.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the reduced muscle strength was measured and --
9 I do understand?
10 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
11 JUDGE ORIE: By whom and what was the result?
12 MR. FALKE: Yeah, I mentioned a discreet increase in residual
13 symptoms, like reduction of muscle strength.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. FALKE: And it is -- it was assessed by both myself as well
16 as the physiotherapist as well as the reporting medical officer, the
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I'm a bit confused. You say that it was -- the
19 observations were based on validated assessments, assessment tests which
20 show the discreet increase of the residual symptoms. Compared to what?
21 If you're talking about muscle strength, compared to when and how
22 measured at the time you compared with?
23 MR. FALKE: Well, Mr. Mladic is in the United Nations Detention
24 Unit since 2011.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
1 MR. FALKE: And so over this -- during this -- this period up
2 till now he is seen by these people just mentioned more often, and
3 gradually there has been a change. The major change assessed by these
4 people were found in the beginning -- at the end of last year and the
5 beginning of this year. In the team there is a discussion going on in
6 relation to the reduction of -- an advice for a reduction of court
7 schedule for a longer period than since the RMO first mentioned the
8 advice. But of course, you have to go through some time to sustain your
9 suspicion or your observations.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You say it was based on validated assessment and
11 then you said "assessment tests." I -- what I hear now from you is a
12 kind of a general assessment, not specific tests. And I was mainly
13 focusing on the reduced muscle strength. Could you give the details
14 about how that was measured, observed, assessed, and what -- how it was
16 MR. FALKE: When I was referring to validated assessment tests, I
17 was not referring to a muscle strength test. I was coming to that. It
18 was mainly the psychiatric evaluation -- the evaluation of the
19 psychiatrist who uses validated assessment tests.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And what was the conclusion of those -- those
21 tests? Now -- we are now talking about validated tests. I do understand
22 that is then limited to psychiatric --
23 MR. FALKE: Yeah. Observations.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- observations -- well, at least examinations.
25 MR. FALKE: Yeah, examinations.
1 JUDGE ORIE: What was the outcome? What was the conclusion of
2 those tests?
3 MR. FALKE: That -- that there was a reduction of concentration
4 span, that there was an increased fatigue, especially during weekdays
5 where the team concluded that it was difficult to differentiate the cause
6 of these symptoms, whether it was due to his personality structure, his
7 residual symptoms after strokes, or stress -- the normal stress that
8 detention and trial proceedings show to any person. So it was -- the
9 psychiatrist mainly concluded that at least part of these symptoms that
10 increased over the last months were due to the residual symptoms by
11 stroke but also partly -- partly due by his personality structure that
12 causes him and his surroundings on an awful lot of stress.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I -- exactly in relation to what you just
14 told us, I would like to put a question to you. That was my -- when you
15 first spoke about the -- your assessment tests, I was wondering how you
16 can distinguish between those changes resulting from residual symptoms of
17 former strokes or just in relation to age?
18 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How can you distinguish by real medical
21 MR. FALKE: Well, you've got a point there and that's why I also
22 already --
23 JUDGE ORIE: We're not here to make points, Mr. Falke. We're
24 just trying to --
25 MR. FALKE: No, no --
1 JUDGE ORIE: -- fully understand --
2 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah. No, I understand.
3 That is not always easy to distinguish and that's why I already
4 mentioned earlier that it is not often always evidence-based but also
5 experience-based that clinical evaluations and dialogues with other
6 physicians, conclusions can develop. And these conclusions are based on
7 different expertise by different physicians and other care-takers, who
8 sometimes use validated assessment tests, that's their background, like
9 psychiatrists they -- and psychiatric evaluation is based on validated
10 tests, not that a psychiatrist does, strictly speaking, does a test or an
11 examination, a psychiatric examination, every time, but observes and
12 taking in account the knowledge of the tests.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: To clarify that a little bit more, when you spoke
14 about that first, you said members of my medical team noticed, although
15 less objective findings, but observations by clinical experienced people.
16 This is exactly what you just said.
17 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But you said sometimes based on validated
19 assessments. I just want -- would like to know, are your -- is your
20 assessment only based on the tests conducted by the psychiatrist or do
21 you have any other more objective medical findings you can base your
22 opinion on?
23 MR. FALKE: Well, as I mentioned earlier, that is the problem.
24 Often medicine is not based on evidence, based on hard facts, but based
25 on experience, on observations, and clinical observations. And the
1 clinical observations done by different members of the team are an
2 increased fatigue, are a reduction of concentration span, are a reduction
3 of emotional control, and a decrease of abilities for self care. And
4 these symptoms can be related to different issues, residual symptoms,
5 stress, and personality issues, and physical disabilities. And it's very
6 difficult to get clear what the percentage of the different causes is
7 that -- that is involved.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You told us about observations since 2011.
9 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is the psychiatrist involved the same today as in
12 MR. FALKE: Almost I think. I'm -- I don't have the exact dates,
13 but she's involved for at least a year now, yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: You were talking about the deterioration more or
15 less observed by the psychiatrist I think you said over the last month,
16 let's say the last five, six months this year.
17 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Has this been jotted down anywhere on paper? I
19 noticed today -- I mean in the daily reporting, would it -- could the
20 Chamber have a -- get an impression of what is written there so that we
21 can see how it was observed and what was noted in that respect? Is there
22 a possibility --
23 MR. FALKE: Well, there are different kind of observations
24 written down. Of course, the guards observe detained person and write
25 down in the log-book if people are asleep or awake during the night, if
1 they are restless, whatever.
2 JUDGE ORIE: They're not specifically trained for that but
3 they --
4 MR. FALKE: They are --
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- act on the basis of --
6 MR. FALKE: No, they are trained for that. They are --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, of course you can see whether someone is
8 sleeping or not, but for example, assessments of activity or assessment
9 of stress, et cetera, are they specifically trained for that?
10 MR. FALKE: Yes, that's part of their profession. Guards --
11 guards are not just people who stand in front of a cell door; they are
12 people who are involved in the well being of detained persons. And
13 therefore, they are trained to observe whether things go well or not.
14 JUDGE ORIE: How are they trained for that?
15 MR. FALKE: That's not my expertise, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, but apparently you tell us that they are trained
17 in it.
18 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And then at least in order to rely on their
20 observations --
21 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- you would need to know exactly how they developed
23 expertise in that respect.
24 MR. FALKE: No, I don't agree, with all due respect. That's the
25 management who is responsible for the training of the guards and that's
1 not me --
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, but you --
3 MR. FALKE: -- I rely -- I rely on the management to make sure
4 that the guards are trained and do well.
5 JUDGE ORIE: So what you're telling us, you suppose that they're
6 sufficiently trained --
7 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
8 JUDGE ORIE: -- to make those observations, but you have no
9 personal knowledge --
10 MR. FALKE: Yeah, exactly.
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- on how they were trained and what level of
12 expertise they have developed in that respect?
13 MR. FALKE: Yeah, that's true.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that answer.
15 Yes, I have one additional question -- yes.
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just in relation to that, you told us about the
17 observations made by the physiotherapist.
18 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was that also a general observation or did he
20 conduct any measurement?
21 MR. FALKE: Well, he sees the detained person twice a week and he
22 has specific exercises he performs and every day -- every time he sees
23 the patient. So yes, he assesses whether the exercises he performs with
24 the patient have any result or not.
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Was that written in the log-book or in the
1 medical documentation somewhere?
2 MR. FALKE: Yes, not on a regular basis, I have to admit, but if
3 and when the physiotherapist discusses this with me or one of my team
4 members, it is written down in the medical file, yeah, yeah.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have access to any such observations
6 specifically on the physiotherapy and the findings of the
8 MR. FALKE: I think so, yes.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then my next question is: Since when is Mr. Mladic
10 assisted by a physiotherapist?
11 MR. FALKE: I -- I think almost -- right from the start, yeah.
12 JUDGE ORIE: With the same frequency?
13 MR. FALKE: More or less, yeah.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. FALKE: Depending on court schedules and availability of the
16 physiotherapist, but on the average I would say at least once a week and
17 most of the time twice a week, yeah.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 A specific question for you is the following: Have you received
20 and read the report which was drafted by experts hired by Defence counsel
21 who pointed at an elevated risk of -- in relation to the blood pressure,
22 et cetera?
23 MR. FALKE: Yes, I did.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have any comments on that report?
25 MR. FALKE: Yes, I do.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us those comments?
2 MR. FALKE: When I read these reports, they show concern for the
3 patient they examined. That's the first thing. Well, that's good to
4 read. I differ from opinion when it comes to the conclusions. I'm a bit
5 reluctant to say so, nevertheless, whether -- it is -- I can understand
6 also the Chamber asks themselves: Well, what is the increased risk that
7 another incident, cerebral incident, will happen? Because that would
8 have large consequences for the trial proceedings and whatever, also for
9 his own health of course. Peaks in blood pressure, like in Mr. Mladic's
10 case happens especially during stress periods and of course at the moment
11 going to trial are these stress periods, do have -- do not have an
12 increased risk of a stroke as he experienced in the past, that was a
13 non-bleeding stroke, so a thrombosis, it was not a bleeding. Those
14 strokes, non-bleeding strokes, only happen if a blood pressure for a long
15 period is not well under control. It's the same with cardiac incidents,
16 even if people do not have coronary problems, if there's a long high
17 blood pressure stress, continuous stress, it could create a heart
18 incident as well. So it is -- I read the reports and I discussed this
19 with one of the treating neurologists, to be sure whether I was right in
20 my different opinion, and he agreed with that.
21 He -- there is no reason, so far - not seen in the scans or
22 whatever - to be afraid of bleeding in the brain, so bleeding stroke that
23 is not very likely to happen. It is a worst-case scenario, and that's
24 what I think these experts talk about, it's a worst-case scenario, but it
25 is it likely? No.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Just with respect to the blood pressure, does
2 Mr. Mladic receive medication with the aim to lower his blood pressure?
3 MR. FALKE: Yes, he does and right from the start when he entered
4 the UNDU his -- he came in in a reasonably bad state. And from then on
5 he was closely monitored by different clinical specialists and the
6 medical service. His medication was brought up to normal levels and it
7 showed -- and also the physiotherapy and it all showed improvement in his
8 health status.
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: How do you make sure that he is taking the
11 MR. FALKE: Yes. Well, one of the advantages of being a doctor
12 in a prison is that you can be sure that there is no non-compliance when
13 it comes to medication because the medication is distributed to the
14 detained person by the guards and they have to take the medication in the
15 presence of the guards.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question in that context. We
17 have had in the past a problem with one of the detainees who after
18 careful examination there was a serious suspicion that in a similar
19 situation he did not take his medication or he spat it out soon after the
20 guards had left. I know that in that case the situation was adapted, but
21 you're so clear now. Does that mean that the guards are staying with
22 Mr. Mladic for half an hour after he takes his medication?
23 MR. FALKE: No, I don't think so and I'm not sure whether you
24 refer to a situation in 2005 and 2006?
25 JUDGE ORIE: I think I do, yes.
1 MR. FALKE: Yes, that was not a situation, as far as I'm
2 concerned because I was the physician at present at that time, that was
3 not a situation of not taking the medication; it was a situation of
4 taking medication that was not prescribed.
5 JUDGE ORIE: I think it went in stages. The first stage --
6 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah.
7 JUDGE ORIE: -- was, Dr. Falke, that he spat out most likely his
8 medication, and once there was a better control on taking the medication,
9 the effect improved significantly. And it was only after that that the
10 other medication was apparently taken not prescribed. Is my recollection
11 right that the stages of what you described were as I say and not just
12 the second part as you told us?
13 MR. FALKE: Yes, I agree. What I was trying to refer to is that
14 when it comes to at that time the blood pressure that was not under
15 control and we couldn't get it under control was maybe in the beginning
16 part of the non-compliance. But there was -- the main problem was
17 something else.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now I have -- Judge Moloto has a question for
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Dr. Falke, notwithstanding your difference with
21 the doctors that were employed by Mr. Mladic on their conclusions, is
22 it -- are we to understand that notwithstanding that difference you are
23 still in agreement with their recommendations? Because it looks like the
24 recommendations they make are exactly the same as the recommendations
25 that are made by the UNDU doctors?
1 MR. FALKE: Yes, maybe on slightly different conclusions, but I
2 still agree with my team and I still believe in the advice we gave for a
3 reduction in the court schedule. And of course both myself and my team
4 fully respect and are aware of the difficulties we create with this
5 advice, and it's not up to us whether the advice is indeed accepted --
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand --
7 MR. FALKE: Sorry?
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: We understand that part.
9 MR. FALKE: Yeah. But that is nevertheless -- I mean, my
10 responsibility as MO is primarily with the patient and that's what I have
11 to take into account primarily.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following question: If --
13 unless you have --
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not done yet.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: Now, what would be the kind of result that you
17 would have envisaged based on your medical -- your conclusions which
18 differ from those of the doctors that were employed by Mr. Mladic?
19 Because they're talking of something that could actually result into a
20 fatal stroke.
21 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the result that you are trying to obviate
23 by your recommendations?
24 MR. FALKE: I'm not sure if I understand your question.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: What my question is -- well, they're saying if
1 Mr. Mladic -- if we don't reduce the time for sitting, the possibility
2 that he might get a stroke which is -- could be fatal becomes a reality.
3 You're saying that's a worst-case scenario and it's not likely.
4 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm saying: What then is the unfortunate result,
6 based on your findings, that you want to make sure doesn't eventuate by
7 your recommendations?
8 MR. FALKE: Yes, I understand. The -- it is I think about what
9 we would call in the medical world tertiary prevention. You see symptoms
10 related, partly related, to a medical condition and to prohibit a more
11 serious outcome you try to do something to reduce --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: What is the serious outcome? That's my question.
13 MR. FALKE: The outcome could, for example -- one of the
14 outcomes, and that's what one of the psychiatrists also mentioned, could
15 be a burn-out due to extreme fatigue. So I don't think about strokes at
16 the moment. If -- would the blood pressure stay high, then that would be
17 a realistic complication but that's not the case yet and hopefully it
18 will not be. But it's mainly, it's mainly, the symptoms like a reduction
19 of self care, the reduction of concentration span, the reduction of
20 emotional control, the fatigue --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It could worsen those --
22 MR. FALKE: Yes, and finally it could come to a complete
23 break-down, to a burn-out, and that is much more realistic. So taking in
24 account his age, all the issues mentioned, he is somewhat more
25 vulnerable, yeah.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following: An elevated blood
3 pressure in moments of stress, is that a medical abnormality or is that a
4 relatively normal situation to which Mr. Mladic unfortunately is more
5 frequently exposed to than ordinary persons?
6 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah, it depends on the height of the blood
7 pressure. In all of us as we sit here in situations of stress, blood
8 pressure will elevate. In exercise, which is also a form of physical
9 stress, it will lower. But -- and that's why exercise is also good for
10 the blood pressure. But in stress, in mental stress, it will rise and
11 that is, in fact, a reasonable normal physiological process because the
12 heart rate increases and therefore the output increases and output is
13 related to part of the blood pressure. The height in Mr. Mladic measured
14 were somewhat abnormal I would say. If a blood pressure is 180 over 100,
15 110, that is too much. I mean, in normal people it would be between 140,
16 160. Sistole and diastole, maybe between 90 and 100 max.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Also in stress situations?
18 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And how often did you measure such?
20 MR. FALKE: Well, actually the medical service here measured the
21 blood pressures.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but how often was it at such a level that you
23 say that is, as you said, is -- you first were saying somewhat abnormal
24 and then you say 180 over 100 or 110 is too much. How often was -- were
25 these levels measured?
1 MR. FALKE: I'm not exactly know the numbers, but it was
2 exactly -- most of the times the medical service had to come in, there
3 was a period when they had to come in quite often --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, whether they had to come in or whether they
5 were called in --
6 MR. FALKE: Whether they were called in, sorry. Yeah.
7 JUDGE ORIE: That's the difference.
8 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah. They were called. And most of the time
9 the blood pressure was abnormal high.
10 JUDGE ORIE: But my question was: What levels? Are you talking
11 about these levels --
12 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
13 JUDGE ORIE: -- and how -- that is 180 over 100. And how quickly
14 did it go down again?
15 MR. FALKE: Very often he was I think leaving the courtroom and
16 it was measured once again and then it lowered very quickly. Coming back
17 to the UNDU, we left him for an hour and measured it again, it was
18 absolutely normal again.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. FALKE: With the medication.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Could this reaction to stress be part of the
22 personality structure or is it -- I mean, some people may respond
23 different to stress than others. Is there always a medical explanation
24 or could it also be personality or ...?
25 MR. FALKE: Personality structure does a lot with stress. If,
1 for example, you are a narcissistic person and you hear all kind of
2 things -- negative things about yourself in a courtroom, that creates an
3 enormous stress.
4 JUDGE ORIE: If I may interrupt you, sorry to do that --
5 MR. FALKE: No --
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- if we would sit four days a week, would you
7 expect that during the remaining four days, that if there was a stress
8 situation that the high-level blood pressure would be significantly
9 lower --
10 MR. FALKE: No, no --
11 JUDGE ORIE: -- because sitting only four days a week? No, you
12 would say that would be approximately the same?
13 MR. FALKE: No, because the moment of stress -- the causes are
14 still the same, personality structure, residual symptoms, the normal
15 stress that anybody in such circumstances will experience. So these
16 issues will not be different.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And they will not bring the kind of risk as
18 described by the two experts, the risk of a stroke unless you said if it
19 was a more or less continuous remaining high level?
20 MR. FALKE: Well, I can't look into the future --
21 JUDGE ORIE: No.
22 MR. FALKE: But from a statistic point of view - and that's what
23 I understood from the neurologist I met last week - a bleeding cerebral
24 vascular accident is a worst-case scenario. Of course it can always
25 happen but it's not likely.
1 JUDGE ORIE: As it could happen to everyone at that age?
2 MR. FALKE: Yes, who would be in such stress situations, of
3 course. If there is a weak vessel in the brain - which of course with
4 general arthrosclerosis like Mr. Mladic - it is possible, but you can't
5 diagnose that where there is a weak wall in a small place but -- so that
6 can also -- but it can happen to anybody here who is not aware of a weak
7 arthrosclerotic vessel.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Including you, including counsel, including the
9 Prosecution, and including the Judges, is that more or less --
10 MR. FALKE: Well, the Judges maybe, but doctors never become ill.
11 No, it can happen to all of us.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes.
13 MR. FALKE: Even at different ages.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Now, could I ask you the following. There is a kind
15 of a general cardiological picture. You were talking about statistics.
16 How would be Mr. Mladic's score for the average 71-year-old in terms of
17 cardiological problems, blood pressure? Is that rare? Is that only 1
18 per cent of the 71-years-old would suffer from it or would it be 15
19 per cent? I mean, what's the -- if you have an assessment on that on how
20 extraordinary this situation is for a person of his age?
21 MR. FALKE: Yeah, well cardiology for that matter is a reasonably
22 simple specialisation because it is reasonably -- well, diagnostics are
23 improved incredibly. One of the main diagnostics when it comes to
24 coronary assessments because coronaries are the main cause of heart
25 infarctions, we can perform a CT scan of the thoracical region and we can
1 measure a calcium score. Calcium, as you know --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we know.
3 MR. FALKE: -- is part of the arthrosclerosis. It is an -- a
4 beautiful measurements and in Mr. Mladic's situation a calcium score
5 performed showed a score of 25 which means for his age is put -- is good.
6 So the risk that he will develop a myocardia-infarction is very small.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 MR. FALKE: So if I may --
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think you mentioned too, the CT scan didn't show
10 abnormalities either or -- because you were talking about the CT scan of
11 the thoracical region.
12 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
13 JUDGE ORIE: And you mentioned the calcium score. You said this
14 calcium score is quite good.
15 MR. FALKE: For his age, it's completely acceptable. That is
16 what you do with the CT scan, you do a calcium score.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, so that's normal.
18 MR. FALKE: If I may add something.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 MR. FALKE: You -- earlier on you were referring to another case
21 and situation in a different time and two -- it's good to mention that
22 not always that cardiac incident is caused by coronary sclerosis. At
23 that time that was an issue as well. Because even with clean coronaries,
24 if you have a blood pressure that is on a high level all the time, at
25 some point you get a stretch of the mucoid, of the muscle of the heart,
1 and it will create a similar situation as an infarction.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you explained to us that that is not the
3 situation with Mr. Mladic.
4 MR. FALKE: No, no.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you have -- you said you have read
6 the last report. Could I ask you for some of the issues raised therein
7 to find your medical assessment. One of the things mentioned is the loss
8 of weight and you referred to that briefly earlier. First of all, what
9 does it mean in medical terms? When I read here, I see he lost 1 and a
10 half kilos since the last measurement of the unit in April and it -- then
11 it was 76 and it came from 80 kilogrammes in May 2011.
12 What is the message we have to learn from what you write down
13 there, the medical assessment?
14 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah. Reading it again I realise we could have
15 added -- the RMO could have added some extra information there. In
16 itself, losing 6 kilogrammes in one and a half year's time, in two year's
17 time, is not such an issue. But for a person who is reasonably passive,
18 one would expect - with a normal appetite - one would expect an increase
19 of weight, a considerable of weight, especially in his age. He's not a
20 90-year-old who has an enormous muscle loss, et cetera, et cetera.
21 That's not the case here yet. So in fact, what you look at, it's not a
22 loss of 6 kilogrammes. In fact, it's a higher loss because he should
23 have gained weight. If you eat properly and you do not exercise, your
24 fats and your sugars will be transformed into fats in the body, so you
25 will gain weight. And that's not what happened. And what we noticed in
1 the last few months especially is that he -- his fatigue is increasing.
2 And we, for example, see is that he comes back from court and he even
3 hasn't got the energy to undress himself. He just lies in bed and stays
4 there for a long period and neglects his dinner, his evening meal.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could -- is there a possibility that some depressive
6 thoughts could play a role there?
7 MR. FALKE: Yes, that's what the team asked themselves as well,
8 and the conclusion is that there are no symptoms of a depression as being
9 psychiatric ailment.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Now whether it's psychiatric disease or not, I think
11 it's common human experience that you can feel without being diagnosed as
12 with a depression that you sometimes can feel somewhat depressed and have
13 less energy for all kind of things you would under normal circumstances
14 do. So therefore you are saying there is no medical explanation, but in
15 that respect as diagnosed illness. But would you for any medical reason
16 exclude for the possibility that such a reaction, even if not
17 pathological, could be part of the explanation?
18 MR. FALKE: Well, experiencing a stressy -- a stressful situation
19 during a day can create emotions, and if emotions are not abnormal in
20 itself even if they are negative, even if they're about anger and sadness
21 and feeling depressed. So yes, in -- for that matter Mr. Mladic is
22 not -- is a normal human being so will react the same way. That's --
23 although that's not what we observed. What we observed that he was
24 mainly physically very tired.
25 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you a few more questions about the weight.
1 You said he lost close to 6 kilogrammes where you would have expected him
2 to gain weight.
3 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
4 JUDGE ORIE: He arrived with a weight of 80 kilogrammes. Could
5 that weight have been caused by certain nutrition habits, eating a lot of
6 fat? I mean, do you know anything about what was the starting situation
7 caused by and whether the circumstances may have considerably changed
8 such as at least healthy food, which -- well, the next thing of course,
9 not being able to consume any alcohol in the detention situation. Have
10 you considered that? Because you expressed some concern about the loss
11 of weight of 6 kilogrammes, whereas if he was neglecting himself by his
12 nutrition habits or by the use of alcohol, I've no idea whether it has
13 been ever established, but is that a possible explanation as well?
14 MR. FALKE: Yes, although I doubt it.
15 JUDGE ORIE: For what reason?
16 MR. FALKE: If he would have had a bad, unhealthy lifestyle where
17 it comes to food, he should have been much heavier, especially using
18 alcohol, because from alcohol we know there are a lot of sugars, carbon
19 hydrates in there, so these sugars are all transformed into fats in the
20 body. And that's why people using alcohol often especially -- yeah, they
21 often -- they often gain weight.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Now, can I ask you an analytical question in this
23 respect. You say I doubt because people who are badly nurtured or are
24 using alcohol should be far heavier. But if you have -- or at least you
25 would expect him to be far heavier than 80 kilogrammes. Now, if there
1 was a moderate unhealthy nutrition scheme and a use of alcohol which was
2 not excessive but at least it was there, I mean how could you possibly
3 make -- well, let's say, if you use alcohol you should have been 85 or 90
5 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
6 JUDGE ORIE: I mean, what's the basis for this analysis, apart
7 from what you told us?
8 MR. FALKE: And of course I'm not talking about alcoholism
9 because then these people do not eat anymore and that's why they do not
10 gain weight but lose weight.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah.
12 MR. FALKE: Well, if I look at the food habits in the
13 Detention Unit that I -- my own -- the only conclusion I can draw is that
14 it's not healthy at all. But they cook themselves, they are allowed to
15 buy food. And the bulk of food, although very agreeable and nice, is
16 very rich with a lot of fats, a lot of salt, and a lot of sweets. And
17 that's what they still consume within the Unit. So they hardly eat the
18 prison food offered. They cook themselves most of the time. So for that
19 matter, he is not -- one would -- if he would take the prison food, I
20 would expect a downfall in weight because that is reasonably healthy,
21 reasonably balanced, not very fat, et cetera. But that's not what the
22 detained persons eat.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now this is a totally different explanation
24 compared to the previous one. The previous one, he should have been
25 heavier before if he would have bad habits and now you say there are bad
1 habits here.
2 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Would you agree that we don't know all the details
4 of what happened before he arrived -- unless you are measuring how many
5 calories he eats and fats, et cetera, when cooking his own food?
6 MR. FALKE: Yes, I agree there are maybe too many parameters to
7 be sure what the cause of the weight loss is. I agree completely. But
8 then again, it is a symptom we notice. And like more symptoms, you can't
9 really be sure what the cause is. It's often multi-factual.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I understand that you are --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- at the moment discussing observations. If you
13 compare the observations in relation to Mr. Mladic with other detainees
14 after their arrival at the Detention Unit, are there any significant
16 MR. FALKE: Yes, but also due to more factors. A lot of detained
17 persons do sport much more often than they were used to when they were
18 not detained because we have a lot of facilities and they like to go into
19 the fresh air, they like to go do sports. So that's the reason why a lot
20 of detained persons lost weight.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now could I in relation to this also ask the
22 following. You are comparing -- and that's what you were giving us, 80
23 kilogrammes arrival, 76 in April, and now -- 74 now, 74, 74 and a half.
24 First of all, is there a routine in the measurement of the weight?
25 MR. FALKE: Yeah, it's -- yes, there is. If you mean if it's
1 done regularly?
2 JUDGE ORIE: No, my primary question would be whether it is
3 always done under similar circumstances.
4 MR. FALKE: On the same scale.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Same scale?
6 MR. FALKE: In the same room.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Same room. Same time of the day?
8 MR. FALKE: No, not always. Most of the time at the end of the
9 day because he returns from court in the afternoon. So most of the time
10 it's done in the afternoon.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Now, I'm not an expert, but if I go on my own scale
12 on a regular basis, 1 and a half kilogrammes is within the range of a
13 little bit higher today, a little bit less tomorrow. Is -- could you --
14 is -- from a professional point of view, is a difference of 1 and a half
15 kilogrammes, is that within the normal range of variation?
16 MR. FALKE: No, that would be a lot and that probably would mean
17 that if you -- if it differs 1 and a half kilos, that would mean that you
18 would contain extra fluids like edema in the legs or whatever because 1
19 and a half kilos is a lot if it differs from one day to another. Of
20 course, you can drink a litre of water and then will gain --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. FALKE: -- you will gain of course. Of course. But that's
24 JUDGE ORIE: No, but that's --
25 MR. FALKE: -- that's reasonably excessive.
1 JUDGE ORIE: No, then perhaps I have to see my doctor. But --
2 MR. FALKE: Or your scale maybe.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's -- my next question would be: You're
4 saying he lost weight. Now, if I remember well there was a moment, I
5 think it was approximately one and a half years ago, when Mr. Mladic was
6 suffering from pneumonia and lost much, much, much weight, far below what
7 he is now. And he was then gaining weight again, I think he was under 60
8 kilogrammes. Now, there's a comparison 80 kilogrammes then perhaps below
9 60, then 67, that gain of weight that these external circumstances or
10 internal circumstances gives as far as I can see a bit of a different
11 impression. I didn't hear you mentioning it when you explained the
12 numbers I did put to you. Is that a significant matter to consider, that
13 you meanwhile lost 20 kilos or more and then regained weight?
14 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Have you considered that in expressing your concerns
16 about the loss of 6 kilogrammes?
17 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah. It's like in scientific research you
18 have to take in account a specific period long enough to see the
19 tendency, and of course you can have ups and downs also in -- and
20 measurements also in weight. There can be incidents like pneumonia or
21 another incident where the weight drops. But if you -- that's not what
22 you take into account. You look at the large period where there are
23 stable factors enough to see if the tendency of the measurements are
24 significant or not in the end. And of course when you lose a lot of
25 kilogrammes due to, for example, a pneumonia which is a serious ailment,
1 you have a recuperation time, you will have no court after a recovery
2 from pneumonia, whatever. So you have a lot of possibility to gain
3 weight again to the normal -- I would say the normal level.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could you make available to the Chamber the
5 list of weight measurements? And in relation to that I have one
6 additional question. You referred to the last measurement in April. I
7 thought you told us that he was -- his weight was measured on a regular,
8 frequent basis. April is, as far as I'm concerned, four, five, six,
9 seven, eight weeks ago. Is that the frequency with which you measure it?
10 MR. FALKE: Yeah, that is definitely not on a weekly basis.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Not on a weekly basis?
12 MR. FALKE: No, that -- there again -- there could be
13 fluctuations within a week- or two-week time. Not on a daily base but on
14 a week time, and so it doesn't say anything about the tendency. So you
15 have to take in account -- you have to take dots within the year and of
16 course you can measure it on a daily base, but that is -- doesn't give
17 more information in the end I think.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Would it be possible to make available to the
19 Chamber the -- I would say the monthly measurements then or whatever you
20 have on that?
21 MR. FALKE: I noted, yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then my -- in the most recent report attention
23 is paid to the sleeping pattern which is influenced by being woken up.
24 Has there been any change since the last reports and has the necessity of
25 disturbing the sleep of Mr. Mladic be further discussed with the
1 United Nations Detention Unit?
2 MR. FALKE: With the management you mean?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. FALKE: No. I didn't recently discuss the sleeping pattern
5 with the management.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Because it has changed. We understood from the
7 reports it has been reduced.
8 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Then my last question is -- that is partly related
10 to weight. You said that Mr. Mladic finds listening to the evidence of
11 the witness - or witnesses, I take it, in the plural - very painful and
12 disturbing and this also could have added to diminish his appetite. Now,
13 first of all to what extent is that a medical issue?
14 MR. FALKE: Only partly. Any accused listening to witnesses, I
15 charge, would be stressed. Even with a normal -- even without
16 personality issues, even without residual symptoms, if you hear things --
17 nasty things about yourself, it will cause stress. So that is not a
18 medical -- strictly medical issue, it's a psychological issue, but not a
19 medical -- strictly medical issue. In the situation of Mr. Mladic, there
20 are more causes possible, as just mentioned. So then it can be a medical
21 issue. I say "can be" because we had -- even in the team meetings, it
22 did not became clear what cause had a priority there. Was it the
23 personality structure, abnormalities in the personality structure? Was
24 it the residual symptoms that reduced -- that reduced the emotional
25 control and concentration span? But on the average I would say it would
1 happen to anybody and even more in people with certain personality
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: May I, just for clarification, ask you the
4 following. You said:
5 "If you hear things, nasty things, about yourself, it will cause
7 In the report itself there is no reference to hearing nasty
8 things about Mr. Mladic himself. Of course the testimony of witnesses,
9 it's not always a pleasure to listen to that, but doesn't that relate to
10 all participants in the court, even to the public gallery?
11 MR. FALKE: Oh yes, sure, absolutely.
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: These are not nasty things about the -- the
13 person listening to these events?
14 MR. FALKE: No, it will -- I mean, the things we hear in court
15 here are often awful to all listeners. But being an accused, it is
16 about -- I mean, your -- your actions in the past are at stake or are a
17 part of the discussion.
18 JUDGE ORIE: And if that results in a loss of appetite and a loss
19 of weight, then that would be --
20 MR. FALKE: Well, partly, partly physiological, I would say.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you don't know which part?
22 MR. FALKE: No. Well, that's a problem.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
24 MR. FALKE: That's a problem. And in his situation, we see that
25 it is -- it is going along together with an increasing fatigue, lying in
1 his bed after coming back from court for a long period and not having
2 dinner, that sort of thing. And I can't give you more exact information
3 there, unfortunately.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Have you ever considered what the medical
5 consequences, if it is predictable at all, would be for an extended trial
6 of six months extra at a -- at an age even higher than Mr. Mladic is in
7 now? And have you considered that in your recommendations?
8 MR. FALKE: I did, but we didn't discuss it in the psycho medical
10 JUDGE ORIE: And in your own inner thoughts, what could you share
11 with us, those thoughts?
12 MR. FALKE: Well, it is not evidence-based, it is
13 experience-based, having seen a lot of accused in the last 15 years who
14 are all my patients. And some of the trial proceedings were extended
15 quite a bit. Yes, of course, that also has its implications, but it's
16 difficult for me to give any objective or statistic numbers there, what
17 it would mean for the accused or -- I don't know.
18 JUDGE ORIE: You say a cost-benefit analysis in this respect you
19 can't make?
20 MR. FALKE: No, I think that's very difficult.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I have no further questions. Now, one thing I have
22 to ...
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Before we decide on how to proceed, have the parties
25 further questions for Dr. Falke? Because if there would be one question
1 which takes two minutes, we might even consider to continue; if there are
2 more questions, then we should take a break first and then --
3 Mr. Groome.
4 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I have a number of questions and I
5 believe we have been sitting for an hour and 20 minutes at this stage.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I was -- I should explain to Dr. Falke
7 that we usually stop after one hour following the recommendations as far
8 as pauses are concerned, and I saw that you did not jump up and say that
9 it was irresponsible what we were doing.
10 Mr. Lukic.
11 MR. LUKIC: We do not have too many questions.
12 JUDGE ORIE: You don't have any questions.
13 MR. LUKIC: Maybe one or two. Two maybe.
14 JUDGE ORIE: But nevertheless, Mr. Groome, it would take you ten
15 minutes or more I take it? If it's a matter of two or three minutes --
16 MR. GROOME: Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it would take more.
18 Then we first take a break. Then we first take a break. I hope
19 that you are still available after a break of 20 minutes, Dr. Falke.
20 We'll then --
21 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, just -- I'm not sure that Dr. Falke was
22 informed that we were in public session and I just was wondering whether
23 he is clear that that is how we have been proceeding.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, perhaps I should have told you but I inquired
25 with the Defence before we started this hearing whether they would prefer
1 to have it in private session. In the past we have experienced that
2 often the Defence had a clear preference for public session. So that's
3 the reason why we moved in public session. But of course also we had in
4 the back of our minds also very much the type of questions we were to put
5 to you.
6 We take a break. Could Dr. Falke be escorted out of the
8 MR. FALKE: Thank you very much, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ORIE: We'll resume at 25 minutes past 11.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 11.01 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 11.27 a.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could Dr. Falke be escorted into the courtroom.
13 Please be seated, Dr. Falke. The parties may have some questions
14 for you.
15 Mr. -- perhaps we start with the Defence as the -- any questions
16 at all, Mr. Lukic, or only a few?
17 MR. LUKIC: Actually, I would like just to make one intervention.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
19 MR. LUKIC: And I would check it with Dr. Falke.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please do so.
21 MR. LUKIC: Transcript line 20 -- page 20, line 14, I think it's
22 wrongly recorded.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Let's check.
24 MR. LUKIC: It says diastole may be 190 maximum --
25 JUDGE ORIE: No.
1 MR. LUKIC: Probably should be 100 maximum, that's what I heard
2 at that time. I'll read the whole sentence for you so you can --
3 "If a blood pressure is 180 over 100, 110, that is too much. I
4 mean, in normal people it would be between 140, 160 systole and diastole
5 maybe 190 max."
6 It should be 100, I guess? That's what I heard.
7 MR. FALKE: 90 to 100.
8 MR. LUKIC: 90 to 100. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's -- anything else, Mr. Lukic?
10 MR. LUKIC: Only, since we are in a public session and Dr. Falke
11 was explaining us about the possibility of weight loss during the
12 pneumonia, only it wasn't mentioned was at the time when the drastic
13 weight loss occurred with Mr. Mladic that at that time he really had
15 MR. FALKE: Yes, yeah. There was a relationship definitely.
16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Doctor. That's all I had for you.
17 MR. FALKE: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.
19 Mr. Groome.
20 MR. GROOME: Thank you.
21 First, Dr. Falke, I'd like to thank you for coming this morning
22 and helping us understand these issues in greater detail.
23 Now, the medical report we received yesterday is from the 29th of
24 May. Before court started this morning, I was informed that there was
25 some updated information that you wanted to provide orally, and I don't
1 know whether you've done that already or whether you've had an
2 opportunity. So I want to give you an express opportunity now to update
3 us on anything that's happened or any assessments made after this report
4 of the 29th was drafted.
5 MR. FALKE: I have no problem doing that, Your Honour, the only
6 thing is I need the consent of my patient. It can be verbally.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you consult with Mr. Mladic and see
8 whether he agrees that Dr. Falke gives us an update.
9 MR. LUKIC: Yes, of course, there is consent from Mr. Mladic.
10 MR. FALKE: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
12 Then also -- of course I've got no idea what the content would be
13 but no need to go into private session?
14 MR. LUKIC: No need, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Dr. Falke.
16 MR. FALKE: Yes, I -- I was referring to the examinations of the
17 gerontologist that included the neuropsychological assessment previously
18 done. Discussed last week between the gerontologist and the two
19 neuropsychologists involved and last Monday yesterday discussed by the
20 gerontologist with Mr. Mladic the results.
21 MR. GROOME: Now, in the 29th of May report, this specific report
22 is referred to and it's indicated that a final report is forthcoming.
23 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
24 MR. GROOME: Has a final report --
25 MR. FALKE: Not yet, no.
1 MR. GROOME: Okay. Can you update us on what the assessment is
2 at this stage with respect to the gerontologist?
3 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah. The neuropsychological assessment is an
4 evidence-based tool to assess cognition damage and cerebral dysfunction
5 in people especially who experienced strokes. The outcome of this
6 neuropsychological assessment as far as I understood from my meeting with
7 the gerontologist yesterday and my telephone conversation with him last
8 Friday, the outcome -- the conclusion is that there are no large
9 cognition damages found nor brain cerebral dysfunctions for that matter.
10 He does have some nuances in his answer because he says we reviewed these
11 neuropsychological -- this psychological assessment with the three of us
12 and what we do see is a decreased concentration span and a decreased
13 emotional control, that could well be related or is likely to be related
14 to the experienced strokes as a sort of -- as a residual -- as residual
15 symptoms. But then again, hundred per cent guarantee there is not
16 possible because it is, as it were, polluted by personality structure
18 MR. GROOME: Now --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one additional question in that context.
20 Can it be polluted as well by the circumstances? A decreased
21 emotional control, could that be influenced by what happens in this
23 MR. FALKE: No, I don't think so. Then -- well, I don't think
25 JUDGE ORIE: If you don't know --
1 MR. FALKE: I can't be a hundred per cent sure. And every time
2 we discussed these outcomes with each other, it was always the trias:
3 with personality issues, residual symptoms, and the actual stress in
4 relation to the situation. So it is, indeed, Your Honour, it's difficult
5 to be absolutely clear. But as far as I understood the gerontologist -
6 but I didn't see it on paper yet but that's what I discussed with him -
7 is that it is very likely that it is a residual symptom.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Groome.
9 MR. GROOME: Now, this assessment which I take from you is being
10 put in a final report, based on your experience is this current
11 assessment of -- this aspect of his health, is that something that you
12 would expect to remain stable or is it something that you would
13 anticipate rapid changes to?
14 MR. FALKE: Yes, well in fact if there is no new damage to the
15 brains which you can see -- well, at large you can see on a CT scan
16 performed that it's reasonably repeated, if that's not the case then it's
17 not very likely that it will -- that these symptoms will increase in
18 strength and in diversity.
19 MR. GROOME: Now, the medical report that we received last
20 evening is authored by a Dr. Amanda de Glanville as reporting medical
21 officer. I don't recall seeing her name on a medical report in the past
22 and in fact in most cases we've received them from
23 Dr. Aernout Tenhaeff --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We have seen the previous reports by this doctor.
25 MR. GROOME: I apologise. I hadn't seen one at all this year,
1 but maybe I missed it but --
2 JUDGE ORIE: I think I remembered. I mean, the name is so
3 familiar to me and doesn't come out of the blue.
4 MR. FALKE: I have -- let me have a look. I have all the RMO
5 reports here --
6 MR. GROOME: It may be unnecessary. All I wanted to establish
7 was whether she had had -- whether she was a new doctor or whether she's
8 had -- is familiar with his care.
9 MR. FALKE: Well, see there are two RMOs, two reporting medical
10 officers, Dr. Aernout Tenhaeff and Dr. Amanda de Glanville. And they
11 both write reports on a regular -- on a weekly basis, and there are a few
12 written in relation to Mr. Mladic by Dr. de Glanville and most of them by
13 Aernout Tenhaeff just by coincidence because they have a schedule, a
14 working schedule. And Dr. Tenhaeff is an occupational forensic physician
15 and Dr. de Glanville is a general practitioner.
16 MR. GROOME: Okay. I just -- I stand corrected. I wasn't sure
17 how long she had been involved in his care.
18 Now, we know that he's suffered two strokes and has some
19 permanent deficits with respect to speech and strength on the right side
20 of his body. Despite your answers to questions put to you by the
21 Chamber, I'm still not clear about the relationship between the
22 observations in paragraph 3 of the report of the 29th, this loss of
23 strength and his slightly slurred speech, I'm not certain of the
24 relationship between the stroke and the tiredness. Can you please
25 explain that in a little greater detail?
1 MR. FALKE: Yeah. Well even if people are very tired without any
2 other ailments, they don't talk with a slurred speech unless they had too
3 much to drink, alcohol, that is. So that is a specific symptom related
4 to residual symptom which sort of increases the moment such a person is
5 fatigued, is tired, because then the control -- the motoric control over
6 the mouth and speech muscles reduces.
7 MR. GROOME: Now, Judge Moloto put to you and I'm not sure I
8 understood your answer, is that something that we would expect from other
9 stroke victims --
10 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
11 MR. GROOME: -- with similar deficits that when they become tired
12 you may see this increased difficulty in speech?
13 MR. FALKE: Yes, especially those muscles that have some
14 neurological input problems will work less in situations of fatigue,
16 MR. GROOME: Now, one of the opinions put forward by the Defence
17 for this application and one that was referred to by the Chamber is the
18 opinion of Dr. Ratko Kvockovic [phoen], and it's dated the 29th November,
19 2012. In a paragraph in that report, he recounts a discussion he had
20 with Mr. Mladic regarding facts related to this case. The last sentence
21 of that discussion says:
22 "The attempt to confront him with the indictment was discontinued
23 because of the serious risk that the same emotional reaction would be
24 repeated and lead to a transient ischemic attack," or TIA.
25 Do you recall roughly reading that? So my question to you is:
1 Does a transient ischemic attack or a TIA, does that include both types
2 of strokes which you have spoken about today, a bleeding cerebral
3 vascular event as well as a thrombosis.
4 MR. FALKE: No, a TIA is -- it always has to do with a thrombosis
5 because if it would be a bleeding, it would leave permanent damage
6 because you can't take away the bleeding. And the essence of a TIA is
7 that it's only temporary loss of abilities and definitely not more than
8 24 hours.
9 MR. GROOME: Now, to your knowledge, is there any scientific
10 medical literature establishing a connection between an emotional
11 reaction and a serious risk or a serious increased risk of a TIA?
12 MR. FALKE: I asked myself this question and so I asked this
13 question to the neurologist, and as far as he could recall there were no
14 clear evidence-based researches done on this particular topic, no. But I
15 didn't -- I have to admit, I didn't have the time to Google meds myself
16 and see what that -- so I'm sorry I have to -- I can't answer that
18 MR. GROOME: Now, to switch the topic to the interrupted sleep,
19 and paragraph 4 of this report of the 29th of May deals with that, I'm
20 not concerned about the times when he is awoken by nightmares. What I am
21 interested in is do you know how often he is presently being awoken
22 during the night by staff at the UNDU, medical or otherwise?
23 MR. FALKE: Yeah, he's -- yeah, he's on a monitoring regime, as
24 you probably are aware of. And the guards try not to wake up a monitored
25 detained person and sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. In
1 Mr. Mladic's situation, I believe he's a light sleeper but he often
2 quickly wakes if he's awake and then he falls asleep again, at least he
3 closes his eyes again. So I can't tell you whether or whether or not he
4 has great sleeping disturbance due to the monitoring. I don't think so
5 because my experience in the past is if people experience disturbance of
6 sleep due to the monitoring regime, they immediately will send a request
7 to the medical service to talk to the doctor to make -- that the doctor
8 makes clear to the management that this is not a good idea and he never
9 did for that matter. But he is on and off awake anyway which in --
10 partly in age is not abnormal. The older you become the less sleep you
11 need, it's a physiological thing. So that's why old people -- older
12 people more often are awake during the night. And in his situation,
13 he -- I have to admit he never discussed nightmares with me in person.
14 He mentioned that to the reporting medical officer, but in those meetings
15 I'm not present.
16 MR. GROOME: And if I can -- can you tell us, give us some idea
17 of how frequently he's monitored, as you put it? Is it every hour, every
18 two hours, three hours?
19 MR. FALKE: No, his monitoring regime at the moment as far,
20 because we have a lot of people who are monitored, but as far as
21 Mr. Mladic is concerned, I think it's every two hours if I'm right.
22 MR. GROOME: And for those of us unfamiliar with what --
23 MR. FALKE: Sorry, it's every three hours.
24 MR. GROOME: Every three hours.
25 Those of us who are unfamiliar with what is entailed in
1 monitoring, can you just explain briefly what is a monitoring?
2 MR. FALKE: It also depends on the reason why there is a monitor.
3 For example, in Mr. Mladic's situation he experienced strokes in the past
4 and we do not know whether there will be a new stroke in the future. So
5 if a stroke would occur, you would not like to leave a person if it would
6 occur during the night lying in bed for the rest of the night for two
7 reasons. First of all, I think it's inhumane; but secondly, if you react
8 within three hours, you can reverse the symptoms partly due to a new
9 stroke by sending him to a hospital and they have a specific treatment
10 there. So that's why the three hours are there.
11 MR. GROOME: Now, you said you don't know whether he is --
12 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But the question was a little bit different.
13 MR. FALKE: Sorry.
14 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Therefore, I would like to repeat that. How does
15 this monitoring --
16 MR. FALKE: Yeah --
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- how is it carried out?
18 MR. FALKE: You're right. Excuse me.
19 In his situation, they will open the hatch, that is a blind, iron
20 hatch, in front of the window and the door and see if there is any
21 abnormality seen. There's always a small light in his cell on so they
22 can see the person in bed, but they do not wake him on purpose. There
23 are situations, for example, if someone experienced an incident recently
24 that we -- sorry, sorry. Yeah. If someone experienced an incident
25 recently that we, during the monitoring, we do wake someone up because we
1 want to be absolutely sure that there is no recurrence or no
2 complications of a recent incident. But in his situation, it's just to
3 see if he's restless or awake or if we see -- if the guards see any
4 abnormalities, if he fell out of bed, things like that.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, is it always visible if someone
6 suffered from a stroke -- well, let's say an hour before you look at him,
7 is it -- is there possibility that he seems to be just asleep although he
8 had a stroke?
9 MR. FALKE: Yes, and that is -- that is often the problem with
10 monitoring, is you have to find a balance between what you try to achieve
11 and disturbing the night rest, which can also cause problems. So
12 sometimes I agree, Your Honour, sometimes we explicitly or the management
13 explicitly orders the staff to wake somebody up. In Mr. Mladic's
14 situation, we have the management whom I advised did not do so.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, is it a current feature of a stroke that
16 someone starts moving restlessly and that's falling out of bed, for
18 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah, it often shows.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
20 MR. GROOME: Now, I think you said that you don't know to your
21 knowledge whether or not the monitoring wakes up Mr. Mladic. Would I be
22 correct in saying that you're not able to exclude the possibility that he
23 is awoken and that this could be a contributing factor to the fatigue he
24 experiences during the day?
25 MR. FALKE: That could be the case, but then often you see that
1 people have a fatigue already waking up in the morning and they mention:
2 I had a bad night or I didn't sleep well or I'm tired because I woke up.
3 That's not the case with Mr. Mladic. As far as I'm concerned, it
4 never -- it didn't show in any log-book of the guards or whatever. So
5 I -- I think that's not the case. It is mainly the fatigue that's built
6 up during the day which is explicitly noticeable on weekdays where he
7 goes to court much more than when he has a day off or weekend day.
8 MR. GROOME: Now, it seems that you consider the monitoring
9 medically necessary, so my question is: Are there other alternatives to
10 be able to monitor him during the night, given your concerns, that would
11 have less chance that his sleep is being interrupted?
12 MR. FALKE: We went through that discussion years ago in -- with
13 other detained persons who were at risk and I remember all kind of
14 discussions about the flaws with sensors and beds with sensors and, well,
15 in the end it was such a complex situation. It also almost became an
16 intensive care unit. So in the end it was -- the conclusion was that the
17 management and I think in the end the Registry also decided not to go
18 that far. And the management of the prison didn't go that way, yeah.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So for what --
20 MR. FALKE: So the monitoring is, in fact, the only thing you
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is that also a cost issue?
23 MR. FALKE: Yes, absolutely.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is it mainly a cost issue?
25 MR. FALKE: Probably, probably, and also I'm not sure whether
1 that's mainly or just a small part, but it is also a reassurance that
2 seems to be very objective and very clear while -- the question is: If
3 someone doesn't fall on the floor, the sensors will not notice anything.
4 If he lies still in bed, those sensors will not do anything. The only
5 thing that would really help - and that's what we used in the past as
6 well - is if the heart would stop beating because you can have a
7 sensor -- a heart rate monitor, that's what we did in the past. But the
8 heart rate will not necessarily change in someone who has a stroke, not
9 necessarily. It can be -- it can be caused by a rhythm disorder, but not
10 necessarily. So it is not only cost, but it will be very costly, that's
11 for sure.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Whereas if I understand you well a heart rate
13 monitor is not that expensive?
14 MR. FALKE: No, no, and of course the only thing is -- yeah, a
15 person has to keep it on all night and we know from the past that
16 sometimes it fell off or it -- that happens while turning around in your
17 bed and that wakes up the person as well because then the guards will
18 come and have a look at what's going on and they have to wake him. So it
19 is -- yeah, it has pros and cons.
20 MR. GROOME: Now, my next series of questions relates to the
21 recommendation of the medical staff. The Chamber has decided to sit for
22 five days a week during the first three weeks of June. Do you expect or
23 anticipate any medical emergency within the next three weeks as a result
24 of continuing to sit for five days a week?
25 MR. FALKE: I don't expect emergencies as far as I can look into
1 the future.
2 MR. GROOME: Okay.
3 MR. FALKE: If ...
4 MR. GROOME: Now, the -- after that period there's about a
5 five-week period before the summer recess. Is it your opinion that
6 working five days a week for that period, up until the summer recess,
7 would negatively impact Mr. Mladic, keeping in mind that he'll have then
8 three weeks to -- with no court hearings?
9 MR. FALKE: Well, we already know from the past that it will
10 influence him, he will experience more fatigue, et cetera, et cetera.
11 But if you relate it -- if you would like to relate it to serious
12 incidents, I would say that's not likely going to happen. And if it's
13 only a three-week period there is some horizon to be seen after which
14 there is a break, so that makes a difference. And we noticed in the past
15 because if I look at the court schedule in the last months, last half
16 year, well from the beginning of this year, there has been a lot of weeks
17 with only four or even three days court and we noticed that that
18 definitely made a difference.
19 MR. GROOME: That relates to my next question. If the Chamber
20 should grant the application and adopt a four-day-a-week schedule, what
21 would be the objective signs or indicators that that in fact does have a
22 health benefit for him and how long do you think it would take for us to
23 first see such indicators?
24 MR. FALKE: It's a logic question. It's not that easy to answer,
25 I'm afraid. It's also partly -- we have to experience what will happen.
1 What we saw in the past, and that's maybe the best thing for me to answer
2 the question, is looking back into the past, what happened in the past,
3 is that having some break in the week makes it easier for him to
4 recuperate, that's for sure.
5 MR. GROOME: Okay. Now, my next set of question concern whether
6 Mr. Mladic currently has any other disease processes that are likely to
7 impact his long-term health? In particular, several weeks ago we were
8 informed that Mr. Mladic suffered some complications as a result of a
9 biopsy. So several weeks ago we were informed that Mr. Mladic suffered
10 some complications as a result of a biopsy exam. My question in this
11 regard is whether a biopsy was performed on Mr. Mladic to investigate
12 whether or not he had some type of cancer and at this stage it's not
13 necessary to identify what particular type of cancer, just whether
14 that's -- is that why a biopsy was done?
15 MR. FALKE: Yeah, that's why most of the time biopsies are done.
16 It could also be to make sure whether it's an infection or so, but
17 biopsies are related most of the time to oncology.
18 MR. GROOME: And can you tell us whether the biopsy test was
19 positive or negative for cancer?
20 MR. FALKE: It was negative.
21 MR. GROOME: Are there any other health issues which you believe
22 might affect Mr. Mladic's long-term health apart from the ones that
23 you've discussed related to aging?
24 MR. FALKE: Yeah. Well, maybe his diabetes, and we'll have to
25 see how that will develop in the future. On the other hand, we're on top
1 of it so we -- I intend to treat that as I do with all my diabetes
2 patients. So it's reasonably strict.
3 MR. GROOME: Now, my final questions to you, Doctor, relate to
4 other possible options to ameliorate Mr. Mladic's fatigue. Now, given
5 that a day off in the middle of the week would cause scheduling problems,
6 have you considered whether five shorter days a week would yield similar
7 reductions with respect to reduction of fatigue?
8 MR. FALKE: Yeah, yeah, and actually for me that's very difficult
9 to answer, whether five short days or four longer days with one day in
10 the middle, would make the difference. As medical team we came up with
11 the advice for a day off in the middle of the week, with the idea that
12 that was a moment to recuperate. And I can't give you any evidence
13 whether that would be more beneficial than five shorter court days.
14 MR. GROOME: Okay. Thank you.
15 Now, there is a remote facility in the Detention Unit that would
16 allow Mr. Mladic to participate in the trial remotely. In your opinion,
17 would observing the trial from that room one day a week achieve a similar
18 reduction in fatigue that you hope for in the -- or you anticipate in the
19 four-day court hearing schedule?
20 MR. FALKE: Well, it would at least be an interesting pilot to
21 start with. We experienced in the past with one of other accused that it
22 was very helpful at the time, and even if it's only for some period. So
23 I can't say that that wouldn't be an alternative, no definitely not.
24 MR. GROOME: Again, Doctor, I thank you for your time today.
25 MR. FALKE: You're welcome.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Groome.
2 Mr. Lukic, any further matter?
3 MR. LUKIC: I don't have a question for the doctor, only I would
4 object to the proposal given at the end by the Prosecutor to have
5 Mr. Mladic remotely -- then it would be -- it would further decrease our
6 capability to consult with our client. So I would just kindly ask you
7 not to take that into account.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we'll ask most likely for submissions by the
9 parties after this hearing. So therefore then you can elaborate on that.
10 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I have one last question. You repeatedly were
12 talking about reduced or decreased and it was not always clear to me
13 decreased since when. I just read one part of the transcript. You said:
14 "... this psychological assessment with the three of us and what
15 we do see is a decreased concentration span and a decreased emotional
16 control that could well be related or is likely to be related to the
17 experienced strokes, as is thought of as a residual -- as residual
19 Now, when I hear you say "decreased" or sometimes you use
20 "reduced," in this line which I just read to you, do you mean to say that
21 compared to the situation before the stroke it would have been a
22 decreased concentration span and a decreased emotional control, or are
23 you talking about any difference experienced -- so apart from the fatigue
24 but in this respect experienced over the -- well, let's say the last six
1 MR. FALKE: Yeah. One thing is that several teams -- members of
2 the medical team noticed that in longer conversations where other
3 detained persons would still be concentrated, he lost track of the
4 conversation and what we concluded was that he lost concentration. He
5 was not confused or whatever, but he lost concentration. And he would
6 pick the conversation up again if you would explain to him: Okay,
7 Mr. Mladic, we were talking about this or this or this. Oh, it's okay.
8 And then he would continue. So our experience was that he, especially
9 over the last half year, that he was -- his concentration was reduced.
10 That's one thing.
11 The second thing is that in a neuropsychological assessment done
12 by the Bronovo gerontology team, it also showed a decreased concentration
13 span and that of course is related to -- it is a validated test so it's
14 related to normal groups in that age. It is all relative.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. My last question: Did you ever include in
16 your findings any -- or I would say include in your analysis any
17 observation of the behaviour of Mr. Mladic in this courtroom?
18 MR. FALKE: Yes.
19 JUDGE ORIE: And how did you do that?
20 MR. FALKE: Well, I -- mainly by speaking to the management and I
21 heard what was going on in the courtroom. And I didn't see any images
22 myself of these court sessions.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Did they?
24 MR. FALKE: Sorry?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Did they see them?
1 MR. FALKE: Yeah, I think so, yeah.
2 JUDGE ORIE: But the specialists never have -- well, looked at
3 five or ten hours of performance of Mr. Mladic's behaviour in this
5 MR. FALKE: No.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
7 I have no further questions. If there are no -- Mr. Lukic, I was
8 informed that Mr. Mladic would perhaps like to speak a few words at this
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I take it that you know approximately what the
12 limits are of what can be addressed and what --
13 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] --
14 JUDGE ORIE: -- cannot be addressed and we'd like to give an
15 opportunity to Mr. Mladic to --
16 MR. LUKIC: He just wants to --
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- to say a few words.
18 MR. LUKIC: -- thank Dr. Falke for his care.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic has an opportunity to express himself if
20 he wishes.
21 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] I would kindly ask you to tell me
22 how many minutes I have. I would like to address you but in public
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, two or three sentences is approximately
1 what may be needed for -- to do it in public. That's where the limits
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, where I am concerned and
4 my health, I would like to have at least five minutes. I'm not Socrates
5 or Pythagoras to say panta rhei: "Everything is in flow, everything
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. If there is any, Mr. Lukic will have an
8 opportunity to make further submissions. Mr. Lukic has had an
9 opportunity to ask any questions he wished from Dr. Falke.
10 Mr. Lukic, we understood that Mr. Mladic would express a few
11 words of thanks. That's what he's allowed to do but not to address the
12 Court or to further elaborate on what we discussed today.
13 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Gentlemen, Dr. Falke, you, your
14 team, the entire staff in the Detention Unit that is monitoring me,
15 following developments in my case night and day, all the medical staff in
16 the Detention Unit that has been treating me and the medical staff of the
17 Bronovo Hospital, I would like to deeply bow to all of them and greet you
18 all as the people who have pulled me out of a grave by both my legs. Had
19 it not been for your care, for medications, and God's will, I would have
20 visited St. Peter a long time ago.
21 Judges, let me address you and you, Doctor. As a human being, I
22 am not surprised by even the most heinous truth and facts. But even the
23 slightest lie, whomever it comes from, will make me short-tempered. I
24 have to commend the Tribunal --
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we are entering an area where we should
1 not be in.
2 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
3 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] My apologies.
4 I will not praise the Tribunal. I did say ugly things about it.
5 But had I not come here, I would have been in heaven a long time ago. So
6 I'd like to thank everyone, from the cleaning lady to all the medical
7 staff in the Bronovo Hospital for having saved my life. Thank you. I
8 will continue co-operating. I regularly take medication, but half of my
9 body is not functional and how functional the other part of my body is is
10 something that you've explained. So thank you for your honest and humane
11 testimony about my health. You are a friend of mine and a family member.
12 Thank you to all.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Mladic. I take it that Dr. Falke
14 highly appreciates your words.
15 MR. FALKE: Yeah.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I see that Dr. Falke confirms that.
17 Dr. Falke, I'd like to thank you very much for coming to this
18 courtroom and having answered the many questions we had for you. You may
19 be -- you are excused and I would like to invite the usher to escort you
20 out of the courtroom.
21 MR. FALKE: Thank you, Your Honour, for your invitation.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, we have 15 minutes left until the next
23 break. Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom? But since the
24 usher is not there --
25 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, I need to have Mr. Nicholls come down.
1 Your Honour, the Prosecution would be prepared to make oral
2 submissions with respect to this now, if that would be a useful way to
3 use the time. I don't know if Mr. Lukic feels prepared to do that.
4 JUDGE ORIE: On what exactly?
5 MR. GROOME: You said that you were going to invite medical --
6 submissions on the --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you give us some time that we most likely
8 will invite you, but we would first like to see whether we give you any
9 guidance on what we are mainly interested in and whether that should be
10 oral submissions or written submissions, we'd still like to consider
12 MR. GROOME: Well, I anticipate Mr. Nicholls was watching the
13 monitor and was on his way down. So if we can just give him a minute or
14 two to arrive.
15 [The witness takes the stand].
16 JUDGE ORIE: Welcome back in court, Mr. Nikolic. I'd like to
17 remind you that you are still bound by the solemn declaration you've
18 given at the beginning of your testimony.
19 Ms. Lindsay, I can't say that I'm very optimistic about
20 concluding today. I think you even eye-witnessed the reasons for that so
21 I'm not going to further explain to you.
22 We will wait for Mr. Nicholls if he arrives in a minute and then,
23 Mr. Petrusic, you're invited to continue your cross-examination.
24 Mr. Groome, is your expectation of two minutes, is that
25 experience-based or is it evidence --
1 MR. GROOME: Mr. Nicholls was watching the television. I trust
2 Mr. Petrusic maybe not to go into anything too much controversy in the
3 next few minutes and I would invite him to proceed and I'll handle any
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then we could start and I think as a matter of fact
6 our discussion allowed him to come down to this lower level.
7 Mr. Petrusic, you may proceed.
8 Mr. Petrusic: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 WITNESS: MOMIR NIKOLIC [Resumed]
10 [Witness answered through interpreter]
11 Cross-examination by Mr. Petrusic: [Continued]
12 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Nikolic, yesterday we left off addressing
13 the issue of humanitarian and other convoys. Let's stay with that topic
14 for a while still.
15 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to call up 65 ter 05568.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this is Exhibit P1419.
17 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] My apologies.
18 Q. Mr. Nikolic, what you see on the screen is a document by the
19 Main Staff of the VRS. If we look at its last page, we will see that the
20 document is signed by Radivoje Miletic and that the date is the 15th of
21 June, 1995. The document relates to the passage of an UNPROFOR convoy
22 through -- into the enclaves and including Zepa -- or, I'm sorry,
23 Srebrenica. Are you aware that the humanitarian aid was intended for the
24 civilian population in the enclaves only?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You will therefore agree that military units, whatever the side
2 they were on, could not get any supplies from these humanitarian
4 A. Whether they were able to or not is something that I don't know.
5 They were supposed to if it was intended for the civilian population.
6 Q. Let's look at the last page of both versions, where it reads:
7 "Pay attention to fuel tanks for which we have the necessary tool
8 (rod) ready to check the level of fuel in the tanks ...," and then there
9 is an illegible part.
10 "Carry out checks and allow movement along the mentioned routes."
11 Mr. Nikolic, do you know why the levels of fuel contained in the
12 tanks of the vehicles belonging to UNPROFOR were checked?
13 A. Well, I think that I do know the reason. Specifically, when
14 there were large convoys, and I mean the number of lorries --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, I'm going to stop you here. We heard
16 evidence about this. If there's anything different, then put a focused
17 question to the witness which deviates from the evidence we heard until
18 now, but we should not hear again the same explanation. That's
19 repetitious evidence the Chamber is not assisted by, and I don't remember
20 that there was any dispute about - but I'm looking at the
21 Prosecution - about the explanation given for the check on fuel levels
22 that would be to take fuel out and then ...
23 Let's proceed at this moment. I have a clear recollection so
24 have my colleagues about having heard evidence on that. Therefore, any
25 deviation, fine; no repetition.
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Nikolic, on page 1 of this document - can we have it shown on
3 the screen, please - is this your signature, or rather, is this your
4 handwriting, the one we see in the note?
5 A. Everything written at the top, including the numbers and the
6 letters NOBP underlined do not reflect my handwriting. My handwriting is
7 in the note below, "security officers shall witness detailed checks
8 Nikolic M.," and this is my handwriting. I wrote it.
9 Q. Did you do the same in all the situations or in isolated cases?
10 A. This was not standard practice, i.e., that we should have a
11 security organ or someone from security present at the check-point or any
12 of the senior or commanding officers. But in this critical period,
13 orders were given that there should be someone in addition to the team
14 that was present at the Yellow Bridge at all times and they were -- would
15 normally be people from security organs.
16 Q. And do you know the reasons behind this?
17 A. The reasons are simple. Heightened checks of everything that was
18 going into the enclave in this period of time, and I believe that you and
19 of course I in particular was aware that preparations were underway for
20 the take-over of the enclave, for offensive combat activities in the
22 Q. At the time - and that's the 15th of July - the 15th of June --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction.
24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. -- were you aware of impending combat activities?
1 A. You see, as an intelligence officer I didn't need to have it all
2 spelled out. If you take just one situation, and that's the 30th and the
3 31st of May, and the activities that were underway on the 30th and 31st
4 of May up until the 5th of June, all -- the combat activities undertaken
5 by our forces in the area of Zeleni Jadar point to the fact that there
6 would certainly follow combat activities from that particular direction.
7 Let me be quite clear. Nobody told me in so many words that an
8 operation was going to take place against Srebrenica on such and such a
9 date, but all these were indications to me that preparations were
10 underway for such an action on Srebrenica.
11 Q. Can we conclude that after the 5th of June you didn't have any
12 intelligence to the effect that the Drina Corps units would launch an
13 action against Srebrenica?
14 A. If we're talking about official information from some of the
15 officers of the Drina Corps, then it was some 15 to 20 days ahead of the
16 operation itself that I received direct information that an operation on
17 Srebrenica was being readied.
18 Q. Can you tell us what the sources of official information were?
19 Were they oral or written?
20 A. In my view, the official source of information was the
21 Drina Corps command and that's -- that was General Zivanovic who visited
22 the Bratunac Brigade. He was sitting together with me, Major Trisic, and
23 some other officers from the brigade command. He was pointing to some
24 sort of map and explaining to us that a plan of an attack against the
25 enclave of Srebrenica was being put together.
1 Q. Mr. Nikolic, the map that General Zivanovic was showing to you,
2 did it involve the burnt villages around Srebrenica and Bratunac in 1992?
3 A. I didn't look into the map in detail. He was talking about an
4 operational map that he had with him in the context of this attack
5 against Srebrenica, and then he went on to explain what was being
6 planned. So I wouldn't be able to comment on what was General's
7 operational map.
8 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can this be admitted into
9 evidence? Oh, yes, I'm sorry, it's already in evidence.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nicholls.
11 MR. NICHOLLS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. I'm sorry to
12 interrupt. No objection, but I'm noticing that the questions are coming
13 before the interpretation is finished and I --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: Again, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm just
16 concerned that the transcript be complete.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, I notice that you also do not always
18 take a short pause.
19 Could you please keep that in mind, and Mr. Nikolic, you as well.
20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] All right. Thank you.
21 I'd like to call up document 65 ter 19393. In the Serbian
22 version, the B/C/S version, it's page 2, starting with paragraph 1. And
23 in English it's also page 1, paragraph 1.
24 Q. Mr. Nikolic, in paragraph 1 you say -- I apologise. I withdraw
25 the question. If we look at the last page, can we agree that this is
1 indeed your statement and that this is your signature? Can we have the
2 last page, please.
3 A. Yes, it's my signature.
4 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back to page 2, please.
5 Q. Mr. Nikolic, did you give the statement to the Trial Chamber in
6 the Popovic case shortly before your testimony?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In paragraph 1 of the statement you say:
9 "The intentions or the first intention was to physically separate
10 two enclaves, namely Zepa and Srebrenica; to liberate the
11 Zeleni Jadar-Jasenovo-Milici road and in phase two to reduce the
12 Srebrenica enclave to the town area."
13 Do you stand by this position today?
14 A. Yes. I stand by everything I wrote in this statement including
16 Q. I'd like us to look at document --
17 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Or rather, can this document be
18 admitted into evidence, please?
19 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar -- Mr. Nicholls.
20 MR. NICHOLLS: Sorry, Your Honours. I would just say that if
21 this document is to be admitted, for it to make sense one would also need
22 to admit the document that it is a supplement to. As you see, this is a
23 supplementary statement, and the paragraph just read out, paragraph 1 of
24 the statement, is supplementing paragraph 1 of Mr. Nikolic's statement of
25 facts and responsibilities. So just a quick background, Mr. Nikolic was
1 called by the Trial Chamber in the Popovic case as a witness, and they
2 used his statement of facts of responsibility from the time of his plea
3 and they requested that he create the supplementary statement in order to
4 clarify any issues in his initial statement. So sorry, that's a long
5 objection -- answer. But I think both of them need to be in together for
6 it to be comprehensible because what is sought to be admitted are
7 corrections, additions, and clarifications.
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Isn't that in -- already in evidence? If you can
9 give us the document number?
10 MR. NICHOLLS: Not to my knowledge. It's 65 ter 19394.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] My intention was precisely to have
13 the other statement admitted as well as the statement of facts made by
14 Mr. Nikolic.
15 MR. NICHOLLS: No objection in that case.
16 JUDGE ORIE: So everything would be -- that means statement of
17 facts, the statement to which this document we have now on the screen is
18 a correction, and then this document. We don't have the numbers for all
19 three yet I think -- yes, yes, of course. The statement of facts is
20 already in evidence, but then the statement underlying this one -- yes,
21 that's 19393 and 19394. Is that?
22 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I don't know if this is the time
23 for our break? I've lost track of time.
24 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for our break, it certainly is.
25 But, Madam Registrar, could we already assign numbers to the two
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. Document 19393 receives
3 number D300 and document 19394 receives number D301, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ORIE: D300 and D301 are admitted into evidence.
5 We'll take a break. We'd like to see you back in 20 minutes and
6 we'll resume at -- after the witness has left the courtroom, we'll resume
7 at five minutes to 1.00.
8 [The witness stands down]
9 --- Recess taken at 12.33 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic.
12 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
13 Meanwhile, I use the opportunity to invite the parties to make
14 written submissions if they wish to do so on the -- on any matter
15 discussed with Dr. Falke by the end of this week.
16 [The witness takes the stand]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I suggest, Mr. Petrusic, that exceptionally that we
18 would continue until quarter past 2.00 now, that's five-quarters of an
19 hour. You may continue.
20 MR. PETRUSIC: [Microphone not activated]
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Microphone, Mr. Petrusic.
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise.
24 Could we have document P301 [as interpreted].
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say P or D?
1 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] D.
2 Q. If we look at the last page of this document, Mr. Nikolic, do you
3 recognise your signature there?
4 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Can we have the last page please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's my signature.
6 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. That statement of facts and acceptance of responsibility dated
8 6th May. Mr. Nikolic, in paragraph 1 -- actually, the second paragraph,
9 you said that during the attack of the take-over of the Srebrenica
10 enclave by VRS forces and its occupation by the VRS forces in July of
11 1995, it was to cause the forcible removal of the entire Muslim
12 population from Srebrenica to Muslim-held territory. You gave this
13 statement under oath.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So when you changed a part of the agreement which related to your
16 participation in Kravica and which related to the photograph, you had the
17 opportunity to change some other parts?
18 A. No. At that time I wasn't thinking about that. I didn't analyse
19 everything that was written down in detail. At the moment I analysed
20 things, I consulted certain rules, certain instructions, and everything
21 that relates to Srebrenica I tried to explain in the simplest of terms
22 and to say very precisely what the goal was, what the intention was, what
23 the military goal was, that was my intention. And to separate from the
24 military goal the consequences that occurred after the fall of the
25 enclave. That was my intention. And as for that, I didn't step away
1 from what I said originally nor is there any particular difference
2 between what I said and accepted before. This is just more detailed.
3 Q. You'll agree with me, Mr. Nikolic, that between this statement,
4 the one that I quoted, and your statement given before the Trial Chamber
5 in the Popovic case in document D300, which you had an opportunity to
6 see, as far as the Defence is concerned there is a significant difference
7 exactly when it comes to the intention because in document D300 you said
8 that the intention was the physical separation of the Srebrenica and Zepa
9 enclaves, while in your agreement and acceptance of responsibility when
10 you talk of intention you do not talk about the physical separation of
11 Srebrenica and Zepa. Am I right?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please put to the witness what it reads.
13 The one being the intentions of the VRS forces to cause the forcible
14 removal of the entire Muslim population from Srebrenica, that was
15 paragraph 1 of the statement. And then apparently now it reads: The
16 first intention of the VRS was to physically separate two enclaves, the
17 enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica, to liberate the
18 Zeleni Jadar-Jasenovo-Milici road and in phase two to reduce the
19 Srebrenica enclave to the town area. The forcible removal of the entire
20 Muslim population from Srebrenica was the result of the fall of the
21 enclave and subsequent decisions. That is what we are talking about. I
22 don't think that when you previously read a portion of the new statement
23 to the witness, I think you did not read the second part of what he said.
24 So please focus your questions not starting with where the
25 difference is in the view of the Defence, but to find out whether the
1 witness intended, as he just said, did not want to change his statement
2 in essence or whether he just wanted to give further details. That is
3 the issue and that is fair to the witness.
4 Mr. Nikolic, did you have any intention by the second portion I
5 read to you to change your initial statement about the intentions to
6 cause the forcible removal of the entire Muslim population from
7 Srebrenica? Or did you want to add something to that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this additional statement I
9 merely wanted to the extent possible to say what the first intention was
10 of the VRS, what the following task was of the VRS, and what this entire
11 operation grew into, so to speak. And of course I wanted to say that the
12 decision on the entire forcible transfer of the population was made after
13 the fall of Srebrenica. Srebrenica was lost and defeated militarily, and
14 the VRS did not stop after it reached its first and second intention. It
15 separated Srebrenica from the enclave, and as a result of the fall of the
16 enclave we had the forcible transfer of the entire population and an
17 empty enclave after the operation. That was my intention. I don't know
18 whether I managed to explain clearly, but that was my intention to
19 explain it so that it would be both clear to me and to others.
20 JUDGE ORIE: May I ask you one additional question. What finally
21 happened was the intended result although, if I understand you well, may
22 not have been the intention right from the beginning but at least was the
23 result intended at least after the fall of -- the military take-over of
24 Srebrenica. Is that how we have to understand your testimony?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not exactly, not in its entirety.
1 If we look at the document that we were discussing yesterday, that report
2 and some other documents, there was talk in that about emptying
3 Srebrenica enclave, and that was the real intention. But I wanted to
4 show that was achieved militarily without respect for their own military
5 decision which was to separate physically and that is not in dispute that
6 the intention was a physical separation. And the next task was to create
7 an enclave that would include the urban territory. However, even the
8 military goal was overstepped and with the previous intention that was
9 proclaimed as the political goal there followed a military defeat and the
10 forcible transfer of the entire population. That was the goal.
11 I was not able to explain everything in such detail in this
12 statement. I wrote what I wrote and then I tried to explain everything
13 during my testimonies.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Petrusic.
15 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Nikolic, you will agree with me that at that time, in July of
17 1995, the intention of the VRS -- as for the intention of the VRS, you
18 did not have all the documents that you are referring to now and which
19 you were able to inspect here during your trial?
20 A. I'll be completely honest. The entire time, from the time the
21 enclave was set up, the entire time everything that was being done and
22 everything that was done to the enclave led to a single goal which was
23 for the enclave to disappear as an enclave and for it to be emptied and
24 for it to become a Serbian territory. That was the declared goal the
25 entire time. I can agree with you that this does not exist in writing in
1 documents from that period, but that was the goal that was always
2 declared and that was the permanent task. The task was to create
3 conditions to empty the enclave. And if you're asking me whether I
4 saw -- after I was arrested and after I saw the documents, if you're
5 asking me whether certain documents show that intention to empty the
6 enclave, I can answer that question because there are documents that show
7 the exact intentions towards the Srebrenica, Zepa, and Gorazde enclaves.
8 Q. Mr. Nikolic, if that was a permanent intention, if I understand
9 you correctly, from the time the enclaves were set up until their fall
10 can you find a rational explanation for why that was not done earlier?
11 Why were the enclaves not taken over before?
12 A. I can tell you about the Srebrenica enclave. I can give you at
13 least ten reasons why it wasn't taken earlier. If you want me to and if
14 the Court is interested in that, I will be happy to discuss this.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Well, a brief explanation would not harm, although
16 that's -- but primarily based on facts rather than if you could -- well,
17 perhaps not all ten but if you have so many then at least in short lines
18 give a few reasons.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I worked in the
20 intelligence department and I can explain it to you from that aspect and
21 based on what I know for fact in that area. I can't talk about the other
22 aspects. The first thing, first reason why Srebrenica wasn't occupied
23 earlier or why not sufficient forces were engaged to occupy it was that
24 in its surroundings the units that were around it were simply not
25 prepared to attack Srebrenica, that's number one. Number two, the
1 Skelani Battalion, my Bratunac Brigade, and the Milici Brigade -- as for
2 the first two, I can claim with responsibility that they did not have the
3 desire to attack Srebrenica because of all the circumstances and all the
4 misfortune that they had gone through, both the Skelani and the Bratunac
6 The next thing because the 28th Division was dispatched to
7 Srebrenica and it was stronger than the forces that were surrounding the
8 town, the 28th Division with its units, brigades, was militarily stronger
9 than the Bratunac Brigade, the Skelani Battalion, and the Milici Brigade.
10 There is no dispute. Also, at the very beginning we had high respect for
11 the international forces that were intended for protection and nothing, I
12 mean -- we didn't -- did not want to do anything to disrupt the
13 relationships between UNPROFOR and the Serbian forces. And one more
14 thing. When it comes to engagement and the attack on Srebrenica, the
15 Bratunac Brigade was apart from this engaged at other fronts, among
16 others in Pjenovac. Later after Srebrenica fell it was engaged in
17 Trnovo. But they were engaged in Pjenovac and in other parts of the
19 And finally to conclude, the basic conditions were not there to
20 plan, organise, attack, and occupy Srebrenica. And just for the
21 Trial Chamber and for you, we tried several times to enter the
22 enclave - you can check that. In the 1st Infantry Battalion zone of
23 responsibility, in the 3rd Infantry Battalion towards Crni Guber from
24 Pribicevac and every time we suffered losses, we didn't do anything, and
25 we had to withdraw. We suffered losses, we lost men, we failed to
1 improve our tactical positions, and we got into a dispute with UNPROFOR
2 with the international military forces that were protecting the enclave.
3 So that was the reason why we never either entered it nor gathered
4 sufficient forces to occupy Srebrenica.
5 Q. One more question in relation to this subject. You will agree
6 with me that in 1993 after the establishment of the safe areas, the
7 then-8th Operations Group in Srebrenica, later the 28th Division, was
8 less well armed and had fewer soldiers than in July of 1995?
9 A. You might have got things mixed up but I'll help you. The
10 28th Division included units in the Srebrenica and Bratunac areas. The
11 operations group is a higher level of organisation than the division.
12 Those were the units that were in the 28th Division, and the members of
13 the armed forces of Zepa. And of course including all those forces that
14 existed before the fall of Cerska, Konjevic Polje, et cetera. So I don't
15 agree with you that the 8th Operations Group was weaker in terms of
16 combat than the 28th Division. As a group, it was composed of the units
17 that I mentioned, the armed forces of Zepa, Srebrenica, Cerska,
18 Konjevic Polje, Bratunac, and so on. So the 8th Operations Group was
19 formed from these units and it was stronger both in terms of weapons and
20 equipment and it had more men than the 28th Division when it was formed.
21 Q. Mr. Nikolic, whatever the name of the unit was that was stationed
22 in Srebrenica, after the establishment of the safe areas in May of 1993,
23 it was -- it had fewer weapons and had fewer soldiers than it did in July
24 of 1995?
25 A. Yes, I can agree with that statement. The enclave was
1 established on the 18th of July and not May, just for the record.
2 Q. Mr. Nikolic, you're talking about the forcible transfer of the
3 entire Muslim population. Are you aware of cases from those areas when
4 the war started in the area of the former Bosnia and Herzegovina that in
5 places where the army was defeated, the army of either side, the civilian
6 population would also withdraw behind the army?
7 A. Well, I would put it the other way around. The civilian
8 population would withdraw ahead of the army not behind the army. The
9 civilians would be leaving those axes or territories where combat was
10 being executed, and this is correct. The civilians would leave before
11 the soldiers would arrive or attain a certain line. So I'm just being a
12 little more precise, nothing more than that.
13 Q. Mr. Nikolic, in paragraph 6 of your statement of facts somewhere
14 in the middle of that paragraph you talked about the units that were
15 present in Potocari on the 12th of July and you also talked about that
16 here. Could you please tell me how you identified the Drina Corps
17 military police units? And just permit me to finish my question. How
18 large was that unit? What was its strength, that unit in Potocari, that
19 was under the command of the military police?
20 A. The military police of the Drina Corps was frequently engaged
21 with me in Bratunac frequently. I know that this police unit and people
22 from the 65th Protection Regiment, I know them by face, I know what they
23 look like. And I know for a fact that members of the military police,
24 the corps military police, were in Bratunac on the 13th in the sector of
25 Potocari. I cannot say -- I cannot say under whose command they were at
1 that time in Potocari, who had brought them, I cannot tell you that. And
2 I cannot tell you the number of the policemen that were engaged. I don't
3 know the strength of any of the units that I referred to, but I know the
4 people personally from certain units that I refer to. So there is no
5 doubt that they were there.
6 Q. So are you able to say if they came in an organised manner, as a
7 unit, with a command of their own?
8 A. Well, I don't think that's a question for me. I believe that all
9 the units that were there, I think that now as well, that all the units
10 that were there on whatever grounds arrived in a planned and organised
11 manner. But to be precise, I am not ruling out that certain groups came
12 on their own initiative and so on. Things like that happen in any
13 operation and after an operation. So I'm not ruling it out, but for the
14 serious units, the police forces, I really don't know. My military
15 police never went anywhere without going pursuant to an order of the
16 commander or the deputy commander. That is my answer.
17 Q. So now we're talking about the presence of these units in
18 Potocari. Would you agree with me that somebody had to have been in
19 command of all those units? Do you know who it was who in command of
20 those units in Potocari?
21 A. The command of all the units?
22 Q. The command of all the units who were in Potocari.
23 A. I know that at the very beginning all the units that were engaged
24 in the Krivaja operation, the Srebrenica operation, in the beginning were
25 under the command of the Drina Corps Chief of Staff, General Krstic, and
1 then when they arrived - this is information that reached me, this is
2 what I found out - once General Mladic arrived, he was the main commander
3 of the operation, the Commander-in-Chief of the operation. This is what
4 I know.
5 Q. You will agree with me that in the period that you are talking
6 about up until the 11th of July --
7 A. Well, you asked me specifically about who was in command of the
8 units who were in the Krivaja operation. If I understood you correctly.
9 So as for the combat part I know for a fact, this is what was conveyed to
10 me, this is what was conveyed to all of us, that with the arrival of
11 General Ratko Mladic he took over the control and command of all the
12 units that were executing the combat actions. And I assume and according
13 to military logic, all the engaged military units right until the end of
14 the operation were under the command of the commander, the most senior
15 officer who happened to be in the area of responsibility. This is
16 military logic. I don't know if it was really like that or not is
17 something that I cannot say, I cannot analyse that.
18 Q. The military units that were pursuant to the order engaged in the
19 attack on Srebrenica completed their military tasks - if I can refer to
20 it on that way - on the 11th of July in the afternoon?
21 A. Yes, that's correct, I agree with that.
22 Q. My main question, my initial question was on the 12th and the
23 13th of July in Potocari, all these elements, all the units that were
24 concentrated there, and these are units of the MUP and special police
25 units and the units that you talked about, who was commanding their units
1 in the UN base? Who was in command of those units?
2 A. First of all, those units were not in the base. They were there
3 where the people were, where the civilians were. On the 12th, based on
4 what I know, the units engaged in the operation was under the direct
5 command of their commanders, the commanders of the units engaged in the
6 Potocari actions were commanding their units. The special MUP brigade
7 was in command of Ljubisa Borovcanin directly through his senior officers
8 who were engaged in Potocari; Dusko Jevic and the units that were engaged
9 there. The units that were from the Bratunac Brigade were under the
10 responsibility of Vidoje Blagojevic, their commander. As for the forces
11 engaged from the Drina Corps command, they were under the responsibility
12 of the commander who was engaged there as well as the senior officers
13 from the Drina Corps command, like Vujadin Popovic, who is a professional
14 organ commanding the special forces, the military police, and Kosoric who
15 was also there. As for the Bratunac Brigade elements, Vidoje Blagojevic
16 was responsible for the execution of that assignment. And myself, I was
17 the person responsible for the execution of tasks ordered for the forces
18 that were under my command. I think that as for the units from the
19 65th Protection Regiment, the senior officers were in command of them,
20 the officers who brought them there.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speaker please be asked to slow down.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nikolic --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. Really, I apologise.
24 Parts of the 10th Sabotage Unit were under the responsibility of
25 the Main Staff and that was Colonel Radislav Jankovic because he was from
1 the intelligence administration, and the reconnaissance units were
2 directly under the intelligence organ and the Chief of Staff. This is
3 what I know in that regard.
4 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. And the units that were on the Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road going
6 towards Konjevic Polje, did they maintain their independent commands
7 there as well?
8 A. I think that you know and I'm saying this for the Trial Chamber,
9 you know what I'm going to say, and that is that police forces were
10 always up until the beginning of the war -- I can conditionally say in
11 some kind of covert conflict concerning the command and control of those
12 units. What I know for a fact is that they always had command and
13 control over their own units when they would be carrying out joint tasks
14 with the army. They did, it's true, report in and they would come to the
15 area of responsibility - and I know this for a fact as well - they would
16 seek to find out what their tasks were within an operation and then they
17 would almost for the most part organised their own reconnaissance,
18 preparations for the operation, and everything else. And then of course
19 when they carried out all of that, then in agreement with whoever was in
20 charge of the operation they would carry out that operation in --
21 jointly, jointly, and carry out their joint tasks together in the same
23 Q. And could the same conclusion be drawn for the 13th of July
24 according to what you know? And in relation to the participation of the
25 special forces of the police of the MUP of Republika Srpska? Would your
1 conclusion be the same?
2 A. My conclusion is that the task given to the civilian police after
3 the combat part of the operation ended on the 11th and the transfer to
4 the Kravica-Sandici-Pervani-Konjevic Polje road was actually a police
5 task, securing the road was a police task and that is how I view that.
6 In view of the fact that I know who from the police forces was in
7 Bratunac, I'm thinking of the policemen and the senior officers, I can
8 tell you with a great degree of certainty that the police forces were
9 subordinated to their chief of centre. And in the area of engagement in
10 that conditionally speaking combat assignment, all the units were
11 subordinated to the commander of the MUP special brigade, who in this
12 case was Ljubisa Borovcanin. So all the engaged forces on the
13 Kravica-Sandici-Lolici-Konjevic Polje road were under the command of
14 Ljubisa Borovcanin.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrusic, I'm trying to understand
16 questions and answers.
17 Mr. Nikolic, when you talk about the police forces, having their
18 own command, was the situation -- there should be no loud speaking - you
19 talk about the army, VRS, and you are talking about the police forces.
20 Now, are there any facts to your knowledge which would either demonstrate
21 that the police forces were acting independently from what the
22 operational purposes were from the army or that they were acting in
23 accordance with what the VRS highest command had as its plans, its
24 operational plans?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I was a bit
1 too detailed. It is absolutely the way you say and I think you
2 understood perfectly what I said, and that is that they acted within one
3 operation together at the same tasks. So I'm just talking about one
4 segment, the segment of the immediate command of those units because
5 commanders insisted, commanders of the units, insisted that they should
6 not be placed under the command of a superior who should issue direct
7 orders to them. Let's say, for example, Ljubisa Borovcanin went and he
8 was the superior who agreed on all the activities as part of the
9 operation, the military operation, but later they insisted that they
10 should be commanders, that they do separate reconnaissance, that they
11 plan it there, but it was all as part of the operation and joint action.
12 So in military terminology, that co-operation, the agreement, the
13 engagement on a common task assignment is called joint action, joint
14 action on the same assignment of two different structures which are
15 participating in an operation and have the same objective. I don't know
16 if I am a bit more clear now.
17 JUDGE ORIE: I think it's clear to me. One next question, the
18 police forces and the army, do you have any knowledge on how they agreed
19 on this joint operation, was it the commanders discussing the matter with
20 each other? Was there any competition between the VRS command and the
21 police command? Do you have any knowledge about that? If not, tell us
22 as well.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I know is that the engagement
24 of those forces, the MUP combat units - and this was the special brigade
25 of the MUP - this was something that was discussed at the highest level,
1 the minister of the interior, at that level and at the level of the army.
2 This was an agreement on the engagement at that level. What I know is
3 that they never -- of course, they received certain separate assignments
4 outside of the army, but these were all military assignments as far as I
5 know. Both structures talk about the special MUP brigade and the
6 military, and so both of those forces always would receive their
7 assignments from the top level, from their superior officers, commands,
8 staffs, and then they would realise or implement those tasks in the field
9 jointly. Yes, there was small conflicts, minor disagreements between the
10 MUP and the MUP forces, and they were allegedly -- Karadzic's forces, the
11 president's forces. And the army was again more inclined towards
12 General Mladic. So along that line there was a conflict which went on
13 for a while. This is what I know, although I'm not really familiar with
14 that top level sufficiently. I don't have any comments on that.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'll not ask you any further questions on factual
16 matters at that level.
17 Please proceed, Mr. Petrusic.
18 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Nikolic, do you have any knowledge about the 13th of July,
20 about who issued the order to the MUP special brigade to deploy along the
21 Bratunac-Konjevic Polje road?
22 A. What I know is that Borovcanin, they issued -- they were given
23 the order to deploy along that road by Borovcanin and chief of centre
24 Dragomir Vasic, I believe.
25 Q. And do you know if Vasic or Borovcanin, that police structure,
1 took the decision to take these Muslim soldiers prisoner, or rather, the
2 Muslims who happened to be in the area?
3 A. I don't know of such a decision. I don't believe I ever saw such
4 a decision, that they had been given orders to take prisoners.
5 Q. Let's take it this way. If Muslims gathered in large numbers in
6 the territory of Sandici, was that a territory under the control of the
7 MUP forces?
8 A. Yes, that's right.
9 Q. In that period of time, was Kravica also under the control of the
10 MUP forces?
11 A. Yes. We could say yes when it comes to Kravica. There was only
12 one squad deployed, but yes.
13 Q. Who could have taken that decision to have the Muslims
14 transferred from Sandici to Kravica?
15 A. There is a logical answer to that question, but I don't want to
16 manipulate it. The decisions or the decision could have and should have
17 been taken by the most senior commanding officer in the field. So the
18 logical answer would be that it would be Ljubisa Borovcanin who would
19 have taken that decision, he was personally engaged there, or Dragomir
20 Vasic who had his headquarters in the Bratunac public security station
21 and his police forces were engaged in that area. But I have never seen a
22 document to that effect. If you do, perhaps I forgot about it, but I
23 don't think so.
24 Q. According to what you were able to learn at the time and later,
25 killings occurred in the Kravica farm co-operative. Can you tell us who
1 the perpetrators were?
2 A. What I can tell you is that after the crime took place I received
3 an order from the Drina Corps command to inquire into two or three -- to
4 three things and that was which structure had committed the crime and the
5 other question in focus was whether army troops participated in it,
6 including members of the Bratunac Brigade. I went out in the field and
7 established that it had been perpetrated by the police forces. I was not
8 interested in which particular structure at the time or in the meantime.
9 I established that it had been done by the police and that there was no
10 participation of the army in it, that nobody had ordered any soldiers to
11 participate in it; however, that there were two or three soldiers from my
12 brigade who under no one's orders happened to be there. They were simply
13 Kravica inhabitants who - and I will say this although it's ugly - to
14 take revenge, who wanted to take revenge. One of these had had his
15 father killed in prison and the other had had his brother and the third
16 had been wounded seriously by Muslims. I informed the command of the
17 corps that the crime in Kravica had been committed by police, that there
18 was no organised or planned engaged of the army, and that when murder was
19 committed, two or three soldiers from the 1st Infantry Battalion of my
20 brigade were present there.
21 Q. Mr. Nikolic, a moment, please. Can we move on to paragraph 10 of
22 your statement. It's page 5 in both versions, paragraph 10. We have the
23 proper page in English, it's page 6.
24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I have
25 a different version, where the numeration is different, but in Serbian
1 it's page 6.
2 JUDGE ORIE: You see it on your screen now, is that a copy you
3 have you're working from?
4 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
6 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In the middle of the last paragraph, Mr. Nikolic, we can read as
9 "At the meeting there was open discussion of the murder operation
10 and all the participants indicated that they had been reporting to their
11 various chains of command."
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Where are you reading, Mr. -- where are you
14 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I'm reading from the middle of the
15 last paragraph of item 10 on page.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The killing
17 operation was openly discussed.
18 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] Page 6.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, no speaking aloud. I have to repeat it
20 again and again. If you would like to consult with counsel, then,
21 Mr. Lukic or Mr. Stojanovic, you do it silently.
22 Well, if you want to --
23 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] May I consult?
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so but only if your voice remains at
25 inaudible levels. That's not inaudible.
1 [Defence counsel and accused confer]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, would you take care that Mr. Mladic
3 lowers his voice.
4 Mr. Lukic, this was the last consultation. Mr. Mladic was not --
5 apparently not willing to lower his voice. So for the next 25 minutes,
6 no further consultations.
7 Please proceed, Mr. Petrusic.
8 MR. PETRUSIC: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Microphone, please, Mr. Petrusic.
11 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Mr. Nikolic, do you have information about how the reporting was
13 carried out? Was it by telegram? Over the phone? Or through some other
15 A. When this particular phrasing is concerned, this sentence that
16 you've just read out, I kindly ask you to jointly view the sentence
17 you've just read out with what I said in the supplementary statement. It
18 literally said what this paragraph applied to. Let's look at the
19 supplementary statement, please, because there to avoid any
20 misunderstanding we will see what it was that I corrected and said that
21 this was what actually happened in quite precise terms.
22 Q. Mr. Nikolic, after signing the statement on the 6th of May, 2003,
23 on the 28th, the 29th, and the 30th of May, and the 12th of June, 2003,
24 you were interviewed by the Prosecution, you spoke to them. Was that the
25 time when you made these corrections?
1 A. You will have the exact date when I made these corrections and
2 submitted them to the Trial Chamber.
3 Q. Without going into any discussion about it, you submitted this to
4 the Chamber on the 16th of April, 2009; is that right? Now, what I'm
5 asking you is this: After the agreement you reached with the Prosecution
6 on the 6th of May, 2003, you had occasion to speak to the Prosecution and
7 you did speak to them over the course of four or five days. At the time
8 during these discussions which were supposed to provide a clarification
9 of the agreement, did you make the corrections that you are referring to
11 A. I don't think so.
12 Q. Before submitting these corrections to the Trial Chamber on the
13 16th of April, 2009, did you refuse to appear as a Prosecution witness in
14 the Popovic case in 2007?
15 A. No, that's not true. I did not refuse to appear as a witness for
16 the Prosecution. I simply insisted that my first statement of facts have
17 certain clarifications and corrections made which I thought were
18 important. They were simply out of my remit of work and were not written
19 in precise terms and were thus liable to different interpretations. I
20 asked that these issues be defined quite in precise terms in a statement
21 that I asked be drawn up.
22 And one more thing, I want to explain one other thing. To be
23 frank, I wasn't even aware of the various formulations, I didn't pay
24 particular attention to that. There are certain parts which relate to
25 control, co-ordination, and my lawyers were reassuring me that this was
1 of no significance, that the Chamber knew that I was not charged with
2 command responsibility but rather individual responsibility and that I
3 should not be any attention to that.
4 Now, by the time I realised that this was very important, I sat
5 down, took a pen and paper, and wrote down the sequence of events as they
6 happened and as I thought should be reflected in the statement that I
8 Q. Mr. Nikolic, you have no military training --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: You have military
11 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. -- and you did graduate from university course which gave you
13 specialist knowledge. In that context, your assertion that you had no
14 competence in certain areas is not something that I can accept and I
15 apologise to Their Honours for making this comment. My basic question
16 was this: After meeting with the Prosecution on the 19th of October,
17 2007, did you accept their call to appear as a witness in the Popovic
18 case before making these corrections?
19 A. I never refused to testify in any of the instances when the
20 Prosecution called me, never. So we didn't agree on the issues that we
21 are now discussing and that much is true, we didn't agree. I claimed
22 something else and I asked that a different statement be made. It's not
23 going to be the end of the world if I made a mistake, but perhaps I
24 didn't meet up with understanding or willingness on their part. Still, I
25 would never have refused to appear as a witness regardless of whether
1 these corrections made or not. Had the Prosecution called me, had the
2 Trial Chamber issued me with a summons, I would have appeared here just
3 as I did when the Trial Chamber called me as their own witness. I would
4 have no reason to refuse and this is the truth.
5 Q. So you are telling us that in October 2007 the Prosecution did
6 not tell you at all that you should appear as a witness in the Popovic
8 MR. NICHOLLS: That is a total misstatement of what the witness
9 just said is being put to him as what he said.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, this objection is sustained. Would
11 you please rephrase your question.
12 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
13 Q. Mr. Nikolic, did you ask at this point in time that you be issued
14 with a summons from the Chamber so that you may appear as witness?
15 A. Well, first of all, where would I get the authority that will
16 allow me to ask for the Chamber to issue me with anything? I honoured
17 every order given by a Trial Chamber in any trial. At one point in time
18 after speaking with the Prosecution, I was told that the Prosecution gave
19 up on the idea of having me appear as a witness in that trial and I
20 respected that decision. I don't know the dates. But after a certain
21 period of time, the Trial Chamber in that case informed me that I would
22 have to appear as a witness of the Chamber in that case. When I received
23 word that I should come and appear here, I did come and testify for some
24 six or seven days.
25 Q. Did you respond to that summons? Did you testify and did you
1 respond to the summons issued by the court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in
2 Sarajevo in all cases?
3 A. I don't think so.
4 Q. Can you tell what that case was?
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm sorry, Mr. Petrusic. The witness has just
6 answered "I don't think so." Now, your question was -- relates to two
7 different things. I'm not sure what he's answering to as a result.
8 You're saying did you respond to that summons, you are talking about the
9 summons here, and then you continue to say:
10 "Did you testify and did you respond to the summons issued by the
11 court of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo in all cases?"
12 JUDGE ORIE: These are two questions it seems to me.
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. There are two
14 questions here. Now what shall --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we start with the first one, then? Perhaps
16 that -- did you respond to the summons issued to you to appear before
17 the -- this court, Mr. Nikolic, in the Popovic case?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Did you respond to summonses issued to you to appear
20 before the court of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in two cases.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Did you refuse in other cases to appear upon being
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not explicitly, but I responded to
25 their request and I told them why I shouldn't testify.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Petrusic.
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Yesterday you talked about the reporting and you said that
4 everybody reported to their superior. Along your line of intelligence,
5 who was Beara's superior?
6 A. I think that you misinterpreted once again what I said yesterday.
7 In my testimony yesterday I said that those who were present at the
8 meeting referred -- referred to the orders by their superiors when it
9 comes to prisoners and when it comes to the destiny of the prisoners,
10 that's what I said. And as for the second part, I can answer you now.
11 As far as I know, the immediate superior in the intelligence sector of
12 the Main Staff, Beara's superior was General Tolimir.
13 Q. Let's move on, Mr. Nikolic.
14 After that meeting, we are still on paragraph 10, you went to
15 your command?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And you informed Colonel Blagojevic about what happened at that
18 meeting. Could you tell us in a little more detail how
19 Colonel Blagojevic reacted? Did he know about all of that? Did he have
20 some information from elsewhere? Or did he have any other knowledge?
21 A. I think I testified about this several times and including
22 Colonel Blagojevic's reactions. My conclusions both then and now were
23 that Blagojevic knew what was happening in Bratunac on the 13th,
24 including the 12th and the 13th. And since you're asking me, he wasn't
25 surprised at all. You must also accept that the brigade commander in
1 whose zone of responsibility actions were under way, combat operations,
2 and other actions which you are talking about, he would have had to know
3 more than me because my commander was a colonel, he was a professional,
4 he was the brigade commander. And surely he had more information and
5 more contacts based on the line of command than I had.
6 Q. Did he know about the decision regarding the killings?
7 A. My impression was that he knew about all of that, he knew about
8 what was happening. Among others, he knew about that intention too.
9 Q. The first killings that happened were on the 13th of July in
10 Kravica. Do you know how these killings came to happen?
11 A. I can tell you what I heard, what I heard like everybody else.
12 What I heard from people who were in the police units -- of course after
13 everything had happened and after the war ended even, was that there was
14 an incident and that was the reason for killing those people en masse.
15 There was an incident in which one policeman was killed, one was wounded.
16 As far as I know, it had to do with taking somebody's rifle. And after
17 that incident, they killed everybody they found there. That is what I
18 know, nothing more.
19 Q. So those killings happened without any control or any order; is
20 that your conclusion?
21 A. I can draw conclusions like you can, but I don't know for a fact
22 how these killings happened.
23 Q. Let's assume that that's how it was; namely, we still don't have
24 any formulated order, whether it's oral or in writing, or any other kind
25 of order regarding the treatment of those people who were in Bratunac
1 that night.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Nicholls.
3 MR. NICHOLLS: I don't understand the question. It says:
4 "Let's assume that's how it was," which I think is referring to
5 his previous question and answer where Mr. Nikolic said he didn't know
6 and didn't want to speculate about whether there was an order. And then
7 he continues:
8 "... we still don't have any formulated order, whether it's oral
9 or in writing..."
10 I don't know if that's also meant to be a hypothetical. I'm
11 sorry, but it doesn't -- I don't think it's fair to ask about a
12 hypothetical and then say, well, if we accept this hypothetical, then
13 there is no order.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, you are invited to reformulate your
15 question, and questions usually are not of great assistance.
16 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Nikolic, do you know anything about any kind of an order from
18 the time that the killings happened in Kravica in the afternoon to your
19 meeting with Colonel Beara around midnight between the 13th or the 14th
20 of July?
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, one of the previous answers ended with
22 that is what I know, nothing more. You're asking for the "more" of which
23 the witness said he didn't know. Please proceed.
24 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. When you told Colonel Blagojevic, was anyone else in the office
1 with you?
2 A. No, I've already testified about that.
3 Q. Everything that happened in Potocari on the 12th of July, did you
4 also inform Colonel Blagojevic?
5 A. I informed Colonel Blagojevic about everything that was happening
6 in those days in the Bratunac Brigade zone of responsibility.
7 Q. Were those meetings always between just the two of you?
8 A. I don't remember that detail. I don't know whether I was always
9 alone when I talked to him. I'm talking about official reporting to
10 Colonel Blagojevic and I am not sure whether we were always alone, but on
11 a few occasions we were alone in his office.
12 Q. On the 13th, before and after this meeting, do you know where
13 Colonel Jankovic, Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic, and Kosoric were?
14 A. On the 12th and the 13th?
15 Q. No. My question was whether from what happened in Kravica to
16 your meeting with Colonel Beara, so whether you knew where
17 Colonel Jankovic, Lieutenant-Colonel Popovic, and
18 Lieutenant-Colonel Kosoric were, I believe he was a lieutenant-colonel.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Petrusic, you're making it very difficult for
20 all of us to understand your question. How do you link the whereabouts
21 of these people with from what happened in Kravica? I don't understand
22 the question and I don't know whether anybody can be able to answer this
23 question. If you want to know where these people were at that time, just
24 tell the time -- let the witness say whether he knew where they were
25 during that time, but not to say from where what happened. I'm not quite
1 sure what you mean.
2 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Nikolic, do you know where these three men were between 4.30
4 on the 13th of July to midnight on the same day?
5 A. No, I don't know.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, I'm looking at the clock. We have to
7 adjourn in two minutes and I have a few matters to briefly address.
8 Mr. Nikolic, we would like to see you back tomorrow morning. You
9 already -- I hereby instruct you again that you should not speak or
10 communicate in any other way about your testimony, whether given already
11 or still to be given. You can follow the usher.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrusic, where are we in terms of time?
14 MR. PETRUSIC: [Interpretation] I believe that I will finish
15 during the first or the second session -- no, I'm sorry, one session is
16 an hour, so I will probably need two sessions.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We'll ask the Registrar further for timing. The
18 problem is that you asked for a viva voce witness more time than the
19 Prosecution asked, which is not within the usual guidance. And apart
20 from that issue, you may have noticed the Chamber considered that you
21 wasted some time here and there. So would you please be very focused and
22 we'll further consider whether two sessions are available to you.
23 Could you already give us an indication -- I know it's difficult,
24 Mr. Nicholls, at this point in time.
25 MR. NICHOLLS: My estimate would be about half an hour at the
2 JUDGE ORIE: Half an hour. Yes.
3 Then before we adjourn, I'm addressing you as well, Ms. Lindsay,
4 because you had difficulties, I think, in staying with us for longer than
5 today. Have you considered - of course you are counsel of the
6 witness - have you considered how to resolve this matter?
7 MS. LINDSAY: Thank you, Your Honour. I have been speaking with
8 the Registry. I will stay until Mr. Nikolic is finished with his
10 JUDGE ORIE: Which will be tomorrow. That's -- your flexibility
11 is highly appreciated.
12 MS. LINDSAY: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then we will adjourn for the day and we'll resume
14 tomorrow, Wednesday, the 5th of June, Courtroom I, 9.30 in the morning.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.15 p.m.,
16 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 5th day of
17 June, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.