1 Friday, 22 November 2013
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
7 Mr. Registrar, would you please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours.
9 This is the case IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Judge Fluegge is, for urgent reasons, not able to sit today.
12 Therefore, for a limited time, Judge Moloto and myself, we have
13 considered whether it would be in the interests of justice to continue
14 hearing the case under Rule 15 bis, and we decided it was.
15 Therefore, we'll proceed.
16 There are a few matters which are of some urgency, and therefore
17 I would like to deal with them first before we ask the witness to be
18 escorted in the courtroom.
19 First, on the 20th of November, 2013, the Prosecution announced
20 that it may make further submissions about adducing evidence which had
21 not been adduced in reliance on certain adjudicated facts, which have now
22 been vacated. The Prosecution also announced the tendering of one
23 additional witness. The Chamber requests the Prosecution to file any
24 such motions no later than the 2nd of December, 2013.
25 Then we briefly move into private session.
1 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 The next item I'd like to deal with briefly is the Prosecution's
25 announcement of tendering proof of death documents.
1 On the 18th of November of this year, the Prosecution announced
2 its intention to tender approximately 1400 documents underlying the
3 expert report, P2797, of Witness Tabeau. The Prosecution argued that
4 (a), even taking Witness Tabeau's evidence at its highest without the
5 actual documents in evidence, the Chamber might have been left curious as
6 to how certain information was gathered and how conclusions were drawn in
7 the report, which analyses these document. And, (b), that all victims
8 deserved to be named as a victim in the final judgement.
9 The Chamber recalls its previous guidance that underlying
10 documents to expert reports should, as a general rule, not be tendered
11 into evidence. More specifically on the 17th of October the Chamber
12 stated the following - and I quote - in its correspondence in relation to
13 Witness Tabeau, the Prosecution states:
14 "Should the Chamber find she is an expert and admit her POD
15 expert report, it's not the Prosecution intention, as a general rule, to
16 tender documents related to victims which are not specifically challenged
17 by the Mladic Defence, absent a specific challenge the Prosecution
18 considers tendering the underlying documents may, in most cases, be
20 And then I continue with the quote from what the Chamber said:
21 "Based on this, the Chamber understands that the Prosecution will
22 proceed in accordance with the Chamber's guidance with respect to
23 Witness Tabeau. With regard to the Prosecution's reference to wanting to
24 tender 2.000 documents with Witness Tabeau, the Chamber then understands
25 that this is only so if the Defence specifically challenges the expert's
1 finding in relation to each victim."
2 And now I'm at the end of the quote of what the Chamber said.
3 The Prosecution has not argued that the Defence challenged
4 specific findings of the expert. Witness Tabeau's report, P2797, is
5 extremely lengthy, at 656 pages, and any open questions as to how she
6 drew certain conclusions could have been asked during her examinations.
7 Furthermore, the Chamber does not consider that every victim of a crime
8 necessarily needs to be mentioned in the final judgement by name,
9 individually by name. Tendering a large number of underlying documents
10 risks duplicating the sources needed to make a factual finding in
11 relation to the death of individuals.
12 The Prosecution has not argued and it does not appear that the
13 underlying documents have any additional value vis-à-vis the expert
14 report. Under these circumstances, the Chamber considers that the
15 Prosecution's anticipated tendering does not assist the Chamber and
16 strongly encourages it to re-evaluate its approach prior to any further
17 submissions on this matter.
18 Then I move to the next item.
19 In a filing of the 20th of November, 2013, the Prosecution
20 indicated that it would re-call Witness Barry Hogan as a result of the
21 Appeals Chamber's decision on adjudicated facts. The Chamber considers
22 this as a request to be permitted to call Hogan for additional evidence.
23 Now, before deciding, could the Defence state its position as to
24 the request of the Prosecution to be permitted to call Mr. Hogan.
25 MR. LUKIC: We don't have any objections.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then the request to re-call Mr. Hogan is granted.
2 We will now move on to hear the evidence of the witness.
3 Could the witness be escorted into the courtroom.
4 Mr. Traldi.
5 MR. TRALDI: Mr. President, as he is brought in, I just wanted to
6 note the last document from yesterday, the minutes from the 11th Session
7 of the Sanski Most Municipality Assembly Executive Council, we've
8 uploaded matching versions under 65 ter 06442A.
9 [The witness takes the stand]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning, Mr. Brown.
11 Mr. Brown, I would like to remind you that you're still bound by
12 the solemn declaration you've given at the beginning of your testimony.
13 WITNESS: EWAN McGREGOR BROWN [Resumed]
14 JUDGE ORIE: And Mr. Lukic will now continue his
16 Mr. Lukic, please proceed.
17 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Brown.
20 A. Good morning.
21 MR. LUKIC: Then if we can see in the e-court 06442A.
22 This is record from the 11th Session of executive committee of
23 municipality of Sanski Most. And we need page 5 in B/C/S. And since I
24 haven't seen the English version yet --
25 MR. TRALDI: I believe it will be page 3 in the English,
1 Mr. President.
2 MR. LUKIC: Thank you. Yes. [Interpretation] We can see and we
3 will start with Kalacun. You will find his name on the top of the
4 English page. We need page 5 in B/C/S. Page 5 in e-court. I don't know
5 whether we can do that.
6 MR. TRALDI: It -- I think, based on the re-upload, it may be
7 page 4 in e-court and I'd ask -- and I'd suggest the third and fourth
8 speakers from the top are what Mr. Lukic may be looking for.
9 MR. LUKIC: That's it. Thank you. So ...
10 Q. [Interpretation] Here, we can see that Mr. Kalacun first said as
12 "I would like to ask the IO chairman and to inform us of the
13 general position of the Krajina AR government on the exodus from the
14 Serbian state."
15 Nedeljko Rasula responds and says:
16 "There is no general position, there are no instructions, nobody
17 is forced to go into exile. The basic principle is that citizens should
18 decide where they want to live. If they want to leave, they should be
19 allowed to leave with a certain supervision and protection. Those who
20 wish to remain in the municipality will be allowed to stay, only if they
21 have not participated in any underhand activities. Those who wish to
22 leave will have to cover the costs of their journey, because we have no
23 resources for this.
24 "M. Lukic: According to international law, exodus cannot be
25 prevented anywhere. Those who wish to leave should be helped to do so,
1 and those who wish to stay should be allowed to stay."
2 Mr. Brown, were you aware of this document when you were drafting
3 your report?
4 A. I don't believe I was.
5 Could I see the date of the document, sir?
6 Q. As you can see, the minutes were taken on the
7 14th of August, 1992, during the 11th Session of this body.
8 A. Do you want me to comment on the document, sir, or --
9 Q. No, no, I have questions for you that I wish to ask you.
10 First of all, would you agree with me that this document was
11 exactly contrary to your conclusion in paragraph 2.160? I'm referring to
12 your report, sir.
13 A. No, I don't necessarily think it's contrary to the report at all.
14 I think by this time a large number of non-Serbs had already -- well, (a)
15 there had been attacks on non-Serb areas, a significant number of
16 non-Serbs had left or were in detention centres, and the timing of this
17 document comes around when there was significant international pressure
18 as a result of the media visits by international agencies and pressure by
19 the international community in the negotiations. And the document says
20 what it says, and some of the delegates, as you've read out, indicate
21 what they say. But --
22 Q. Therefore, according to you, this document is not contrary, does
23 not contradict your own findings.
24 A. No. I would have to read the whole document, and as I say, I
25 would argue that --
1 Q. I'm talking about the part of the document that we have just read
2 out. According to you, does this part of the document contradict your
3 own findings?
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I think that the witness has -- what was
5 read to him, he said it would not change and then he said apart from that
6 I would like to look at the whole of the document.
7 So he has answered your question. And it's also fair if the
8 witness wants to see the whole of the document to allow him. Not at this
9 moment. If you would give him a copy then he would see, perhaps, the
10 deals of how people were -- had to be transported on buses and how many
11 there were.
12 MR. LUKIC: For me, it is enough that he says that this part of
13 the document is not in contradiction with his --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
15 MR. LUKIC: With his findings.
16 And we will propose this document into evidence. So now we have
17 this A version which has translation.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, it would receive number ...
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 06442A receives number D432,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D432 is admitted.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We will look at another document
23 pertaining to that same area. As a matter of fact, we'll see two
25 First of all, let's look at 1D1456. Did we see the same document
1 yesterday perhaps? No, I'm sorry. We already saw this document.
2 I'm interested in seeing another one, which is 1D1457.
3 Q. Here, we can see -- just a moment. It's a document in which
4 Dr. Radovan Karadzic issued an order. The document was issued on the
5 23rd of July, 1992, before foreign journalists arrived and before all the
6 pressure was put on the government.
7 I apologise. Did you perhaps not hear me? 23rd July 1992 is the
8 date when this document was issued, before foreign journalists arrived,
9 and I'm referring to Gutman and Penny Marshall and others; right?
10 A. I think Gutman actually arrived on the 16th of July, in and
11 around that time.
12 Q. When did he publish his first texts?
13 A. I believe at the end of that month. So it might have been after
15 Q. In this order, in paragraph 2, President Karadzic orders as
17 "All inhabitants who surrender weapons and agree to live
18 peacefully and in keeping with the law must be enabled to remain in their
19 own homes and enjoy our protection."
20 Does this document contradict your findings, sir?
21 A. No, I don't think it does. I think it puts into context -- I
22 mean, at the beginning of the document it's talking about negotiations at
23 the London Conference, and at this time there was already information
24 coming out that -- well, first of all, there was already information
25 coming out in the international community that pressure was coming on the
1 Bosnian Serbs that this was happening. This is it -- and it wasn't just
2 Penny Marshall or Gutman that was creating this issue. And by this time,
3 large numbers of people had already been moved out but there were -- many
4 thousands were already in detention centres. This document doesn't say,
5 We should release all these individuals. It doesn't give any indication
6 as to why is it that the conditions are so bad that these people want to
7 move out? That there's a lot --
8 Q. You would agree -- so you would agree that this document is
9 perfectly in line with your own findings.
10 A. This --
11 Q. It is either in line of your findings or not. I don't need any
12 lengthy explanations. Yes or no.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It's not a simple yes or no issue. You know that
14 and it makes no sense to present it as if it were.
15 Please proceed. You have asked a question. The witness has
16 answered. He has explained why he considers the context of this document
17 such that it does not contradict his findings so, therefore, that is an
18 explained no.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now we will move on to another
21 topic: Preventing looting and prohibiting looting.
22 Q. In paragraph 2.186 of your report, are your findings which are
23 discussed in paragraphs 2.168 through 2.186. You say that looting was
24 allowed, providing that the looted goods ended up in the coffers of the
25 corps and not in the pockets of individuals.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment. As regards the
2 previous document that we showed to the witness, which is Dr. Karadzic's
3 order, is being tendered into evidence. The document number is 1D1457.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar, that document would receive
5 number ...
6 THE REGISTRAR: D433, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: D433 is admitted.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. And now I'd like to call
9 up 1D1465. As a matter of fact, this document has been admitted as
10 1D576 -- or perhaps not in our case. I apologise.
11 1D1465 is the correct number.
12 Q. This is a very short document, which was issued by the command of
13 the 30th Partizan Battalion on the 3rd of June, 1992, and under 1 it
15 "At all costs, prevent looting, arson, and private wars in the
16 zone of responsibility of the division.
17 "Protect refugees and innocent people and treat the surrendering
18 enemy according to the international law on prisoners of war.
19 "Take the most drastic legal and other measures up to and
20 including physical liquidation against those who violate this order."
21 Physical liquidation of one's own troop is a rather extreme
22 measure when it comes to disciplining one's troops. Would you agree with
24 A. Yes, it is, sir. I didn't see any examples in the documents I
25 reviewed that that actually happened. But, no, I do agree with your
1 point that physical liquidation of your own troops is the ultimate
2 sanction, I guess.
3 Q. This document is a military secret. It was not intended for the
4 media. It was for internal purposes only; right?
5 A. Yes, it's within the commander's.
6 Q. The date when this document was issued is the 3rd of June, 1992.
7 You will agree with me that the document was issued before any
8 international pressure was put to bear?
9 A. Yes. And I do know of some other examples in the collection of
10 similar instructions about -- which I reference and openly reference in
11 the report about behaviour, including references from the Main Staff
12 and -- and references from the 1st Krajina Corps.
13 Q. You agree with me, won't you, that no distinction is made here
14 between those who engage in looting for their own personal gain or for
15 the gain of their corps; right?
16 A. No, it doesn't make distinction here.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to tender this document
19 into evidence, please.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: D434, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And now let's look at 65 ter 16585.
24 It is a Prosecutor's document.
25 Q. The document was issued by the command of the 5th Corps prior to
1 the corps -- the corps' renaming. The Army of Republika Srpska was
2 established on the 12th of May, and a decision was made -- then taken on
3 its establishment.
4 This document was sent to 33 different addressees which can be
5 seen from the last page. And under 2, it says:
6 "2(a), raise the problem of criminal activity at all military
7 gatherings and meetings at all levels daily, pointing out crime,
8 particularly cases of looting, theft, and looting of private property,
9 rape and ill-treatment of the local population regardless of their ethnic
10 background. Anyone who has committed such crimes should be named,
11 publicly shamed and arrested, unless this has been done already, in front
12 of all the troops."
13 Further on, it says:
14 "Should these persons offer resistance during their arrest or
15 attempt to escape, apply the toughest possible physical methods,
16 including the use of fire-arms."
17 Would you agree with me that this was the position which was
18 adopted by the VRS from the JNA rules, from the very outset, from the
19 moment the VRS was first established?
20 A. As I've said, I've seen this document and a number of other
21 documents coming from the -- from the -- from the corps that articulate
22 similar -- this or similar type of activity. The issue is whether I saw
23 any rigorous, robust and effective measures taken by the corps in order
24 to implement this, and whether I saw investigations or prosecutions on
25 incidents and events, some of which were directly referenced in the
1 Krajina Corps documents and whether I saw any of this actually being
2 implemented, and I didn't. I saw one or two small examples in the
3 military prosecutor's court and the military court but those cases
4 were -- were effectively dismissed or ---or were not fully investigated.
5 And so I saw nothing that gave me the impression that these paper
6 instructions were, in fact, followed and rigorously implemented. But I
7 do accept, sir, your position, that this type of document -- there are a
8 number of those documents which were written through the period that I
10 Q. You've mentioned the archive. How much of the archive that
11 belonged to the military prosecutor did you actually review?
12 A. I -- I cannot remember in detail, sir. It was some time ago.
13 I -- I certainly looked at the records in 1992, and I certainly looked at
14 the records into 1993 for the 1st Krajina Corps. I can't remember how
15 far on I went. It was -- it was actually some time -- time -- time ago.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We would like to tender this document
17 into evidence, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Document 16585 receives number D435,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: D435 is admitted.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one more document about this
23 topic. Actually, two. The first one will be 65 ter 28410.
24 The document was issued on the 21st of May, 1992. It comes from
25 the 1st Krajina Corps Command. We need page 2 in B/C/S and page 3 in
2 Q. Let's look at bullet point 10. I'm going to read in B/C/S -- it
3 seems that the English version of the same text is somewhat shorter. I'm
4 reading bullet point 10:
5 "Provision of war-time units should follow the standard
6 procedure. Looting or other criminal acts on the ground should be
7 strictly prohibited."
8 Would you agree with me that this part of this document says that
9 the 1st Corps, in no way, wanted to resupply its coffers as a result of
10 looting and robbery. It does not wish that to happen; i.e., this is
11 contrary to your findings proffered under 2.186, isn't it?
12 A. No. So what happened in this section of the report is that I
13 state that there were -- setting aside whether General Talic stopped the
14 issue of looting in terms of investigating and prosecuting people,
15 setting that aside, which is a different issue, what I argue is that
16 General Talic issued instructions through his corps to prevent the issue
17 of looting. And I argue that he was unhappy about individual looting
18 occurring in his corps and issued these types of instructions.
19 Now, why he did that, he's a military commander. Issue of
20 looting is an issue of discipline as much as it is about criminality. So
21 I argue that he issued these instructions but he was happy to follow the
22 policy of the government, which I articulate in the section here, which
23 was that movable and immovable property was to be taken and centralised
24 and used for the benefit of the RS state. And that was a policy that he
25 was happy to follow and requested his soldiers to follow.
1 So he was unhappy with the issue of individual looting, and he
2 passed out a number of instructions to that. Whether those instructions
3 were effective, they were not. There was no prosecutions, no senior
4 commanders convicted. Nothing. So I argue that he did pass these
5 instructions out. But concurrently with this, what he did was asked his
6 soldiers to follow the government policy which was to take movable and
7 immovable property, to centralise it for the benefit of the state. And
8 that movable/immovable property was incredibly wide-ranging. It wasn't
9 just about abandoned apartments or military vehicles that could be
10 commandeered, it was a wide-spread array of materials, including money,
11 gold, and other personal items.
12 So, on the one hand, I differentiate between this issue of him
13 passing instructions relating to military discipline of his corps, and I
14 differentiate that from what the RS government was doing which was taking
15 large amounts of movable and immovable property through a formalised
16 process which he was happy to support. That's the argument I put in that
17 chapter, sir.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I tender this document.
20 MR. TRALDI: I believe it's already Exhibit P2873.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Then there's no need to pursue that. Please
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just one more document op this topic.
24 65 ter 16574 from the Prosecution list. It's, again, a document of the
25 command of the 1st Krajina Corps.
1 Q. At the top, we see in the introduction:
2 "From the Main Staff of the VRS of Bosnia-Herzegovina:
3 "We have received a document stressing the need to vigorously
4 oppose crime."
5 And in the fifth paragraph, we read:
6 "The Main Staff of the Army of the Serbian Republic of
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina is resolutely determined to eradicate such
8 occurrences ..."
9 The next paragraph:
10 "Disciplinary action must be taken against every perpetrator of
11 such offences, or in cases of serious offences, criminal proceedings must
12 be instituted."
13 Further down:
14 "The organs of the military police and security organs are
15 duty-bound to take measures to uncover these offences and their
16 perpetrators, whereas confiscated stolen goods, objects, money and other
17 items and the profit shall be confiscated against a receipt."
18 We see that these orders constantly insist that this phenomenon
19 must be eradicated. We have seen many documents that were not meant for
20 the public eye that were documents for internal use repeating the same
22 According to you, these orders keep being issued while the same
23 commands that issue them keep approving theft and keep tolerating it.
24 Is that your position?
25 A. This -- this document talks about the issue of all looting,
1 including looting of Serbian army -- other properties, weapons,
2 ammunition and equipment. So, again, I go back to this issue that
3 individuals making profit, war profiteers, individuals operating on their
4 own, I argue was not something that the Main Staff or the
5 1st Krajina Corps were -- were comfortable with. But come the middle of
6 July when the Bosnian Serb authorities passed their instructions saying
7 that all movable and immovable property, including money and gold and all
8 sorts of other issues, are to be centralised and used for the state and
9 that they pass that down to their soldiers, that's what I argue. I
10 don't -- I don't doubt these documents that -- but what they don't want
11 to do is -- individual speculators making money out -- or taking
12 advantage of the opportunities. But when it comes to a state process by
13 which similar types of property are centralised and used for the state,
14 they're happy to go along with that. That's my argument.
15 Looting is, in part, a military discipline issue, so it wouldn't
16 surprise me that in a way the Main Staff and the 1st Krajina Corps are
17 putting these instructions out because it does cut to the issue of
18 military discipline as much as it does to the issue of criminality. But
19 I go back to my point that these instructions, even setting aside whether
20 these instructions had any effect at all, and I didn't really see that
21 they did, I differentiate between individuals and their dislike of
22 individuals making -- taking the opportunity to enrich themselves from
23 that of the Bosnian state's position where, in the middle of June, they
24 pass instructions saying this stuff is to be centralised and used for the
25 benefit of the state.
1 Q. [No interpretation]
2 A. Sorry, there also comes point if you keep putting these
3 instructions out and nothing happens, these instructions become
4 meaningless. If soldiers know that -- that, yes, there's -- these
5 instructions could come out but no one is really charged, and,
6 importantly, no senior people are charged, these are -- or investigated
7 and subsequently prosecuted, these instructions become meaningless. They
8 become worthless. And there were a number of these instructions which I
9 did not see being followed up by robust investigations, and not just
10 investigations in relation to the low-level perpetrators, but
11 significant -- significant investigations that result in senior officers
12 being held accountable. Not because they themselves may specifically
13 have been involved in looting but they are responsible for the activities
14 of their troops. I saw none of that. And so if these instructions and
15 similar ones to it are pushed out week after week after week with nothing
16 happening, that there's not been a diminishing -- diminishing in terms of
17 the criminality, and that there is no apparent robust and serious
18 investigations, in particular against senior officers, then what happens
19 is these instructions become pointless and meaningless and subordinates
20 begin to know it. And so there are many areas about this issue of
21 looting that -- that -- that this document talks to.
22 Q. If it turned out that proceedings were instituted, then these
23 instructions would not be meaningless, would they?
24 A. Well, the fact that they had to continually push out these
25 instructions and that there were examples of looting that continued well
1 into 1992, as I remember, and that I did not see senior members of the
2 1st Krajina Corps being held accountable for actions of their troops, I
3 would argue that -- that they -- that they were not effective. A
4 similar -- a -- a similar feature would seem to be also the treatment of
5 detainees. There were examples in the Krajina Corps documents, including
6 examples coming from the Main Staff, that the Geneva Conventions were to
7 be applied, but despite those instructions, it is evident in their own
8 documents that violations continued; and not only that violations
9 continued, that I did not see any meaningful investigation or prosecution
10 on -- on individuals within the 1st Krajina Corps, in particular, any
11 senior officers. And -- and a similar -- a similar --
12 Q. You're explaining the same thing for the fourth time now. Have
13 you seen any proceedings --
14 JUDGE ORIE: You didn't ask that. The question was if it turned
15 out that proceedings were instituted, then these instructions would be --
16 not be meaningless, would they. That was the question.
17 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Now the witness has explained to us that -- it's a
19 hypothetical question. If there are any meaningful proceedings against
20 those persons, put them to the witness and ask him whether that changes
21 his mind. Because he did not say that never, ever, any action was taken
22 at whatever level. But if you have a body of arrests, a body of -- a
23 number of cases that were prosecuted in 1992, direct action taken against
24 those who were suspected of having committed looting, then put that to
25 the witness instead of if proceedings were instituted. I mean, it is
1 hypothetical. If there are examples, put it to the witness. And not one
2 very low-level case because he admitted already that some cases were then
3 dismissed and exceptionally something happened but not meaningful.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. LUKIC: Okay. [Interpretation] I would now like to tender
6 this document.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Document 16574 receives number D436,
9 Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: D436 is admitted into evidence.
11 Mr. Lukic, if you ask these questions to the witness, then it's
12 only fair to the witness that you put to him what your case is. Is your
13 case that the witness is wrong because there were serious investigations,
14 there were serious prosecutions, people were arrested, et cetera, you
15 should put that to the witness.
16 MR. LUKIC: Unfortunately, I don't have time to go into
17 details --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. -- it's not a matter of details --
19 MR. LUKIC: We'll have our case. I have time for that.
20 JUDGE ORIE: No, Mr. Lukic, you do not understand that if you
21 examine --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I do. Whenever I give [overlapping speakers]...
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, please don't interrupt me.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I said don't interrupt me. Let's start
1 with that.
2 Mr. Lukic, under the Rules, if you are seeking evidence,
3 testimony, in support of your own case, and if the witness contradicts
4 that case, the Rules require that you put to him what your case is in
5 this respect.
6 So, you have spent a lot of time on totally irrelevant issues.
7 You have ignored, more or less, what the real -- real concerns are, and
8 the real issues are. Put to the witness if it the Defence case that
9 serious investigations, arrests and proceedings were undertaken. Put it
10 to him, then he can respond to it. And if you have concrete examples of
11 it, put it to him as well so that we don't lose ourselves in hypothetical
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: I think I put our case in front of this witness, and
15 we have our case to prove it --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please --
17 MR. LUKIC: If he still stands that he never saw any
18 investigations, how can I change that. That he --
19 JUDGE ORIE: That's not what he said. That's not what he said.
20 He said, At that time, I saw, apart from a few examples, I did not see
21 for any higher-up level military persons to be investigated, to be
22 arrested, to be prosecuted. And if you have such cases, you should put
23 it to him.
24 Please proceed.
25 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
1 Q. [Interpretation] I should now like to ask you something about
2 your paragraph 1.131, where you talk about the removal of the leaders of
3 the Muslims and Croats' community who had to be sent to vacation --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat.
5 MR. LUKIC: I don't know where should I repeat from.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] Repeat the whole
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Point 1.131. You talk about the removal of non-Serbs from the
10 Army of Republika Srpska. You were asked about this in the Brdjanin
11 case; do you remember?
12 A. It was -- it was a few years ago, sir, but I do think it was a
13 topic that came up. I can't quite remember the details.
14 Q. My colleague, Mr. Ackerman, suggested to you that it's normal to
15 require army members to be loyal to the state, that they had proven
16 themselves in combat, and that they have the citizenship of
17 Republika Srpska. And you accepted that it's normal to require that from
18 men who were to stay on in the Army of Republika Srpska. Would you
19 accept the same today? If you want me to, I can show you the transcript
20 of that session.
21 A. No problem. I'll -- I'll accept that was the -- the transcript.
22 Q. Also, it was suggested to you, and numbers were cited, that
23 37 Montenegrins, 204 Yugoslavs, 62 Croats, 26 Macedonians, 33 Muslims,
24 13 Slovenes, 3 Albanians and 3 Bulgarian, 2 Czechs, 4 Hungarians, 1 Turk,
25 1 Jew, 1 pole, 1 gypsy, 1 Ukrainian, and 21 undeclared by nationality, by
1 ethnicity, stayed on in the Army of Republika Srpska.
2 A. Yes, I believe that comes from the combat analysis readiness
3 report. The numbers seem incredibly small in relation to the overall
4 strength of the army which was, I believe, in the combat analysis
5 readiness report in 1993 was, I believe, about 180.000.
6 Q. It was also suggested to you that the criterion was not whether
7 one was a Serb or not. Loyalty was the criterion. Would you accept that
8 today, that loyalty was the criterion, not nationality?
9 A. The military undoubtedly would expect loyalty as part of -- as
10 part of their -- being a member of the military. But I think what I
11 argued, I hope I argued at the time and I believe I argue in the report,
12 is that, firstly, certainly in the Krajina area, there was a putsch from
13 the ARK Crisis Staff to have non-Serbs removed from senior positions in
14 business and other aspects in the Krajina and that -- that this emphasis
15 had been placed on the VRS through Crisis Staff meetings and that that
16 issue was sent up to the Main Staff for resolution. But what should we
17 do about military individuals in the 1st Krajina Corps? And the
18 Main Staff, on the basis of that request from the 1st Krajina Corps,
19 passed down instructions that non-Serbs should go on leave back to
20 Belgrade and that whether status would be resolved then, in reality,
21 many -- I'm not saying all non-Serbs in the 1st Krajina Corps, certainly
22 senior positions, were removed or left from -- from the corps. I think
23 there were one or two who stayed on for a little bit longer, but
24 certainly by late summer there weren't any non-Serbs in the
25 1st Krajina Corps in staff and senior positions. I think that was the
1 argument I have in the report. But, you know, I do accept that loyalty
2 is a component of -- of someone in a military. But you can be loyal and
3 not necessarily be -- loyalty can -- we have, for example, Muslim
4 soldiers in the British Army currently serving in Afghanistan. Maybe
5 that, for some of them, you know, throws up questions of faith and other
6 issues but they willingly do their job. Just because someone happens to
7 be of a different faith or a different religion doesn't in itself mean
8 that loyalty is questioned.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, we're close to the point where we should
10 take a break.
11 MR. LUKIC: We can take the break.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Then we'll take the break now.
13 Can the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
14 [The witness stands down]
15 JUDGE ORIE: We take a break, and resume at 11.00.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be escorted in the courtroom.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you may proceed.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Although it's not on the
22 list of our documentation envisaged for this witness, with the Trial
23 Chamber's leave, since you inquired about that. I would like to call up
24 in e-court 10524.
25 Before us is the report on the work of military prosecutor's
1 offices for 1992. The report also contains a summary. The 1st Corps is
2 on page 9 -- it begins on page 9 of the B/C/S and page 12 of the English.
3 We need to go three pages further because it must be different in
4 e-court. That is it. We have the right page in English. We see it says
5 in the report the Military Prosecutor's office attached to the command of
6 the 1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps. It's the Autonomous Region of
7 Krajina. The document says, I quote:
8 "In the said period, this prosecutor's office has submitted 559
9 requests to carry out investigations into 484 soldiers,
10 8 non-commissioned officers, 19 officers, and 48 civilians."
11 It concerns a variety of offences. And we now need to move two
12 pages on. We need page 11 of the document in B/C/S. And page 15 in
13 English. Page 15 in e-court, in English. We see this is about crimes
14 against property. The first paragraph says:
15 "For this type of crime, 130 requests to carry out an
16 investigation were submitted against 124 soldiers, 5 officers, and
17 1 civilian ... 18 indictments were issued against 18 soldiers. For this
18 crime, no first-instance court ruling has been made."
19 Q. Did you know about these statistics of the prosecutors for the
20 1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps in 1992?
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Lukic, if you care for some advice from the
22 Bench, are you wasting your precious time putting questions to this
23 witness about this kind of report because you don't -- we don't know what
24 the crimes are. Are these war crimes or just ordinary crimes?
25 MR. LUKIC: We are now talking about crimes against property.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: You see -- what kind of property? Theft of a
2 motor vehicle somewhere or theft of some ten loafs of bread somewhere.
3 We don't know what kind of property this is.
4 What the -- what the Presiding Judge asked you to do was to
5 confront the witness with the record of cases where officers were
6 prosecuted for committing the crimes that you have been saying they were
7 warned against. Not -- not a report of the prosecutor but a record of
8 the case. That's what the Presiding Judge asked you.
9 MR. LUKIC: We will definitely do that during our case,
10 Your Honour. I was just trying to see with this witness whether he has
11 any knowledge about any of these cases.
12 We can go to next page. There are concrete cases, but only five
13 of them, I can see.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, the reason perhaps why Judge Moloto is
15 asking, there are a few examples given. Half of them have got nothing to
16 do with the kind of things Mr. Brown reported about, such as the theft of
17 a truck from a depot. That is, of course, not the type of crimes
18 Mr. Brown reported about.
19 Similarly one of the other examples is that the theft of -- of a
20 pistol, although there was, I see, a few -- there are cases which do fall
21 within the category, apparently, but only four examples are given. Or
22 are there five? And what we do see is that some do, some do not, on a
23 total of 18. That is apparently what you put to the witness at this
24 moment. To say that you'll present all this during your Defence case, as
25 I said before, could the witness --
1 Did you know this report; and have you formed any opinion about
2 the property crime cases which are briefly described here?
3 THE WITNESS: I cannot remember, sir, if this is a document that
4 included in my report or if I was aware of it at the time or it has came
5 later. But looking at this refreshes here, 18 individuals from two
6 corps, by the way, this is the 1st and the 2nd Krajina Corps. The level
7 of individual annotated here is very low level. The numbers seem to be
8 incredibly small, bearing in mind the problem that seemed to be existed
9 in the 1st Krajina Corps' zone in relation to looting. I think this
10 reinforced my point that -- that -- that these instructions, at best,
11 were not followed and certainly that no senior officers were held to
12 account for the issue of -- significant issue of looting that was clear
13 in the 1st Krajina Corps documents.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Lukic, if I do understand it well from
15 these examples, that the 18 soldiers made up a more limited number of
16 cases, because I see in the -- I see in examples that there are often
17 more than one accused so -- which would bring the cases, number of cases,
18 apart from the number of persons investigated, down to --
19 MR. LUKIC: But those were only indictments. Eighteen
20 indictments. And that's separate from investigations.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Yes. And apparently no judgements whatsoever.
22 Do you know the follow-up of these cases so as to see whether this ever
23 ended up in a -- in --
24 MR. LUKIC: Not at this moment.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Not at this moment. Then let's proceed.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Brown --
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we go to page 18 of this page.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Do you know how many reports were filed in war time against an
6 unidentified perpetrator when it was not possible to identify the
7 perpetrator due to the war chaos? Did you deal with this?
8 A. No, I didn't. And there were references in some of the documents
9 that perpetrators were unidentified. I assume that part of the task of
10 investigations is to try and find that. But, no, there were a number of
11 references to unidentified perpetrators.
12 Q. You said this document is from 1993, not the period for which you
13 reviewed documentation. You will agree with me, won't you, that the
14 proceedings and identification of perpetrators could have taken place in
15 1993, 1994, 1995, or after the war. And in that case, your report would
16 not cover such findings; correct?
17 A. I'd have to look at the front of this document but I believe this
18 is presumably covering the period of 1992 up until the writing of this
19 document, which I think as you said was --
20 Q. 1993.
21 A. -- 1993. So this would seem to be that period. Doesn't cover
22 what happened after. There could have been work relating to
23 investigations that were ongoing that were not annotated in this
24 document. As to investigations after the war, well, that seems to be
25 quite a long time to deal with issues of significant criminality.
1 Q. In fact, you have no knowledge about the method and the speed of
2 the work of the justice system in the entire territory of the former
3 Yugoslavia, do you?
4 A. No, sir. The study of the justice system wasn't part of this
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, going back, because I looked at the
7 document, the property crimes in one out of the five cases, it says
8 something about an enemy soldier, not an enemy civilian but an enemy
9 soldier. For the others, I do not find any reference to the ethnicity of
10 the victims.
11 Now, it seems that it -- could you tell us, and looking at the
12 names of the described victims, they do not immediately strike me as
13 Muslim names, or is there a possibility that the majority of these cases
14 were dealing with property crimes committed against other Serbs, or is
15 there any ... which, of course, would -- would mean something in the
16 context of --
17 MR. LUKIC: For that we'll have to go to the court records.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Do you find any name which strikes immediately as a,
19 for example, Muslim name?
20 MR. LUKIC: All accused persons are Serbs here.
21 JUDGE ORIE: I'm talking about victims, Mr. Lukic, to the extent
22 they are identified.
23 MR. LUKIC: There is no -- I cannot see any names of the victims.
24 They said by-passers or prisoners. I don't see the names of any -- any
25 victim names.
1 THE WITNESS: I believe the second case, sir, has got a name in
2 it. The victim is a military conscript.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, in order to draw any conclusions as
5 whether these are investigative activities which can be related to what
6 the witness has described, we need more information. And the witness
7 would need more information as well.
8 MR. LUKIC: He was not studying this document anyways.
9 JUDGE ORIE: But since you were -- I take it you have considered
10 the relevance of it.
11 MR. LUKIC: Actually, this document was provided by my colleague,
12 Stojanovic, who --
13 JUDGE ORIE: Either you have or you have not put the right
14 questions to yourself before you put the questions to the witness.
15 Please proceed.
16 MR. LUKIC: I brought this document only because of you,
17 Your Honour. My intention was not at all. But now I would offer this
18 document into evidence.
19 MR. TRALDI: There we go. The mike took a moment to work.
20 We clearly have no objection, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 10524 receives number D437,
23 Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted into evidence.
25 THE WITNESS: Sir, would it be imprudent if I asked -- if I could
1 have a copy of that for the break to read?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. If whomever could provide it to the
4 We'll make it available, then. The usher will give it to you.
5 THE WITNESS: I appreciate that, sir.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. And now I would like to go to your next part in your report,
8 Manjaca camp, that is.
9 Due to the restrictions in time, I will skip the first part. I
10 may come back to it, time permitting. I'll go to the second part
11 straight away, which is the part where you deal with Manjaca camp. I'll
12 follow the sequence of the paragraphs. I'm not going to read them.
13 First of all, paragraph 2.10 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Before you continue, Mr. Lukic, you said no victim
15 was named in this document. I see the name of a certain Mr. Djuric in
16 the second item. So --
17 MR. LUKIC: The second item, the witness draw my attention to.
18 There was one in the second.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then I missed that at this moment. And
20 that's -- doesn't strike me as a Muslim or specifically --
21 MR. LUKIC: It's a Serb name.
22 JUDGE ORIE: It's a Serb name. Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. 2.10. Did you come across the order issued in June 1992 to set
25 up Manjaca camp, or did you base your conclusions only on the writings of
1 Osman Selak?
2 A. I believe I used the reference of Selak's notebook, sir. I did
3 not see the specific instruction in the Krajina Corps collection on the
4 establishment of the camp.
5 Q. 211 -- 2.11. In General Talic's order to establish the war --
6 the prisoners of war camp at Manjaca, did you come across a portion which
7 indicates that the Geneva Conventions have been violated?
8 A. I -- as I say, I didn't see General Talic's order specifically
9 establishing the camp. There's a reference in Selak's notebook that a
10 camp is to be prepared on that day, and I -- I know clearly that the camp
11 was established in -- in early June.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi, is there any dispute -- is it the
13 position of the Prosecution that General Talic's order contains anything
14 which would indicate that the Geneva Conventions have been violated?
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I don't think we have a position on
17 that at this moment.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. And now paragraph 2.12 where you mention prisoners' camps in
22 Prijedor, more specifically at Manjaca. You said that there were also
23 Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje.
24 Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje, were those centres established
25 by civilian or military authorities?
1 A. I believe they were established by an instruction from the
2 Prijedor Crisis Staff, which -- which had police/military/civilian
3 presence. Well, whether it was the crisis -- yes, it was the
4 Crisis Staff. I believe those reception -- or those camps were
5 established on that decision.
6 Q. Is your testimony here today that any of the military personnel
7 were members of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor? And I'm putting it to you,
8 sir, that they were not.
9 A. Crisis Staffs are not really the -- the subject, per se. The
10 subject or detailed analysis of the Crisis Staffs are not, per se, the
11 subject of this report. What I can say in Prijedor is that Colonel Arsic
12 and Mr. Zeljaja were present in meetings. Whether they were national
13 defence meetings, whether they were Municipal Board meetings, whether
14 they were Crisis Staff meetings, they were involved in these meetings
15 with SDS representatives and police representatives in Prijedor. And, in
16 particular, Colonel Arsic had been involved in the take-over the Prijedor
17 at the end of April.
18 So I would not agree with you that they were -- these military
19 personnel were not members of the Crisis Staff. Well, formally --
20 whether there was a formal process of appointment, I can't say. That's
21 not really the expertise I have. But I do know that these military men
22 in Prijedor, the commanders at least, were present in these decisions and
23 I'd have to go back to this document about the establishment of camps,
24 but I believe that there was military representation at that specific
1 Q. There's no document on establishment -- there's a document that
2 was signed by Simo Drljaca on the 31st of five [as interpreted], where he
3 cites a decision of the Crisis Staff, but let's not go there.
4 Did you see a document clearly indicating who members of the
5 Crisis Staff of Prijedor were? I'm putting it to you again, sir, loud
6 and clear, that that list of the members of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor
7 does not contain the name of any of the military personnel.
8 A. I --
9 JUDGE ORIE: The witness has answered that question. He doesn't
10 know the formal composition of the Crisis Staff, and he stressed that
11 military were present during meetings.
12 So he has answered that question. He ...
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Soldiers did not attend meetings of
14 the Crisis Staff. Perhaps only two or three times did they attend
15 throughout all that period. And this is what I'm putting to the witness
16 as I ask him:
17 Q. Sir, do you know how many times did any of the soldiers attend a
18 meeting of the Crisis Staff? And please bear in mind that you are
19 confusing the Council for National Security or Defence and the Crisis
21 A. I don't know the number of times military representatives were
22 present at Prijedor Crisis Staff meetings. I do know that military
23 representatives were present at the National Security and Defence Council
24 meetings. How many times that was, I don't know. I just refer back
25 to my previous answer.
1 Q. Just a moment. Just a moment. Do you know that the
2 National Security Council stopped operating when the Crisis Staff was
3 established because the -- that body was a body of the municipality of
4 the assembly of the municipality, and the Crisis Staff actually replaced
5 the assembly of the municipality.
6 A. Well, whatever the body was called, whatever the iteration and
7 the development of the various bodies in Prijedor, it strikes me that
8 there was a body that involved SDS, local police, and, at times, military
9 representatives in decision-making in Prijedor municipality, irrespective
10 of what the name of the -- the function was.
11 But in -- I just go back to my answer that this is not a report
12 about the workings of Prijedor Crisis Staff, Prijedor national defence
13 meetings or other bodies. There are other experts who I know were
14 working in that area.
15 Q. And now paragraph 2.13. Did you come across a document which
16 says that the Main Staff of the VRS had something to do with the
17 establishment of Manjaca camp?
18 A. No, sir, I don't have an instruction or have seen a military
19 document in the Krajina collection from the Main Staff around that
20 period, the 1st of June, indicating that the Main Staff had ordered
21 its -- its establishment. Of course, the document on the
22 12th of June from the Main Staff establishing prisoners of war camps
23 throughout the various corps was disseminated on that day, and I think I
24 argue in the report or present in the report that General Talic passes
25 that instruction on to Manjaca camp and to the assistant commander for
1 morale within his corps.
2 So the camp has already been established by the 12th of May.
3 That document is important enough to be sent down to Manjaca camp
4 indicating that it is clearly already in existence, but, in relation to
5 the 1st of June or the very initial day of its establishment, I have not
6 seen a Main Staff instruction requesting that that camp be -- that camp
7 be established.
8 It is of note, however, that the 1st of June Selak entry, which
9 would appear to indicate that that was the day the camp was expected to
10 be established, is the day before General Mladic visits Banja Luka, that
11 is the 2nd of June, he visits Banja Luka and there's a reference in his
12 own notebook that he is in Banja Luka with -- speaking to commanders and
13 officers of the corps. So maybe it's the context there, but the specific
14 question of have I seen a Main Staff instruction establishing Manjaca
15 camp, no, sir, I haven't.
16 Q. Did you ever see a report coming to the Main Staff from any of
17 the camps, including Manjaca, Keraterm, or Trnopolje?
18 A. Do you mean camp-level documents going direct to the Main Staff,
19 sir, or do you mean --
20 Q. Yes, yes. Precisely.
21 A. I don't think I have. I -- I -- I -- I don't believe the camp
22 documents that I reviewed indicate that they went to the Main Staff.
23 And, actually, I wouldn't expect that. There is a subordinated chain,
24 which would run from the Main Staff, to the corps, to the camp. And the
25 documents from Manjaca camp that I have seen indicate that they go from
1 the camp, to the security department of the corps. So -- which would sit
2 in that subordinated chain as I would seem to expect. But, no, the
3 documents that I've seen specifically from the camp, I do not -- I cannot
4 say whether they went to the Main Staff because they're not annotated in
5 this respect.
6 Q. Do you know that Omarska and Keraterm camps were managed and
7 guarded by the police?
8 A. I -- I believe, and certainly in relation to Omarska, that the
9 police were the -- the guard -- guarded the -- the camp. There were
10 references or there's at least one reference that the military provided
11 some assistance; for example, in the laying of mines and also, I believe,
12 in relation to joint investigative bodies.
13 But, in relation to the guarding of camp, certainly at Omarska,
14 I -- I believe that that was run by the police. I am not quite so sure
15 about the set-up in relation to Keraterm camp. I believe it was
16 something of a joint camp, but the actual functions within it, I'm -- I'm
17 not sure.
18 Q. In paragraph 2.21, you discuss an instruction which was sent by
19 General Mladic on the 12th of July. Do you remember that that
20 instruction also includes a -- an order to prevent any breaches or
21 violations of the Geneva Conventions?
22 A. Yes, sir, I -- I do remember that, and that is what it says. In
23 fact there had been a previous instruction sent by the Main Staff on the
24 4th of June which specifically dealt with wider criminality. But within
25 that Main Staff instruction on the 4th of June, there was a direct
1 reference that they had received information about violations against
2 civilians and prisoners of war and that -- amongst other things, and that
3 the 1st Krajina Corps received that instruction and passed it down to
4 units of the -- of the 1st Krajina Corps.
5 So this 4th of June instruction which is referenced in my Krajina
6 report on this 12th of May instruction does make reference that
7 Geneva Conventions are to be abided by.
8 Q. And -- and now about your paragraph 2.36, which is the operative
9 handling of inmates.
10 Do you know, or did you know that the reception of prisoners of
11 war at Manjaca was dealt with by a commission; and do you know who the
12 members of that commission were?
13 A. No, I don't specifically know who the members of that commission
14 were. The Manjaca documents indicate that there was a processing team
15 that reported on their work, usually daily, and I am assuming that that
16 would involve the interviewing of detainees and reviewing if there were
17 any files that had been sent. But, in terms of the exact individuals who
18 were part of that process, I'm not clear on that, sir.
19 Q. Very well. And now just briefly let's go to the part that you
20 yourself marked as status. The paragraphs are 2.41 through 2.45.
21 Is it true, sir, that the command of the camp warned everybody
22 that people were being brought in without any prior selection or
23 screening process, that a large number was brought in, and that a lot of
24 the documents show that people brought to the camp and that their escorts
25 were civilian police officers?
1 A. I don't know if it is the camp commander, but whoever is writing
2 the reports are warning in a number of those reports, sometimes in
3 significant detail, that large numbers of individuals who are being
4 brought in did not deserve to be there, were rounded up from their homes
5 or fields, and in significant details that were not combatants, were not
6 carrying weapons or in uniform, some who were minors. So there are
7 significant a number of reference, I believe, in the documents that I
8 reviewed from Manjaca camp indicating that the author of that the
9 report - whoever that was - knew that and was passing that information to
10 the 1st Krajina Corps.
11 The second issue is: Was I aware that the documents show that
12 the escorts were civilian police officers. The documents don't always
13 say who's brought the individuals in. In some cases they are escorted by
14 the police, most notably the incident on the 7th of August, when
15 detainees from Omarska were brought and there were deaths during that --
16 that -- that transfer. There are, I believe, a number of other documents
17 which indicate the engagement of the police, but it doesn't always say in
18 the documents, when they've received individuals, who's brought them in.
19 Q. And now 2.46. Is it true that even before the 6th of August,
20 before the media campaign that you cite, the camp command carried out a
21 screening process and warned that people who were being brought from
22 Prijedor, Kljuc, and Sanski Most fell into various categories?
23 A. They -- they themselves don't necessarily always clearly
24 differentiate the categories, but the reports clearly indicate a large
25 number of individuals who are not combatants. Who are, in effective,
1 civilians who had been rounded up and sent to detentions. That's one
2 large number. They do make occasionally references to individuals who
3 have been interviewed who they -- they deem as having been part of an
4 armed resistance or a paramilitary -- whatever they phrase it, I can't
5 remember. I haven't looked at the documents in detail for -- all of them
6 for -- for some time. But that is a category of individuals, relatively
7 small in numbers.
8 So in that request, generally, there is that differentiation but
9 there isn't a -- the biggest bulk seems to be or the biggest problem they
10 come across are people who are not prisoner of war, i.e., combatants.
11 Q. The focus of my question was that there were warnings about that
12 even before the media campaign. And in your footnotes 159 and 162, you
13 cite daily reports dated 8 and 9 July, in which the screening process
14 problems are indicated.
15 What I'm trying to do is to establish that that problem was
16 highlighted by the camp command, even before any media campaign started.
17 A. That is correct. That is correct, sir, yes.
18 Q. And now paragraphs 2.49 to 2.51.
19 When it comes to the command of the 1st Krajina Corps, they
20 requested from the police structures to send their representatives to the
21 camp and to carry out a selection among the individuals whom they
22 themselves had brought to the camp in the first place; right?
23 A. This particular section within status is -- is highlighting that
24 even though in -- in early -- in an earlier period, for example, the
25 July period that you mentioned, that it was known by the Krajina Corps
1 that a large number of individuals, in essence, didn't deserve to be
2 there and were civilians who had simply been rounded up and sent to the
3 camp, that this resolution of their status was still not -- had still not
4 occurred by the middle of August.
5 Now, later, this 20th of August period, later on, is referenced
6 in more detail about why this meeting on the 20th -- 19th and 20th comes
7 around. It strikes me from the chronology of the events that it wasn't
8 because the Krajina Corps who had highlighted this problem som -- or at
9 least had been made aware of this problem through the camp records some
10 time ago, this wasn't somehow being resolved that it just happened to
11 take that length of time to August to resolve it. The 20th and 19th
12 meetings are about the -- the -- are related to the revelations that came
13 in early August and the criticisms that became apparent and the pressure
14 that was put on the Bosnian Serb authorities in relation to detainees.
15 So I -- it's a complicated chain. I reference it in this section
16 to show that the issue had not been resolved in the -- in the camp. But
17 later on, I explain why 19 and 20, in particular, was -- why this
18 selection process occurred, and I argue that the selection process
19 occurred not because the corps was necessarily trying to resolve it based
20 on its previous -- its previous reports that it had received but it is
21 related, in time, to the allegations and the pressure that was mounting
22 on the RS authorities as a result of activity that happened in early
24 I apologise for that long explanation.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is -- is the issue you're dealing with
1 whether Manjaca was a military-run camp or a non-military-run camp? Is
2 that the issue?
3 MR. LUKIC: It's not.
4 JUDGE ORIE: It's not. Then what exactly is the issue? Because
5 then it --
6 MR. LUKIC: Maybe in my next question [Overlapping speakers] ...
7 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If you put clear questions so that we know
8 exactly what you seek to elicit as evidence from this witness.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Mr. Brown, you've heard what the Presiding Judge is interested
11 in. My next question was to be, and will be, this request directed at
12 the police that they carry out a selection, does it indicate the powers
13 of the camp administration over all the detainees?
14 A. I'm not sure of the -- the question, particularly, sir.
15 Q. [In English] Maybe it's unartfully posed.
16 [Interpretation] Why doesn't the camp administration carry out
17 this selection themselves? Why do they, instead, call on the chiefs of
18 the secretariats of police to ask them to carry out the selection?
19 Do you find -- is it clear to you where the line is between the
20 jurisdiction of the camp administration and the powers of the police?
21 A. I -- I -- I -- I can't necessarily deal with the issue of
22 jurisdiction. What -- what I can say is that the camp received an
23 instruction via the 1st Krajina Corps from the Main Staff in order to
24 review the detainees that were being held in Manjaca. And in order to do
25 that, it requested police to come to the camp to have a conference or a
1 meeting to review the files and status of those individuals.
2 Now -- and those individuals came, and the meeting was held.
3 What does that demonstrate to me? Well, that the camp is
4 reacting to a Main Staff instruction through the 1st Krajina Corps.
5 What does it tell me? That, in order to resolve this problem, or
6 this issue, that -- and bearing in mind only 14 days, less than that,
7 actually, 1400 prisoners had come from Omarska and had been held in that
8 detention centre, which was guarded by the police and that the police had
9 a role in that. That in order to resolve this, they wanted to get the
10 files and individuals who had been involved with those prisoners in
11 Omarska for a period of time to -- to -- to -- in order for them to carry
12 out this task that had been set them. So they are requesting the police
13 to come to jointly resolve or deal with the task that was set them, which
14 is what they did. That's what the document tells me about this meeting.
15 Does it tell me about the nuances of the relationship between -- the
16 judicial relationship from the camps and who can task who? No. But it's
17 clear that the camp in it -- in -- in reacting to its instruction from
18 the Main Staff gets the police to do what it requires is needed to
19 resolve the problem.
20 And, again, I apologise for the long-winded response to the
22 Q. You talk a lot, as if you were a lawyer.
23 A. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer, sir. I can tell you that.
24 Q. We're now going to discuss the general conditions in the camp.
25 General remarks; that's 2.72.
1 In that paragraph, you say that it appears that, for two months,
2 the detainees had a poor water supply. Is it the case that the corps
3 made efforts to deal with the problem the water supply in -- in an area
4 that was short on water?
5 A. Sorry -- sorry. The reference to the section?
6 Q. [In English] 2.72.
7 A. Yes. The -- the corps was aware that the water -- the water
8 supply was inadequate and, indeed, sent out two instructions in order
9 to -- to try and resolve that. I forget the references here and the
10 exact dates. This is in 2.69.
11 Q. [Interpretation] Let me ask you: Do you know that the corps did
12 a bacteriological analysis of the water?
13 A. Yes, it did. And it did that on the 27th of July, or at least
14 there was a document requesting that, I believe, on the -- on the
15 27th of July. And they requested, I believe, that a section of pipeline
16 be -- be replaced or restored. I think 2 kilometres. And they -- they
17 put in two requests, I believe, for this in late July. Now the timing, I
18 think, is important because that comes after the 16th of July visit by
19 the ICRC in which one of the issues they were critical of was inadequate
20 water. Of course, it begs the question: Why do you set up a detention
21 camp in the first place if the water supply is inadequate. But, yes,
22 they did put out instructions about water, but I believe those
23 instructions came after the ICRC visit.
24 Q. Is it true that the guards drank the same water, the soldiers who
25 were there, and that it was brought in cisterns because it was in short
2 A. I believe -- I'd have to go back to the two document, but I
3 believe that in the report on the water system at the end of July, it
4 makes mention that the water is inadequate and is having to be brought in
5 by cistern. I can't tell you whether the guards drank the water from the
6 camp in the cisterns or whether they were based at the barracks. There
7 was a barracks in Manjaca training area, not that far from -- from the
8 camp itself. I don't know what the water supply to the barracks was.
9 Manjaca had been a farm. It was -- it was a -- it had been a JNA farm
10 for the storage of cattle. I -- maybe that's one of the reasons why the
11 water was not -- was not adequate there. But I can't tell you what the
12 guards drank.
13 Q. All right. Now paragraph 2, item 77.
14 If, when people were brought from Omarska, let's say to Manjaca,
15 there were some dead, and they were brought by the police, that cannot be
16 blamed either on the camp or on the 1st Krajina Corps. Would you agree
17 with that?
18 A. I -- it's not as easy as that, I think, sir. The specifics of
19 the incident from the documents of the camp are that these individuals
20 were brought to the camp. They arrived early. They were brought by the
21 police, I -- I -- I -- I agree. They -- they arrived early. They were
22 forced to stay overnight, and that overnight, killings took place on
23 those detainees which was known by the camp authorities and was known by
24 the camp commander and was reported to the 1st Krajina Corps, including
25 some names of potential -- or at least, I think, reference to the
1 police -- the police commander.
2 The camp refused to take the -- the -- the bodies in, and later
3 took the remaining prisoners. It would appear to be that -- from -- at
4 least from the documents, and I can only go on the incident based on the
5 documents I've seen, that the police escorts were the ones who committed
6 the crime. But there didn't seem to be any attempt by the camp to
7 immediately hold the perpetrators, to immediately secure the scene as
8 some kind of crime scene, to immediately inform, say, the military
9 police, maybe -- you know, the killings itself outside the camp was on a
10 training area, a military facility, just because it's on the perimeter of
11 the camp if it's on a military facility whether there's a jurisdictional
12 issue here, a whole raft of the questions and issues that did not seem to
13 be addressed. What happened from the documents were that the bodies were
14 taken away the -- I think there's a reference in one of the documents
15 that the bodies may have been dumped.
16 The perpetrators would seem to be the police, from the documents.
17 Clearly the police would have -- should have -- I -- I would have
18 expected, have done some investigation. Did I think the military carried
19 out appropriate and professional response? No. As I said, I don't think
20 they called the military police, didn't keep the perpetrators where they
21 were, didn't protect the crime scene --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, I think, in short, your answer would have
23 been the police committed the crimes. Whether the camp and the
24 1st Krajina Corps are without any blame, you doubt, because no adequate
25 response was taken to what was reported.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's in four, five lines approximately what you
3 told us in 30. Could you please try to be more focussed.
4 And, Mr. Lukic, it certainly assists if you put focussed
5 questions to the witness.
6 Please proceed.
7 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Would you agree that the military police has no jurisdiction to
9 carry out investigations against civilians in structures like the
10 civilian police.
11 A. I -- I don't know the full regulations of the military police,
13 Q. [In English] That's legitimate answer.
14 [Interpretation] Now concerning paragraph 2.79, when you talk
15 about the use of detainees to do work and even construct fire positions
16 around the camp, would you agree that the POW camp Manjaca was never in a
17 combat zone?
18 A. As far as I am aware, I would agree with you, sir, yes. There
19 was no fighting in and around Manjaca.
20 Q. Also in paragraphs 2.80 and 2.81, you talk about the use of
21 detainees in the 1st Engineering Regiment to clean the power plant.
22 Would you agree that in this case, they did not run any risk to their
23 lives and they were not in a combat zone?
24 A. No, sir, I would disagree with you. Jajce had had significant
25 combat operation -- combat operations in and around that zone at the
1 time, and in fact the hydroelectric dam, I believe, was -- was a key
2 feature in a key area in which combat was occurring.
3 Q. All right. We'll check that. The detainees, the prisoners,
4 volunteered to go to work. Would you agree?
5 A. The documents don't -- don't make mention that the prisoners
6 volunteered to do that, as far as I'm aware. And I would imagine that
7 irrespective of whether prisoners volunteer for military work that --
8 that -- that type of activity should not be encouraged or supported.
9 Q. I should now like to move on to -- I began with paragraph 2.82.
10 I'll now move to 2.85. That's the treatment of minors and elderly
12 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps we do that after the break, Mr. Lukic.
13 Take a break of 20 minutes. Could the witness be escorted out of
14 the courtroom.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE ORIE: We resume at 25 minutes past midday.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Brown, may I ask you to try to give as short answers as
23 possible so we can finish this examination today.
24 A. I'll do my best, sir.
25 Q. Paragraphs 2.82 to 2.85 of your paper. That's the treatment of
1 detainees, minors, and elderly people.
2 Is it true - and we can see that from your footnotes from 208 to
3 212 - that the command of the camp proposed several times that detainees
4 who are not fit for military service and those who are infirm be released
5 from the camp.
6 A. Yes, I think there were one or two references that that should
8 Q. [In English] I see five here, but ...
9 A. You -- you count quicker than I do, sir.
10 Q. Now paragraph 2.87. [Interpretation] Would you agree with me
11 that there is no responsibility on the part of the camp command, or the
12 1st Krajina Corps, for the fact that members of the police had brought
13 minors from Prijedor to the camp?
14 A. I -- I don't think it's as easy as that. I -- my -- I mean,
15 there's two issues: One is the capture of the individuals initially and
16 who did that; the issue of transportation is a second issue. But once
17 the individuals are in the camp, they are certainly the responsibility of
18 the corps -- or the military.
19 Q. Could the camp administration refuse to take in these prisoners?
20 What is your position on that?
21 A. I'm sure the camp could refuse to take these individuals. The --
22 the camp, I believe, should abide by the Geneva Conventions. The camp
23 clearly could have refused. They could have clearly said, These
24 individuals are not combatants and don't deserve to be in my custody. Or
25 if they did take them on, to treat them appropriately, and -- in terms of
1 quickly releasing them.
2 Q. So in the process of admission it was not clear, it was not
3 known, who was a combatant and who was not; correct?
4 A. It is clear that the camp, when they were writing their reports
5 were unaware in some cases that large numbers were, but during the
6 process of their -- their work became very quickly clear that many were
7 not combatants.
8 Q. So is it true that when they realised that a person was not a
9 combatant, the camp administration immediately reported that to their
10 superiors? We have it in your footnote 216.
11 A. Through the work -- the writing, those who wrote those reports
12 indicated to the 1st Krajina Corps that many individuals didn't deserve
13 to be combatants and didn't deserve to be there.
14 Q. Would you then agree that the camp command was not responsible
15 and they reported to the superior command anything they observed?
16 A. Was not responsible for what, sir? Strikes me the camp was --
17 Q. [In English] Sorry. Probably something was lost in the
19 [Interpretation] Is it true that the camp command reported
20 everything they found to the superior commands and that it was not to
21 blame for anything. It was not guilty. They didn't hide anything?
22 A. Well --
23 JUDGE ORIE: There are three different questions but ...
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] This is my latest question.
25 Q. Would you agree that the camp command did not hide anything, they
1 reported everything to the superior command?
2 A. I -- I don't know what other reports were written. The reports
3 say what they say. Whether that's everything, I don't know. They're
4 not -- they're not extensive documents. They're a daily report of what
5 they are doing. So, taken in that context, yes.
6 The camp, in relation --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could I just --
8 Mr. Lukic, did you intend to ask whether they were hiding their
9 concern about the composition of the body of detainees? They apparently
10 were not. If that was primarily your question. The composition of
11 who -- who were detained there.
12 MR. LUKIC: That would be more artfully posed.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Did they hide, what kind of detainees they
14 had and they had concerned about whether they were appropriately detained
16 THE WITNESS: No. I think these camps are very revelatory, sir.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, Mr. Lukic.
18 THE WITNESS: I meant reports, not camps, sir, in the transcript.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. And now let me ask you about 5.29 [as interpreted], treatment of
21 prisoner, ill-treatment. Would you agree with me that the command of the
22 1st Krajina Corps and the camp command had nothing to do with the
23 ill-treatment of those prisoners who were incarcerated at Manjaca camp
24 when they were outside of the camp, those ill-treatments that happened
25 beyond the perimeter of the camp?
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
2 MR. TRALDI: Yeah, sorry. I don't have an objection to the
3 question. Just the reference 5.29. I'm not quite sure what that means
4 and I don't see a corresponding paragraph number.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, could you assist.
6 MR. LUKIC: I said 2.89.
7 JUDGE ORIE: 2.89 under the heading: "Treatment of detainees,
8 maltreatment." Yes, please.
9 THE WITNESS: The camp commander and the camp authorities had
10 responsibility for the detainees inside the camp. Whether they were
11 civilians, non-combatants, or whether they were combatants, the camp
12 commander had the responsibility for those detainees. The camp commander
13 and the camp authorities had the responsible for the actions of the
14 guards and soldiers within that camp, and so when -- when we talk about
15 those inside the camp, the camp commander and authorities did have
16 responsibility for both those issues. Both -- now, the camp commander
17 reported to the Krajina Corps. So in that respect, the Krajina Corps had
18 a responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the camp. The
19 soldiers within the camp were members of the 1st Krajina Corps and, of
20 course, the 1st Krajina Corps is a member of the VRS, under the authority
21 of the Main Staff and General Mladic. So that deals with the issue of
22 the individuals within the camp. The obligations, I believe, to look
23 after the detainees.
24 Now in relation to your second point which is the ill-treatment
25 of those outside --
1 Q. [In English] That's my only question about responsibility outside
2 the camp.
3 A. I think you said inside as well.
4 Q. No -- okay. What about the responsibility for mistreatment
5 outside the camp?
6 A. The camp authorities are responsible for the camp, any actions
7 inside. The Krajina Corps is responsible for the actions of its
8 soldiers. If the Krajina Corps is involved in detaining individuals,
9 taking individuals into custody, which they did as part of military
10 operations, the Krajina Corps is responsible for the safe treatment of
11 those detainees.
12 Q. [Interpretation] I have a question: Did you come across a
13 document in which you saw that the military police or any other members
14 of the army ever brought people to Manjaca to be incarcerated there?
15 A. What I know is that the police escorted, in specific details, two
16 of the convoys that brought individuals into Manjaca, the convoy on the
17 7th of August, and the convoy from Sanski Most, which I believe was in
19 Now, I know that there were other prisoners brought to Manjaca
20 outside those two large -- or two -- two transfers which specifically
21 made mention of police escorts. There was a large number of individuals
22 from bought from -- this is from documentary reference, from
23 Stara Gradiska prison --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could I stop you there. Did they refer to military
25 police or to police alone?
1 THE WITNESS: I believe they just refer -- I'd have to go back to
2 the documents again, sir.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because that would bring it outside the scope
4 of the question.
5 THE WITNESS: Sure. This issue of Stara Gradiska, I just wanted
6 to highlight, there is a reference of a movement of prisoners from
7 Stara Gradiska prison to Manjaca, bringing -- I forget if it is 900 or
8 600. It does not specifically say that those prisoners were brought by
9 military police, but Stara Gradiska was a prison that was also -- or a
10 detention centre that was also run by the military. So outside those
11 three specific documented reports, I did not see documents specifically
12 identifying the military police as -- as -- as bringing individuals in.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You say that Stara Gradiska was a prison, and, as such, it was
15 under the authority of the civilian authorities, and the army did bring
16 people in there and they were kept there.
17 JUDGE ORIE: The previous answer reads otherwise, Mr. Lukic:
18 "Stara Gradiska was the detention centre that was also run by the
20 So, therefore, that question has been answered. If it's
21 incorrect, please challenge the answer, but don't ask for the same again.
22 Or imply in a -- in a question something which is different from what the
23 witness said.
24 MR. LUKIC: To the best of my knowledge, Stara Gradiska was the
25 prison before the war, during the war, and after the war.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then ask the witness. You just told us that it was
2 a military-run prison. On what basis did you establish that, because
3 it's the position of the Defence that it was not a military prison. You
4 can ask that question, no problem. But do not imply in the next question
5 something which the different -- the witness had not said.
6 Please proceed.
7 Perhaps you have heard my answer -- my question, as a matter of
8 fact, where I suggested to Mr. Lukic. If you could answer that question
9 to Mr. Lukic.
10 THE WITNESS: Staff Gradiska was a prison before the war. During
11 the operations in Croatia, the 5th Corps took it over and used it as a
12 facility to hold prisoners from Croatia. It was also used in the early
13 part, I believe, in the early part -- this is from documentation, from
14 the early part of the conflict in Bosnia by the 1st Krajina Corps to hold
15 detainees and the 1st Krajina Corps military police units were involved
16 in that process, sir.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
18 THE WITNESS: Actually, if I could, whilst I was in the break --
19 whilst I was in the break, Your Honours, I quickly looked at this
20 document about military prosecutions and there is one reference in there
21 of an individual who is a military police officer who -- in
22 Stara Gradiska who is being -- who was being investigated because he
23 robbed a -- a detainee there. I don't know if that adds a little bit to
24 the story.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, --
1 THE WITNESS: Page 15 of the translation.
2 MR. LUKIC:
3 Q. Thank you for your input.
4 A. Sorry, I will retract that, sorry. It was Banja Luka prison. It
5 wasn't Stara Gradiska. I do apologise, sir. But my position still is
6 that it was a military facility run by the corps.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Did I see in your report that the military police
8 transported detainees from Manjaca to Stara Gradiska prison?
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 JUDGE ORIE: So that's the other direction.
11 THE WITNESS: No, the prisoners came from Stara Gradiska to
12 Manjaca, sir. The report didn't say that the military police, per se,
13 were --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Okay --
15 THE WITNESS: [Overlapping speakers]... in that transfer.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I must not have looked carefully enough.
17 Please proceed.
18 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] 2.89. How many ill-treated individuals were
20 seen by the ICRC team when they visited the camp on the
21 16th of July, 1992?
22 A. The 16th of July Krajina Corps report to the Main Staff does not
23 identify specific numbers of individuals who had been maltreated. The
24 16th of July instruction references general concerns, including the
25 treatment of prisoners. The later ICRC -- more fuller ICRC report that
1 gives a more -- more detail, I'd have to look at the documents but
2 references large numbers, I think, or numbers. It doesn't, again, note
3 specific instances or specific numbers.
4 Q. And now let's look at 2.93. Do you know that the guards of
5 Manjaca and prisoners were given the same food that was prepared in one
6 and the same place using the same ingredients?
7 A. No, I don't sir. And that would seem somewhat irrelevant. The
8 regulations indicate that certain standards are being maintained for
9 prisoners. I don't know what the -- the guards at Manjaca prison were
11 Q. You know that there were shortages of all of bare necessities in
12 Krajina before the corridor was opened; right?
13 A. Sir, if you're -- if the nature of the question is that because
14 of shortages that's why prisoners were not fed, I don't -- I don't
15 subscribe to that, and neither do I from reading of Geneva Conventions
16 subscribe that that is a reason not to feed prisoners. If you cannot
17 hold prisoners according to the standard, you shouldn't hold them at all.
18 Q. Did you know that this was a dietitian or a specialist who
19 checked the -- the calorie value of the food that the prisoner --
20 prisoners were given at Manjaca?
21 A. No, I don't know there was dietitian. But based on the ICRC
22 report, if there was one, he clearly wasn't doing his job properly.
23 Q. Is it clear that members of the ICRC demanded [Realtime
24 transcript read in error "remanded"] that even those people who had been
25 convicted of the crimes that they had committed also be released from the
2 A. I don't know that is exactly the case. There is a reference in
3 the 16th of July, that they -- they want to -- I forget if it was release
4 or speak to individuals who they claim were individuals who had committed
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: If we may just correct the record, Mr. Lukic. At
7 page 57, line 14, the word "demanded" is written as "remanded." I
8 thought I heard the witness say --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Demanded.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: I heard you, Mr. Lukic, saying "demanded."
11 MR. LUKIC: Demanded, yes. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, is there any source for us to consult on
13 that issue you just raised a second ago?
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 JUDGE ORIE: That is, the release of those convicted. And may I
16 take it that you'd refer to those convicted and not having yet served any
18 MR. LUKIC: The witness was protected
19 so [Overlapping speakers] ...
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you give me a page number then ...
21 MR. LUKIC: I don't have the page number. I will -- 051, RM051.
22 JUDGE ORIE: We'll have a look.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you know -- or, rather, in its report, did the ICRC committee
25 state that the representatives of Merhamet which was a Muslim charity
1 organisation visited the camp several times every week?
2 A. No, the ICRC report didn't make mention of that. I do know and I
3 think I report that Merhamet did visit. I don't think the documents make
4 reference that they report -- that they visited every week but that
5 they -- they did appear there before.
6 Q. In paragraph 2.103, you say that Ratko Mladic personally
7 inspected the units of the 1st Krajina Corps; to be more specific, the
8 command of the 1st Doboj OG. How far was that command from Manjaca at
9 that moment; do you know that?
10 A. I don't know in terms of kilometres. It is a distance.
11 Q. We are also talking about the corridor, aren't we?
12 A. Yes. We're talking about his visit there. Wasn't the only visit
13 he had to the corps, I hasten to say.
14 Q. However, if we're speaking about this, the distance would be at
15 least 200 kilometres, and the reason for his visit was the corridor.
16 However, let's move on.
17 Representatives of the ICRC insisted on the camp being closed
18 down. They didn't have any suggestions as to where it could be moved.
19 They didn't even know whether there were any such locations that the
20 military could use to open replacement camps, if Manjaca, indeed, was to
21 be closed.
22 A. I -- I'm not sure that's necessarily the -- the role of the ICRC.
23 The ICRC are there to monitor the standards of detention centres and make
24 recommendations where necessary. It is the obligation of the detaining
25 party, in this case the VRS, to provide suitable accommodation to hold
1 those individuals. Or if there's not suitable accommodation to ensure
2 that they're released and transferred or -- or dealt with. It's not the
3 ICRC's job to find suitable -- or to ask about suitable accommodation.
4 It's for the detaining party --
5 Q. [In English] Okay. Okay.
6 [Interpretation] Talking about paragraphs 2.102 to 2.106. Let me
7 ask you, did the command of the Krajina Corps take into account of what
8 the ICRC observed and said about Manjaca? Did they invest effort
9 thereafter to improve the conditions of life of those who were held at
11 A. I don't believe he did, sir, at least not initially. The key
12 recommendation of the ICRC, of course, was that the camp was closed and
13 that didn't happen until another six or seven months. There were some
14 references in August, middle of August, we've talked about, where there
15 were --
16 Q. Very well. We have that in your report, sir.
17 Do you know that an infirmary was set up within the perimeter of
18 the camp?
19 A. I believe -- it may be the RS's own investigation report makes
20 mention of a small infirmary that was being used, but I believe that the
21 ICRC report certainly identifies that medical facilities there are not
22 adequate. And after the ICRC's report, I did not see in the
23 documentation a significant change or building or moving of -- of any
24 medical facility.
25 Q. Do you know that over 8.000 medical exams were undertaken in the
2 A. I did not see that from the documents, sir.
3 Q. Do you know that there was another medical facility, a triage or
4 reception, outpatients' clinic, outside of the camp? Did you incorporate
5 that into your report?
6 A. In -- in which location was that, sir? Where? Outside the
7 perimeter or the barracks?
8 Q. Outside of the camp but not far from it. If that rings any bell,
9 fine. If not, let's move on.
10 A. I didn't -- I didn't hear about that, sir.
11 Q. Enes Sabanovic was a doctor, a Muslim. Do you know that he
12 practiced in the camp as a medical practitioner?
13 A. I didn't know the name but I -- I do remember one of the
14 investigative documents -- or the ICRC documents makes mention of a
15 doctor or some medical staff from the detainees being used for or
16 operating for medical purposes.
17 Q. Do you know that the clinical hospital centre in Banja Luka was
18 also at the disposal of the camp's inmates, if they needed help, and that
19 the Serbian doctors from this medical centre visited the camp to
20 administer aid to the inmates?
21 A. I didn't know that -- that the hospital in Banja Luka, which was
22 some distance away, was put at that disposal. But I go back to the
23 comments of the ICRC that they have significant concerns about the
24 medical condition of prisoners and the medical treatment that they could
25 receive. So despite having that hospital some distance away would not
1 seem to be, from the ICRC's perspective, that individuals were being
2 treated or else they would not have been reporting their comments as they
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, before we continue, I tried to search
5 on -- in relation to the witness you mentioned on the word "convicted."
6 I found only one and apparently irrelevant place where that word
7 appeared. I would very much like to hear from you where we find the
8 evidence which shows that convicted persons -- that the ICRC claimed that
9 convicted persons should be released, convicted persons that were
10 detained at Manjaca camp.
11 MR. LUKIC: They did not ask in that way. They asked for four
12 prisoners to be released and all those four prisoners were actually
13 already being convicted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That's not the way in which you presented it
15 earlier, I think. But apart from that, I would nevertheless like to --
16 MR. LUKIC: It's in some of the documents from this report. I
17 found it, but I don't know it by heart now.
18 JUDGE ORIE: If the witness could assist us.
19 THE WITNESS: Sir, I think it could be referring to the
20 16th of July instruction that the Krajina Corps sent to the Main Staff
21 where they report that the ICRC asked to see some individuals and --
22 or -- or be released, but they put in parenthesis the most -- or that
23 they are being convicted. I think it is possibly in that document.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then if the parties could assist me in finding
25 that document under any 65 ter number because ERN numbers are very
1 difficult for us to -- to address.
2 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I think the 16th of July report being
3 described is P230.
4 JUDGE ORIE: P230. I'll have a look at it.
5 Please proceed.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Is it true that those who were wounded, sick,
8 and infirm were released from the camp very quickly after the visit of
9 the ICRC delegation?
10 A. No, sir, I don't believe that was the case. There are still
11 references to sick, seriously sick individuals, going into the middle
12 of -- of August and I believe also into September.
13 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the sick and the wounded were
14 released from the camp after the -- the ICRC visit?
15 A. I'm aware that there were discussions in August and
16 September about the release of sick and wounded. Whether that was them
17 all, the documents don't necessarily make it clear. There was a release,
18 I believe, in September. I'd have to check the document again. Part of
19 the reasons for that release was articulated that they were drawing
20 unwelcome attention so there was a release. It wasn't quick. And -- and
21 I believe it was done because of the unwelcome publicity that had been
22 generated around the ICRC and other visits.
23 Q. And now I would like to move to the part of your report entitled:
24 "Treatment of prisoners, deaths."
25 Here, you make mention of various incidents. However, let me ask
1 you: Is it true that only two persons were actually killed in
2 Manjaca camp; namely, Omer Filipovic and Esad Bender?
3 A. I'm aware from the documents that those two individuals were
4 highlighted as being beaten to death in the camp. There are a number of
5 smaller -- small number of other references to deaths but they don't make
6 it clear as to the background to those. But -- but those two individuals
7 are specifically named as being killed inside the camp.
8 Q. There were some deaths of natural causes within the camp, and you
9 mention those in your paragraph 2.118; right?
10 A. Yes. This individual is reported as having died of natural
11 causes. I don't make any judgement on whether that was true or not, but
12 that's what the document report.
13 Q. As far as the two who were killed, Omer Filipovic and
14 Esad Bender, it is it true that the perpetrators were identified? Do you
15 know that those people were on trial as a result of which they were
16 sentenced for the murder of those two people?
17 MR. TRALDI: Mr. President --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
19 MR. TRALDI: As -- as often with a question like this, I think it
20 would be helpful if Mr. Lukic provided a year when the Defence is
21 suggesting the trial happened.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic. Isn't it true that we went through this
23 in quite some detail. So just -- you can.
24 MR. LUKIC: Yes. I'm just asking this witness if he is aware of
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. But then, I take it, there is no problem in
2 putting objective details to the witness right away.
3 Would that be, Mr. Traldi? Apparently not.
4 [Defence counsel confer]
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It is our case that the trial took
6 place several years after the war. I don't know when exactly. But the
7 whole procedure was based on the facts and evidence collected immediately
8 after the incident.
9 We saw medical documentation. In this case that was compiled
10 immediately after the incident.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Put it to the witness, Mr. Lukic, with the details.
12 Of course, if it is somewhat after the war it may be relevant to know
13 whether it was 2000 or 2007 or -- but were you aware of prosecution of
14 persons held accountable for the killings?
15 THE WITNESS: No, sir. And if it was after the war it would seem
16 to speak volumes. I did not see any investigation, certainly no
17 prosecution based on the information that was coming from the camp at the
18 time. And I did not see anybody held accountable during it. And if it
19 was after the war it would certainly seem to -- to me, at least, to have
20 some [overlapping speakers]...
21 JUDGE ORIE: But have you no knowledge about that.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
24 JUDGE ORIE: By the way, Mr. Lukic, I'd like now having been
25 guided by you through the -- to the portion where you said:
1 "Is it clear that members of the ICRC demanded that even those
2 people who had been convicted of the crimes that they had committed also
3 be released from the camp?"
4 The 16th of July report gives no basis for such a statement. I
5 hope it says that the ICRC had not been able to speak to four persons.
6 They were then allowed to speak to those persons and they were informed
7 that they had been convicted, I think by a military court.
8 Now, another part of the report says that the ICRC, for the bad
9 health condition, asked for the release of 19 persons which are then
10 described as most serious extremists, not as the persons who had been
11 convicted, and we find that somewhere else in the report.
12 So the question includes a reflection -- an inaccurate reflection
13 of the evidence unless you point me to any other point where it can be
15 MR. LUKIC: Not right now, Your Honour, but I think it was
16 discussed --
17 JUDGE ORIE: If you put it to the witness, Mr. Lukic, you should
18 have verified for yourself where to find it. Otherwise you should
19 refrain from putting it to the witness. And if I can find out in two
20 minutes the sources you said you relied upon, then you could have done
21 the same.
22 Please proceed.
23 MR. LUKIC: If this was the only topic. I think that you are
24 aware that I didn't sleep these days working on these
25 materials [Overlapping speakers] ...
1 JUDGE ORIE: Let's move on. Let's move on.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... so I don't want you to
3 object that I didn't do this diligently enough.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. That's on the record. Please move on.
5 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
6 Q. [Interpretation] Paragraph 2.160. After the first visit of the
7 ICRC on 16 July, were they prevented from entering the camp? Was their
8 work hindered in any way?
9 A. Not that I'm aware of, sir. They had a second visit a little bit
10 later, and I believe there were follow-on visits in August or -- or
12 Q. Paragraph 2.170. The measures that were ordered on
13 3rd of August, 1992, were they being implemented in Manjaca for quite a
15 A. I would suspect they hadn't been implemented, else the ICRC in
16 their comments would have come up with a different conclusion. I think
17 the request on the 3rd is to try and demonstrate to the visitors that the
18 camps were well functioning when clearly the ICRC had reported that they
20 Q. I'd like to move to 2.179, reactions to the revelations of the
21 conditions in Manjaca and the other camps in Krajina.
22 You talk about exposure. However, we've established that the
23 camp command reported to the corps command on a daily basis about
24 everything that was going on, including negative things.
25 Is it your position that something was being hidden so it needed
1 to be exposed?
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, now carefully read the beginning of
3 2.179. It talks about "this exposure."
4 This exposure, as in the first sentence, explained as activities
5 and conditions inside Manjaca camp came to the wider international notice
6 primarily through the media and ICRC reporting.
7 Exposure is used in a very specific sense here. Therefore, it's
8 of no use to ask whether this exposure took place internally first. You
9 have asked that question already. That question was answered already,
10 that they did not hide anything and that the reports were revelatory.
11 So, therefore, let's try to focus on what really matters. Not repeat
12 things. Not misread parts of the evidence.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] In paragraph 2.183, you deal with the
16 London Conference and its impact on the exposure of the camps in BH, the
17 camps controlled by the Serbs.
18 Is it true that, at the same time, Croatian and Muslim
19 authorities were not allowing access to the camps that they controlled;
20 do you know?
21 A. I can't say from the documents that I know that that was the
22 case. However, there is one reference in a Krajina Corps document, I
23 believe, which is the 10th of August, which was sent to the Main Staff,
24 which is from the morale officer of the corps. And it explains the
25 situation in the corps in the preceding months. And within the -- within
1 a component of that report dealing with camps, it makes mention of the
2 problem of retaliatory action and the treatment of prisoners by soldiers
3 because of two things -- well, a number of things. Because of the
4 reaction of the international community and media in misrepresenting the
5 conditions in camps, and because of the international -- or the Croats'
6 and Bosnian Muslims' unwillingness to allow access to camps inside their
8 So the report makes mention that this -- they believed that is
9 happening. So -- that is one -- that is one area that I do know that
10 there was that allegation. I don't know whether that, in reality, was
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And how relevant it is, is another matter,
13 Mr. Lukic. Because if the Croats or anyone else has misbehaved, that in
14 itself does not excuse or justify, unless there's any specific reason why
15 it would be different here.
16 Please put your next question to the witness.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Now I'd like to ask you something about paragraph 2.214.
19 Did a single seriously ill prisoner die in the camp?
20 A. I -- I do not know of seriously ill individuals dying or
21 succumbing as a result of their illness. Obviously the two individuals
22 who were beaten were -- may be a separate issue. But in relation to
23 those sick, I did not see references in the documents to individuals who
24 succumbed to those illnesses.
25 I don't know what relevance that really has, particularly because
1 seriously ill is seriously ill. It's not okay to have seriously ill in a
2 camp and it to be okay but as long as they don't die. I don't see
3 individuals, from the document, that did succumb, in answer to your
5 Q. Thank you. Now paragraph 2.232. That is, the closing in 1992.
6 Regarding this paragraph, let me ask you this: General Mladic was
7 prepared to go forward with the -- an all-for-all exchange. Did you know
8 why it did not take place?
9 A. No, I'm not aware of that, sir.
10 Q. Now, re-opening in 1993; point 2.243.
11 Was Manjaca, in 1992, opened primarily for humanitarian reasons?
12 Is it the case that armed elements of the Croatian community were brought
13 there, those who had fled from Mount Vlasic from an attack of Muslim
15 A. I don't know the activity of what resulted in these individuals
16 fleeing, but these were -- I'd have to re-read the sections, but these
17 were Croats --
18 Q. Let me put it differently.
19 Do you know that the stay of the military-able men at Manjaca was
20 in agreement with the Croatian side?
21 A. I don't know that. All I can say is that the reference on the
22 8th of June indicates that 900 members of the HVO and civilians fit for
23 combat had been transferred to Manjaca.
24 Q. And what are your conclusions?
25 A. I -- I -- I don't necessarily draw any conclusions as to -- as to
1 anything more than the documents indicate, that the camp was reactivated
2 for a brief period of time to house what they called civilians fit for
3 combat, members of the HVO, that 900 were transferred there for a short
4 space of time and that the same camp commander who been in charge in 1992
5 was appointed as the commander for -- actually, he had been promoted but
6 he had been appointed to reactivate the camp, but it only was reactivated
7 for a very short space of time.
8 Q. You did not include in your report that it was an agreement
9 between the Serb and the Croat side.
10 A. I was not aware of that.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Can I ask you one question in relation to the
12 persons that, as you describe in paragraph 2.235, that were removed after
13 having been selected.
14 I see three categories: That is, Croat prisoners of war;
15 extremist Muslim prisoners of war; and then the third category is the
16 Muslim prisoners of war.
17 Now, earlier, in the report, you described that many people could
18 not be seriously considered as prisoners of war because they have just
19 been rounded up. Do you know where the civilian portion of the detainees
20 is to be found? Or were they just all re-named prisoners of war for
21 purposes of exchange?
22 THE WITNESS: I believe -- I might have to go over this document
23 a little bit again. But I believe what happened is the Main Staff put an
24 instruction to have these categories remain. So this is the Croat
25 prisoner extremists. But the remaining prisoners were to be taken away
1 and -- these are the ones who left in the coaches and went over to
3 I think this is referring to an instruction to say, There should
4 still be some individuals from the group in Manjaca that we need to keep,
5 and that is these ones here.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, that's 532 --
7 THE WITNESS: That's the 532. And the remaining 1800, or
8 whatever it was, were the ones that were transferred into Croatia.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Because I saw earlier in your report
10 discussion was about an exchange with the exclusion of prisoners for whom
11 it had been established that they had committed criminal acts.
12 But a category of prisoners of war does not include that it would
13 have been established that they had committed crimes, would it?
14 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir.
15 JUDGE ORIE: So there's some inconsistency in the approach there.
16 THE WITNESS: Sir.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
18 Please proceed.
19 MR. LUKIC: It is time for our break.
20 JUDGE ORIE: It is time for the break. We'll take a break of
21 20 minutes and then we'll have another 55 minutes to go after that.
22 Could the witness be escorted out of the courtroom.
23 [The witness stands down]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
25 MR. TRALDI: To focus re-direct planning, if I could just inquire
1 if Mr. Lukic is on track.
2 MR. LUKIC: I think we spoke that I will use 15 minutes during
3 the next session and then I will give --
4 JUDGE ORIE: How much time would you need, Mr. Traldi, for
6 MR. TRALDI: I have been making an effort to cut as we went,
7 Your Honour. I think I'm at about a half an hour right now.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Then perhaps if Mr. Lukic could even take slightly
9 more time, that would not bring us into problems.
10 MR. TRALDI: It might, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break, and we'll resume at ten minutes
12 to 2.00.
13 --- Recess taken at 1.31 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 1.52 p.m.
15 JUDGE ORIE: While we are waiting for the witness to be brought
16 in, I'd like to briefly deal with the Prosecution 11th motion to amend
17 the Rule 65 ter exhibit list.
18 On the 7th of November, the Chamber instructed the Prosecution to
19 seek addition for each document subject to the 11th motion to amend the
20 Rule 65 ter exhibit list in court at a time when it wishes to use that
21 document with the witness, Ewa Tabeau. The Chamber notes that the
22 Prosecution did not seek the addition of any documents with
23 Witness Tabeau, and the Chamber hereby instructs the Prosecution to the
24 extent that it intends to tender some of these documents, to request
25 their addition to the exhibit list in connection with the request for
1 their admission into evidence.
2 To the extent that the Prosecution has already requested their
3 admission in a pending motion, the Chamber invites the Prosecution to
4 specify which document and motions are concerned. And, under these
5 circumstances, the Chamber denies the Prosecution's 11th motion to amend
6 the Rule 65 ter exhibit list, without prejudice.
7 [The witness takes the stand]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Apologies, Mr. Brown, that we dealt with other
9 matters when you are coming in.
10 Mr. Lukic will now continue his cross-examination.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. I will not trouble you much longer.
13 Let me ask you, first, looking at the transcripts of your earlier
14 evidence and the description of your job, I concluded that your job in
15 the Prosecution was both investigative and analytical.
16 Is it true that you interviewed witnesses?
17 A. I took part in a number of interviews as a support to
18 investigators and Senior Trial Attorneys, or lawyers.
19 Q. Is it true that you also interviewed witnesses in the cases where
20 you acted at the same time as an expert?
21 A. I was part of an interview team, yes, I was, sir, of a number
22 of -- a small number, actually, of military witnesses that the
23 Office of the Prosecutor felt, due to the work I was doing with
24 documentations and my previous military service, that I might be of use
25 to them, so I took part in a number of interviews with them.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Brown, the simple answer being yes.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Now, regarding the drafting of your reports, I will put to you
5 what I have found, and you will tell me if that's correct.
6 You would first write up a report, then you would have meetings
7 with the OTP where you discussed with the members of the Prosecution the
8 content of the report, and, during these meetings, your report would be
9 finalised. After that, it would be disclosed to the Defence.
10 Was that the procedure or not?
11 A. Yes -- yes. To all intents and purposes, yes.
12 Q. In the course of preparing these reports, you made two erratas.
13 Do you have your errata reports on you?
14 A. Yes, I think I do, sir.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have these errata reports with me,
16 if I want to have them.
17 THE WITNESS: Actually, sir, I don't think I have mine.
18 MR. LUKIC:
19 Q. Okay. I'll give you.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could the witness be provided with ...
21 MR. LUKIC: Here you go.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Now, on the screen, if possible, we should pull up P2859, your
25 report. We need paragraph 1, item 1.17. It's your first report on the
1 Bosnian Krajina. Page 16 in English. Page 17 in B/C/S.
2 A document is linked to this paragraph, and it's in footnote 17.
3 My colleague, Mr. Ackerman, at the Brdjanin trial suggested to you that
4 it was the wrong document; that is to say, this footnote is not correct.
5 Would you agree that this part of your report should be corrected
6 too? And the referenced document does not relate to what it purports to
7 relate to in paragraph 1.17?
8 A. That may well be the case. Maybe I haven't completed the errata.
9 I'd have to go back to the document and look at it. Maybe that is an
10 omission on my part.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, footnote 17 has been corrected. You are
12 aware of that? Errata sheet, first page, bottom, footnote 17 should
13 read ...
14 MR. LUKIC: Yes [Microphone not activated]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't hear you, Mr. ... it has been corrected,
16 although without ERN numbers, apparently. But it's now the 5th Corps'
17 regular combat report. What else would you like to have been corrected,
18 Mr. Lukic?
19 MR. LUKIC: I was checking those documents, when I was checking
20 everything, and I didn't find ...
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: We didn't hear what you didn't find, Mr. Lukic.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, we have a correction. If there's anything to
23 be added to that --
24 MR. LUKIC: Right now, I cannot ... cannot check it.
25 Paragraph 1.112.
1 Q. [Interpretation] You say in this paragraph that communications,
2 like at the municipal level, were established in a similar way between
3 regional organs, including the organs of the Autonomous Region of
4 Krajina. And you mention the 14th of April, 1992. My colleague,
5 Mr. Ackerman, suggested to you that, at that moment, the Crisis Staff of
6 the Autonomous Region of Krajina did not yet exist.
7 Would you agree that this is an error in your report, again?
8 MR. LUKIC: We can see 1D1469 on our screens.
9 Q. That would assist you. That is your testimony from Brdjanin
10 case; 27th October, 2003.
11 A. Possibly. I don't know exactly when the Crisis Staff was
12 established, if there's a slight error here. My point is more that the
13 ARK -- the corps has a relationship there.
14 Q. Probably you -- you knew better at that time, ten years ago,
15 because you were specific. Can we -- yeah, yeah.
16 MR. LUKIC: We need page 64 in e-court and it's page 21542 from
17 the Brdjanin trial. We need lines 2 to 5. We have to go one page ahead.
18 Q. The question was:
19 "We are going there, but I'm talking about 1.112 right now. We
20 are talking about April of 1992. There wasn't even an ARK Crisis Staff
21 at that point, was there?
22 "A. No, I don't believe there was."
23 [Interpretation] Does that refresh your memory that at that time
24 the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina did not exist and,
25 consequently, this paragraph is erroneous.
1 A. Well, it might be erroneous in terms of the Crisis Staff, but
2 that is not the emphasis of the report or that section. But, yes, I
3 accept that. I'm more than happy to amend that report and put
4 Autonomous Region authorities instead of Crisis Staff.
5 Q. Paragraph 1.113 deals with the visit by Tadeusz Mazowiecki. Do
6 you recall now whether that visit took place on the 23rd of August?
7 A. I believe there was an attempt by him to visit, which was denied
8 to him.
9 Q. And, consequently, the members of the Crisis Staff of the ARK
10 could not be present either.
11 A. Well, I believe he accompanied Mr. Mazowiecki in his attempt to
12 visit the camp, from what I remember.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
14 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. So you believe nothing should be corrected here?
16 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I just -- I think this paragraph is
17 being slightly mischaracterised. The same information the witness just
18 provided is in the footnote to the paragraph 187 which recognises that
19 the visit was denied and says the report that's been cited notes that one
20 of the Crisis Staff members was involved in the organisation of the
22 So I think the report and Mr. Lukic are in agreement.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Are you, Mr. Lukic?
24 MR. LUKIC: What I know, that -- and what was suggested that what
25 is mentioned here in the report is not correct, that the members of
1 Autonomous Region of Krajina Crisis Staff actually visited Manjaca camp.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look.
3 Paragraph 187, Mr. ...
4 MR. TRALDI: Footnote 187 is the one that I[Overlapping
5 speakers] ... Your Honour.
6 JUDGE ORIE: 187. Yes, that's what I thought I heard. But ...
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: I thought Mr. Lukic is now referring to footnote
8 186. You're contesting that the -- Predrag Radic -- that the president
9 of the Autonomous Region of Krajina visited the camp.
10 MR. LUKIC: Yes.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: That's at 186. And -- and the -- the witness
12 refers there to the 1st Krajina Corps regular combat report dated the
13 9th of August, 1992.
14 MR. LUKIC: So, in this report, should it be that they visited
15 lower Manjaca or not? That's the issue.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Well -- it seems that -- It seems that --
17 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ...
19 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... could we just try to cut
20 this short.
21 It seems that in the footnote, perhaps as a correction, you have
22 now reported that the visit was denied, whereas, in the main text, the
23 visit still is presented as having taken place.
24 Is that an error?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that could be an error, sir.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
2 Please proceed.
3 MR. LUKIC: Paragraph 2.18. One second.
4 Q. [Interpretation] It was suggested to you there that disarmament
5 was supposed to take place only in non-Serb areas, and you cite a
6 document in footnote 272. At the trial on 28 October 2003, transcript
7 page 21610, lines 15 through 17, you accepted that the document doesn't
8 show that this order to disarm applies only to non-Serb regions.
9 Footnote 273.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, of course I cannot follow what -- the
11 testimony in another case. I notice, on the basis of your question, that
12 the text now reads, "Also," which seems not to be a reference to
13 exclusively disarming of, as you said, non-Serb areas but that the
14 army --
15 MR. LUKIC: But army also should take part --
16 JUDGE ORIE: -- also has -- yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers]... also non-Serb areas.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Well, depends then on how you read it.
19 MR. LUKIC: Yeah --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You could also read: The army also had a role
21 to play in --
22 MR. LUKIC: Yeah.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Okay. Let's --
24 Any comment from the witness?
25 THE WITNESS: I think I was using the document, the reference --
1 I can't remember the exact document itself, but I think it makes mention
2 that the military are to be involved in the disarming process. I'm using
3 the footnote to demonstrate that the army are to be involved in that
4 process. I'm not using the footnote to demonstrate that it's non-Serb
5 areas attacked.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Next question, please, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: Let's see 1D1470. It's the transcript from Tuesday,
8 28th October 2003, Brdjanin trial. We need page 50 -- 45 in the e-court,
9 lines 14 to 17.
10 Q. I think that you accepted here that you made mistake.
11 A. Well, I -- as I say, I think I was using the footnote to
12 demonstrate a different issue within the text. But without seeing the
13 document again, I will take at face value it doesn't say "attack non-Serb
15 But I think the reference, the emphasis of the sentence, is that
16 it's this issue of police and military co-operation.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Would you agree that it would have been more
18 accurate to correct a new version of the report so as to clarify this
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir probably.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Thank you.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Lukic.
23 THE WITNESS: Or to put the footnote through the sentence.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Are there any more mistakes in your report? What do you think?
1 A. I stand by my report, sir. I'm sure that there will be footnote
2 references and smaller issues that undoubtedly will be in there, and I'm
3 more than happy to make changes as necessary. But the underlying
4 aspects, I would stand by.
5 Q. Let's look at paragraph 1.31.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, I'll not stop you at this moment,
7 although you're already living in Mr. Traldi's time.
8 MR. LUKIC: I'll do this one and then I'll stop. And so we need
9 footnote 41.
10 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I'd note that this one we put on the
11 record at the beginning of direct, Your Honour.
12 MR. LUKIC: This one?
13 MR. TRALDI: Yeah. One of the first questions I asked the
15 MR. LUKIC: Sorry. It was a long time ago. I forgot.
16 Then paragraph 2.5 and footnote 239 --
17 JUDGE ORIE: So you still had one in reserve, Mr. Lukic?
18 MR. LUKIC: Yes, I have many. I have no time.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Why not sit with Mr. Traldi and assist
20 together the Chamber in removing errors which are of greater or lesser
21 importance? The Chamber is open for that.
22 But you're asking for 2.5 --
23 MR. LUKIC: Yes. And footnote 239.
24 Q. And on the 14th of July, 2005, in Krajisnik trial, on transcript
25 page number 16517 - if you want, we can see it - you admitted that that
1 is wrong reference. We can see -- I'll finish here just to show you the
2 transcript, 1D1471.
3 JUDGE ORIE: It's a wrong reference?
4 MR. LUKIC: It's a wrong reference.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Then why not try to find the proper one or strike
6 the sentence?
7 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, I exceeded my time.
8 Mr. Brown, thank you for answering my questions.
9 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much your patience, sir. I
10 appreciate it.
11 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber also appreciated that at the very end
12 you started even improving the quality of the work of the witness.
13 Mr. Traldi.
14 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. To focus re-direct I have
15 proposed to Mr. Lukic that two documents be admitted from the bar table,
16 65 ter 16489 and 16582. I understand that the Defence would reserve the
17 right to litigate the weight to be afforded these documents, but it would
18 allow us to finish today.
19 MR. LUKIC: I can tell you immediately that we have no objections
20 to the first one.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. LUKIC: It's 16489. It's military document. But we have
23 many issues with the second one.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Do you have issues or do you objections against
25 admission, which is not the same?
1 MR. LUKIC: Against -- we have objections against admission as
3 JUDGE ORIE: And them being what?
4 MR. LUKIC: Because it's multiple document signed by different
5 people. So it's not --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
7 MR. LUKIC: I see it here --
8 JUDGE ORIE: You see that you now know that there is some problem
9 with the admission.
10 MR. TRALDI: And --
11 JUDGE ORIE: We can't -- I have got no idea what it is at this
12 moment, so you have to assess how to proceed, whether to keep on the
13 same -- safe side and deal with it with the witness, or to take the risk
14 that -- and tender it from the bar table.
15 MR. TRALDI: It's a compilation of several official records, so I
16 may take the risk, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
18 MR. TRALDI: But I -- I would ask that 16489 be admitted at this
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar. The number would be ...
21 THE REGISTRAR: P2888, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
23 Re-examination by Mr. Traldi:
24 Q. Then, sir, I'd ask that we start where Mr. Lukic left off with
25 one of the purported mistakes in your report.
1 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 06493.
2 Q. While this comes up, I'd ask you, did you ever see an indication
3 that any disarmament operations in late May were conducted in Serb areas?
4 A. No, sir, I did not.
5 Q. And this document, now that it's up, starting in paragraph 1,
6 notes that various Bosnian Muslim forces have been:
7 "Disarming paramilitary Muslim and Croatian formations in the
8 Sanski Most municipal area."
9 It describes that in the next paragraph and then says:
10 "On 25 May 1992, this 'disarming' was followed by a military
11 action (attack) against the down-town neighbourhood of Mahala ..."
12 Based on your knowledge, is that a Muslim area?
13 A. Yes, it is, sir.
14 Q. "Which resulted in the capture of 2.000 civilians, but no
15 significant amount [sic] of weapons have been found because they had been
16 concealed earlier."
17 Is this document consistent with your conclusion that these
18 disarmament operations were targeted at non-Serbs?
19 A. Yes it's.
20 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tendered 65 ter 06493.
21 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: P2889, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
25 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 30215. It is an article by
1 Roy Gutman dated 19 July 1992 titled: "There is no food, there is no
3 Q. While it comes up, sir, Mr. Lukic suggested to you that no
4 articles had been published about the detention facilities before
5 23 July 1992.
6 Do you recall those questions?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. And does this document perhaps clarify for you whether articles
9 had been published before that date?
10 A. Yes, it would seem that Gutman, who was aware of Manjaca, was
11 publishing an article at this time.
12 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tendered 65 ter 30215.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
14 THE REGISTRAR: P2890, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ORIE: P2890 is admitted.
16 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 30214, please. It is article
17 also by Roy Gutman dated 19 July titled: "Prisoners of Serbia's war."
18 Q. And does this document also clarify that matter for you, sir?
19 A. Yes, it's the same date.
20 MR. TRALDI: I'll tendered that document as well, Your Honour.
21 MR. LUKIC: Only I should maybe raise -- rise before, but I don't
22 know what's the position? Can we introduce newspaper articles without
23 questioning writers?
24 JUDGE ORIE: I think the purpose of what Mr. Traldi is doing is
25 to challenge the suggestion that the world would not have known yet and
1 therefore the measures taken could not be in response to.
2 That is -- seems the major purpose of this effort, Mr. Traldi, am
3 I right?
4 MR. TRALDI: Yes, Your Honour. I think the articles reflect that
5 as of the 19th, if not earlier, conditions in the camp were known and
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic, you introduced the matter that the
8 measures could not have been taken in response to, at least that was a
9 suggestion in your questions, and that is what Mr. Traldi is now
10 responding to.
11 And not necessarily for the truth of the content of exactly what
12 was published, is it Mr. Traldi?
13 MR. TRALDI: No, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: It may be true. You may even think it's true, but
15 that's not purpose at this moment of --
16 MR. TRALDI: I would agree with that, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
18 Mr. Lukic, if there's any objection please tell us what it is.
19 MR. LUKIC: Only this one that I think it's not common to
20 introduce the media --
21 JUDGE ORIE: The objection is denied.
22 Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Document 30214 receives number P2891,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ORIE: P2891 is admitted.
1 MR. TRALDI:
2 Q. Next, sir, Mr. Lukic suggested to you that non-Serb forces were
3 stronger than you credited them for. Is it right that your evaluations
4 of those forces' strength were made on the basis of VRS and Bosnian Serb
6 A. Yes, it is, sir.
7 Q. Okay. And I'd like to look at one example.
8 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 06966.
9 Q. This relates to the follow-on operations in Prijedor in late
10 July 1992 which you discuss in your Krajina report.
11 The document notes in page 1 in point 1 in both languages that
12 the enemy has:
13 "Respected the cease-fire in the corps' entire zone of
15 And then describing Prijedor specifically in the next
16 paragraph says:
17 "Muslim fighters, singly or in small groups, occasionally appear
18 around the Kozarac and Kozarusa villages, attempting to make a breach
19 towards Prijedor or across mount Kozara towards the Sava river."
20 Is that consistent with the other documentation you've reviewed
21 about the strength of Muslim forces in Prijedor at that time?
22 A. Yes, it is.
23 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tender 65 ter 06966.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: P2892, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is admitted into evidence.
2 MR. TRALDI:
3 Q. I'm going to show you two documents now about these operations
4 and ask a simple question after.
5 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 16935.
6 Q. This is a report from Prijedor SJB at the beginning of July 1992.
7 If we could turn to the next page in B/C/S and at the bottom of the page
8 here in English, is it right there we see a list of weapons that have
9 been seized by the Prijedor SJB as of that date?
10 A. Yes, this is.
11 MR. TRALDI: And could we have 65 ter 10851, a similar report at
12 the beginning of August.
13 Q. Now, we can't go through every category for time reasons, but
14 based on your recollection of these documents, do they indicate large
15 number of weapons were seized by the Prijedor SJB in July or are the
16 numbers pretty similar?
17 A. No, they're relatively small numbers, but it's also the type of
18 weaponry there, hunting, carbines, old M-48s and old rifle. So it's the
19 numbers that are small and also the type of weaponry that is there.
20 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honours, I'd tendered those two documents.
21 16935 first.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
23 THE REGISTRAR: P2893, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
25 MR. TRALDI: And 10851, second.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P2894, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Also admitted into evidence.
4 MR. TRALDI: Now I want to turn back to Sanski Most. Could we
5 have P2409, MFI.
6 Q. And this morning Mr. Lukic suggested to you that persons who left
7 Sanski Most did so voluntarily. Do you recall that suggestion?
8 A. Yes, I do, sir.
9 Q. And here we see under "Conclusions," point 1:
10 "Mirko Vrucinic, Nedeljko Rasula and Colonel Nedjo Anicic shall
11 be in charge of resolving the issue of prisoners and their categorisation
12 and deportation to Manjaca."
13 And it lists three categories: First category, politicians;
14 second category, nationalist extremists; third category, people unwelcome
15 in Sanski Most municipality.
16 Is there any reference here to international law or the principle
17 that these unwelcome people shouldn't leave the municipality unless they
18 choose to do so?
19 A. None whatsoever, sir.
20 Q. And it says they're being sent to Manjaca. Is this consistent
21 with documents you reviewed from Manjaca as to what type of persons were
22 held there?
23 A. Yes. And it would seem reflective of the documents in Manjaca
24 themselves when they arrived and when they were processed that they knew
25 that large numbers who were in the camp were not combatants.
1 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tender P2409.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 MR. TRALDI: Yeah, it's MFI'd. It's an associate exhibit pending
5 a decision.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And it's now admitted.
7 Please proceed.
8 MR. TRALDI:
9 Q. Before focussing on Manjaca, I'll ask you about a couple of other
10 specific camps.
11 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 7131. This is a document
12 emanating from SJB Prijedor.
13 Q. Mr. Lukic suggested to you today that the Prijedor camps were
14 essentially civilian camps. Do you recall that question?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. Here on this first page at point 1, we see a reference to a
17 provisional collection centre that will be set up at the Omarska mines
18 strip mine. And at -- at point 3, rather, we read:
19 "A mixed group consisting of national, public and military
20 security investigators shall be responsible for the work with and
21 categorisation of detainees. They shall organise themselves respecting
22 the parity principle."
23 And it refers to Mirko Jesic, Ranko Mijic and
24 Lieutenant-Colonel Majstorovic who shall be responsible for their work.
25 Do you have a comment on this paragraph?
1 A. Well, it would seem that Omarska camp is going to have this joint
2 military security input in relation to investigating these individuals.
3 Colonel Majstorovic was an officer in the Prijedor military garrison.
4 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 07131.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: P2895, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
8 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 16627. This is a document
9 identified as from Prijedor Region Command.
10 Q. And this document is labelled "Official Note," refers to
11 Zoran Zigic, and is a report of allegations against Zigic. On the third
12 point it refers to him as a private and says he was taken into custody.
13 We see it's sent by the Prijedor Region Command to the security organ of
14 the 1st Krajina Corps. What importance do you attach to this document?
15 A. Zigic was a soldier within the Prijedor Region Command, and he is
16 clearly been working in Keraterm camp and he has committed an extortion
17 here and it is been reported up the chain.
18 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tender this document as well.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Would you have a look at the date and see whether
20 the translation needs to be completed.
21 MR. TRALDI: I note, Your Honour, that the translation is missing
22 the year.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Unless the parties would agree that the
24 13th of June, 1992, is meant -- which seems to be consistent with the
25 first line referring to the 10th of June, 1992.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE ORIE: You agree. Then it can be admitted with the caveat
3 that the year should be 1992.
4 Please proceed.
5 Mr. Registrar, please give the number.
6 THE REGISTRAR: P2896, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
8 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 16633, please.
9 Q. This is identified as from the Official Gazette and coming from
10 Dr. Stakic. At point 1 we see that Major Kuruzovic, commander of the
11 Prijedor Territorial Defence, is relieved of duties as of 29 May 1992 and
12 placed under the command of the command of the region.
13 Would that have placed him within the VRS chain of command?
14 A. Yes, it would sir --
15 MR. TRALDI: And, Your Honours --
16 THE WITNESS: Under Colonel Arsic.
17 MR. TRALDI: Regarding Trnopolje, I'd refer Your Honours to
18 adjudicated fact 1063, and I'd tender this document.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Before we decide on that, can the president of
20 a Crisis Staff put Mr. Kuruzovic in a position in the army?
21 THE WITNESS: Sir, I believe the background to this would be it's
22 a time when the Territorial Defences were being integrated into the VRS
23 as was expected at the 12th Assembly session, and it comes a few days
24 after that. Kuruzovic had been the commander of the Prijedor
25 Territorial Defence, so I suspect that what was happening here was that
1 there were negotiations into how we can and effectively merge the TO into
2 the VRS. And he is being appointed there.
3 JUDGE ORIE: And command of the region in these circumstances
4 means what exactly?
5 THE WITNESS: Prijedor region command, sir.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you.
7 No objections.
8 Mr. Registrar.
9 THE REGISTRAR: P2897, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
11 MR. TRALDI:
12 Q. And in the interests of time, sir, I'm going to just focus on a
13 very narrow issue related to Manjaca. Mr. Lukic asked you about how
14 prisoners were brought to Manjaca. Do you recall those questions?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. And I'm going to focus on the type of prisoners who were kept
18 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 30216.
19 Q. In the second paragraph it says -- we see the date, 2 July, 1992.
20 The second paragraph, it says:
21 "Processing of individuals from Kljuc municipality is coming
22 close to its end."
23 Were there any large releases in July 1992?
24 A. No, sir not to my knowledge.
25 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, I'd tendered this document.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P2898, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted.
4 MR. TRALDI: And could we have 65 ter 07153, please, page 4 in
5 the English and 2 in the B/C/S.
6 Q. We discussed -- Mr. Lukic asked you about as well, the selections
7 of prisoners in late August 1992. Do you recall that?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Okay. And this, I think, will also relate to a question that
10 Mr. President asked you on Tuesday, when it comes up. In the final
11 paragraph, it says:
12 "On 20 August 1992, we received a task from Major Pero Stupar,
13 which was the result of a telegram from the Main Staff of the Serbian
14 army, and related to our activities and engagement to realise the tasks
15 received. In accordance with this telegram, representatives of the
16 Bosanska Dubica, Kljuc, Banja Luka, Prijedor, and Mrkonjic Grad CSBs came
17 to Manjaca camp."
18 And then it describes a little bit about a joint meeting.
19 On Tuesday, His Honour Judge Orie asked you, based on another
20 document, whether, in your view, the military had a role to play in
21 dealing with the revelations about conditions at Manjaca camp and you
22 said you believed it did. Does this document reinforce your conclusion
23 in that regard?
24 A. Yes, it does.
25 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender 65 ter 07153.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: P2899, Your Honours.
3 MR. TRALDI: Your Honour, there's a document I would have used,
4 if not for the clock, that relates to that meeting, and I will put on the
5 record 65 ter 06018, and just ask Mr. Lukic if he'd be willing to discuss
6 whether it can be bar tabled.
7 JUDGE ORIE: It can be bar tabled anyhow, but I take it that you
8 want to know whether he would object against it being admitted through
9 the bar table.
10 MR. TRALDI: [Overlapping speakers]... and I wouldn't expect,
11 Mr. President, him to have a position off the top of his head.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then perhaps you take your time.
13 Mr. Traldi, in the beginning you wanted to tender from the bar
14 table two documents: One which was not objected to; the other one was
15 16582, 65 ter number. Is that report anywhere footnoted in the report?
16 MR. TRALDI: It is, Mr. President.
17 JUDGE ORIE: It is.
18 Then, Mr. Lukic, the only objection you raised is that these are
19 various reports. They all seem to be signed. They all seem to refer at
20 least in one way or another to how people were moved from municipalities
21 to finally to Manjaca camp. This document now in your cross-examination
22 you, of course, challenged some of the findings here. Do you still
23 against a footnoted material to be in evidence just because you have
24 issues with it and there are several signatures? These are several
25 documents. They all deal more or less with similar things, although in
1 different municipalities or with prisoners ending up in Manjaca.
2 Which was a --
3 MR. LUKIC: To be honest with you I received it in time from
4 Mr. Traldi, but I was doing on some other things. So I just raised the
5 first objection I could see.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
7 MR. LUKIC: But to be more specific, maybe I really need more
8 time. It might be that I will not object, but I have to go through the
9 document [Overlapping speakers] ...
10 JUDGE ORIE: [Overlapping speakers] ... let's then wait for that.
11 So you are now considering your position rather than having objected to
13 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'll MFI it.
15 Mr. Registrar.
16 THE REGISTRAR: P2900, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Is marked for identification.
18 MR. TRALDI: And, Mr. President, if I might beg the interpreters'
19 indulgence for two or three more questions.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, although it's not only the interpreters. There
21 are other matters as well. We can't finish very late. I have
22 commitments elsewhere. So if you would try to keep it short, with the
23 assistance of the witness.
24 MR. TRALDI: Could we have 65 ter 07055. And that will be the
25 last document I use.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Say the number again.
2 MR. TRALDI: 07055.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
4 MR. TRALDI: My notes appear to be in error -- no. We have the
5 right document on the left and not on the right.
6 Q. Under point 4, this document is a 1st Krajina Corps report to the
7 Main Staff dated 16 December. In point 4, it reports:
8 "Pursuant to your order, we are, with some difficulty, closing
9 down Manjaca camp."
10 What do you take from this?
11 A. Well, the 1st Krajina Corps is responding to a tasking it
12 received to close the camp down which it is carrying out.
13 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I'd tender this document.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 65 ter 7055 receives number P2901,
16 Your Honours.
17 JUDGE ORIE: P2901 is admitted. 2901 is admitted.
18 MR. TRALDI:
19 Q. Sir, earlier today you mentioned that when the camp was reopened
20 in 1993, Colonel Popovic had been promoted and was put back in charge.
21 Do you have any comment on that?
22 A. Yes, I do, actually. I think that despite all the paperwork in
23 relation to abiding by Geneva Conventions, it speaks volumes that the
24 documents that they had knew what was happening in Manjaca and the same
25 commander was appointed and promoted, and it high lights that actually
1 behind this the Bosnian Serb, the VRS, did not care and did not have any
2 intentions of taking -- making anyone accountable for these activities.
3 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, that completes my re-direct.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Traldi.
5 Have the questions in re-direct triggered any need for further
6 question, Mr. Lukic.
7 MR. LUKIC: We are at the end of the day.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I know that. But I would -- I would defend before
9 the interpreters that if you would need one or two more minutes and -- if
10 it's a -- if it's an important and relevant issue.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Overlapping speakers] ... many issues, but we will
12 try to clarify them with other witnesses.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. If that's your -- I would have assisted you
14 but that's where we are.
15 Then, first of all, Mr. Brown, I'd like to thank you very much
16 for coming to this courtroom and for having answered all the questions -
17 I can say the many questions - that were put to you by the parties and
18 the Bench. I wish you a safe return home again. You are excused and may
19 follow the usher.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much, Your Honour. And I do
21 apologise for some of the length of the questions. Sometimes context is
22 not very easy. And I also would like to thank the interpreters.
23 JUDGE ORIE: You're apologising for the length of the questions,
24 I think Mr. Lukic would really appreciate that, but I take it that also
25 includes the length of your answers.
1 THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed, sir.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
3 [The witness withdrew]
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Traldi.
5 MR. TRALDI: Your Honours, I tender at this point exhibit MFI
6 numbers P2859 through 2863 which are his reports, statements, and errata
8 JUDGE ORIE: If you would not mind, we leave that until next week
9 to decide on it and to see whether there are any additional objections by
10 the Defence.
11 So that's the first thing on the agenda of Monday morning.
12 MR. TRALDI: I will submit a list of associated exhibits for
13 tendering at that time as well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we can deal with them in one -- one -- in
15 one -- in one step.
16 Nothing else to be raised. We adjourn for the day, and we'll
17 resume Monday, the 25th of November, at 9.30 in the morning.
18 Mr. Registrar, would that still be in this Courtroom III or --
19 still in Courtroom III.
20 We stand adjourned.
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.53 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Monday, the 25th day of
23 November, 2013, at 9.30 a.m.