1 Monday, 19 August 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 10.11 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
6 courtroom, after quite a while of absence and recess.
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you and good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case number IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 We had a delayed start due to technical problems.
12 Is the Prosecution ready to call its next witness?
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, good morning, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: We are in closed session?
15 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
16 JUDGE ORIE: I'm informed that the indication in the courtroom of
17 whether we are in closed or in open session is not properly functioning
18 and that we were in open session for all of the time, despite the little
19 monitor telling us that we were supposed to be in closed session.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye?
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Again, good morning, Mr. President
22 and Your Honours. We are ready to call the next witness. I wanted to
23 advise the Chamber that I had estimated one and a half hours to examine
24 this witness. Having reviewed the materials quite carefully, it appears
25 to me quite clear that I will not be able to examine him in that period
1 of time so we would be asking to revise the estimate. I'll do my best to
2 cut and trim as I go, and I will hopefully be able to advise the Chamber
3 more precisely how long I will be able to -- I will be examining him by
4 the end of the first break.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Well, let's then wait and see what the new
6 estimate will be. May I take it that your witness is Mr. Dusan Janc?
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
9 Meanwhile, I use the time for the following. On the
10 26th of July, Defence has filed a request for an additional 30 days to
11 file its response to the Prosecution's motion to admit evidence from the
12 bar table concerning the Foca municipality. The Chamber granted this
13 request informally on the 30th of July and now takes the opportunity to
14 put on the record that the new deadline for the response is the
15 26th of August.
16 [The witness entered court]
17 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Janc.
18 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Before you give evidence, the Rules require that you
20 make a solemn declaration, the text of which is now handed out to you.
21 May I invite to you make that solemn declaration.
22 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
23 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
24 WITNESS: DUSAN JANC
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Janc. Please be seated. You are
1 already. You'll first be examined by Mr. Vanderpuye. You'll find him to
2 your right. Mr. Vanderpuye is, as most likely you'll be aware of, is
3 counsel for the Prosecution.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning again.
6 Good morning to everyone.
7 Examination by Mr. Vanderpuye:
8 Q. And good morning to you, Mr. Janc.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. Just so that we can get started correctly, could you state your
11 name for the record.
12 A. My name is Dusan Janc.
13 Q. Just so that you can provide a little bit of background for the
14 Chamber, could you tell us what your current employment is?
15 A. Currently I'm with the Office of Internal Oversight Services,
16 this is a United Nations office, and I'm based in Nairobi. I'm an
18 Q. How long have you been in that particular assignment?
19 A. I've been in Nairobi since 1st of August, 2011.
20 Q. I'd like to acquaint the Chamber with a bit of your professional
21 background. Can you tell us how you began your career?
22 A. I joined the police force of the Republic of Slovenia in 1993 as
23 a police officer. After a year I was promoted to a criminal investigator
24 at the police station. Then in 2000 I was promoted to a criminal
25 investigator at the regional level where I -- when I deal -- dealt with
1 organised crime. Between June 2003 and 2004, I was -- I spent a year in
2 European Union Police Mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina as an advisor to
3 criminal investigation department of the Republic of Srpska, and then I
4 returned back to my national police forces in Slovenia. And on 1st of
5 June, 2006, I joined the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor as an
7 Q. In your experience in your national jurisdiction, what kinds of
8 investigations did you conduct or participate in, what kind of crimes
9 other than, I assume, organised crimes?
10 A. I did investigate all sorts of crimes from minor criminal
11 offences like thefts, fraud, and this kind of crimes when I was at the
12 police station level, and then when I joined the criminal organised crime
13 department I was in charge of more serious crimes including smuggling and
14 acts of terrorism and also a part of homicide department crimes.
15 Q. And in your assignment as an advisor in the RS, Republika Srpska,
16 what specifically did you do?
17 A. European Union Police Mission, EUPM, was a mentoring and
18 monitoring mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina so it was advisory role to the
19 criminal investigation department of the Republika Srpska, in terms of
20 how to perform the professional duties in a properly manner.
21 Q. Was that in relation to all types of criminal investigations or
22 certain -- certain specific ongoing investigations?
23 A. It was related to all crimes.
24 Q. When you joined the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY in 2011
25 as an investigator, what was your assignment?
1 A. As soon as I joined the Office of the Prosecutor, I was attached
2 to the team of Srebrenica investigation and I've been involved with this
3 investigation throughout my career here.
4 Q. And that would have been five years from 2006 to 2011, is that
6 A. Correct, five years and two months.
7 Q. Were you involved in the investigation of what specific cases?
8 Rather, let me rephrase that. What specific cases were you involved in
9 the investigation concerned?
10 A. So they -- as I told it was investigation related to the events
11 which occurred after the fall of Srebrenica. But if you're asking me
12 about the cases, the trial cases.
13 Q. Which cases, yes.
14 A. Yeah. This was -- first when I joined it was Popovic case,
15 Popovic et al case. Then I was involved with the Tolimir case, and I did
16 testify also in Karadzic case last year, and now I'm testifying in this
18 Q. Okay. And during the course of your involvement in these -- in
19 the Srebrenica investigation for the five years that you were with the
20 Office of the Prosecutor, what types of materials did you review, did you
21 investigate, research, that kind of thing?
22 A. You mean in general?
23 Q. In general.
24 A. It was all sorts of material which was collected over the years,
25 also which was collected during the time I spent with the Office of the
1 Prosecutor. So which basically mean documentation obtained during the
2 year, evidence on different sorts of criminal activities, then witness
3 statements, documents provided to the OTP through different requests for
4 assistance, all -- various types of internal documents like documents
5 produced by different investigators on investigations itself, which means
6 basic reports, analyses on findings, so these are the type of evidence
7 I've been reviewing.
8 Q. Did you undertake any missions to the field and, in particular,
9 in respect of the grave sites that are alleged to be part or related to
10 the crimes charged in the Srebrenica events?
11 A. Yes. I did visit grave sites back in -- if I'm not mistaken, in
12 October or November 2007. At that time, I visited with my colleagues all
13 the grave sites known at the time, either being already exhumed or not,
14 and were related to Srebrenica events.
15 Q. Now you mentioned that you testified in the Popovic, Tolimir and
16 Karadzic cases respectively and you're now testifying in this case. Did
17 you prepare reports in the context of the testimony -- your previous
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Did you prepare a report in relation to -- well, rather, what did
21 you -- what did your report concern in respect of your testimony in those
23 A. My report is actually an update on Dean Manning's report. It's
24 actually called "Update to the Summary of Forensic Evidence - Exhumation
25 of the Graves and Surface Remains Recoveries Related to Srebrenica."
1 Q. Did you -- when was the first iteration of that report, in
2 relation to what case would that have been?
3 A. I prepared my first report for Popovic et al trial, that was back
4 I think in 2008 -- sorry, it was March 2009.
5 Q. Okay. And did you prepare any report in respect of the Tolimir
7 A. Yes, I did my update of that Popovic et al trial report, and then
8 after that, I prepared an update of Tolimir report for Karadzic report,
9 for Karadzic trial, and now recently in June 2013 I again prepared an
10 update of the Karadzic report.
11 Q. Okay. Did you ever prepare a report in relation to the Perisic
13 A. Yes, I did. That was a short update on specific topic. I did
14 prepare a report for that case but I have never testified in that case.
15 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated the title of your present report as it
16 concerns the Srebrenica investigation and the summary or update to the
17 summary on forensic evidence. In the preparation of the series of
18 reports or I'll refer to it as a project, as it were, did you receive any
19 kind of assistance in terms of preparing the report or drafting it or
20 revising it, and that is any one of them, either from the beginning, back
21 in 2009, to any iteration of it up to the one that you have prepared for
22 this case?
23 A. Yes. As for my recent report I'm now testifying about, I did it
24 on my own from the very beginning up until the end. Except for the
25 charts which were created -- or actually, let's put it differently, which
1 were prepared by military analyst but I created them manually but just
2 they were then drafted in a special software by military analyst.
3 Before, for other three reports I think -- or for the first two reports
4 I prepared, I did receive an assistance from my -- our criminal
5 intelligence -- criminal analyst, sorry, and she created the spreadsheets
6 for DNA connections so that's what the -- that's the assistance I
7 received over the years.
8 Q. Aside from that assistance would it be fair to say that you
9 developed, created the report independently?
10 A. Yes, independently.
11 Q. And in respect of the report that you prepared for this case, can
12 you tell the Chamber when it was come completed?
13 A. It was completed on 28th of June, 2013.
14 Q. Before I bring it up on e-court, I just want to ask you if you
15 could briefly outline for the Chamber what the main purpose or purposes
16 of this particular report is?
17 A. The purpose of this report is to update the Trial Chamber on
18 latest findings and facts regarding the Srebrenica-related victims, so to
19 update the number how many of those victims have been so far identified,
20 where they were located, in which mass graves, and how many graves. And
21 then to update the Trial Chamber on the surface remains which were found
22 over the years, to update Trial Chamber with number and with the places
23 where those remains were found, and also to update Trial Chamber on the
24 latest findings regarding the DNA connections between those graves.
25 Q. Okay. And we will get into that in just a moment. But before we
1 do, can you tell the Chamber what generally the sources of information
2 were that you relied upon in order to produce your report?
3 A. Yes. The main source I used was DNA, the recent DNA report on
4 match -- their match reports, matching reports to Srebrenica-related
5 victims and that one was provided to the OTP in April this year. So this
6 was the main source which I was using in my report in order to find the
7 recent and latest numbers on identified individuals from -- from the
8 graves or surface remains found in relation to Srebrenica events. Apart
9 from that, I've been also using documentation which was provided by the
10 BiH authorities, namely by the BiH state prosecutor and cantonal
11 prosecutors and also BiH Institute on Missing Persons. So these are, I
12 think, the three main sources which I've been using in order to prepare
13 my recent update.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just ask, Mr. Vanderpuye. Mr. Janc, by whom
15 was the DNA report supplied to the OTP?
16 THE WITNESS: According to my understanding, as it was the case
17 before, the DNA report was supplied to the OTP by the ICMP, International
18 Commission on Missing Persons, which is based in Sarajevo.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Janc.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. In respect of the documents you received from the BiH
22 authorities, did you review any court files, court records, in relation
23 to your assessment and production of the report and the data related --
24 the data related in it?
25 A. Yes, I did. Many of them I did review.
1 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review any records concerning the
2 identification of Srebrenica-related victims produced by PHR, Physicians
3 for Human Rights?
4 A. Yes. Also those documents, I was able to review.
5 Q. And are those documents referred to or referenced in your report?
6 A. Yes, they are.
7 Q. What I'd like to know is, are the sources of most of the
8 information that you considered and reviewed in preparing your report
9 identified in the report itself either by ERN number or by title or some
10 other means?
11 A. Yes, they are. Most of them are referenced in my report with ERN
13 Q. And the documents that are referenced in your report, were they
14 documents that you personally reviewed or are they adopted from, perhaps,
15 Mr. Manning's report or some other source?
16 A. Most of them I reviewed it myself and some of them were adopted
17 from Dean Manning's report.
18 Q. Given your experience as an investigator, both here and
19 domestically, do you consider that the information that you used to
20 prepare your report is reliable and accurate?
21 A. Yes, I can say it's reliable and accurate.
22 Q. You've indicated that one of the reasons that you undertook to
23 update your previous report was to bring current the number of
24 Srebrenica-identified individuals. First of all I want to clarify
25 something, if I can, with you. When you say "identified," can you tell
1 the Chamber what you mean by that, in terms of your analysis of the DNA
2 records provided by the ICMP?
3 A. Yes. And the term "identified," I also specified in my report.
4 It was in footnote number 3, which basically means that identified are
5 the individuals who have been matched to -- whose DNA profiles have been
6 matched to the missing persons so it means we have identified individuals
7 by name and also the individuals who has unique DNA profiles which is the
8 minority of them, which is only 142. For the purposes of this report,
9 I included those 142 unique DNA profiles as well.
10 Q. You indicated earlier, just a minute ago, rather, that one of the
11 documents that you relied upon that came from the ICMP concerned the DNA
12 match list. Did you rely on any documentation from the ICMP concerning
13 unique DNA profiles to which no name had yet been matched?
14 A. Yes, I did. Upon my request they provided the OTP in June this
15 year the latest unique DNA profile list.
16 Q. Is that the information that you relied upon in terms of
17 assessing the number of unique individuals as shown by these discrete DNA
18 profiles indicated in the ICMP documentation that you reviewed?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. In terms of the numbers that you were able to assess in preparing
21 your report, is there any reason you can give or provide the Chamber for
22 why there should be changes in the number of identified individuals with
23 respect to, say, established graves over periods of time?
24 A. Yes. The identification process is ongoing by the ICMP in
25 Bosnia, and as the time passes, new identifications are done by the ICMP,
1 as well as new mass graves are still recovered and exhumed over so many
2 years -- after so many years in Bosnia-Herzegovina which are related to
3 Srebrenica events. So accordingly, the number of identified individuals
4 is growing, is raising over the years, and that's obviously also -- also
5 the case in my recent report where you can see that the number of
6 identified individuals raised, if you compare it against my latest
7 report -- my previous report, sorry.
8 Q. Hopefully I'll be able to pull that up in e-court quite shortly,
9 but in terms of any specific grave, what changes have you observed in
10 relation to the number of individuals that you've been able to identify
11 or -- year over year? Have they consistently gone up, have they stayed
12 the same in some instances, have they gone down in some instances?
13 A. Yes. Both, I would say. In respect to my report you will find
14 one and the other. First of all I would like to clarify that some of
15 the -- or most of the primary and secondary graves known to the ICTY have
16 been already exhumed. Actually, those known at the beginning along
17 Cancari Road, Hodzici Road, Liplje, those have been exhumed completely
18 and most of those individuals have been already identified. But what
19 happened is that, when I was reviewing the recent ICMP data, I also found
20 instances where the number, numbers would decrease by, for example, one
21 individual. For example, in my previous report it would be certain
22 number of individuals and now I found there is one individual less
23 identified in that grave. So I checked what was the reason behind and I
24 found these reasons and we can go over them.
25 Q. Okay. Before I actually get to the report and show you those
1 specific entries, in terms of the updating the grave sites, the
2 Srebrenica-related grave sites, in this particular report, did you
3 encounter any new information showing additional grave sites that were
4 not the subject of your previous report? And just so that we are clear,
5 the previous report was the one that was completed when?
6 A. Yes, my previous report was completed in January 2012.
7 Q. In relation to what case?
8 A. In relation to the Karadzic trial.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. And, yes, in comparing those two reports, we have two new mass
11 graves included in my recent report. One is Zalazje 2 and the other one
12 is Kaldrmica 2010. And then we have also -- I've also included I think
13 several for individual graves.
14 Q. Okay. And in terms of updating the information contained in your
15 previous report through this one completed in 2013 for this case, were
16 you able to determine or update any artefact evidence that is referred to
17 in your report, specifically blindfolds and ligatures?
18 A. In my previous report I referred to the artefact and ligatures,
19 the number of those ligatures and blindfolds found in mass graves.
20 Reviewing my report recently, I realised that I haven't updated this
21 number for my report, I mean this case, and so when I'm referring to the
22 number of blindfolds and ligatures, for example, found in Cancari-related
23 graves, this number is not correct because it's higher than what is
24 stated in my report.
25 Q. Okay. And in terms of -- I don't want to go into the specifics
1 of those numbers, but can you tell us roughly how the new numbers relate
2 to what is reported in your -- what is set out in your report? Is it
3 substantially many more blindfolds and ligatures? Slightly more? If you
4 could give the Chamber an idea of what the difference is between the
5 actual numbers and what is reported in your -- what is set out in your
7 A. It is more -- it's difficult to say right now if it is slightly
8 or significantly more but I can give you the total. In graves related
9 to -- mass graves related to Srebrenica event, there were 774 ligatures
10 found and 593 blindfolds found.
11 Q. And are you able to compare that to what the totals would have
12 been or are, rather, in your 2013 report?
13 A. Not from -- from the top of my head, it would be difficult.
14 I would need to go through my report.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Is it by the hundreds or is it by the tens of
17 ligatures and blindfolds that have been added but not yet incorporated in
18 your report?
19 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, just a second. I will tell you
20 exactly. For example, I have written for Cancari Road mass graves, for
21 example, that around 340 ligatures and 60 blindfolds were found in these
22 secondary graves. And now we have -- we have a total number of -- for
23 ligatures would be 276 plus 313, and for blindfolds would be, in total,
24 113. So it's a kind of double number.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So that's a significant number added. Would
1 that be only true for the Cancari Road mass graves or would that -- a
2 similar thing happen in relation to other graves? I don't need the
3 details but if you say, "Yes, I remember that in that grave we found
4 quite a substantial number of ligatures" or --
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, I would say yes, but the highest number is for
6 sure for the Cancari Road-related graves.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
9 Q. Now I know also that you mentioned in your report the criteria
10 that you used in order to determine whether a given grave or a given
11 individual is associated with the Srebrenica crimes, but could you just
12 tell us, in a nutshell, how it is you made the determination when you
13 went through the data provided by the ICMP or FCMP or other sources, how
14 you made a determination that either a grave or an individual was
15 associated with the Srebrenica crimes?
16 A. Yes. The list which is provided by the ICMP is related to -- to
17 the victims of Srebrenica events. So they provided us a list which
18 includes only those victims, and for the purposes of my report, then
19 I reviewed, analysed and modified -- not modified but gave in a proper
20 order those data. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. What about in the case of a unique DNA profile, one
22 that -- to which a name cannot be associated? How would you or how did
23 you attribute that unique DNA profile to the Srebrenica events, if, for
24 example, it hadn't been matched to a name that had been reported missing
25 in relation to those events?
1 A. Yes. Those unique DNA profiles were provided only for the mass
2 graves, primary and secondary, which we know are related to the fall of
3 Srebrenica. For example, in secondary grave on Cancari Road we would
4 find only individual which were related to the fall of Srebrenica, so it
5 was reasonable to ask the ICMP if they can provide also the profiles of
6 human remains or DNA profiles for which have not yet been matched to the
7 missing persons. So that's why I was able to determine that individuals
8 which have not been identified and they are coming from the same
9 secondary or primary grave as the majority of the individuals or which
10 have been already identified, that they are indeed Srebrenica-related.
11 Q. The number of unique DNA profiles provided by the ICMP, has that
12 remained consistent throughout the various iterations of your project,
13 the various reports that you've drafted, concerning the number of
14 identified individuals?
15 A. The number of identified -- of unique DNA profiles drops
16 significantly in relation to my last -- my previous report. Right now we
17 have only 142 unique profiles. Before it was I think around 270
18 [Realtime transcript read in error "2700"]. The difference is that those
19 130 have been now identified and we have names for those 130 which were
20 in my previous report still unique DNA profiles.
21 Q. We have in the record here at page 16, line 17, the reference
22 here that you said around 2700. Is that correct or did you say around
24 A. Yes, it's a mistake. I said it was 270.
25 Q. Thank you for that clarification. And you said 130 of those have
1 been identified. Did those identified, those identified previously
2 unknown DNA profiles come out of graves that were previously established
3 to be related to Srebrenica?
4 A. Yes, correct.
5 Q. All right. What I'd like to do is just to go over, just very
6 briefly before I pull up your report, what the structure of it is. So if
7 you could just tell us how is it set out, what does it contain and what
8 is comprised of? Just very briefly.
9 A. Yes, it has four sections. It's a report itself of six pages
10 long. Then I have four annexes, annex A, B, C, and confidential annex D.
11 Q. Annex A, what does that contain?
12 A. It contains the actual graves, exhumations, when they were done
13 and how many individuals were found in particular graves. So far
15 Q. Okay. What about annex B?
16 A. Annex B contains conclusions or findings on surface remains.
17 Q. What about annex C?
18 A. Annex C includes the DNA connections which I found.
19 Q. And annex D, you said that it was confidential. What does that
21 A. Correct. Annex D is a confidential part because it includes the
22 list of individuals by names which I found on the ICMP data and because
23 this list is confidential, provided to the OTP under restriction, that's
24 why this annex is confidential.
25 Q. All right. I'd like to bring that up just for a moment so we can
1 take a look at -- so the Chamber can see what it looks like.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's 65 ter 30170. It should not be broadcast,
3 please. There we have it.
4 As you can see it indicates confidential annex D. If we can go
5 to page 2 of this exhibit.
6 Q. Page 2 of the exhibit indicates graves, mass, smaller and
7 individual graves. Does that correspond to your report?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. And in respect of these graves, are they organised -- rather, the
10 individuals that are related to these graves, are they organised in this
11 confidential annex?
12 A. Yes, they are.
13 Q. Okay. If we could just go to page 3, I'll start off with this
14 one, which refers to Cerska. Page 4 will indicate some of the
15 information that you organised.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we can just go to page 4, please. Okay.
17 Q. Without reading the names, can you tell us what we are looking at
18 here? What information is this, where did it come from and what does it
20 A. So this information is coming from the ICMP list. It is slightly
21 modified for the purposes of my report. And these are the number or the
22 names of individuals which were found in Cerska grave.
23 Q. Now, this continues for several pages. Off the top of your head,
24 do you know how many individuals were recovered from the Cerska grave?
25 A. I think it's 149. Yes, correct, 149.
1 Q. Okay. Let me take you to e-court page -- let's go to e-court
2 page 18. This concerns, as we can see, Orahovac 1, Lazete 1. And if we
3 can go to the next page, we should see similar data; is that correct,
4 Mr. Janc?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Have you provided this data for each identified individual
7 associated with Srebrenica graves that are set out in your report?
8 A. Yes, I did, and they are all part of this confidential annex D.
9 Q. Okay. In the interests of time I'll move on, but is there any
10 other information contained in confidential annex D, other than
11 specifically identified individuals from Srebrenica graves?
12 A. Yes, there is. You will also find the unique DNA profiles, the
13 individuals which I have taken into consideration from those unique DNA
14 profiles. Also there are individuals which have been identified prior to
15 the ICMP -- prior to their commencement of the DNA identification process
16 in November 2001. We have 33 individuals which have been identified
17 before that. They are also included in this list. And you will also
18 find individuals which I have used for the purposes or -- of the DNA
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would seek to tender this annex
22 under seal at this time.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Annex to a report without the report or just a
24 separate --
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, the report is coming just next. It's my
1 next document.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because usually you start with the basis and
3 then with annexes to that basis.
4 Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. 65 ter number 30170 will be
8 Exhibit P1982, under seal.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted under seal. Please proceed.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 If I could please have in e-court 65 ter 30169.
12 Mr. President, I'm not sure if this is a technical problem but I
13 would advise the Court this is a remarkably slow-loading document and I
14 have a hard copies of the report that I could provide the Chamber and the
15 parties. Maybe that might expedite things.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that there is an error when looking at the
17 whole of the document. That's what Mr. Registrar tells me. And when I'm
18 trying to open the whole of the document, it reads, "An error occurred
19 while loading the image, error code 1004."
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: Perhaps I can then distribute the hard copies,
21 although I think for the sake of the record, it would still complicate
22 things, but I do have it and perhaps that's the better way to do it.
23 With the Court's leave I could have the usher perhaps retrieve them and
24 distribute them.
25 JUDGE ORIE: That's for the time being the best solution. At the
1 same time, of course, we would like the e-court problem to be resolved.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Does the Chamber have copies of it?
3 JUDGE ORIE: We have received copies.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. Ivetic, do you have a copy?
5 Q. Mr. Janc?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. Well, then I'm going to refer to page 1 of the document,
8 ERN X024-0734. Do you recognise what you have there, Mr. Janc?
9 A. Yes, this is my report.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Ms. Stewart reminds me to a record of the
11 e-court page. The e-court page for this will be page 1 in e-court.
12 Q. Thank you for your answer, Mr. Janc.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do then is to go to the second
14 page of this document, ERN ending 0735 which would be page 2 in e-court,
15 and I have a couple of questions regarding that.
16 Q. At paragraph 1 it's clear you set out what the purpose of your
17 update is, consistent with your testimony today. And you refer to a
18 number of documents that your report is intended to update including
19 Dean Manning's 27 November 2007 report; is that correct?
20 A. Yes, correct.
21 Q. Okay. And at paragraph number 2, beneath the heading,
22 "Srebrenica victims identified via DNA and other mass graves," you
23 provide certain numbers, not ERN numbers but figures, for the number of
24 identified individuals, and here you indicate that your examination at --
25 this is the third line in that second paragraph, indicates that at least
1 6023 individuals recorded as missing have been identified.
2 A. Yes, through DNA.
3 Q. And you have footnoted there under footnote -- I think it's
4 number 3, what you mean by identified?
5 A. Yes, correct.
6 Q. Okay. And that includes these unique DNA profiles; is that
8 A. Yes, those 142.
9 Q. Okay. In addition, at paragraph 3, you mention the
10 33 individuals relative to the examinations by PHR and as reported by
11 ICRC; is that right?
12 A. Yes, correct.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: If we go to the next page of the document, ERN
14 ending 0736, and that's going to be --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I just make an interjection. At paragraph --
16 that second paragraph that deals with the number 33, I -- do we need to
17 correct it to say Committee for the Red Cross instead of the Right Cross?
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I think you're right about that, Your Honour.
19 That is a clear mistake.
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE:
22 Q. If we go to the next page, ERN ending 0736 should be page 3 in
23 e-court, we can see a -- first of all, a reference to your confidential
24 annex D, which has now been admitted, right at the top of the page and
25 then we can see a table.
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what I'd like to do is to just go very briefly through that
3 table and have you explain what it shows specifically.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: So Ms. Stewart advises me that she can show the
5 PDF version -- ERN of the PDF version of the report in Sanction if that
6 might be easier for the Chamber to follow or easier for the Defence to
8 JUDGE ORIE: We have hard copies now so therefore there is no
9 need to have an additional copy before us.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right.
11 Q. Mr. Janc, first of all, we can see here a number of graves that
12 actually continues on to page should be 5 in e-court --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I've forgotten that it could be
14 useful for the public because this is not confidential, so therefore if
15 it could be shown, that would be preferable.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: We have it already.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: We do, okay.
19 Q. I was saying that this table continues on to ERN page 0738, which
20 should be page 5 correspondingly in e-court, so what I'd like you to do
21 is just describe for us what we have here. It says "mass and other
22 graves." You have some in that page bolded and some that aren't. Could
23 you just explain that for the Chamber? There is a footnote to that
24 effect but I think it's important to have that as a matter of record.
25 A. Yes, correct. This is the first count when I put the name the
1 mass graves which were exhumed and those bolded ones were exhumed by the
2 ICTY and those which are not were exhumed by the BiH authorities.
3 Q. Why was it that the case that some were exhumed by the ICTY and
4 others exhumed by the BiH authorities, first; and second, when did the
5 transfer, if there was one, occur?
6 A. Yes, exactly. The authority to exhume, to further process with
7 the exhumation activities was transferred to the BiH authorities by the
8 ICTY sometimes in 2000, 2001. Before that, the ICTY exhumed all the
9 primary graves and some of the secondary graves.
10 Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the entry for Orahovac 2,
11 Lazete 2 in parentheses. First of all, why do we have entries here in
12 parentheses under the names or associated with these -- with the various
13 mass graves in some instances and in some instances not?
14 A. Yes. For example, for Orahovac 1, Lazete 1, I'm not quite
15 certain anymore, but as you can see, the site code, which is assigned to
16 the mass grave before the exhumation is started, every exhumation site is
17 assigned a site code and in this case, it was Lazete 01, and I assume
18 because in this case, we have an exhumation site in Lazete area whereas
19 the prisoners were kept in Orahovac school. Later on, we can see for
20 Cancari Road we also have some names in brackets, for example, for
21 Cancari Road 4, we have Kamenica 4. And in this case it's because the
22 Cancari Road 4 was given a name, a site name by the ICMP -- by the ICTY,
23 and when exhumed, it was renamed by the BiH authority to Kamenica 4.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, I'm looking at the clock. I think
25 we started at ten minutes past so would it be a suitable time for a
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then could the witness first be escorted out of the
4 courtroom. We take a break of 20 minutes, Mr. Janc.
5 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: We will resume at 11.30.
8 --- Recess taken at 11.11 a.m.
9 --- On resuming at 11.32 a.m.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
11 Meanwhile, I use the opportunity, first of all, to inform the
12 parties that there will be no court hearings in the week of the
13 7th of October, 2013, and that we will not sit on the 14th of October.
14 That was already explored with the parties earlier.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Vanderpuye, you may proceed.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'm on my
18 feet just to also inform the Chamber that having looked at the material,
19 I think I'll need about an hour over my initial estimate to complete
20 Mr. Janc's evidence.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Which would mean that you need another one hour and
22 a half.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: About. Thank you, Mr. President.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE:
1 Q. All right. You were just referring to, I think, a Cancari Road
2 grave which is at the bottom of the screen, if we could go down the page
3 a little bit we might be able to see a bit more clearly what you were
4 referring to, and in these entries we can see a number of parenthetical
5 grave names and site codes. You indicated that that was the result of
6 the site code. Who was responsible for establishing site codes relative
7 to these exhumations?
8 A. It is the exhumation team on the ground.
9 Q. And where we have a difference, for example, Cancari Road 4
10 renamed or named Kamenica 4, and we can see the site -- corresponding
11 site code of CR04 and then in parentheticals, KAM04ZVO, who was
12 responsible for that? Would that be the ICMP -- the ICMP, the BiH
13 authorities, the ICTY --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before we continue, could I inquire whether there is
15 any dispute about these names referring to the same site, so
16 Cancari Road 4 being the same as Kamenica 4.
17 MR. IVETIC: I believe we've had evidence of that so there is no
18 dispute as far as I know.
19 JUDGE ORIE: So why ask who and why and -- I mean, apparently two
20 systems did exist.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, I just thought it would be important to
22 explain it since it's not explained in the document itself. But I
23 understand the Chamber has a good understanding of it so I'll move on
24 from that, Mr. President.
25 Q. What I'd like to do, Mr. Janc --
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: And let me just inquire, so that I maybe can
2 even go faster, whether or not the Defence disputes any of the
3 information relative to the name of the site, the site code or the
4 exhumation date as indicated in the report. And If we don't have any
5 dispute there, I'll just go straight to the numbers.
6 MR. IVETIC: There is no dispute as to that information.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for this cooperative attitude. Please
8 proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Janc, I initially had directed your attention to Orahovac 2,
11 Lazete 2, if we could go up the screen just for a second, and we'll see
12 it as the -- looks like the fifth entry from the top. What I want to
13 refer you to particularly is the number of individuals that are
14 identified here as you've indicated in January 2012 and April 2013.
15 You'll see here that in January 2012, 189 individuals you've indicated
16 were identified, and a year later, in April 2013, we have 188. Can you
17 explain that? Very briefly.
18 A. Yes. I looked up into this issue and I found that in
19 January 2012, I counted a unique DNA profile which was provided to us by
20 the ICMP, and then in April 2013, or with the latest data provided by the
21 ICMP, I didn't find that case, that individual being still the main case,
22 on their list. So what I found is that -- but we haven't been talking
23 about this main and reassociation as yet so I will try to explain as
24 briefly as possible. What happened is, in the meantime, there was a new
25 case identified -- or, actually, individual was identified in Cancari
1 Road 6 grave and that was attributed as a main case. So what happened
2 there is that the case which I counted before as being -- as main case in
3 Lazete 2, as unique DNA profile, that case became reassociation to the
4 main case in Cancari 6. So if you go down you will see you have increase
5 in number for Cancari Road 6, so because we have now few cases, including
6 this one, more in Cancari Road 6. Why that happened, I don't -- it's
7 difficult to explain to me because it was change done by the ICMP. So
8 one before it was a unique as a main case, and now it's a reassociation
9 to a main case.
10 Q. All right. And in fact we can see Cancari Road 6 reflects a
11 change from 2012 to 2013 of 183 to 185 identified cases; is that correct,
13 A. Yes, that's correct. So and I have to explain that in 2012,
14 I haven't included that same individual into the Cancari Road 6 counting
15 because it wasn't there.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Let's go to the next page, please, it's
18 ERN ending 0737, which should be page 4 in e-court. All right.
19 Q. And here what we have, I would just direct your attention to
20 Cancari Road 12 where we can see also a decline in the number of
21 identified individuals, and Liplje 2. Cancari Road 12 is the second
22 line, second entry, and Liplje 2 is about a third of the way down, also
23 in bold. Is the explanation for the decline in the number of identified
24 individuals relative to those two graves between 2012 and 2013
25 attributable to similar circumstances that you've just addressed with
1 respect to Orahovac or Lazete 2?
2 A. Yes, first of all, I would like to correct myself explaining
3 before the reason for Lazete 2 but that was actually what was explaining
4 was the reason for Cancari 12, that's what happened there. For Lazete 2
5 we have a different problem. That was my mistake. For Lazete 2 I
6 counted one DNA unique profile twice in my previous report, so
7 I excluded that individual now so that's why we have a drop of one
8 individual. Then the biggest drop we have for Liplje 2. So it's for --
9 for two of those cases it's more or less the same issue because the main
10 case which two other grave site, and in one case, there was a typo
11 mistake by the ICMP. Instead of Liplje 2 it should be Liplje 4. So we
12 will see, for example, for Liplje 4, you have increase in number.
13 Q. And that -- so the record just reflects it, that reflects a
14 change from 289 identified individuals to 292; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. All right. Let's go to the next page, which summarises your
17 findings. And that's ERN ending 0738. Let me see if I have my count
18 right. That should be page 5 in e-court for the record. What I'd like
19 to do is to take you down - yeah, we have it - to your totals. Here you
20 have a category for graves, surface remains, others, and then identified
21 individuals. And this is year over year from 2012 to 2013. So with
22 respect to the number of identified individuals from Srebrenica-related
23 graves, what is the total?
24 A. Yes, you can see the figure here it's 6056.
25 Q. And previously, as you indicated, does this include unique DNA
1 profiles of individuals that have not been yet associated with a name?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And is that by virtue of the fact that those DNA profiles came
4 from Srebrenica-related graves or from -- or based on some other reason?
5 A. Yes, it's based on that they are coming from the
6 Srebrenica-related graves.
7 Q. The category for surface remains indicates a total number of
8 individuals identified of 756. First, can you explain to the Chamber
9 what you mean when you say "surface remains" and specifically what
10 surface remains are included in the total that you have here?
11 A. I've included in my report a special section under annex B where
12 I am talking about the surface remains. These are human body -- body
13 parts or the entire bodies which were found on the ground, not buried,
14 over the years and collected by the BiH authorities, and when identified,
15 when the identification process was done it was revealed that they were
16 also Srebrenica victims.
17 Q. So these are named -- or, rather, DNA profiles recovered from the
18 surface or from shallow graves that have been DNA-matched to named
19 individuals by the ICMP; is that right?
20 A. Yes, correct.
21 Q. Have you identified or, rather, associated any unique DNA
22 profiles of individuals who have not been matched to a name by the ICMP,
23 uniques, so to speak, have you counted them among any of the surface
24 remains that you've indicated here? Any of the 756 surface remains, do
25 those include unique DNA profiles without names?
1 A. No, it doesn't because it would be very difficult to determine
2 that these are indeed Srebrenica-related victims because in the area
3 where the surface remains were collected, there were also instances that
4 individuals from other events have been found and identified so --
5 because here we have a different story that it is with mass graves where
6 you can say because the majority or all individuals which were identified
7 from certain mass graves were indeed Srebrenica victims, with surface
8 remains it's not the case, so that's why we cannot use unique DNA
9 profiles for this specific purpose.
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Vanderpuye, may I ask a question at this
11 point in time?
12 Mr. Janc, please help me with the following. On page 29,
13 lines 19 and 20, you said, I quote, "When the identification process was
14 done, it was revealed that they were also Srebrenica victims."
15 Can you elaborate a little bit further? How were you able to
16 make this -- to reach that conclusion?
17 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, these are individuals which are
18 found on the ICRC missing list of individuals after -- of individuals
19 related to the fall of Srebrenica and also you find them as such on the
20 ICMP list.
21 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Have you any information that they were not
22 combatants, were not killed during combat?
23 THE WITNESS: You know, what I am providing here in my report is
24 in relation to surface remains, these are individuals which were found on
25 the ground. The cause of their death might be -- may vary. So some of
1 them certainly died in combat. Some of them were executed, we have
2 evidence on that. Some of them simply committed suicide, we have
3 witnesses talking about that, so the cause of their death is, of course,
5 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much for that clarification.
6 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Related to that topic, Mr. Janc, let me ask you about the next
9 line in your report which concerns others. You've indicated here
10 "others, Srebrenica-related, Kozluk surface" --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: "Serbia-related" it's written.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Your Honour, indeed.
13 Q. Kozluk surface and Godinjske Bare. And that refers to year over
14 year, you've come up with 37 identified individuals for 2012 and 2013.
15 What I want to ask you about specifically is your inclusion of Kozluk
16 surface and Godinjske Bare in this category of "others" as distinguished
17 from surface remains which you've indicated in the line just above.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we answer that, Mr. Vanderpuye, is it
19 indeed Serbia or is it Srebrenica? Should it be Srebrenica?
20 MR. VANDERPUYE: You are correct, it is Serbia.
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It is Serbia.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: And that Serbia is not an incorrect thing? Okay.
24 Thank you very much.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, can you explain to the Chamber why it is that you
2 included Kozluk surface remains in this special category of "others"
3 rather than the "surface remains" category that's indicated above where
4 you found 756 individuals?
5 A. Yes, I separated them because it's -- the way they are found and
6 the place they are found does not coincide with surface remains which
7 I included into -- under the section -- under the annex B. When we will
8 go over that you will understand what I'm talking about because I'm
9 referring to specific areas where those surface remains were found. But
10 in case of Kozluk surface, they were actually found adjacent to the mass
11 execution site on the arena - on the Drina River embankment and actually
12 when they were found, they were on surface but it's not really known
13 why -- whether or not when they were placed there, these bodies, whether
14 or not they were covered with soil and then over the time Drina River
15 surfaced them. So that's why, because they are very close to the
16 execution site and they may be related to that particular execution,
17 that's why I placed them separately and I haven't counted them along with
18 other surface remains.
19 Q. What about the Godinjske Bare?
20 A. Yes, the Godinjske Bare victims are related to the special
21 incident execution which the Prosecution has the video about, so those
22 six victims are related to that specific event. And it's -- because it's
23 far away, actually, it's from Srebrenica, that's why I placed them in
24 section "others," and they are also found on surface. Actually they were
25 never buried, these bodies.
1 Q. Okay. And thank you. I was just about to ask you that. So we
2 have here a total that you've indicated, year on year, from 2012, 6716
3 individuals identified --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Mladic, please remain seated if you consult with
5 counsel. A brief consultation is okay. Could you please remain seated.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
8 Q. Okay. I was just asking you about the totals that you have here,
9 6716 for 2012 versus 6849 for 2013. Is that right?
10 A. Yes, correct.
11 Q. That represents all the identified individuals related to
12 Srebrenica according to your analysis of the information provided to you
13 by the various authorities, the ICMP, the FCMP, the Bosnian Missing
14 Persons Institute and having reviewed exhumation records --
15 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a technical problem, as far as the
16 audio is concerned.
17 Mr. Mladic, can you now hear us again? Oh, is the -- one second,
18 if you want to speak you should switch on your microphone. There seems
19 to be something with your screen? Is that --
20 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] The screen has a problem with me
21 and I have a problem with the screen.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll try to get you together again. If the usher
23 is able to fix it, then it's fine. Otherwise a technician should assist.
24 The problem being fixed apparently, we can continue. Please
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Let me see if I can find my question. Yes. I was asking you
3 about the totals that you indicate in your report here at page 5 in
4 e-court, ERN ending 0738. The total that I see is 6849, 6849
5 DNA-identified individuals; is that correct, Mr. Janc?
6 A. Yes. Identified individuals and it includes all those three
7 groups - graves in total, surface remains in total, and others in total.
8 Q. Okay. Now, you indicated that for Godinjske Bare in particular
9 there was a video that the Prosecution had, no doubt one that you were
10 aware of, considering your role as an investigator with the OTP. Can you
11 tell us what that video concerns?
12 A. Yes. It concerns the killing, execution of six Muslim men,
13 victims of Srebrenica, and the execution is done by the Skorpions Unit
14 from Serbia.
15 Q. Do you know approximately when that happened and what its
16 relationship is to Srebrenica? Other than the apparent DNA
17 identification of the victims. In other words, is there other
18 information corroborating the DNA identification that you encountered?
19 A. It happened after the fall of Srebrenica. I'm not sure anymore
20 about the exact date but roughly around 20 of July, if I'm not mistaken.
21 That's when the execution happened in the area of Godinjske Bare, and we
22 know that the victims were identified by their relatives, as well not
23 only DNA identification, helped identify them.
24 Q. Okay.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to go to the next page, if I could,
1 that's ERN ending 0739, and it will be page 6 in e-court for future
3 Q. And just ask you a couple of questions about your methodology as
4 you have here indicated. Okay.
5 In terms of the analysis that you conducted of the DNA data that
6 was provided to you by the ICMP, can you tell us specifically, describe
7 specifically what you did with it in order to arrive at the numbers that
8 are indicated on the previous page concerning identified individuals?
9 A. Yes. There was many steps to be taken with this spreadsheet
10 which has more than 16.000 entries and I had to consider each entry in
11 order to come to a conclusion how many individuals have been identified
12 so far, so in order to do that I had to organise, reorganise them, review
13 them properly and then to collate them in a proper order. So -- and the
14 end product, for example, is one of the spreadsheets which we have been
15 just previously looking at for Cerska graves.
16 Q. Yes. All right. And that was contained in confidential annex D;
17 is that right?
18 A. Correct. And I have to say that there were two different
19 methodologies used. For example, for counting individuals to find how
20 many of them have been so far identified or in particular grave site,
21 that was different than when I was doing analysis on the DNA connections
22 between the sites.
23 Q. [Microphone not activated] Okay. Let me ask you -- let me
24 first --
25 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Microphone.
1 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. Thank you.
2 Q. Let me first direct you to confidential annex A. We'll see that
3 at ERN ending 074, should be page 7 for everyone's benefit, and then the
4 next page, page 8, ending 0741, is where we actually see some of the
5 substance there. First of all, you've already given us a basic synopsis
6 of what this confidential annex contains. And this first entry we can
7 see concerns Cerska and you make a number of representations concerning
8 this particular grave, including specific references to materials that
9 you analysed by ERN number. Is this typical of the entries that you --
10 or, rather, the contents of the report in this particular annex?
11 A. Just a small correction first. Annex A is not a confidential
12 annex. It's without any restriction. But to answer your question, yes.
13 This is a kind of an example how it looks like throughout the report.
14 For example, we have details about when and where this -- when the grave
15 site was exhumed, where it was located, and then how many individuals
16 have been identified so far.
17 Q. All right. Just let me put on the record very quickly, just for
18 the Chamber's benefit and -- you have entries concerning mass grave
19 sites, which as we've just seen is on page 2. There are entries relating
20 to smaller graves at page 28; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, correct. Those are graves which include up to ten
22 individuals found in a grave.
23 Q. There are also entries for individual graves which begin at
24 page 31?
25 A. Correct.
1 Q. And there are entries for others, as you've just described
2 previously, which begin at page 32?
3 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, you were referring to the hard copy
5 page numbers of annex A and not to e-court numbers.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes. I'm just about to do that if --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if you, I think -- I think there are 7 pages
8 preceding annex A so I take it that in e-court you just deduce 7 from the
9 numbers you mentioned.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's a bit tricky.
11 JUDGE ORIE: You add -- as a matter of fact you add 7 to it and
12 then you are at e-court pages, I take it. Let's not spend too much time
13 on it. It's -- the texts speak for themselves and what you asked is so
14 clear that --
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. What I'd
16 like to do then is I'd like to jump ahead. It should be page 33 and 34
17 of this annex which should correspond to page 39 and page 40 of the -- in
18 e-court. So if we go first to page 39 -- page 33.
19 JUDGE ORIE: When I earlier said that you should add 7, of course
20 you should add 6 instead because it starts at 7 for annex A. Please
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thanks very much, Mr. President.
23 Q. Page 33 -- at page 33 you have an indication that says:
24 "Breakdown of identified individuals per mass execution site." And what
25 I'd like to do then is to go to the next page, which would be page 40 in
1 e-court, page 34 on the document.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you have that in front of you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. What we have here is a table?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And just tell us what this table is intended to reflect. We have
8 execution site, you can see in the first column, primary, secondary mass
9 grave in the second, and the number of identified individuals.
10 A. Yes. The evidence show which secondary graves are related to the
11 primary graves and we also have evidence on execution site for -- related
12 to those primary graves. And what I wanted to do here, you know, to
13 present to the Trial Chamber and to give an overview of how many
14 individuals have been found in different graves, it's actually just an
15 extract from previous pages, to give an overall number of individuals
16 which were found in those graves and related secondary graves and
17 corresponding execution sites.
18 Q. All right. I just want to explore two issues with you with
19 respect to this table. We will need to go to the next page, which will
20 be page 35 in the hard copy, page 41 in e-court, and go to the bottom of
21 the page so we can look at your totals here. You've indicated here all
22 sites totals, 5.624 individuals identified across these graves, which of
23 course is different from the total that you have at the beginning of your
24 report, should be page 5 of your report in both e-court and in the hard
25 copy, indicating a number of 6.056 for Srebrenica-related graves. So the
1 first issue is why is there a difference between what's shown here and
2 what's shown in your report at page 5 with respect to identified
3 individuals from Srebrenica graves?
4 A. Yes, what I included here are only the graves which were
5 disturbed, primary graves which were disturbed and related secondary
6 graves. The graves which were not disturbed, for example, Cerska or
7 Ravnice -- and actually Ravnice is included because it relates to
8 Kravica, but, for example, Cerska hasn't been disturbed grave, it's not
9 included here.
10 Q. Thank you for that explanation. If I can just go back now to
11 page 34 very quickly, I want to ask you a couple of questions. Here, as
12 among the graves connected -- or, rather, that it's a secondary grave
13 connected with Glogova 1 and 2 and Ravnice -- or, rather, Glogova at
14 least 1 and 2, you have just about midway through there a grave called
15 Bljeceva 1 where you've indicated there have been 47 Srebrenica-related
16 identified individuals that were recovered.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. So with respect to that particular grave, are you
19 aware that that particular grave has also been associated with the
20 deposition of remains of individuals killed in 1992?
21 A. Yes. I'm very well aware of that fact. It's actually a mixed
23 Q. And with respect to that mixed grave, how is it that you
24 determined that 47 individuals, the remains of 47 individuals recovered
25 from that grave were in fact Srebrenica related rather than related to
1 the events of 1992?
2 A. Those 47 individuals appear on the Srebrenica-related missing
3 list and that's why I have included them into this counting.
4 Q. When you say the "Srebrenica-related missing list," to what
5 document are you referring, or documents?
6 A. It's the ICRC missing list and also the ICMP list of DNA
8 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review any documentation from the
9 ICMP concerning the exhumation of Bljeceva 1?
10 A. Yes, I did, their summary report on that exhumation.
11 Q. I'd like to show you 65 ter 25519 and maybe we can go very
12 quickly through that. All right. I think we have it now. Do you
13 recognise what we have in e-court, Mr. Janc?
14 A. Yes, that's the report on Bljeceva 1.
15 Q. This is the report that you reviewed in relation to determining
16 the number of identified individuals contained in your report?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to go to page 2 and it should be page 2
19 in both the English and B/C/S.
20 Q. And we can see under letter A, an indication as to the alleged
21 site origin and it refers to Glogova and Redzici. Are you familiar with
22 those particular sites?
23 A. Yes. With Glogova more than with Redzici but I know both sites.
24 Q. Where is Redzici, if you know, relative to Glogova or relative to
25 any other city or municipality the Chamber might be otherwise familiar
2 A. I think Redzici is close to Bratunac, closer than Glogova.
3 Q. You can see right at the end of this section A, it indicates
4 seven deposits within the grave possibly from two mass graves.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And in reviewing this report, did you note entries in it
7 concerning the Bosnian authorities' representation as to the origin of
8 the remains contained within Bljeceva 1?
9 A. Yes, there are such indications, yeah.
10 Q. And do those entries, to your knowledge, suggest that there were
11 deposits both from Glogova and from Redzici?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. To your knowledge, do those entries relate to the deposition of
14 those remains from both 1992 and from 1995?
15 A. Yes, correct. Not only that, it's also my understanding that
16 they were both -- both exhumed -- re-exhumed about the same time and
17 filled, filled up in this Bljeceva 1 grave.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do is go to page 4 in the
19 English -- bear with me for just a moment. Yes, it's page 4 and then we
20 will have to go to page 5. And then it will be page 10 and 11 in B/C/S.
21 In particular, I draw your attention to paragraphs 10 and 11 of this
22 document. At the bottom of page 4, you'll see that there is a recitation
23 about the information that was provided to the ICMP by the Federal
24 Commission of Missing Persons. And if we go to page 5 in the English, at
25 this point, you'll see that it makes a reference to victims allegedly
1 killed in 1992 --
2 JUDGE FLUEGGE: We are not on the right page in B/C/S, yet.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: We are not indeed. The B/C/S page I think I
4 said was page 10 and 11. B/C/S page 10 and 11, English pages 4 and 5.
5 JUDGE ORIE: What we see now is far further down in the document
6 so -- in paragraphs we are -- it's paragraph 27. Whereas we are supposed
7 to look at 10 and 11 paragraph.
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: Bear with me, I'm sorry, Mr. President.
9 JUDGE ORIE: I think the English page is right.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: It's just the B/C/S page. Bear with me one
11 moment, I'm sorry. We're going to go to page 5 in the B/C/S. My
12 mistake, 5 and 6 in the B/C/S, paragraphs 10 and 11 respectively.
13 JUDGE ORIE: There we are.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Your Honours.
15 Q. At paragraph 11, there is an indication that --
16 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Next page in B/C/S.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you.
18 Q. There is an indication that into the recovery, some three weeks
19 into the recovery, there was a change observed by ICMP field staff who
20 were then informed by Bosnian authorities that the deposits in the grave,
21 the lower deposits in the grave, I should say, originated from Glogova
22 and that the upper deposits remained to a primary mass grave in Redzici,
23 Bratunac. Is that consistent with your -- first of all your recollection
24 of this particular document and other information that you reviewed as to
25 the origins of the deposits that were made in the Bljeceva 1 secondary
1 mass grave?
2 A. Yes, it did.
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document
4 if I could.
5 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
7 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 25519 will be Exhibit P1983,
8 Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P1983 is admitted into evidence.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: If I may ask a question, Mr. Vanderpuye, before we
12 go further. This relates to the report of the witness and annex A, the
13 totals that you asked about the difference between 6849 -- or 6056 and
15 Mr. Janc, you explained the difference by saying that Cerska is
16 not included in annex A. Do you imply thereby that Cerska is included in
17 the report? And if so, could you help me find it in the report.
18 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, just a second. When I was talking --
19 when we were talking about the breakdown table, that's where I was
20 testifying that I haven't included those graves in those breakdown table,
21 that I only included the primary graves which were disturbed.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: May I interrupt you? My colleague Judge Orie has
23 helped me find Cerska. Thank you so much.
24 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. Mr. Janc, actually following up on His Honour Judge Moloto's
2 question and your response, is that the same reason why the Bisina grave,
3 which is referred to at page 26 of your annex A, is not included in the
4 table that you've just referred to?
5 A. Yes, correct.
6 Q. And in relation to the Bisina grave or graves, did you review
7 forensic reports or records concerning its exhumation?
8 A. Yes, I did.
9 Q. What I'd like to show you, just in the interests of time, is
10 65 ter 18710.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you. I think we've got it now. It is
12 rather faint in the B/C/S, but it's there.
13 Q. Do you recognise this document?
14 A. Yes, I do. It's a photo documentation.
15 Q. And it refers to, in particular, a grave site marked BIS01SEK?
16 A. Yes, that grave site, site code was designated to Bisina.
17 Q. And to what does it correspond? Where is the Bisina grave to
18 your recollection, if you can recall?
19 A. Bisina grave or Bisina area is above Sekovici, a few kilometres
21 Q. Did you review this particular document in -- well, in preparing
22 your report?
23 A. Yes, I did.
24 Q. And to your knowledge, does it -- is it consistent, that is, the
25 number of bodies indicated here, is that consistent with the information
1 you came across in the ICMP data which you reviewed concerning this
2 particular grave site?
3 A. Yes, it is. You will see from the record itself that they found
4 39 bodies, and that's exactly how many bodies have been so far identified
5 by the ICMP.
6 Q. Okay. Thank you.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document
8 as well.
9 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
11 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 18710 will be Exhibit P1984,
12 Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: P1984 is admitted into evidence.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE:
15 Q. Okay, Mr. Janc, I want to ask you about another grave, a smaller
16 grave, as you've indicated. And there are two. One is at, let's see, I
17 have it as page 34 and 35 in your report.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: So let's get that back up, that's 65 ter 30169.
19 And it's page, let's see, 27 on the hard copy and it should correspond to
20 page 33 in e-court.
21 Q. Just so you know what I'm referring to in particular is the
22 Sandici grave. You've indicated it as a primary mass grave.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. And with respect to that grave, did you similarly have the
25 opportunity to review information as concerns its exhumation?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What I'd like to show you is 65 ter 18723, please.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar informs me that we get similar error
4 messages, although I do not, Mr. Registrar, so perhaps try it again?
5 But perhaps for English because I see in e-court that for the -- let me
6 have a look. It seems to be that -- at least I do not find an English
7 version into e-court, which reminds me of something that was observed --
8 [Trial chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE ORIE: There is another suggestion. I think you asked for
10 187810, is that -- and should we look at 18710? Is that P1984?
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I don't believe so. I think I --
12 no, 18710 was the one I just offered into evidence.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. And now we are at 18723?
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, that what I've -- or maybe I've --
15 JUDGE ORIE: Let me see whether we have -- that is materials
16 concerning exhumation related to the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995, and
17 it seems to -- I don't see anything in e-court, as a matter of fact,
18 which could be shown to either ourselves or -- that is what I find.
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: All right. We have some technical problems so
20 I'll just move on. I think it would be better.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please do so.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE:
23 Q. Let me just confirm with you, Mr. Janc, just so that the record
24 is clear, did you have an opportunity to review the exhumation record of
25 the cantonal court in Tuzla relating to the exhumation of the Sandici
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Okay. And did it confirm your understanding of the number of
4 bodies recovered, the location of the bodies that were recovered, and is
5 it consistent with your understanding of the investigation as concerns
6 the Srebrenica events?
7 A. Yes, 17 bodies were recovered from that mass grave.
8 Q. Okay. And just so the record is clear, at page 27 in your report
9 you've indicated the Tuzla Cantonal Court file relating to case number
10 1137/04 in support of your conclusions; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. One quick question about another grave. And that concerns
13 the Potocari graves. Let me tell you where that is in your report. You
14 should see that, I believe, at page 34 of e-court, I believe, and -- bear
15 with me a second and I'll give you the number on your report. It begins
16 at 28 and then it goes into page 29 of the report, ERNs ending 0767
17 through 0768, and you refer to a number of smaller graves, Potocari, it
18 says 2006, at the bottom of the page, 2007 and 2012. On the next page,
19 that's page 29 of your report, you indicate three.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. One for each of the years I've just mentioned. In respect of
22 these particular graves, the review -- did you review the exhumation
23 materials and data concerning them?
24 A. In respect to Potocari 2006 and 2007, yes, but not in respect to
25 Potocari 2012. It was not available to me.
1 Q. With respect to the exhumation data that you reviewed concerning
2 Potocari 2006 and 2007, can you relate the information concerning those
3 graves to any other evidence concerning deaths that may have occurred in
4 Potocari or did in fact occur in Potocari, relative to the fall of
6 A. Yes, we can say because these bodies from those two graves were
7 recovered in a meadow called Rabin near Potocari, and this is the meadow
8 which is described by the DutchBat personnel as being -- as witnessing
9 execution at that spot.
10 Q. Okay. You mean in that same meadow?
11 A. Yes, it's the same meadow. And I have to add here that Potocari
12 2006 and Potocari 2007 graves, they are related, they must be related
13 between each other because body remains of one individual were found in
14 both graves.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you, you said, and I'm reading from the
17 transcript, "the meadow which is described by DutchBat personnel as
18 witnessing execution at that spot." Did you intend to say one execution
19 or executions?
20 THE WITNESS: I don't recall it anymore but as I still recall
21 there might be many -- not many but several. So I'm not sure is it one
22 or several, but what I know is that they are talking or describing the
23 same area, the same meadow, because I was able to review their drawings
24 about where this incident or incidents took place.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed. While -- when I say
1 that, Mr. Vanderpuye, I think it's better to take a break first.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, half an hour left after the break.
6 That would be the two and a half hours.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right, Mr. President. I'm doing my best.
8 There obviously have been some technical issues but I think I'm pretty
9 close to on time.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, one of the technical issues, I noticed that at
11 least in e-court I didn't find any English version of a certain document.
12 If that's the case, then I would be surprised if it's the e-court system
13 which removes English versions or whether it has not been uploaded in the
14 way it should have been uploaded.
15 We take a break and we'll resume at five minutes to 1.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 12.34 p.m.
17 --- On resuming at 12.57 p.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
19 Meanwhile, I'll deal with one of the three Defence requests for
20 extensions to respond which were all filed on the 12th of August. The
21 one I'm dealing with is the request for an extension of 14 days to
22 respond to the Prosecution 92 quater motion for Predrag Radic to commence
23 after the Chamber's decision on the witness's addition to the 65 ter
24 witness list. The Chamber notes in this regard that its decision on the
25 addition of the witness is pending and should be delivered soon. The
1 Chamber hereby grants the Defence request to respond within 14 days after
2 that decision is delivered.
3 Mr. Vanderpuye you may proceed.
4 [The witness takes the stand]
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Janc. What I wanted to show you was
7 65 ter 06368. 6358, sorry. And this is in relation to the entry -- or,
8 rather, your findings concerning the Potocari graves 2006, 2007, 2012, as
9 indicated in your report.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could Mr. Vanderpuye kindly speak into the
11 microphone, please?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, you're invited to speak into the
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 Do we not have this document in e-court also.
16 JUDGE ORIE: I see a document on my screen at this moment, but
17 let me have a look. Oh, that was another one. I see two documents which
18 I think the English -- but in B/C/S there seems to be something pretty
19 different from what we see in the English.
20 Mr. Vanderpuye, I do not know what you're --
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: There should be an attachment to the document.
22 JUDGE ORIE: You know the numbers. It's your --
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: The number that I have, 0 -- ERN X021-7675.
24 That's what we should have in front of us relating to the exhumation of a
25 Potocari grave in a field described by the witness.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please speak into the
3 MR. VANDERPUYE: Ms. Stewart informs me the pages are out of
4 order. It's page 5, is it?
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and again you're invited to speak into the
6 microphone for the interpreters to be able to hear you.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Or you can use the other microphone while dealing
8 with the documents and discussing with Ms. Stewart.
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Your Honour. I'll do that.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We have at this moment -- you said they are out of
11 order. It looks as if we have now the same page in English as we have in
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, we do, I believe so. Thank you,
14 Mr. President.
15 Q. Mr. Janc, did you review this document in relation to your
16 findings concerning the Potocari grave exhumed in 2006?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Does it reflect the location that you indicated just a moment ago
19 as to where the -- where the bodies or remains were recovered in relation
20 to where the bodies or remains were observed by DutchBat personnel?
21 A. Yes, it does.
22 Q. And further to your evidence regarding the -- your recollection
23 of what the DutchBat personnel observed, is it the case that -- is it
24 your recollection that that personnel indicated that they saw an
25 execution or that they saw what was left of an execution?
1 A. I can't recall that, sorry.
2 Q. So you're not sure one way or the other?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Okay.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, now, you said everything was out of order.
7 Let's first try to establish how the 26 pages in B/C/S correspond with
8 the two pages in English. Because in English it says it's an explanation
9 of photographs, and it appears that in the B/C/S version all the
10 photographs are -- or at least some photographs are attached. Let's
11 first have a look. In the B/C/S, the first page is a sketch, the second
12 page is a cover page from a series of photo documentation, it is on
13 page 5 in the B/C/S apparently that we find the same as we find in page 1
14 in the English and that page 5 covers both pages 1 and 2 -- page 5 in the
15 B/C/S covers the pages 1 and 2 in the English version.
16 Now, what would you like to have in evidence, Mr. Vanderpuye?
17 Only the explanation or also the photographs attached and the sketches
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I would just like to
20 have the explanation.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Just the explanation, so that would require anyhow a
22 separate upload of page 5 of the B/C/S version and then accompanied by
23 the -- what are now the pages 1 and 2 of the English version. Now,
24 having dealt with all of this, I'd like to hear after this clarification
25 whether there is any objection against admission.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Just for my clarification, Mr. Vanderpuye, do you
2 want us to see the explanation of the photographs without seeing the
3 photographs themselves? And what is that explanation going to be telling
4 us if we can't look at the photographs.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Your Honour. The reason
6 why I've asked just for the explanation is that the explanation provides
7 the location where the remains recovered which I think can be identified
8 on the map evidence that we have before the Chamber already and further
9 corroborates what the witness has identified in his report as the
10 location where, in fact, the exhumation occurred and the bodies were
11 recovered in 2006. I'm not sure that the photographs add much to that
12 except to show the remains themselves. They do, you're correct, show --
13 provide some indication of the location, such as a picture of the field
14 itself and some houses but I don't think it adds much --
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. I hear now you saying the
16 explanation explains the location where the bodies were recovered. So if
17 that is the explanation and it doesn't explain the photographs, that's
19 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, it's just to establish the location.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And also that an exhumation took place there.
21 That appears to be the core of what you want to present.
22 No objections? Then Mr. Registrar would you reserve a number for
23 what is now pages 1 and 2 in the English version of 65 ter number --
24 could you repeat the number, Mr. -- 06358 and to upload the corresponding
25 B/C/S pages from the -- which is only one page, by the way, it's page 5
1 of the B/C/S version.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, that will be Exhibit P1985.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Once uploaded, P1985 will be admitted into evidence.
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. Ms. Stewart informs
5 me that it will be uploaded with 65 ter 6358A, just so that we can make
6 sure that it corresponds to the correct exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. With the same translation as with the full
9 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
10 Q. Mr. Janc, I'd like to take you to annex B of your report.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE: I have it as beginning at page 42 in e-court and
12 it should be for the Chamber's --
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's page 36.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's right. So if we could just go to page
15 37, which would be --
16 JUDGE ORIE: No, when I said at page --
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Page 42 in e-court.
18 JUDGE ORIE: When I said page 36, annex B starts with new
19 numbering. So apart from the cover page, it is page 2 of annex B which
20 corresponds with the e-court page number you just mentioned.
21 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. It should
22 be e-court page 43. All right. I think we have it now on the screen.
23 Q. You analysed these surface remain data; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, correct.
25 Q. And that was provided to you by whom?
1 A. By the BiH Institute on Missing Persons.
2 Q. And in what form was this information provided to you or what
3 information did you review?
4 A. Initially in 2008 they provided spreadsheets with all
5 exhumations, actually collections of these surface remains which they
6 have carried out since 1996.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Along with that we also requested that they provide graphical
9 presentation of where those surface remains were collected. And after --
10 sorry, for the purposes of my report, subsequently I requested an update
11 of these data because every year there is -- there are additional
12 collection of the surface remains and every year I requested a new table
13 for subsequent years so we have a complete data, what has been collected
14 from the surface since 1996 up until the June 2013.
15 Q. What I'd like to ask you is about your numbers. Here you've
16 indicated that your analysis established that there were 756
17 Srebrenica-related individuals and that there were 1033 surface remain
18 cases. If you could just explain to the Chamber what that means, were
19 there 1033 individuals of which 756 were Srebrenica-related individuals?
20 What exactly does that mean and what's the difference between a case and
21 an individual?
22 A. The BiH Institute on Missing Persons, they are referring to what
23 they collect on ground as cases. What does it mean in reality, you know,
24 it might be one bone, one part of human remain, or the entire body, so we
25 don't really know exactly what they have collected. Is it the entire
1 body or, you know, is it just part of the body because over the years,
2 one can imagine that body have decomposed and many body parts are only
3 found, not the complete bodies. But what happens is then they are sent
4 to the ICMP and after the identification is done, we'll get the actual
5 individuals which have been identified from those body remains.
6 So what does it mean? You know, one case can represent, I mean,
7 in reality more than one individual or quite opposite, you know, more
8 cases can represent only one individual. We won't really know in reality
9 what is it, how many individuals is indeed covered with this 1033 surface
10 remain cases which have been collected.
11 Q. How did you come up with 756, then?
12 A. Those are the individuals which have been so far identified from
13 those cases, and the names can be found on the ICMP list which was
14 provided to us, and what I was looking at, what was -- what I was trying
15 to find, to locate inside their spreadsheet is actually the site code.
16 It's the system of how they collect the surface remains and how they
17 record their findings is similar as to the exhumation of the mass graves,
18 so for every single location, for every single body part or case, they
19 will assign a site code, and if I see that in the ICMP data certain site
20 code, I will know exactly that that site code is related to surface
21 remains because that is information which were provided to us as such.
22 Q. Thanks for that explanation.
23 If we could just go to page 3 in annex B which should correspond
24 to page 44 in e-court, we can see a little bit about what you're talking
25 about, in terms of the site codes. And if we go to the following page,
1 it should be page 4, we can see additional areas -- oh, oh. I think we
2 have a computer problem. But anyway --
3 JUDGE ORIE: We still have the hard copy and if the electronic
4 version could be reactivated, it would be appreciated, especially for the
5 public. Please proceed.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE:
7 Q. If we can go to the following page, ERN ending 0778, we can see
8 the additional areas that you mentioned as from which surface remains
9 were recovered. The Pobudje region was on the previous page. Here we
10 have the Baljkovica area, Snagovo area, and now you have other areas
11 which go on to the following page, page 5 of your annex. In relation to
12 these various areas, did you receive information directly from the BiH
13 authorities concerning the recovery of these surface remains for each
15 A. It's -- actually it's me who grouped these surface remains in
16 these four different areas but, yes, I'm getting this information from
17 documentation which was provided to us by the BiH institute.
18 Q. I'd like to show you two things while we are on this topic. One
19 is 65 ter 6363.
20 THE INTERPRETER: The counsel is again kindly asked to use the
21 microphone for the sake of interpreters.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, it's now the third time that the
23 interpreters ask to you speak into the microphone.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll keep that in
1 JUDGE ORIE: Or use the other one, adjust it and -- because it
2 appears that you're talking in the direction of the other microphone.
3 You switch off the one, switch on the other one, adjust it to where you
4 are ...
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'll do that, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm standing right in front of it at this
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that's fine. Yes, I suggested that you use the
10 other one but if insist on using this one, then you should really stand
11 close to it.
12 MR. VANDERPUYE: Okay. Is this better?
13 JUDGE ORIE: That is what I had on my mind when I made that
15 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I
16 appreciate that.
17 Q. Mr. Janc, do you recognise what we have in front of us here?
18 A. Yes, this is one of the maps which was provided to us by the BiH
19 institute in relation to the surface remains.
20 Q. Did you have an opportunity to review that in relation to the
21 preparation of your report?
22 A. Yes, of course.
23 Q. And what does it depict?
24 A. This particular map depicts the location where the surface
25 remains were located or collected in the year of 1996.
1 Q. Is this the only map that was received in relation to the
2 location where surface remains were recovered by the BiH authorities?
3 A. No. There are more maps. They go -- we have them up until 2008,
4 for each year one, and then the overall map.
5 Q. Okay.
6 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could go to page 23 in this exhibit.
7 JUDGE ORIE: I have a 16-page exhibit which --
8 MR. VANDERPUYE: ERN 1606, 05451606, 14, thank you. Okay.
9 Q. Can you tell us what this shows, Mr. Janc?
10 A. Yes. This is the distribution of surface remains collected by
11 the BiH authorities over the years. So this is the overall map I was
12 just talking about, covering all the years between 1996 up to 2008.
13 Q. The location of these surface remains, is that consistent with
14 your understanding of the movement of the column out of the Srebrenica
15 enclave immediately following its collapse?
16 A. Yes. The majority of it, it's consistent, apart from those few
17 surface remains cases which were found outside the route, you can see
18 some on south and some towards the west, so the other areas are
20 Q. And these cover the four areas, roughly, that you indicated in
21 your report?
22 A. Yes, correct.
23 Q. Okay.
24 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I'd like to tender this document
25 as well. It actually contains --
1 JUDGE ORIE: What you showed is page 14 of that document when you
2 referred to the ERN number. That's at least -- I'm not opposing
4 MR. VANDERPUYE: That's correct.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was page 14 of -- yeah. Any objections?
6 MR. IVETIC: None, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar?
8 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 06363 will be Exhibit P1986, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE ORIE: P1986 is admitted into evidence.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Q. Mr. Janc, I want to take you to annex C of your report.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, just to be sure, you first asked for
13 page 23 of that exhibit. I then pointed that there were 16 pages. Then
14 you gave an ERN number and you apparently added 14, and that was a
15 reference, then, to the page number, the e-court page number of this
16 document, so instead of page 23, it's now page 14, what we looked at.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you for clarifying that --
18 JUDGE ORIE: And the whole of the document now is admitted into
19 evidence. Please proceed.
20 MR. VANDERPUYE:
21 Q. Mr. Janc, I wanted to take you very quickly to annex C of your
22 report which concerns the DNA connections.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Just bear with me a moment while I switch around here so I can
25 give you the page. I have it as page 47 in e-court and, let me see, that
1 would be --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Annex C starts at an unpaged cover page and then the
3 next page starts with DNA connections, which is page 2 of the hard copy
4 of annex C.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
6 Q. And what I'd like to ask you, Mr. Janc, first of all, is this:
7 What is -- what do you mean, first of all, by a DNA connection; and
8 secondly, what is this particular annex intended to show?
9 A. Yes, DNA connection is when human remains of one individual were
10 found in two different graves, being either in two different primary
11 graves or being in primary and secondary grave or in two different
12 secondary graves. And what this table or this section is intend to show
13 is the connection between those graves.
14 Q. Does the table establish anything by -- in terms of primacy, in
15 terms of whether something is a primary grave or a secondary grave or
16 even a tertiary grave based upon the DNA links between those graves
18 A. Not really. The DNA connections will just show us that there is
19 a connection, strong connection, between those graves. The information
20 about which grave is primary or secondary will be found in other
21 documents like exhumation reports and findings during exhumations.
22 Q. You explained a little bit earlier in your report your
23 methodology in terms of counting the number of DNA connections or links
24 between graves as you've described it. Did you take into consideration,
25 in terms of that analysis, the data provided by the ICMP with respect to
1 the reassociations of DNA profiles among the graves?
2 A. Yes, of course, and this is the only way you can find the
3 connections between the graves, so you have to take into consideration
4 both main cases and reassociations which will tell you that certain body
5 parts, human remains, found in different graves will be part of one
7 Q. Did you evaluate other evidence in terms of establishing whether
8 or not, or expressing whether or not, the grave that you analysed were
9 primary, secondary or --
10 A. Yes, I did. Also other forensic evidence, artefacts, and
12 Q. And is that set out in this particular annex?
13 A. In this particular annex will only get information on the actual
14 number of connections between the graves.
15 Q. Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Vanderpuye, needless to say, that you've used
17 already that half an hour after this break.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: You're correct, Mr. President. I'm on my last
19 section and I hope to be done with Mr. Janc quite quickly. There are
20 three charts that I want to show him so that he can explain them to the
21 Chamber and that will be --
22 JUDGE ORIE: I must say in relation to the last part, the DNA
23 connections, some of the questions confused more than the -- confused
24 what is perfectly clear in the table itself. The table itself only
25 establishes that in the number of cases indicated, that body parts were
1 found in one grave and another grave belonging to the same person. That
2 said in one line and all that is primary and secondary, of course that's
3 not what the table says which is clearly -- is obvious from the table
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: Yes, Mr. President, you're right about that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, then let's proceed at this moment.
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: -- but there are charts at the end of this
8 particular section which do reflect those designations which I'm just
9 going to now.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Fine. Please proceed.
11 MR. VANDERPUYE:
12 Q. First let's stop at page 5, Mr. Janc. So that we can see how you
13 calculated the totals. That's ERN ending 784. We see here that you have
14 designations for primary to primary, primary to secondary, secondary to
15 secondary, and then total execution sites, secondary graves, for a total
16 of 1001?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is that reflected in the charts that you prepared in relation to
19 this section?
20 A. Yes, correct. It is. In this table and in charts.
21 Q. All right.
22 MR. VANDERPUYE: What I'd like to do then is to go to the charts
23 and hopefully I'll be able to get a page number because it runs -- the
24 pagination disappears for a while. The ERN number is 0808. All right.
25 Q. We are at chart number 1 in your report. Can you tell the
1 Chamber what this is intended to reflect?
2 MR. VANDERPUYE: And we can -- maybe we can blow it up and go
3 from one side to the other so it's a little bit easier to see.
4 THE WITNESS: Just -- I don't have anything on my screen and the
5 chart I have in front of me is not in colour so if you're going to --
6 talking about colours, I would need that picture. Okay. Yes. Thank
7 you. Now I can see it.
8 Yeah, this is the overall chart of all the DNA connections I was
9 able to establish reviewing the ICMP data. In the top of the chart you
10 have primary graves and underneath you have related secondary graves to
11 those site and how many connections between primary and secondary sites
12 have been established. So then you have different colours, for example,
13 for squares in green, they are -- they are the graves, mass graves,
14 exhumed by the BiH authorities. Those in brown colour are those exhumed
15 by the ICTY. So this is the overall chart. Then we have specific charts
16 for every single primary and second -- related secondary graves.
17 MR. VANDERPUYE:
18 Q. So, for example, if we start at the left we have the Branjevo
19 Farm. You indicate Pilica in parentheses and Kozluk. And then you've
20 established that, for example, in Branjevo there are 43 cases that relate
21 to a number of secondary mass graves, both exhumed by the ICTY and by the
22 BH authorities. And in the case of Kozluk, there are 113 such cases
23 linked to those group of secondary mass graves; is that right?
24 A. Yes, correct.
25 Q. Okay. And that's how you would read this particular chart and
1 understand it?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. There are also diagonal lines that appear to connect secondary
4 graves to secondary graves that are related to the primary graves of both
5 Branjevo and Kozluk?
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. And that would be here depicted as , for example, between
8 Cancari 11 and Cancari 5, and Cancari 4 and Cancari 9; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, correct.
10 Q. I just want to make sure that we've understood how to read this.
11 If we can go over to the far right - thank you - we can see a combination
12 of graves here that are interrelated, Glogova 1 and Glogova 2 --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- are both primary graves --
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. -- that are linked by DNA?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you explain that?
19 A. So obviously body parts of one individual were found in two
20 different primary graves, which mean that they were deposited into the
21 primary graves as such in different pieces. So one individual has been
22 already in different body parts have been already taken from somewhere to
23 this execution site -- to this primary grave.
24 Q. All right. And in relation to both of these graves, there are
25 several secondary mass graves that you have indicated. From left to
1 right, we see there are 63 cases from Glogova 1 and 15 cases linked to
2 Bljeceva graves, the Budak graves.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then 12 cases and 43 cases from Glogova 2, is it, that are
5 linked to the Zalazje mass graves, and the Zeleni Jadar mass graves; is
6 that right?
7 A. Yes, Glogova 1 or Glogova 2. It's not obvious from this chart
8 but it will be from the subsequent charts.
9 Q. Okay. And also Kravica warehouse is directly linked to the
10 secondary mass graves at Zeleni Jadar?
11 A. Yes, correct. We have a direct DNA link between Kravica
12 warehouse and Zeleni Jadar 2 because body parts of one individual were
13 found in secondary mass grave Zeleni Jadar 2, and at Kravica warehouse
14 execution site there was a tooth of that individual found.
15 Q. Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'd like to go to the next chart very quickly.
17 This one I think we can make a little smaller so we can fit both on the
18 page. That seems fine.
19 Q. Mr. Janc, can you tell us what we are seeing here?
20 A. This is the broken down chart per execution site and now we have
21 actually the overview of how -- how many connections is found related to
22 particular execution site and actually primary grave and secondary grave.
23 Q. Okay. And that's for both -- here in this case it's for both
24 Branjevo and Pilica -- Branjevo, Pilica and Kozluk; is that right?
25 A. Yes, correct.
1 Q. Between these two --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one question? The relatively low
3 numbers of primary graves and secondary graves in the previous picture or
4 here the execution site and the various graves, often if a primary grave
5 is -- when the bodies are taken out and moved elsewhere, that means that
6 most likely there is only a limited number of DNA material left behind in
7 the primary grave, or at the grave site. Is that well understood? And
8 does that explain why sometimes the numbers are relatively low of the DNA
10 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct. That's exactly what happened there
11 because, you know, you have a relatively small number of human remains
12 left in the primary grave. But you -- you can see from this chart that
13 you have in some cases really high number of cases between secondary
14 graves because individuals were taken to secondary graves, and in two of
15 them you can find or even one individual can be found in three different
16 graves. So that's why you have more connections between secondary graves
17 than --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, because most of the bodily remains remained in
19 those secondary graves, and often after some damage of being torn apart
20 in various secondary graves, if I understand your testimony well.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour, you're perfectly right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed, Mr. Vanderpuye.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Q. Two questions I want to ask you in relation to this particular
25 chart. The first is, at the very bottom of the screen we can see a DNA
1 connection between two secondary graves to both Branjevo military farm,
2 Pilica and Kozluk --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- which the Chamber has received evidence are independent
5 primary mass grave sites.
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. So I'd like to ask you if you were able to provide an explanation
8 as to how it is that you would have a DNA connection between secondary
9 graves related to independent, separate primary mass grave sites. The
10 second part is for an explanation as to why Liplje 2, although is a --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could we perhaps -- or are the questions so related
12 that we cannot understand the answer to the first question. Let's take
13 them one by one.
14 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: The first question is about the horizontal link
16 between the Kozluk and Branjevo cases.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes. We have to understand that those two primary
18 graves have been re-exhumed at about the same time, and according to my
19 understanding from the investigation itself, the same transport means
20 have been used during reburial operation. So in this case, it might be
21 easily that this is contamination, that some body parts from one
22 particular primary grave have remained on the truck while there has been
23 exhumation, exhumation of the other primary graves. That's one of the
24 possible conclusions why these appeared as such. And the same would be
25 the case for when you started this question for Liplje 2, connection
1 between Liplje 2 and Cancari 3, it might be the same kind of explanation.
2 MR. VANDERPUYE:
3 Q. Thank you for that explanation. It obviates the need for my
4 second question. If we could just go to the next chart, Mr. Janc.
5 JUDGE ORIE: That was the third one, the last one,
6 Mr. Vanderpuye?
7 MR. VANDERPUYE: Well, there are actually five. Perhaps I can go
8 to the last one and that might be more efficient because this
9 incorporates some of the previous findings, although it is, as you can
10 see, a somewhat --
11 JUDGE ORIE: Do it as you wish but I expect you now to put
12 focused questions to the witness and what we can see and read is there,
13 what needs an explanation as with the last few questions certainly
14 assists. And could you please finish within the next five to seven
15 minutes. Please proceed.
16 MR. VANDERPUYE: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. All right, Mr. Janc, we are now at chart 4C. And this concerns
18 Glogova 2 and Glogova 1. First of all, what am I looking at here? What
19 do we see?
20 A. As with previous charts this is just a -- as you can see a
21 network of connections between primary grave Glogova and related
22 secondary graves. So that's how many connections have been established
23 between those primary and secondary graves.
24 Q. All right. So there were no connections that you were able to
25 establish between Glogova 1 and either Bljeceva 1 or Bljeceva 2?
1 A. Yes, correct. There is only connections established between
2 Glogova 2 and Bljeceva 1 and Bljeceva 2.
3 Q. Okay. And the blue lines that we see between them represent
4 exactly what?
5 A. These are connections between the secondary graves.
6 Q. And are these subsumed in the previous charts, particularly chart
7 4B, and 4A, which preceded this one?
8 A. Yes, correct. Chart 4A would represent only the connections
9 between primary and secondary graves, and the chart 4B would represent
10 only the connections between those secondary graves and this is the
11 overall chart of both together.
12 Q. In terms of the -- in terms of the designation of a primary --
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: I'm sorry, Mr. Ivetic.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
15 MR. IVETIC: I apologise for the interruption. But I'm advised
16 that my client would like to use the facilities, the restroom, and was
17 asking to be excused for that.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, he is excused. Does he want us to wait or
19 could we continue?
20 MR. IVETIC: We can continue.
21 JUDGE ORIE: We can continue. Then, Mr. Mladic is excused for a
22 moment. Please proceed.
23 MR. VANDERPUYE:
24 Q. In terms of the designation of primary and secondary graves that
25 we see here depicted in this section, should we take it that that
1 designation derives from other information that is not shown in this
2 particular section of which you were made privy or had a chance to
4 A. Yes, correct.
5 Q. And does the evidence as presented in your report with respect to
6 the DNA connection that you were able to establish corroborate or is it
7 consistent with the other forensic evidence that you reviewed concerning
8 what graves relate to which?
9 A. Yes, it is perfectly consistent with previous findings.
10 Q. Did you find any inconsistencies in the data that you reviewed
11 versus the other forensic data such as artefacts, anthropological issues,
12 that you reviewed concerning the exhumations of these graves?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you describe these graves or the relationship of primary and
15 secondary graves in a map that you prepared in relation to your previous
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I can just show you, and this will be my last
19 exhibit, Mr. President, 65 ter -- before I do that let me just tender --
20 yes, let me tender the report.
21 MR. IVETIC: No objection to the report but there is no B/C/S
23 MR. VANDERPUYE: It will be MFIed, I understand, but the
24 translation is still pending, Mr. President, with your leave.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, the number assigned?
1 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 30169 will be MFIed P1987, pending
2 B/C/S translation.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And keeps that status until we have received in
4 e-court the translation.
5 MR. VANDERPUYE: If I could show the witness, please,
6 65 ter 19929.
7 Q. Do you recognise this map?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Is this the map -- is this the map that you prepared in order to
10 depict the relationship of primary and -- primary mass graves, secondary
11 mass graves and so on, based on the information that you reviewed in
12 connection with your report?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. If we could just zoom in at the top of the map, we can see a
15 number of arrows and directions and groups of certain graves. Are all of
16 these graves represented in your current report, your -- the one that you
17 completed in June?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And if we can go down the page, we can see yet another
20 series of arrows and graves. Are all of these graves contained in your
21 current report?
22 A. These and a few more.
23 Q. Okay. And so there are graves that are referred to in your
24 report that are not contained in this map?
25 A. Yes, because this is an earlier map which would correspond with
1 my earlier reports.
2 Q. Does this map depict in general terms the movement or direction
3 of bodies, remains, from the main mass grave sites, the disturbed mass
4 grave sites referred to in annex A, to the secondary grave sites?
5 A. Yes, correct, correct. This is what the red arrows are showing
7 Q. And that's accurate to date?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Thank you.
10 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, I would like to tender this
11 document, 65 ter 19929.
12 MR. IVETIC: No objection.
13 MR. VANDERPUYE: And that will conclude my direct examination
14 with your leave, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The number to be assigned, Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1988, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P1988 is admitted into evidence.
18 MR. VANDERPUYE: Mr. President, Ms. Stewart informs me that
19 I should inform the Court that 65 ter 6358A, P1985, has now been uploaded
20 to e-court.
21 JUDGE ORIE: And therefore where it was assigned the MFI status,
22 it is now admitted into evidence under the number, Mr. Registrar, you had
23 provisionally assigned was?
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P1986, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P1986 therefore is now admitted.
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: No, P1985 is the correct number.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P1985, that's one page of 65 ter 06358.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then P1985 is admitted into evidence. P1986
4 was already admitted into evidence.
5 Then I wonder whether it would not be wiser to take the break now
6 and that you start your cross-examination after the break, Mr. Ivetic.
7 I had forgotten that we lost half an hour in the beginning, a
8 little bit over half an hour. If we could continue for the next
9 25 minutes, Mr. Ivetic, or would you like to ...
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll continue?
12 MR. IVETIC: We can continue, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Mr. Janc, you will now be cross-examined by
14 Mr. Ivetic. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence team of Mr. Mladic and
15 you'll find him to your left.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
20 Q. Good day, Mr. Janc.
21 A. Good day.
22 Q. Mr. Janc, apart from testifying before the Tribunal as a witness
23 for the Prosecution in several cases relating to Srebrenica, have you had
24 occasion to testify as a witness, whether fact or expert, in any other
1 A. You mean before the Tribunal?
2 Q. Before or after.
3 A. I testified before the national court in Slovenia.
4 Q. In terms of that prior testimony before the national court in
5 Slovenia, did you use any of the similar methodology or reporting styles
6 as in the reports that you have testified for in front of the Tribunal?
7 A. It's difficult to say that I've used the similar or same
8 methodology because the cases were different, of different types, what
9 I've been investigating then and what's been investigating here.
10 Q. Okay. In relation to your time spent at the Office of the
11 Prosecutor of the Tribunal, did your duties include interviewing
12 witnesses and potential suspects for ongoing cases?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were any of these interviews related to the case against
15 General Ratko Mladic, that is to say, related to the indictment against
16 General Mladic?
17 A. I would say yes because they were related to the entire
18 Srebrenica investigation and they would be related to your client as
20 Q. Thank you, sir. While you were employed with the Office of the
21 Prosecutor, were you ever tasked with assisting in the drafting or
22 amending of any indictments?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Were any of the investigations that you took part in while at the
25 Office of the Prosecutor related to verifying any claims of ethnic Muslim
1 victims who had been killed by fellow ethnic Muslim forces in Srebrenica,
2 either in the enclave itself or during the march of the Bosnian Muslim
3 column of men to Tuzla after the fall of Srebrenica?
4 A. No, I don't think so.
5 Q. Now I want to ask you about a different topic. Are you familiar
6 from your work of a military and civil protection concept in the former
7 SFRY called sanitisation of the terrain in English or "asanacija terena"
8 in B/C/S?
9 A. Yeah, I heard about that concept, yes.
10 Q. Would you agree with me that this concept would involve the
11 obligation to clear from a former combat zone or battlefield all
12 artefacts of a battle including weapons, munitions, debris, and
13 biological remains, whether human or of animals, and in the case of human
14 remains, bury the same?
15 A. I'm sure it includes some of those but I cannot really affirm it
16 includes everything.
17 Q. Okay. We have had some testimony of another witness in these
18 proceedings, RM306, who testified that pursuant to the legal obligations
19 of the SFRY Law on Civil Protection - and this can be found at transcript
20 page 11464 through 11465 - the bodies and remains recovered by asanacija
21 would be buried in communal or mass graves rather than individual graves.
22 Does this accord with your knowledge of asanacija in the SFRY system?
23 A. I can't really say it -- it's -- I don't really have knowledge
24 about specific term, what would include.
25 Q. Fair enough. Now, I want to ask you just briefly about the time
1 period of June 2003 through June 2004, while you were in the European
2 Police Mission to Bosnia as an advisor to the criminal investigations
3 department of the Republika Srpska MUP in Banja Luka. Did any of your
4 work as an advisor at that time involve any investigations by the RS MUP
5 in Banja Luka relating to Srebrenica?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now I want to take some time to inquire about the work that you
8 did in preparing your report. In relation to the material that you read,
9 you identified witness statements and other -- I think you referred to
10 some sort of internal reports that were prepared. First of all, could
11 you identify for us, when you referred to internal writings or memoranda,
12 what are you referring to?
13 A. Yes, this was a question when I was asked what kind of documents
14 I have been in general reviewing while working for the OTP and one of
15 those records would be also these internal records, so you would find,
16 for example, spreadsheets on conducting investigations, various note to
17 files or this kind of internal correspondence or internal investigative
18 documentation I was referring to. But in terms of my report, for
19 drafting my report, whatever I have used, I have referenced it in my
21 Q. Okay. Now, in relation to the witness statements that you would
22 have reviewed to come to conclusions, did you -- let's put it this way,
23 the witness statement that you read, did they comprise a percentage of
24 the available statements relating to the events in Srebrenica or were
25 they all of the available statements relating to Srebrenica? Is there
1 any way you could identify for us what portion of the totality of the
2 statements you would have reviewed or had access to for purposes of doing
3 your work?
4 A. I did have access to all of those statements, or at least to
5 those who -- which were not restricted. And even if they were
6 restricted, if they were related to Srebrenica events I would get access
7 to those. So the total number, I don't know how many of them I have
8 reviewed but it might be quite many in the period of five years.
9 Q. In relation to those that you did review, were these selected by
10 someone else for you or were they all ones that you selected to review
11 for whatever reason you selected them?
12 A. It was mainly selected by me. You know there were definitely
13 instances where someone would ask to you review a certain statement for
14 certain things, but if I'm focused on my report now it was, you know,
15 basically selected by me, especially when I was trying to establish or
16 verify certain facts, yes, that's what I've been doing. So I've been
17 trying to locate them myself and to review them myself.
18 Q. Thank you. Now, you've also identified here today, and I believe
19 each of your reports makes clear that they are a continuation of the work
20 of Mr. Dean Manning. Did you have any communications with Mr. Manning
21 for purposes of performing your work and preparing these reports as a
22 continuation of the work that he did?
23 A. I had had a contact with him, I'd say personal contacts perhaps,
24 I think, two times in my life so far. So first time when he came here in
25 2007 to prepare his update for Popovic trial, at that time, we did
1 discuss the issues but for -- just because I was curious of what he had
2 been doing and what he had achieved and everything. That had nothing to
3 do with my report which I drafted later, and at that time I was talking
4 to him I didn't even know that I would be tasked to do that. So for the
5 second time, I think I saw him after he finished his testimony in one of
6 the cases and we just briefly chatted but not about the report, so
7 I haven't received any kind of directions or anything from him.
8 Q. Thank you. Now, did you just take the work of Mr. Manning as a
9 finished product and work from there or did you go back and actually try
10 to double check or verify any of the work of Mr. Manning arising from his
12 A. There were certain verifications needed, but not -- not many,
13 I would say, because it's -- my report is focusing, you know, on numbers,
14 itself, and connections and surface remains, and this is the area, let's
15 say, surface remains, which I modified in terms of what he concluded in
16 his earlier reports so because he didn't have enough information
17 available in respect to that portion of my report.
18 Q. I'd like to now move on to another one of the sources that you
19 cited, the ICMP reports. In relation to those -- excuse me, I should say
20 lists. In relation to the ICMP lists, did you undertake to perform any
21 investigation of the identifications that were made by ICMP?
22 A. Yes. In some cases, yes, you know. In majority of cases, no,
23 but in some cases yes, I did do a kind of investigation, when there was a
24 kind of a situation which would not be consistent with findings in -- in
25 our investigation. And I detected some cases in their list, in their
1 earlier lists, where they would identify individuals as being related to
2 Srebrenica and they were actually -- and actually they were not.
3 Actually they were victims of some other incidents from 1993, 1992, and
4 in their subsequent updates which they provided to us, they actually
5 removed those individuals from the list. Some of them were identified by
6 themselves but, yes, there were such instances but, you know, there were
7 a small number of such cases.
8 Q. In relation to those instances where you did check and you did
9 find errors of how ICMP identified these individuals and how your own
10 investigations identified these individuals, did you contact ICMP? Did
11 you have a role in the subsequent lists that changed that information?
12 A. I'm quite sure, you know, I'm not certain but I'm quite sure that
13 this information was forwarded to the ICMP and they rechecked their list
14 and they reverified these facts. But nevertheless, if I identified such
15 individuals, I haven't included them into my report.
16 Q. Now, you also identified various BiH authorities as being a
17 source for your reports and I want to just clarify the -- you did not in
18 direct examination include the BiH Ministry of Defence. Can we conclude
19 from that that you did not consult with the Ministry of Defence of the
20 BiH for purpose of generating your reports?
21 A. Not me personally, no.
22 Q. And the decision not to consult the BiH Ministry of Defence, was
23 that a decision that you reached by yourself or was it a decision reached
24 by someone else at the Prosecution?
25 A. No. There was no -- it's not about decision here. It's about
1 the need. Because I did know that at that time there were inquiries made
2 at the Ministry of Defence by our demographics unit and I did get
3 information from their side about what they have been provided with.
4 Q. Okay. In the course of your work in preparing your reports, did
5 you have occasion to review any of the Defence demographic expert
6 submissions from either the Popovic or any of the other cases that you
7 were involved in at the ICTY?
8 A. Yes, I think I did review them, yes.
9 Q. As part of your investigative work and in preparing your reports,
10 did you have occasion to take into account casualties that may have
11 occurred as part of the Bosnian Muslim column of men that left Srebrenica
12 in July 1995 and attempted to break through the Serb lines to get to
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Could you tell me what kinds of sources did you consult to gain
16 information about the casualties that occurred to members of the Bosnian
17 Muslim column of men that attempted to break through to Tuzla?
18 A. Yes, various sources. You know, there we have several statements
19 about those casualties, what happened to certain individuals breaking
20 through. Then for the purposes of my report, one of the main sources
21 was, of course, the data on surface remains because many of them were
22 just left behind, and this is one of the main sources. Also, there were
23 sources, some witnesses, some expert witnesses, testified in this
24 courtroom saying about the rough numbers of those casualties. So I did
25 take into consideration those sources, yes.
1 Q. Thank you, sir. I'd like to now review something from one of the
2 prior cases that you testified on with you.
3 MR. IVETIC: If we could have 1D1196 in e-court. That should be
4 the 4 May Popovic transcript, and if we can have the page 27 in e-court,
5 which should correlate to transcript page 33593 of that case's
7 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters. Thank
9 MR. IVETIC: I will endeavour to do so.
10 Q. Sir, I'd like to ask you, from line 9 onward, to follow along
11 with me as I go over this prior testimony of yours.
12 "Sir, I'm going to ask you a couple of preliminary questions.
13 First, I'd like to know, is it fair to state that the number of missing
14 persons includes the people who have perished as a result of land mines,
15 suicide, or the result of legitimate combat engagements in your analysis?
16 "A. Yes, most probably, yes.
17 "Q. Do you know what number that is?
18 "A. No, I don't know the exact number, but I would say most of
19 the cases are related to the surface remains.
20 "Q. Okay. With the -- including the surface remains, do you
21 know of any evidence - because I know you've read as your addendum, I
22 think, reflected various witness statements and other documents and
23 testimonies in this case - do you know that the number resulting from
24 combat engagements, suicides, and land mines is roughly anywhere from
25 1.000 to 2.000?
1 "A. No, I can't say.
2 "Q. Would be reasonable in your view?
3 "A. Closer to 1.000, perhaps not to 2.000."
4 And now, sir, first I have to ask you if you can confirm that
5 this transcript selection appears to accurately depict your answers to
6 these questions?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And are the answers as reflected given truthful so that you would
9 so testify again today if asked the same questions?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. Now, if we could turn to the next page of this transcript,
12 so it's page 28 in e-court, correlating to transcript page 33594, I would
13 like to revisit the questions and answers there beginning at line 1 with
15 "Q. Here is what Mr. Butler said -- you know who he is; right?
16 "A. Yes, I know.
17 "Q. He testified on the 23rd of January, 2008, and it starts on
18 page 20212. And we had a little discussion about that with him, but
19 particularly on page 20251, on lines 12 through 14, for my learned
20 friends, in discussing legitimate combat engagements with respect to the
21 Bosnian Muslim military column that was going through Susnjari and trying
22 to make it through Kladanj and Tuzla, he says, quote, in answer to my
24 'Yes, sir. I mean, I think the 1.000 to 2.000 number would be
25 reasonable with respect to the combat casualties, starting, you know,
1 from 12 July through the life span of the column which is effectively
2 18 July.'
3 "A. Yes.
4 "Q. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Butler's military
5 analytical assessment that the casualties as a result of the military
6 column was anywhere from 1.000 to 2.000?
7 "A. Based on the information we have now, I still think it's
8 closer to 1.000.
9 "Q. Okay. And that's based on what, sir?
10 "A. Based on the identifications we have for surface remains,
11 which is 648 now."
12 First of all, sir, does this excerpt appear to accurately depict
13 the answers that you gave to these questions in the Popovic case?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Can you tell me if those answers were truthful so that you would
16 so testify again today?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, just to clarify, the Mr. Butler that was discussed in this
19 transcript, is this the person, a military expert, whom you had
20 referenced today without giving his name as being one of the sources for
21 the investigation that you undertook?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And you seem to rely here on the number of identified surface
24 remains for your lower estimate of closer to 1.000 killed in the column.
25 Would you agree with me, looking at the surface remains, that -- that
1 there are about 300 that have not been identified by DNA?
2 A. 300 of what?
3 Q. Surface remains, recovered surface remains. Or surface remain
4 cases, I should say.
5 A. It's difficult to say how many because we don't know how many --
6 actually we do know. I did a statistic on that and I will tell you. For
7 756 individuals, it was -- I think it was 1.1 case needed for one
8 individual to be identified. So, for example, if you have 1100
9 individual cases, that would mean - this is again statistically
10 speaking - around 1.000 individuals.
11 Q. So the question that I have for you, then, is your definition of
12 casualties from the column is almost exclusively, then, those that are
13 qualified as surface remains; is that accurate?
14 A. Not necessarily but mostly yes. Because what we have in other
15 graves, there are evidence that these are people who has suffered from
16 the executions. And then we have the section where we have 756 people
17 found on the surface, and of course there is still I think around
18 800 individuals who are still missing, not being found or exhumed, and
19 identified, so we don't know what happened with those 800. So it may be
20 that they are one day found on the surface and they will be included into
21 that counting but it may also be that they will be found in mass graves.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic --
23 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: -- I'm looking at the clock. I think it's time for
25 us to adjourn.
1 But before doing so, Mr. Janc, we would like to see you back
2 tomorrow morning at half past 9.00 -- one second, please.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Sorry.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Janc, at page 83, line 8, you are recorded as
6 having said: "So, for example, if you have 1100 individual cases, that
7 would mean - this is again statistically speaking - around 1.000
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say 1100?
11 THE WITNESS: No, it's 1.000. For example, if you have 1.000
12 identified individuals and for one individual, statistically speaking, by
13 now it's 1.1 case needed so it will -- it means that 1.000 individuals
14 will occupy 1.100 cases.
15 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If I understand you well that means that if you have
17 1100 cases, that there would be a hundred of those cases which could be
18 linked to a hundred of the remaining cases which would reduce the total
19 number of persons to 1.000, there being 100 double countings due to two
20 cases referring to one person? Perhaps I have not been very clear.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, you know, it's again statistically it's
22 difficult to say how many of them have not yet been tested but still,
23 yes, statistically speaking, you need 1100 cases for 1.000 individuals.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then having verified this, we would like to
25 see you back tomorrow morning at 9.30. I would like to instruct you that
1 you should not speak or communicate in whatever way with whomever about
2 your testimony, whether that is testimony you've given today or testimony
3 still to be given tomorrow. You may follow the usher.
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand, Your Honour. Thank you very
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Meanwhile before we adjourn, and seeking the
8 indulgence of all those assisting us, I'd like to very briefly deal with
9 a few matters. I really keep it short.
10 The Defence has requested an extension of 60 days to respond to
11 the Prosecution's motion to admit evidence from the bar table concerning
12 the SRK and VRS materials related to the siege of Sarajevo.
13 The Chamber notes in this regard that while the motion concerns a
14 large number of documents, most are only one or two pages in length. The
15 Chamber therefore grants the request in part, allowing an additional
16 30 days to respond and hereby sets a new deadline of the 13th of
18 The Defence has also requested an extension of 21 days to respond
19 to the Prosecution's 32nd motion to admit evidence pursuant to
20 Rule 92 bis, and as a preliminary matter, the Chamber notes that although
21 the Defence motion makes a single reference to a requested deadline of
22 the 4th of October, the Chamber considers this to be a typo, since the
23 remainder of the motion refers to a 21-day extension which would make the
24 new deadline the 4th of September. After considering the relative length
25 and the complexity of the Prosecution's motion, the Chamber hereby grants
1 the Defence request for a 21-day extension and sets a new deadline of the
2 4th of September.
3 The last issue I will deal with.
4 On the 15th of August the Defence filed a motion for an extension
5 of the deadline to respond to the Prosecution's 11th motion to add
6 documents to the 65 ter exhibit list. The Chamber notes that the Defence
7 motion appears to mistakenly request both an extension of 30 days, with a
8 deadline of the 16th of September, and an extension of 60 days with a
9 deadline of the 14th of October. The Chamber is seeking clarification
10 from the Defence on this matter before we will be able to decide.
11 MR. IVETIC: Can we let you know first thing in the morning,
12 Your Honour?
13 JUDGE ORIE: First thing in the morning and then you'll have to
14 wait for a decision until we have received that information.
15 Then we will adjourn for the day and we'll resume tomorrow, the
16 20th of August, at 9.30 in the morning, in this same courtroom, III.
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.21 p.m.,
18 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 20th day of
19 August, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.