1 Tuesday, 31 March 2015
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.34 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. This is case
9 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 The Chamber was informed that the OTP wants to raise a
12 preliminary matter.
13 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. There are actually two
14 matters, as indicated yesterday, one of which was touched on briefly but
15 I think may benefit from some additional clarification. That was with
16 respect to MFI D920. I mentioned yesterday that the translation wasn't
17 the issue but the question of whether or not the document had actually
18 been raised during the course of the witness's testimony. And in that
19 respect, I would note that the document was tendered on March 2nd at
20 transcript page 32389. At that point, Mr. Lukic referred back to the
21 previous day's session, noting that he had omitted to offer into evidence
22 two documents. He referred to what became D919 by its exhibit number,
23 1D5364, and indeed that document was called up as under that exhibit
24 number and discussed in court the previous day. And then he mentioned
25 another one, as he put it, D5367. That then became MFI D920. Our search
1 through the records of the previous day did not reveal a reference to
2 5367 or any discussion of that document and that's the issue at the
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic -- or if you want to further verify the
5 transcripts, then we would like to hear from you after the break.
6 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We leave it to that.
8 MR. TIEGER: And the second matter --
9 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Tieger.
10 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: I think -- I take it you referred to 1D5367.
12 MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's correct.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The 1 was missing.
14 MR. TIEGER: I abbreviated the reference.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, which may cause some confusion and it suddenly
16 looks like as if it's an exhibit, which it isn't.
17 MR. TIEGER: And in fact, that's precisely what the transcript
18 says when the document is mentioned on the 2nd, as I mentioned, when it
19 was tendered. So we looked back for the reference under that number in
20 the previous day's transcript without success.
21 The second matter is one I presume the Court is aware of but did
22 not want to simply assume, and that's with reference to the videolink
23 motion for Witness -- proposed Witness Seselj. Yesterday the decision by
24 the Appeals Chamber was issued effectively vacating or revoking the
25 provisional release and ordering the Trial Chamber to revoke the previous
1 order and order his return to the DU. It appears to us that essentially
2 moots the motion pending before the Court, but I leave to the Court and
3 to Mr. Lukic the precise mechanism for how that will be handled.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Lukic.
5 MR. LUKIC: I think it's not in our hands anymore.
6 JUDGE ORIE: No -- well, whether the motion has become moot and
7 whether you withdraw it is in your hands, but whether the circumstances
8 will develop in such a way that you finally have reasons to withdraw
9 it -- I mean, a decision is one and then of course the decision has to be
11 MR. LUKIC: So our position is --
12 JUDGE ORIE: So --
13 MR. LUKIC: -- as long as the witness is not here, we cannot
14 withdraw that -- our motion.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Tieger relies on the legal situation at
16 this moment, whereas the Defence apparently wants to rely at this moment
17 on the situation practically. We'll think about that and of course we'll
18 then hope that the practical situation ...
19 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
20 JUDGE ORIE: We turn into private session.
21 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
15 The Chamber turned into private session because it wanted to
16 verify whether it had touched upon anything related to the reasons for
17 which the motion for a videolink was made confidential. It turned out
18 that we have not touched upon any such thing, therefore the transcript
19 can remain as it is.
20 Mr. Tieger.
21 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. Let me just offer
22 one additional observation, and that is the presumed dichotomy between
23 the legal situation and the factual situation I think is not as clear as
24 Mr. Lukic might have suggested. I think the -- that recent developments
25 also impact on --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. TIEGER: -- the basis for the motion, any --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 MR. TIEGER: -- possibility of enforcing any order, et cetera.
5 So all those factors are also at play.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's the reason why we take our time to
7 think about it and nothing is lost meanwhile.
8 Anything else? I think there was a matter to be raised by the
9 Defence, but you have decided to postpone that, Mr. Lukic, or was that
10 the same matter?
11 MR. LUKIC: It is the same matter, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE ORIE: It's the same --
13 MR. LUKIC: -- I just have to receive the response from
14 Mr. Traldi.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then we will invite the witness to enter the
17 Mr. Weber.
18 MR. WEBER: Good morning, Your Honours. I just wanted to alert
19 the Trial Chamber that the next witness did receive a 90(E) admonishment
20 and I also see that that admonishment is part of the uploaded transcript
21 that might be offered pursuant to Rule 92 ter. Just for practical
22 purposes, it might make sense then to admonish him at the outset.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Although he would have read the transcript then, but
24 we'll certainly do that.
25 MR. IVETIC: And for the purposes of the record, Your Honour, the
1 next witness is Edin Garaplija, whose appearance is compelled today by a
2 subpoena issued by Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
4 [The witness entered court]
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Garaplija.
6 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Garaplija, before you give evidence, the Rules
8 require that you make a solemn declaration, that you will speak the
9 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The text is now
10 handed out to you. May I invite you to make that solemn declaration.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
12 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
13 WITNESS: EDIN GARAPLIJA
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated, Mr. Garaplija.
16 Mr. Garaplija, you'll be examined by Mr. Ivetic. You'll find
17 Mr. Ivetic standing to your left. Mr. Ivetic is a member of the Defence
18 team of Mr. Mladic, but before he starts his examination, I'd like to
19 read to you - and it may not come as a surprise, I understand that it has
20 been read to you before - I'll read to you Rule 90(E) of the Rules of
21 Procedure and Evidence.
22 The text is:
23 "A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to
24 incriminate the witness. The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to
25 answer the question. Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used
1 as evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any
2 offence other than false testimony."
3 Having read this Rule, where it says that you may object to
4 making any statement which might tend to incriminate you, that you should
5 address me if that situation arises and then you can address the Chamber
6 and ask to be relieved from your duty to answer that question and then
7 we'll decide on such a request.
8 If that's clear to you, carefully listen to Mr. Ivetic's
9 questions and please answer them.
10 Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Examination by Mr. Ivetic:
13 Q. Good day, sir, can you please first state your full name for the
15 A. Good day. My name is Edin Garaplija.
16 Q. And, sir, you are appearing today before us pursuant to a
17 subpoena that this Trial Chamber has issued compelling your attendance;
18 is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 MR. IVETIC: I would like to call up 1D5308 in e-court.
21 Q. While we wait for that, what is being called up is a redacted
22 transcript of your testimony in the Karadzic case on the 7th of February,
23 2013. Mr. Garaplija, have you had an opportunity to review the
24 transcript of your Karadzic testimony which is before you?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And do you stand by everything that you said in your prior
2 testimony during the Karadzic trial as being correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. If I were to ask you the same questions today, would your answers
5 to those questions be substantially the same as recorded in the Karadzic
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And pursuant to the solemn declaration that you have taken this
9 morning, does that mean that the answers you would give, as in your
10 Karadzic transcript, are truthful in nature?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I would tender 1D5308 as the next
13 Defence exhibit. We had originally not sought any of the associated
14 documents, but in discussions with the Prosecution yesterday we agreed to
15 tender 65 ter number 31931 which is referred to in the Karadzic
16 transcript at page 13 through 15 as D2907.
17 MR. WEBER: That's correct, no objections.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Before we decide on admission, you said you reviewed
19 the transcript. Do I understand that you can read the English language?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Did you review it in English?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that additional information.
24 Mr. Registrar, two exhibits to be assigned a number to -- the
25 first is the extract of the testimony in the Karadzic case and the other
1 one is the associated exhibit. The first one, please.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, 65 ter number 1D05308, the redacted excerpt
3 of testimony will be Exhibit D980; and 65 ter number 31931 will be
4 Exhibit D981.
5 JUDGE ORIE: D980 and D981 are admitted into evidence.
6 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, at this time I would read the witness
8 summary as is customary.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
10 MR. IVETIC: Edin Garaplija was a reserve member of the Ministry
11 of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina during the start of
12 the war. From June 1992 onwards, he was a member of the State Security
13 Service of the MUP of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In June of
14 1996, he was deputy chief of the centre for the secret surveillance and
15 leader of an anti-terrorist team, all within AID, the successor to the
16 state security sector. He was tasked by AID director Kemal Ademovic to
17 investigate the activities of Nedzad Herenda and the Seve unit. The Seve
18 unit was established by Alija Delimustafic in April 1992 within the MUP
19 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a paramilitary unit of the State
20 Security Service. The existence of this unit within the State Security
21 Service of the MUP was kept a secret. One of the leaders of and later
22 head of the State Security Service Mr. Nedzad Ugljen managed the work of
23 the Seve unit. Mr. Ugljen was killed after the existence of this group
24 became known, which was after the witness was arrested in an attempt to
25 hide the investigation of the Seve group.
1 Herenda was arrested and interviewed by the witness and Herenda
2 confessed to his participation in the Seve unit and terrorist activities
3 of the same, including sniping assassinations, setting explosives,
4 et cetera. Among these activities was the killing of a French soldier in
5 1995 from the Executive Council building. Bosnian officials stated that
6 the Serb side was responsible for the death of the French soldier shot
7 while erecting anti-sniping barricades near the Holiday Inn. Herenda
8 received payment of 2.000 marks for this killing. Another incident
9 Herenda confessed to was the attempted assassination of General
10 Sefer Halilovic which resulted in the killing of his wife and
11 brother-in-law. The Seve group placed an explosive under the balcony or
12 terrace of General Halilovic. The public was told that a shell launched
13 by the Serb army, a Maljutka guided projectile had caused the killing and
14 Herenda and the perpetrators left a Maljutka wire at the scene.
15 Other crimes of the Seve unit included the liquidation of
16 captured soldiers and civilians in the centre of Sarajevo committed
17 personally by Herenda for which multiple witnesses were found as part of
18 the investigation. Herenda also targeted Serbian women in Grbavica with
19 a sniper rifle. The Seve unit further tried to murder by sniper fire
20 Ismet Bajramovic, a commander of the BiH military police. Bajramovic was
21 wounded and dislocated to another country for treatment. They were also
22 involved in a shooting of two sentries during an attempted arrest of
23 Musan Topalovic.
24 After exposing the Seve group and their crimes, the witness was
25 arrested and a show trial organised, in which the internal structures of
1 the Bosnian forces of law enforcement and justice tried to hide under the
2 carpet the existence of the Seve unit.
3 Your Honours, that completes the summary.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. Now, Mr. Garaplija, I would like to ask some additional
7 questions. In the Karadzic transcript that has now been admitted as
8 D980, at pages 6 through 7 of the same which relate to transcript pages
9 33384 through 33385, you talk about the Operation Eagle being undertaken
10 upon the orders of Mr. Kemal Ademovic. Can you please tell us how it was
11 that Mr. Ademovic approached you about the need to arrest Mr. Herenda?
12 A. Before I answer your question, I would have two objections to the
13 statement -- to the statement summary that you have just read out. The
14 first one relates to the passage referring to the murder of Nedzad
15 Ugljen --
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness, the summary is not evidence. Even
17 if there are imprecisions in there, the main purpose of it is to make the
18 audience, to make the public, acquainted with what is approximately in
19 your testimony so that they can follow any follow-up. It's not evidence
20 itself, so if there are any inaccuracies we leave it then -- we, this
21 Chamber, and the Prosecution will rely exclusively on what we find in the
22 transcript of your testimony.
23 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
24 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour. But in fairness to the
25 witness who is here via subpoena, perhaps I would ask that he be allowed
1 to at least explain the differences --
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I agree with you that since he was subpoenaed
3 perhaps that he has an opportunity to -- not to add anything, but to just
4 point at any inaccuracy in the summary. That means where the summary
5 does not reflect your testimony. Nothing to add, nothing to alter.
6 Please proceed. You may give your comments or corrections.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the passage referring to the
8 murder of Nedzad Ugljen, it is stated that Herenda's arrest was carried
9 out to mask up the Seve unit's activities, but it was just the other way
10 around. My second objection is that it is not Dusan Topalovic but
11 Musan Topalovic, Caco.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for those corrections.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Garaplija. Now can you tell us about how it was
16 that Mr. Kemal Ademovic approached you about the need to arrest
17 Mr. Herenda.
18 A. Having become director in the AID in Bosnia and Herzegovina which
19 was the successor of the intelligence services of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
20 Mr. Ademovic asked for a list of all active and reserve members of the
21 agency. When one of his assistants, Nedzad Ugljen, provided a list of
22 the Seve unit members to him, that one was curtailed, it was redacted,
23 and that name was missing. And since at the beginning he was the
24 commander of the Special Unit Bosna, he knew that Nedzad Herenda whose
25 name was missing as a member of the Seve unit was responsible for the
1 execution of the Serbian civilians in the park where the special unit of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina was located. When Ademovic saw that Nedzad Herenda's
3 name was missing from the list, he gave me an order to start the
4 Operation Eagle. Its objective was to find Nedzad Herenda, to collect
5 evidence about his activities, and special emphasis was put on the fact
6 that he was dangerous.
7 Q. And, sir, do you recall what month and year that meeting took
8 place where you received this task?
9 A. The meeting was held two months before my arrest in May 1996, so
10 that the operation to locate and follow Nedzad Herenda started
11 immediately after that.
12 Q. At that time, did Mr. Ademovic tell you anything further about
13 the type of activities that Herenda was involved in for which he needed
14 to be questioned?
15 A. I've already said this. He was suspected of heinous killing and
16 liquidation of the captured civilians and soldiers in the park. That was
17 the most incriminating information we had about Mr. Herenda. We learned
18 about the rest after the interview with Nedzad Herenda when he was
19 already under arrest.
20 Q. Sir, the orders that you had from Mr. Ademovic to arrest
21 Mr. Herenda, were they memorialised in writing?
22 A. The initial order was verbal and then I got the order in writing.
23 Q. Can you tell us if any kind of difficulties were encountered when
24 attempting to arrest Mr. Herenda?
25 A. The Seve unit was set up within the State Security Service as an
1 independent organisation with very strong backing, so that the operation
2 to locate and arrest Herenda had to be carried out in strict secrecy and
3 nobody except the director, me as the leader of the team, and the
4 operative officers who followed Herenda knew about it. Because we didn't
5 know what the chain of command is, who within the service was operatively
6 issuing orders to the Seve unit.
7 Q. Mr. Garaplija, at the time of Herenda's arrest, was he in
8 possession of any identity documents?
9 A. Yes. He had an official ID. He had different passports in
10 different names and he had an official police badge as well as special
11 laissez-passer allowing him to move under the territory controlled by the
12 BH army.
13 Q. And, sir, just in terms of the laissez-passer, from which organ
14 could such a document be obtained?
15 A. I can't say with certainty which authority issued them and I'm
16 not an expert to decide whether a passport is authentic or forged, so I
17 can't answer this question.
18 Q. Did Herenda say anything about where he had obtained these
19 identification documents from?
20 A. Throughout the interview, Herenda claimed that he was a legal
21 member of the service and that the Seve unit was a legal unit set up
22 within police structures, but as I've said before, it was a paramilitary
23 unit installed at the beginning of the war when an agreement had been
24 reached about joint army and police patrols and it was under the mandate
25 of the then-Minister Alija Delimustafic. That unit was not under the
1 regular system of command, nor did the legal leadership in the State
2 Security Service know the membership of that unit or what they were
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Garaplija, could I seek verification -- further
5 information about one of your previous answers. You said, when asked
6 about the identity documents, you said:
7 "He had different passports in different names ..."
8 And one answer later you said:
9 "I can't say with certainty which authority issued them and I'm
10 not an expert to decide on whether" they are authentic or forged. But
11 from what you saw, let's leave apart whether they were forged or not,
12 from what you saw, who appeared to have issued those identity documents?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We did not go into the details of
14 who issued these documents because we had only 72 hours under the law to
15 conduct an interview with Nedzad Herenda, and we focused our
16 investigation on the crimes committed by the Seve unit. So I'm not sure
17 which agency, which organ issued these documents, but I know that
18 normally it is the official police authorities that issue passports.
19 JUDGE ORIE: You said "several passports." Were they all BiH
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two passports were BH passports.
22 One was a normal civilian passport and another was official. Official
23 passports are given to state officials when they go on official missions,
24 and a third passport was, if I remember correctly, a Croatian one.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the normal passport and the official
1 passport, were they in different names?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot be sure now about the
3 names on the passports. As I said, we didn't go into the details of
4 these documents, and all that happened 20 years ago.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, though you remember it was under different
6 names. I think earlier you said, but let me just look at that --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but ...
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. What did Herenda tell you about the original idea or mission of
11 the Seve group?
12 A. As I've stated before, Nedzad Herenda was convinced that all the
13 missions of the Seve unit were legal, that is to say, approved by the
14 official authorities. And through our investigation, we established that
15 the Seve unit had two missions. One, conditionally speaking, was legal,
16 it comprised legal tasks within the Ministry of the Interior such as
17 providing security for VIPs and various consignments that were dispatched
18 to or from Sarajevo; and the second prong was dirty business, so to
19 speak, and that was handled by the renegade members of the Seve unit,
20 including Herenda, by the exiled ones, so to speak.
21 Q. And these dirty -- this dirty business that you've identified,
22 was it aimed at any particular groups or entities?
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber.
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I just raise to express a concern
25 about -- so we have some clarity in the transcript. I see that
1 Mr. Ivetic's question clearly asked about a conversation aspect, what did
2 Herenda tell the witness; and the witness then moved through our
3 investigation into other matters. So I believe we're starting to get a
4 less-clear foundation or area as to the basis of this witness's
5 knowledge. I just wanted to raise that concern that -- before the
6 answers get too complex.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
8 Mr. Ivetic, I take it that you're also trying to make as clear as
9 possible what the witness learned from his conversations with Herenda and
10 what he may have learned through other sources during his investigation.
11 Witness, that's important for this Chamber to know and Mr. Ivetic
12 will consider that when formulating his questions.
13 Please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
15 Q. With the advice of the Trial Chamber, I would then ask you, sir,
16 what did Herenda state to you during the interview about who or what was
17 targeted as part of the dirty business that he -- that you mentioned?
18 MR. WEBER: I just object, leading. I mean, I think this came up
19 in his last testimony too, the questions were quite often phrased, what
20 did Herenda tell you about X, introducing the topic, as opposed to just
21 eliciting what the conversation was and what was told. And now we have
22 an inference that this was what was said, but that has not -- actually
23 that fact has not been established yet that that was what was told to the
24 witness by Herenda.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Let me just re-read that.
1 Mr. Ivetic, any response?
2 MR. IVETIC: I thought I was responding to the testimony of the
3 witness prior, but it's off my screen right now.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The witness said something about dirty business and
5 then your question was -- well, as a matter of fact: Did he tell you
6 whether, and if so, what the target was of such dirty business.
7 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: That's what you would like to know.
9 Dirty business, if you say, well, you never know where there's a
10 target for dirty business, that's theoretically true, but practically you
11 may proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
12 Could you answer that question, whether there was any -- whether
13 you were told that there was any specific target; and if so, what that
14 target was?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Seve unit had specific targets,
16 but they also had the freedom to act independently, at least that's what
17 Nedzad Herenda told us during his interview. The specific targets have
18 been named in this summary and they included the highest -- the top
19 officials, such as UNPROFOR members, when Herenda confessed that he had
20 shot at an UNPROFOR member in the city centre; and the officials of the
21 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, including the Chief of Staff, Mr. Sefer
22 Halilovic. He was one of the targets. Herenda also admitted to a number
23 of other crimes beginning with the crime that he committed in the big
24 park when he executed a group of captured members of the Serbian army as
25 well as a number of civilians after the crime, when he did target
1 practice shooting at civilians or, as he called them, the women in black
2 because he was convinced at that time that those were Serb women.
3 So the unit had both specific targets and the freedom to choose
4 their own targets in certain cases.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. I'd like to now focus a little more on the shooting of the French
7 soldier which is discussed at page 9 of your Karadzic transcript, which
8 corresponds to transcript page 33387 of the same. Did the operation
9 against the French soldier -- did Herenda tell you what the objective of
10 the same was?
11 A. The purpose of that action was to blame the Serbian side, and
12 Herenda chose a place which was in the line of vision of Serb snipers in
13 the city centre. That's how he chose his position.
14 Q. And according to what he told you, did the operation against the
15 French soldier go as planned?
16 A. In executing that action, he shot the French soldier dead and
17 then a number of officials said that the French soldier had been hit from
18 Serb territory. So it was a successful cover-up and the Serb side was
19 blamed for that.
20 Q. Now, at page -- I think it's 12 of your transcript, which is
21 33390, at lines 4 through 8, you indicate that Herenda received amounts
22 to the tune of thousands of German marks for these actions. Did -- what
23 was your understanding of who paid him or where this money was coming
24 from for his activities?
25 A. I can't say with certainty who paid Herenda. He claimed that he
1 received money for the perpetration of some crimes and the amounts were
2 in the thousands of German marks.
3 Q. Okay. Now, in page 3 --
4 JUDGE ORIE: If you say, "I can't say with certainty who paid"
5 him, why do you say, "I can't say with certainty"? Did you hear rumours?
6 Did you hear anything from Mr. Herenda? Did he tell you anything about
7 it, although you could not verify that? Could you tell us what you
8 learned as -- and how you learned what the possible sources of that
9 payment may have been.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Herenda always cited Nedzad Ugljen
11 as the person issuing him with orders. Nedzad Ugljen was one of the
12 leaders of the service, and I suppose he gave him orders and named
13 certain targets and paid him money. Herenda had contact only with his
14 superior and never mentioned that anyone else ever issued him orders.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Now, at page 34 of your transcript which is transcript
18 page 33413, you mention Musan Topalovic, whom we have also discussed
19 today -- pardon me, it's page 35 of the underlying transcript. And I
20 wanted to ask you, first of all: Did Mr. Topalovic have a nickname?
21 A. Yes. His nickname was Caco.
22 Q. And at the time what --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could you repeat the number as it
24 appears on the transcript.
25 MR. IVETIC: It should be transcript page 33413, which ought to
1 be page 35 of the transcript.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
3 MR. IVETIC: And it's lines 4 through 9, I believe.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you for that information.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Was the name Caco or Celo? In the transcript it
6 says "Celo."
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Musan -- Musan Topalovic was
8 nicknamed Caco, whereas Celo was a man called Ismet Bajramovic, nicknamed
9 Celo, and he was another of Herenda's targets.
10 MR. IVETIC: And I believe, Your Honours, we see that at lines 13
11 through 14 of the Karadzic transcript.
12 Q. Now, Mr. Garaplija, did Mr. Musan Topalovic have a position that
13 he held at the time of the conflict with -- where the Herenda group
14 became involved?
15 A. Yes. Musan Topalovic was at that time commander of the brigade
16 in the surrounded Sarajevo, the brigade of the Army of
18 Q. From your discussions with Mr. Herenda, was there any discussion
19 of how this encounter with the sentries at Musan Topalovic's location
20 came about?
21 A. During his interview, Herenda said clearly that their mission was
22 to hit the guards outside the command of Musan Topalovic, and to do that
23 specifically at a time when a team of inspectors had entered the command
24 in order to take Topalovic to an investigating interview, because he was
25 suspected of certain crimes. At the same time, Herenda's colleagues from
1 the Seve unit also shot at different positions of the joint forces that
2 were supposed to support this team of inspectors so that in those early
3 moments they faked mutual conflict and both sides fell for it,
4 unfortunately. So there were many casualties; namely, the entire team of
5 inspectors that had entered the command of Musan Topalovic was brutally
6 killed, and on the other hand, joint forces liquidated a number of the
7 members of Topalovic's brigade. This crisis in the city centre lasted
8 several hours, and then Topalovic was forced to surrender. He was then
9 taken to the command of the BH army corps and shortly after was killed in
10 an attempt to escape.
11 Q. Did your investigative team develop any theory as to why the Seve
12 group had been tasked to do what they did, to fake mutual combat?
13 MR. WEBER: Objection, calls for speculation.
14 JUDGE ORIE: That objection is denied. The question is whether a
15 theory was developed.
16 MR. WEBER: Well, maybe I'm --
17 JUDGE ORIE: This is a question of fact.
18 Please proceed.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not speculating right now
20 about these events. All these events have been documented. A lot has
21 been said, both at trials and in the media, about this, and as I said
22 before Nedzad Herenda provided us with information from inside the Seve
23 unit --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, let me stop you there. The question was
25 whether the investigative team, that is, the investigative team at the
1 time, developed any theory about why the group had been tasked to do what
2 they did. So we're not asking you at this moment to analyse what you may
3 have learned at trials later, but did at the time the investigative group
4 develop such theory? Perhaps you could first tell us whether they did or
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Our task was not to come up with
7 theories; it was to document crimes.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Whether it was your task or not, the question simply
9 is whether you did develop at the time a theory, yes or no. If not, then
10 we'll move on and perhaps questions will be put to you about what the
11 investigations revealed apart from any developed theory. Did you develop
12 such a theory at the time?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic. Well, when I say
15 that --
16 MR. IVETIC: The time.
17 JUDGE ORIE: -- I should have first looked at the clock.
18 Could you tell us where we are in terms of time, Mr. Ivetic.
19 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours, I believe approximately
20 30 minutes.
21 JUDGE ORIE: 30 minutes left.
22 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you may follow the usher. We take a break
24 of some 20 minutes. We'd like to see you back after that.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take a break and resume at five minutes to
3 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
4 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
5 [The witness takes the stand]
6 JUDGE ORIE: If you're ready, Mr. Ivetic, you may proceed.
7 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Garaplija, during your interview of Mr. Herenda, did he
9 discuss anything about the purpose of the Seve group's creating a fake
10 conflict between the two sides during the arrest of Musan Topalovic,
12 A. In every crime committed by the Seve group, you can follow the
13 same pattern. The purpose was to create as much conflict as possible and
14 to spill as much blood on both sides.
15 Q. Okay. Now, at page 33 of the Karadzic transcript which should
16 correlate to transcript page 33411, at lines 11 through 25 you identify
17 the cases that we've talked about, and then at lines -- in relation to
18 attacks by the Seve unit against Bosnian Muslims. And then you say at
19 line 22 through 25:
20 "These are the two cases that I heard about in my interview and
21 investigation of Nedzad Herenda, but since more than 17 years have
22 passed, I do not exclude a possibility that there were other cases. I
23 could have mentioned other cases in my interview with the OTP."
24 First of all, can you tell us when it was that you were
25 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal?
1 A. In the year 2000. I sent an appeal to the organisation for human
2 rights and one letter to The Hague Tribunal. After that I was contacted
3 by the investigators of The Hague Tribunal, and they then talked to me
4 for several days.
5 Q. And now do you recall any other instances of the Seve group
6 targeting persons from Sarajevo, including Muslims, that were discovered
7 by you as part of your investigation and that you may have talked about
8 with the OTP during your interview, apart from these instances from the
9 Karadzic testimony that we have now gone through?
10 A. In the Karadzic case I answered very specific questions. When it
11 comes to other cases, at the beginning of today's testimony I said that
12 Herenda told me that he had committed several crimes consisting of
13 opening sniper fire on civilians, both on the Bosnian side as well as on
14 the Serb side. He opened sniper fire on Grbavica and on the Vrbanja
15 Bridge, more specifically. For a time they secured the bridge on
16 Grbavica. Today the bridge is known as the Bridge of Suada Dilberovic
17 and before the war it was the Vrbanja Bridge. They killed a couple.
18 And the second sniping incident that you have reminded me of was
19 the attempt to execute Ismet Bajramovic, Celo, who was the commander of
20 the military police at the time in the surrounded Sarajevo. I suppose he
21 would have been a most unpleasant witness of certain events. Celo
22 survived the murder attempt, although he was shot straight in the heart,
23 very professionally. However, his life was saved by doctors and then he
24 was moved to a third country for further treatment. I believe that he
25 was moved to Germany.
1 Q. If we could focus to the actions at the Vrbanja Bridge, first of
2 all, you said for a time they secured the bridge on Grbavica. Could you
3 please give us what more details you have as to what they -- what the
4 securing of the bridge was in relation to, what other activities of the
5 Seve unit.
6 A. Although the war lasted from 1992 to 1995, all the sides were
7 involved in the trading business amongst themselves. Certain activities,
8 for example, the exchanges of civilians, took place at certain points
9 such as the Vrbanja Bridge. What was traded there were lots of different
10 commodities, including weapons and drugs that were then brought to
11 Sarajevo which was surrounded.
12 Q. And in relation to the activities of the Seve at the bridge, the
13 Vrbanja Bridge, you indicated a couple had been killed. Did you have any
14 more information as to the ethnicity of that couple?
15 A. Yes. They were known as the Romeo and Juliet of Sarajevo. The
16 man was a Serb and the woman was a Bosniak. They had a lot of money on
17 themselves and they tried to escape surrounded Sarajevo and get to the
18 Serbian side across the bridge. Herenda, together with his colleague
19 Dragan from the Seve unit, actually targeted that couple and hit them and
20 killed them. The position from which they opened fire was a couple of
21 hundred metres away as you're looking from the side of the city to the
22 left, that's where the building of the school of electrical engineering
23 was. It was known as Steleks. From there, Herenda opened fire --
24 actually, he hit the couple from a sniper.
25 Q. And --
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could we ask again whether this is what you learned
2 from Herenda or that you -- are there reports written about this or
3 what's the source of your knowledge?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We learned that from Herenda
5 himself during the interview in June 1996.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, any other source of knowledge apart from
7 hearing this from Herenda?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Not at that moment. However, it
9 was covered by the media after that. Over the past several years there
10 have also been some TV shows about that; before that, newspapers covered
11 the story quite excessively.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But, Mr. Ivetic, needless to say that you then have
13 to know where the media got their information from, but please proceed.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. If we can go back to the time-period when this couple was shot on
16 the bridge. Who was blamed for it at that time-period, during the war?
17 A. Like for a majority of sniping activity, it was the Serbian side
18 that was blamed for that. To be more precise, during the war nobody was
19 aware of the existence of the Seve unit. We learned about them only
20 after the war, in 1996.
21 Q. And you identified in your answer that Herenda worked with a
22 colleague named Dragan. To your knowledge, was this individual, Dragan,
23 ever arrested or punished for his deeds as part of the Seve group?
24 A. Interestingly enough, Dragan Bozic, who was a prominent member of
25 the Seve unit, and Nedzad Herenda mentioned him a lot in his statement,
1 he also used the name Dragan Sosic, he was never put on trial. As far as
2 I know, he is still employed at the Central Bank of Bosnia and
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. Although his name is mentioned often, I mentioned it in several
6 of my statements given both to the local as well as international
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, could I seek clarification of one of the
9 previous answers.
10 You were asked who was blamed for this killing and you said it
11 was the Serbian side that was blamed. Blamed by whom?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as I've already told you, the
13 media and official reports always asserted that sniping of Sarajevo came
14 either from Grbavica or from the surrounding hilltops. I can't give you
15 an answer about this specific case as to which of the media published it
16 or which of the officials stated it, but in general terms, all the
17 sniping incidents, all the sniping fire opened on Sarajevo was ascribed
18 to the Serbian side.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Now, did the Serbian media do the same, to say
20 the Serbs are to be blamed for all this; or did they rather blame the
21 other side for sniping or even sniping at their own people?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, the Serbian media
23 said the opposite.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In other words, they claimed that
1 the other side was responsible for sniping. It was a period when
2 everybody blamed the other side for the things that were happening.
3 JUDGE ORIE: So when you were asked who was blamed for it, the
4 answer is that, as usual, the one party blamed the other party, rather
5 than Serbs to be blamed for it because the Serbs would blame the other
6 party for it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
9 MR. IVETIC:
10 Q. Now I want to fast-forward to the circumstances just before your
11 arrest. At page 6 through 7 of the Karadzic transcript which should
12 correlate to transcript pages 33385 through -6, you briefly say that you
13 were arrested and a rigged show trial was held. Can you tell me of how
14 and when you first were told that you were to be arrested?
15 A. After Nedzad Herenda was wounded in an escape attempt and
16 hospitalised, where his wounds were tended to, my colleague from the
17 service, Fikret Masic, conveyed a message to me and the message was that
18 in order to appease the general public there would be arrests. I and my
19 team were to be arrested. Because everything had gone too far, as he
20 told me at the time.
21 After such a long time I can only say that at the moment when the
22 order was issued to launch Eagle, the director did not know what crimes
23 the Seve unit had been involved in. And when he learned that from us,
24 i.e., when he saw it in Herenda's statement, he himself decided that it
25 would be better for everything to be hushed up. We would then become
1 scapegoats, we would be arrested and put on a rigged trial. I'm not
2 excluding the possibility that somebody had ordered him to do that, and
3 I'm talking about Director Ademovic.
4 Q. You mentioned a colleague Fikret Masic. What was his position at
5 the time?
6 A. At the time, Masic was the chief of the counter-intelligence
7 section in the AID.
8 Q. And what did Mr. Masic tell you was going to happen during your
10 A. He told us to take it easy, to hand over all the documents to
11 him, and that he, i.e., the service and its director, Ademovic, would
12 make sure that we would only spend a few days in the investigation prison
13 and that we would all be free to go after that.
14 Q. What did he tell you about defence attorneys for you?
15 A. When I was remanded in custody, Fahrija Karkin, an attorney, came
16 to me and told me that he had been sent by Director Ademovic. He gave me
17 a code and that's how I knew that he had been sent on the instructions of
18 Director Ademovic. I accepted him as my lawyer; however, it turned out
19 later that he was the one who was charged with rigging the investigation
20 and the trial that would be conducted against me and my colleagues.
21 Q. And what, if anything, did Mr. Masic tell you about the judges
22 for the trial?
23 A. Masic also told me that the judges were all in the cahoots and
24 that they would be very inclined to set us free. All it took was a
25 little time for the entire situation to calm down and to hush up the very
1 existence of the Seve group.
2 Q. What instructions did Mr. Fikret Masic give you in relation to
3 the documentation from your investigation of Herenda?
4 A. We handed over the entire documentation to Masic, I'm talking
5 about our record of the Herenda interview. Masic was very categorical
6 when he instructed us that if there was anything left, that it had to be
7 destroyed and burned. He ordered me that in the trial we should keep
8 quiet, that we should not mention the service director, and the Eagle
9 order, and particularly that we shouldn't mention anything that we had
10 learned from Herenda.
11 Q. Now, sir, can you please give us a chronology and more details
12 about what actually transpired after your arrest and during the trial?
13 A. From the moment we were arrested until the moment we were finally
14 released from prison, five years lapsed. I and two of my colleagues were
15 arrested and charged with the kidnapping of Nedzad Herenda, of
16 ill-treating him, and finally that we attempted to kill him. In that
17 trial we kept quiet, we did not say anything in our defence, because we
18 were convinced that, as Masic and Ademovic told us, the service would
19 talk to the judges who controlled the trial and that we would finally be
20 set free. However, all the time the charges against us were -- we were
21 being set up through the lawyer that was supposed to defend us, and we
22 turned out to be criminals and Nedzad Herenda was portrayed as a model
23 citizen and even a hero by some media.
24 The banality of the trial and the way it was staged was
25 acknowledged by the Court of Human Rights. When I realised that I was
1 eventually sentenced to 14 years in prison and after I myself had
2 survived two attempts of murder within the prison, I sent an appeal to
3 the institution for human rights. There were six foreign judges on the
4 panel and the president of that panel was Judge Michele Picard. I sent
5 an appeal and in my appeal, I provided all the details and also that I
6 was never given the right to appeal against my judgement, which was a
7 gross violation of my human rights.
8 The Court of Human Rights voted in my favour. The six foreign
9 judges over-voted the six local judges appointed by the three ruling
10 parties. They agreed to confirm my sentence. In other words, the court
11 judged in our favour and sent the whole case for re-trial.
12 However, when we were brought to the Supreme Court, after a
13 certain while I realised that the re-trial was also rigged because I
14 recognised one of the judges of whom Masic said that he was the service's
15 associate. In his introductory statement, that judge said that the
16 formal rights and requirements had been met because we were brought to
17 court but we were not allowed to say anything in our defence. That's
18 when I realised that the trial would be rigged and that nothing would be
20 At that moment a person approached me, a man of whom I'd never
21 heard before, I'd never seen him before, he introduced himself to me as a
22 lawyer from The Hague Tribunal. Later I met him and I learned that his
23 name was Carl Kenning, he was one of the investigators who had previously
24 interviewed me. He told me that he had heard everything and he had seen
25 it with his own eyes and that that would not be the end of the violation
1 of my human rights and that he would report back to The Hague Tribunal.
2 And then an unprecedented thing happened. I was brought for the
3 third time before the Supreme Court. I was then allowed to mount my
4 defence and to lodge an official document on Operation Eagle. That's
5 when my sentence was altered and I was sentenced to the time already
6 served in prison; in other words, I was sentenced for some lesser crimes.
7 Soon thereafter, we were all released, first myself and then my
9 Q. When was Mr. Nedzad Ugljen killed?
10 A. Soon after our arrest, perhaps two months into custody, i.e., two
11 months into isolation because we were not allowed any contacts with the
12 outer world. We did not have access to newspapers or any other media.
13 Our only contact was through the lawyer that had been assigned to us.
14 From one of the guards who guarded us, I learned that Nedzad Ugljen had
15 been killed as an unwelcome witness of all the happenings and the
16 activities of the Seve group as well as the events surrounding the
17 rigging of my process -- my trial and the trial of my colleagues.
18 Q. To your knowledge, was anyone ever arrested or charged with the
19 killing of Mr. Ugljen?
20 A. As far as I know, nobody was ever charged or arrested for
21 Ugljen's killing, although he was involved in the police and security
22 missions of highest order before the war and during the war.
23 Q. Sir, apart from your interview in the year 2000 to the Office of
24 the Prosecutor and your testimony in the Karadzic case in 2013, did you
25 give any other statements to judicial organs about the things you have
1 testified here about today?
2 A. Yes. I provided statements to local courts, i.e., to the
3 cantonal prosecutor's office in Sarajevo, that was very quickly after my
4 release from prison, as well as several statements to the authorised
5 police organs who contacted me after my turned for redress to the Court
6 of Human Rights.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, your estimate was 30 minutes, I think,
8 before the break. We are at that point approximately now. Could you
9 tell us --
10 MR. IVETIC: One question.
11 JUDGE ORIE: One question, please.
12 MR. IVETIC:
13 Q. Sir, my final question: What is your motive for talking publicly
14 about the events relating to Mr. Herenda and the Seve group and
15 testifying now at two trials about the activities of Herenda and the Seve
17 A. The Seve group, according to all that I learned, followed the
18 same pattern of development like other paramilitary groups on all sides,
19 including the Red Berets. Its objective and goal was to spill as much
20 blood as possible and to blame each other as much as possible in order to
21 make life together impossible and to inflict as much destruction as
22 possible. And my only motive is for those who committed crimes to be
23 charged with those crimes instead of those crimes being ascribed to other
25 Q. Sir, I have no more questions for you. I thank you for both your
1 time and your testimony.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
3 Witness, I have one follow-up question which is directly related
4 to the last question that was put to you by Mr. Ivetic. You told us what
5 your motive was for talking publicly about these events. What then
6 explains that you wanted to be subpoenaed before appearing before this
7 Court? Why didn't you voluntarily meet the request of the Defence to
8 come and testify?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the answer to your
10 question is rather simple. All the media in Sarajevo and in Bosnia knew
11 when the Karadzic and Mladic Defence called me to testify, and I don't
12 know how they knew, but even before I got official documentation that I
13 should appear, the media reported that I was invited by the Defence of
14 criminals Karadzic and Mladic and that I was about to testify in their
15 defence, to help them, which is not true. I'm not here to defend anyone
16 or to help them. I responded both times to the invitation of the
17 Trial Chamber.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you insisted on that. You didn't meet the
19 request by the Defence and you could have publicly stated that even
20 though called by the Defence, that you would be a witness of the truth
21 and therefore it doesn't matter whether you're called by the one party or
22 by the other. Why did you insist on being subpoenaed?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I never insisted. Both times the
24 Defence teams contacted me, asking me to come voluntarily as a witness,
25 and I refused. And this is documented in writing. And then the subpoena
1 was issued at the request of the Defence team. I didn't even know what a
2 subpoena was until I got one.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Then the same question. Why did you refuse if you
4 say: This is what I want, to tell publicly about the events? Under
5 those circumstances, especially if you wouldn't know what a subpoena
6 would be, the logic would be that you say: This is what I wish, so
7 therefore if they invite me I'll do it, rather than to refuse. That's
8 what we're trying to understand.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't refuse to come. I gave my
10 statement to OTP investigators 15 years ago, in 2000, and I stand by that
11 statement today --
12 JUDGE ORIE: A second ago you said you were invited to come
13 voluntarily and you refused. So to say that you didn't refuse is --
14 "both times the Defence teams contacted me, asking me to come voluntarily
15 as a witness, and I refused ..."
16 So to say one line later that you didn't refuse comes a bit as a
17 surprise. Any further comments on what I just said?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I misspoke. When I said
19 "refused," I didn't mean refused to make a statement, but refusing to be
20 a Defence witness. I mentioned that all the media had ...
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those answers.
22 Mr. Weber, are you ready to cross-examine the witness?
23 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Garaplija, you'll now be cross-examined by
25 Mr. Weber. You'll find Mr. Weber to your right. Mr. Weber is counsel
1 for the Prosecution.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
3 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Cross-examination by Mr. Weber:
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Garaplija.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. The information that you have recounted in your previous
8 testimony and in court today about the Seve group, those were things
9 Mr. Herenda supposedly told you in June of 1996; is that right?
10 A. Right.
11 Q. Your interview of Mr. Herenda occurred between the afternoon of
12 25 June 1996 and lasted until the morning of 29 June 1996; correct?
13 A. That's correct. Under the law of the agency --
14 Q. Sir --
15 A. -- for investigation and documentation, we had 72 hours --
16 Q. Sir, I'll move rather quickly through things today, so I will go
17 through them. Mr. Herenda was not free to go during this time?
18 A. That's right, he was arrested.
19 Q. Meaning he was in your custody?
20 A. That's right.
21 Q. You'd never had a conversation with Nedzad Herenda before you
22 took him into custody on the 25th of June, 1996; right?
23 A. Not about the activities of the Seve unit.
24 Q. Are you saying that you had talked to Nedzad Herenda before the
25 25th of June, 1996?
1 A. No, I never talked to him before, but I had seen him around the
2 building of the headquarters of the service.
3 Q. When you took him into custody, you took Mr. Herenda to a secret
4 location between the 25th and the 29th of June; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You did not bring him into your headquarters or process
7 Mr. Herenda for any charges; right?
8 A. I've said earlier that it was a secret operation and we didn't
9 know who else within the service was involved, that's why we chose a
10 secret location to interview him.
11 Q. You did not bring him into your headquarters or process
12 Mr. Herenda for any charges; right?
13 A. No.
14 Q. To the best of your knowledge, the Seve group consisted of
15 approximately ten people at the beginning of the war and possibly grew to
16 about 30 people by the end of the war; correct?
17 A. That's the total number of the Seve unit, but the number of men
18 responsible for the crimes I've mentioned was much smaller, it was three
19 to five.
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Weber, the previous answer is not absolutely
21 clear. The "no" could relate to your question "right?" or the sentence
22 before that. You should clarify that.
23 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, thank you very much. And I'll just
24 break it up.
25 Q. Mr. Garaplija, I'm going back to a question that I asked you and
1 I'll just separate it. When you took Mr. Herenda into custody, you did
2 not bring him into your headquarters; correct?
3 A. No, we did not bring him to the headquarters of the service. We
4 brought him instead to a location that was also a base of the service.
5 Q. Mr. Herenda was not processed for any charges; correct?
6 A. We filed no criminal complaint against Herenda because it was not
7 our job. Our job was only to collect information. Criminal complaints
8 are only filed by our leaders, by our superiors.
9 Q. The Trial Chamber has received a portion of your testimony in the
10 Karadzic case. I'd like to ask you a more broad question that relates to
11 your entire Karadzic testimony. Were all of your answers throughout your
12 entire Karadzic testimony truthful and accurate?
13 A. Sitting here, I can't guarantee that every sentence was recorded
14 exactly as I said it, but everything that concerns the Seve unit, in that
15 part my testimony is absolutely truthful and accurate.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, Witness, whether it was recorded exactly as
17 you said, that is something we can verify because we have the audio of
18 your testimony. The question simply is: Did at any point, did you not
19 tell the truth when you testified in the Karadzic case? And don't worry
20 about how it was recorded.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the Prosecutor means the
22 information I provided about the second-instance trial in the agency for
23 human rights, I supplemented that testimony, saying that the trial
24 judgement was not in our favour, but the appeals judgement was. I would
25 like to know if that's what the Prosecutor meant in his question. As for
1 the rest of my evidence, I maintain that it is correct.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know whether that's a specific concern to
3 you, Mr. Weber, but --
4 MR. WEBER: I was asking him a broad --
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. WEBER: Just at this stage I was asking him a broad question.
7 JUDGE ORIE: So apart from -- did you tell the truth when you
8 testified in Karadzic? That's the simple question. Or is there any
9 point where you say, well, it may -- I may not have told the truth or not
10 the whole truth?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my testimony in the Karadzic
12 case, I was telling the truth, but there is a moment when I was
13 explaining my position and my appeal to the Court of Human Rights. I had
14 two suits before the Court of Human Rights, once when I was in custody,
15 that was -- that judgement was not in my favour; the other one when I was
16 freed was in my favour. That's the only thing that was in dispute with
17 the Prosecution, but I didn't make any mistakes and didn't overlook
18 anything in my testimony.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Let's leave it to that for the time being.
20 Mr. Weber, I leave it in your hands.
21 MR. WEBER: Okay.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed.
23 MR. WEBER:
24 Q. And just so we have clarification, in the Karadzic case, you
25 discussed the criminal proceedings related to your detention of
1 Nedzad Herenda in June 1996; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. I have a few questions before -- for context before we look at
4 your previous testimony, and I know you've touched on some of these today
5 already. After Herenda's interview in June of 1996, you were arrested
6 for mistreating Nedzad Herenda while you had him in custody; correct?
7 A. That's what the trumped-up indictment said, that we had been
8 arrested for the attempt to murder and kidnap Nedzad Herenda.
9 Q. The specific charges that were initially brought against you were
10 abduction and attempted murder; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Charges related to Mr. Herenda's custody were also brought
13 against two of your associates, Haris Pezo, P-e-z-o, and Refik Muran;
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Mr. Pezo and Mr. Muran were with you during the detention of
17 Mr. Herenda; correct?
18 A. Yes, and not only them but two other operatives who were
20 Q. Just so we keep on going with the proceedings here, the BiH State
21 Court initially convicted you and your associates for the abduction and
22 attempted murder of Mr. Herenda; right?
23 A. That's not true. We were convicted by the Cantonal Court of
24 Sarajevo as a lower court, and the Supreme Court of the Federation in
25 these bogus proceedings made their judgement. And after the proceedings
1 before the Court of Human Rights, there were two more appearances before
2 the Supreme Court --
3 Q. Sir, I'm just trying to have it clear before we lump all the
4 proceedings together. You were initially convicted by the cantonal court
5 for abduction and attempted murder; right?
6 A. That's right. We were convicted of abduction and attempted
7 murder while we chose to remain silent.
8 Q. Now, going onward, after the proceedings before the BiH
9 Supreme Court and the Human Rights Chamber, the charge of abduction was
10 overturned and your convictions were upheld for the crimes of attempted
11 murder and maltreatment in the discharge of duty; right? That was the
12 final outcome of what you were convicted for?
13 A. There is no Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina. There is only
14 the Supreme Court of the Federation, and it's before that court that we
15 fought our legal battle. And there were two trials. After the second
16 time and after the involvement of The Hague Tribunal, the verdict reduced
17 our sentence and some counts were dismissed. The remaining count was
18 abuse of authority, that is to say, attempted murder. So the sentence
19 was reduced from 14 years to seven. And after that, they granted me
20 clemency, as they put it, so they released me immediately after I've
21 served five years, one month, and one day.
22 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, I'm about to get into some materials.
23 I don't know -- I know it's a minute or two early but --
24 JUDGE ORIE: We are close to the time where we would take a
1 MR. WEBER: Yeah.
2 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take that break now. The witness may follow
3 the usher. I --
4 [The witness stands down]
5 JUDGE ORIE: I already announced that after the break, on from
6 ten minutes to 1.00, I'll be unable to sit and my colleagues will decide
7 whether or not they'll continue to hear the case in my absence, which
8 will be of short duration, that is, only the remainder of this day. We
9 take a break and we resume at quarter past 12.00.
10 --- Recess taken at 11.52 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.18 p.m.
12 JUDGE ORIE: While we're waiting for the witness to be escorted
13 into the courtroom, I would briefly deal with a matter unrelated to that.
14 It's about the Rule 92 ter motion for Nikola Erceg. The Chamber notes
15 that on the 15th of September, 2014, the Defence filed a motion tendering
16 55 associated exhibits with Witness Nikola Erceg. On the 28th of March,
17 2015, the Defence sent the Chamber a revised list of exhibits containing
18 60 associated exhibits, including 11 exhibits which have already been
19 admitted into evidence. Pursuant to the Chamber's guide-lines, the
20 Chamber hereby invites the Defence to consider reducing the number of
21 associated exhibits by, for example, tendering some of these documents
22 with the witness during examination-in-chief.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, if I may, the Prosecution will be
25 calling up Exhibit D980, page 8.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, you may proceed.
2 MR. WEBER: I believe Exhibit D980 is actually on the screen. If
3 I could please have page 8 of that document. Thank you.
4 Q. Mr. Garaplija, this is part of your previous testimony in the
5 Karadzic case. On this page at the top you stated:
6 "And only after two years of serving sentences -- these sentences
7 we were given, I addressed the International Court for Human Rights which
8 had a branch office in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was called the Human
9 Rights Hall, presided by a French Judge, Michele Picard. Our judgement
10 was rendered null and void by that human rights court and a judge
11 rapporteur, Giovanni Grasso. This court ordered a re-trial, following
12 which we were released from prison and pardoned in some way."
13 This was not a true statement since the judgement was not
14 rendered null and void; right?
15 A. I said a moment ago the verdict was not quashed, it was only
16 requalified so that we received practically the sentence that we had
17 already served. It's true that in 2008 we made our first appeal before
18 the Human Rights Chamber --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: 1998.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And that process took eight years,
21 so that the judgement was made only in 2002.
22 MR. WEBER:
23 Q. Sir, if you could please focus on my question. You've given
24 explanations for this a couple times already. This statement that you
25 gave in the Karadzic case was not true, your judgement was not rendered
1 null and void?
2 A. The judgement of the Supreme Court of the Federation was quashed
3 and there was a re-trial, I've already explained that, and there were in
4 fact two re-trials. The first time, a lawyer from The Hague was involved
5 and looked into that first re-trial and found deficiencies, so there was
6 a new re-trial.
7 Q. Sir, you're giving explanations again. Just really simple: Are
8 you saying that this answer was the truth or are you acknowledging that
9 this answer was not the truth?
10 A. That answer was not incomplete, but it's truthful. Now I gave a
11 complete answer and explained how it all went.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 31925,
14 e-court page 26.
15 Q. This is another part of your testimony in the Karadzic case. It
16 was a portion that was not tendered by the Defence, and before I ask you
17 any questions about this extra material: Prior to your testimony today,
18 did you review your entire Karadzic transcript or just the excerpts that
19 were provided to you?
20 A. I reviewed what the Defence team gave me.
21 Q. Were there portions of that transcript that were redacted or had
22 black markings over it?
23 A. Well, I cannot be precise about this, whether there were or
24 weren't redactions, I mean.
25 Q. All right. I'd like to direct you to line 12 of this page --
1 JUDGE ORIE: But before we continue.
2 Witness, when was it that you reviewed your Karadzic transcript?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] After arriving last Friday, I
4 reviewed the transcript.
5 JUDGE ORIE: You must have noticed whether there were thick
6 black -- blackened-out portions. Do you remember that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't pay attention to the
8 details. I wasn't so careful. I don't rule out the possibility that
9 there were some blacked-out portions.
10 JUDGE ORIE: If I would show you from a distance how that looks
11 like, could you then -- would that refresh your memory whether you found
12 any such thing in the -- and I show to the witness at this moment
13 page 33401 at a distance of some 5, 6 metres. Is this what you saw?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, there was no such thing.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could you assist us, Mr. Ivetic, as to whether the
16 witness was given the -- and I showed him this just for you to know as
17 well. Even from a distance you can see that you hardly can miss the
18 blackened-out portions. Did you show the witness the redacted version or
19 did you show the witness the unredacted version?
20 MR. IVETIC: We had both with us and I don't know which one the
21 witness had. I also had with me a copy of the recording of the audio,
22 which he did not say he needed because there was already a recording on
23 YouTube of the B/C/S audio of the same.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but if you're seeking the attestation of a
25 witness, wouldn't it be good to know exactly what he reviewed so we know
1 exactly what he attested to?
2 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, we've had this procedure with the
3 Prosecution witnesses where I made exactly --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I'm --
5 MR. IVETIC: -- that same point as Your Honour, and Your Honour
6 told me that's the wrong way to do it. So I'm a little confused as to
7 what the right way is. We've had witnesses from the Prosecution that
8 have listened to the entirety of their testimony and then only a portion
9 of that testimony has been brought in by the Prosecution. I objected to
10 one such witness and you overruled that objection, Your Honour. So I'm
11 confused now as to what the procedure is.
12 JUDGE ORIE: I think, as a matter of fact, you're referring to
13 audio, aren't you?
14 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think I asked the witness whether he had reviewed
16 the written version and whether what is true for the audio, where it's
17 difficult just to cut out the relevant portions, whereas in writing
18 that's different. But as a matter of fact, I didn't ask you whether you
19 were unhappy with any previous ruling, but you apparently think that
20 it's -- when seeking the attestation on the basis of a written
21 transcript, that you would say it's not relevant to know what exactly the
22 witness attested to in terms of what was shown to him.
23 MR. IVETIC: That's not what I'm saying, Your Honour. I'm saying
24 that we had an instance where it was my understanding that the
25 Prosecution had wanted to present part of the transcript for their case,
1 the cross-examination, and had suggested to lead that with the witness
2 and I --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's not an answer to my question because my
4 question was: Wouldn't it be good to know exactly what he reviewed so we
5 know exactly what he attested to? That was my question.
6 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Not whether you disagreed with any previous ruling.
8 Could I receive an answer to that question.
9 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honour, I think I gave that answer --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
11 MR. IVETIC: -- I said "yes, Your Honour," about two lines ago.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's leave it to that.
13 Please proceed, Mr. Weber.
14 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honours.
15 Q. Sir, directing your attention to the page before you, which is
16 transcript page 33404 in the Karadzic proceedings, you were asked:
17 "Okay. And you referred in your direct examination to your
18 arrest and conviction following this interview with Herenda. Just to be
19 precise, you were arrested specifically for the mistreatment of Herenda
20 in the course of the interview, in particular abduction, maltreatment in
21 discharge of duty, and attempted murder; right?"
22 Your answer:
23 "Yes. That was a bogus indictment that was quashed later before
24 the Human Rights Hall, and the domestic judicial institutions were
25 ordered to conduct a re-trial where a verdict, a conviction, was handed
1 down for overstepping official authority and the unlawful imprisonment
2 that we endured, one year, one month, and one day. After that, I
3 personally instituted another proceedings before the Human Rights Hall
4 that resulted in the quashing of the entire judgement, and I have since
5 never been tried for anything."
6 Mr. Garaplija, this answer was untrue because the Human Rights
7 Chamber did not quash the entire judgement; right?
8 A. Correct. This is a mistake.
9 Q. Sir --
10 A. -- I've not seen this before and when I spoke about --
11 Q. Sir, I'll read on. You were next asked, and this continues on to
12 the next page:
13 "Q. Well, in fact, Mr. Garaplija, what you've just described is
14 untrue. You were initially convicted, as you say. Your case did go
15 before the Bosnian Human Rights Chamber in 2000. They did find a
16 violation of your rights. There were then further proceedings at the
17 Bosnian Supreme Court in 2000 where they quashed the conviction for
18 abduction, maintained the conviction for mistreatment in discharge of
19 duty and attempted murder, and then you brought a further application to
20 the Bosnian Human Rights Chamber, and, in 2002, that chamber found that
21 there had been no violation of your rights in the 2000 Bosnian Supreme
22 Court judgement that had convicted you for mistreatment and discharge of
23 duty and attempted murder. That's actually what happened, isn't it?"
24 Your answer:
25 "That's precisely what I said, except I didn't mention ... in the
1 second proceedings I was found guilty of overstepping my official
2 authorities, not attempted murder. So the abduction and attempted murder
3 did not feature in the appeals proceedings. And shortly afterward, I was
4 released from the state prison."
5 Just stopping here before I read on, during this specific answer
6 in your Karadzic testimony, you are acknowledging that you did not
7 provide complete information to the court; right?
8 A. If you look at this just as a mistake as the second trial only --
9 but if you look at -- then it's correct. But if you look at the whole
10 chronology, then you can see that I'm basing my words on the judgement of
11 the Human Rights Chamber, after which my sentence was altered and I was
12 released. I'm talking about two trials before the Human Rights Chamber.
13 The first one resulted in this: The panel of six judges judged in our
14 favour, in favour of our appeal. This is what saved our lives, this is
15 what is important, and as a result, we were released and I'm able to sit
16 before you today.
17 Q. All right. Let's read on. Next question:
18 "Well, in your earlier answer you had said that in the second
19 proceedings before the Human Rights Chamber, that those proceedings
20 resulted in the quashing of the entire judgement. That's entirely false.
21 That Human Rights Chamber decision upheld your conviction; right?"
22 You answered:
23 "That is correct. Perhaps I told it wrong, but I said I was
24 never again tried in this case. That's what I meant."
25 Sir, the fact is that you did not provide truthful testimony
1 about the outcome of the proceedings against you; correct?
2 A. Not correct. In the second proceedings I asked for compensation
3 and for the quashing of the sentence. The second sentence was conducted
4 after we were released from prison and our appeal was not accepted, i.e.,
5 there was no trial. No court was ordered to conduct a trial. But very
6 soon after that appeal, the Human Rights Chamber was disbanded as well as
7 its participation in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the
8 prosecutor's office of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
9 Q. During your previous testimony you were also shown the final 2002
10 decision by the Human Rights Chamber; correct? You remember that?
11 A. You are talking about the year 2002. This is the second
12 decision. And I, on the other hand, am talking about the first decision
13 which was passed in the year 2000, hence the misunderstanding. That's
14 why we are talking at cross-purposes. I've just tried to explain to
15 you --
16 JUDGE ORIE: First of all, slow down. Second, you were asked
17 whether during your previous testimony you were also shown the final 2002
18 decision by the Human Rights Chamber. Was that shown to you during that
19 testimony or was that not shown to you? Or don't you remember?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember that it was shown,
21 but it was mentioned as the second decision in my case. And when you
22 look at the year, you can see that it was the second decision because the
23 first was passed in the year 2000 --
24 JUDGE ORIE: You don't remember, that's an answer to my question.
25 Mr. Weber will put further questions to you.
1 MR. WEBER:
2 Q. In the proceedings before the Human Rights Chamber in -- that was
3 eventually decided in 2002, you made claims you could not support; right?
4 A. What claims do you have in mind, Mr. Prosecutor?
5 Q. Sir, I'm asking you a broad question. Before that chamber --
6 JUDGE ORIE: At such an abstract level, Mr. Weber, that you
7 should specify what claims you had on your mind.
8 MR. WEBER: Okay.
9 Q. Well, one of the unsupported claims you made before the Human
10 Rights Chamber was that a Supreme Court judge was collaborating with the
11 Bosnian secret service to frame you for the mistreatment of Herenda in
12 1996. That was one of your claims; right?
13 A. That's correct, and I did say that about Judge Malik
14 Hadziomerovic [as interpreted] who was a judge rapporteur. And after the
15 observations made by the lawyer from The Hague Tribunal, he was withdrawn
16 from that trial and he did not appear as one of the judges during my
17 third re-trial. The judge's name was Malik Hadziomerovic.
18 Q. Sir, I put it to you that that wasn't the case and actually the
19 claims that you made related to this judge were unsupported before the
20 Human Rights Chamber?
21 A. I don't know what is the basis of your claim that this is not
22 correct, but I told you that Fikret Masic has told me that that judge was
23 responsible for our liberation and that never materialised. Based on
24 that statement --
25 Q. Could the --
1 A. -- I asked for the exclusion of that judge.
2 Q. I understand you asked for it.
3 MR. WEBER: Let's look at 65 ter 31923.
4 Q. This is the 12 April 2002 Human Rights Chamber decision. We see
5 the panel that it was delivered by and it's signed by Judge Picard. The
6 full procedural history of your proceedings before the BiH Supreme Court
7 and Human Rights Chamber are contained in this decision so I'm not going
8 to discuss them further with you. Seeing this document, do you recall
9 having seen this during your previous testimony?
10 A. Yes, I'm familiar with the document. In 2002, when I was already
11 free, it was handed to me after the session of this panel together with
12 the separate opinion of Judge Giovanni Grasso, which was a dissenting
14 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 9.
15 Q. Directing your attention to paragraph 51 that states:
16 "The applicant's representative, in answer to the Chamber's
17 request, stated that he had challenged one of the judges in the renewed
18 appellate proceedings because he is allegedly a collaborator with the
19 secret service ..."
20 I'm just going to stop there. This is what we were just talking
21 about, your representative asserted as part of these proceedings before
22 the Human Rights Chamber; right?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. The decision goes on to state:
25 "Further, he claims that he has 'reliable information' about his
1 accusation. The applicant did not disclose this information and has
2 failed to provide the Chamber with any evidence."
3 The next paragraph then rejects this accusation as manifestly
4 ill-founded. The fact is you had no support for your conspiracy theory;
6 MR. IVETIC: Objection --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
8 MR. IVETIC: -- especially if he is relying upon this document
9 since the document itself has contradictory information in another part
10 of it. So is he relying upon the document as a whole or in that one
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I take it you will deal with that in
13 re-examination, but already, Mr. Weber, you know what to expect -- if you
14 have taken out of context the portion, then you know what happens, and if
15 you want to anticipate on that, of course you may do so.
16 MR. WEBER:
17 Q. The fact is that the Chamber, as it says here, rejected the
18 applicant's complaint about the lack of impartiality of one of the
19 judges. That's what that decision was?
20 A. Correct. But I don't know why we are talking about the second
21 judgement. Why doesn't the Prosecutor show you the first judgement of
22 the Human Rights Chamber which provides a very detailed account of the
23 entire case because this judgement and the second proceedings before the
24 Human Rights Chamber was conducted after I was released and after we
25 applied for a re-trial. We wanted everything to start from scratch and
1 that new facts would be taken into account; however, we were not granted
2 that leave.
3 Q. Sir, please focus on my question. Is it correct that since 2008
4 [sic] you've been making claims that there was this big conspiracy, where
5 everyone from the trial judge in your initial proceedings before the
6 cantonal court who found you guilty, to your own lawyers who were
7 defending you and presenting an alibi that you were in Tuzla during
8 Herenda's interview, to the prosecutor who was seeking a conviction for
9 your mistreatment of Herenda during the interview --
10 JUDGE FLUEGGE: You should slow down.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. To even a Supreme Court judge and your former co-workers were all
13 collaborating to not have your story about Herenda's interview come out.
14 That's what you've been claiming since 1998, right, since your initial
15 conviction was upheld?
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, your recorded as initially referring to
17 "since 2008" and now "since 1998."
18 MR. WEBER: Thank you for the clarification. I meant since
19 1998 --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. WEBER: -- when his original conviction was upheld.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's clear.
23 Could you please answer the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Besides confusing 2008 and 1998,
25 the Prosecutor obviously confused two different judgements of the
1 Human Rights Chamber. I stand by the first judgement which was passed in
2 2000. The second judgement in 2002 is not relevant at all. I just
3 wanted to --
4 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, would you please focus on the question.
5 The question was whether you claimed since 1998 what Mr. Weber told us,
6 not to further explain about this judgement, but whether those were the
7 claims you made.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Since 1998, since the
9 month of September of that year, I have firmly stood by my assertion and
10 I'm repeating it today.
11 MR. WEBER:
12 Q. You and your two colleagues maltreated Herenda while he was in
13 your custody; right?
14 A. Not correct.
15 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 12 of this
17 Q. In paragraph 71 of the Human Rights Chamber's 2002 decision it
19 "The Chamber recalls that the Supreme Court established that the
20 applicant 'hit the injured party'" in reference to Herenda "'with his
21 fist, bound him to the pipe of the radiator, inserted a wooden club
22 between his hands when he was already cuffed and hit him on different
23 parts of his body.' The Supreme Court further stated that 'the injured
24 party was subject to physical and psychical harm' and thereby assessed
25 that 'these actions fulfil the characteristics of maltreatment in
1 discharge of duty.'"
2 The fact is you were found guilty of maltreating Herenda; right?
3 A. In order to understand this, you have to know how the Human
4 Rights Chamber functioned. The way it functioned was --
5 Q. Sir -- sir --
6 A. -- that both sides lodged their appeals in order to make their
7 positions known. Now what you are --
8 Q. The fact is the Human Rights Chamber upheld your conviction for
9 maltreatment in the discharge of duty; right? Simple question.
10 A. Not right. The Human Rights Chamber did not uphold it, but
11 rather it did not order the case to be sent for re-trial. But it didn't
12 uphold the original judgement. It dropped the whole thing. And what you
13 just read is a quote from the rigged indictment that the Supreme Court of
14 Bosnia and Herzegovina tried to defend twice and owing to your colleagues
15 from the Prosecutor, Mr. Kenning more precisely, that didn't happen.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Weber, I announced that I was not available --
17 MR. WEBER: Yes, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- and I think, as a matter of fact, that my
19 colleagues would prefer to take the break now, then to resume at ten
20 minutes past 1.00 and then to inform you whether they have decided or not
21 decided to continue to hear the case, and then if they would have decided
22 to do so, to continue until quarter past 2.00.
23 MR. WEBER: Very well, Your Honour. Just to have a fully clean
24 break, is there any way I could please tender this document into
25 evidence? It's 65 ter 31923.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Registrar.
2 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7279, Your Honours.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
4 Witness, we'll take a break of 20 minutes. You may follow the
6 [The witness stands down]
7 JUDGE ORIE: Usually I say "we resume," but the court resumes at
8 ten minutes past 1.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.52 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 1.13 p.m.
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: May the witness please be escorted into the
13 In the meantime, I just wanted to say that Judge Orie may not
14 have mentioned it but it is important to place on the record that he's
15 not with us this afternoon due to urgent personal business. As a result,
16 Judge Fluegge and I have decided, in the interests of justice, to carry
17 on with the trial. And as a result, therefore, we are going to be
18 sitting pursuant to Rule 15 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 JUDGE MOLOTO: Before we carry on, Mr. Weber, how much more time
21 do you think you will need?
22 MR. WEBER: I'm going to approximate an hour. I'm trying to keep
23 the witness focused on his answers but they've gone a little long. So I
24 do have some material to go through, but I will finish by the end of the
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: So we're not likely to finish this afternoon?
2 MR. WEBER: I don't know if there's redirect.
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: Well, if you're going for an hour, it will be an
4 hour by the time we finish.
5 MR. WEBER: I'm going to try to finish today.
6 JUDGE MOLOTO: Any re-examination, Mr. Ivetic, at this stage?
7 MR. IVETIC: Right now only a few questions, two or three
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay.
10 You may proceed.
11 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. Mr. Garaplija, during these proceedings in this case - and what
13 I'm going to be referring to can be found at transcript page 20096,
14 lines 23 to 25 - the Defence claimed that Mr. Herenda was kidnapped and
15 tortured by his colleagues. The Prosecution does not dispute the fact
16 that you and two of your colleagues took Mr. Herenda and tortured him.
17 That is what happened, you and your colleagues tortured Herenda while he
18 was in your custody; correct?
19 A. This is not correct. We treated Herenda in keeping with our
20 authorities. Later, in the reprocess it was construed that we had
21 tortured Herenda in order to gain financial gain, i.e., 500 German marks,
22 a Zippo lighter, and a silver necklace. That was the financial gain we
23 were supposed to gain from allegedly kidnapping him.
24 Q. Herenda sustained severe injuries during his time with you;
1 A. Nedzad Herenda sustained injuries during his flight attempt. In
2 the re-trial, the colleague who was with me who prevented that escape
3 confirmed that he did not sustain any injuries from torture. His leg was
4 injured when he tried to snatch a gun and use it in his flight attempt.
5 Q. That was it?
6 A. That was it.
7 Q. Herenda, in fact, was shot and beaten while he was in your
8 custody; right?
9 A. Herenda was not beaten; however, when he was fighting for the gun
10 or the pistol, the pistol fired and wounded him in the leg. As he was
11 trying to escape, he sustained a head blow. Later on, this was construed
12 as an attempt to shoot into his head.
13 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 31918 for
14 the witness.
15 Q. Coming up before you are excerpts from the 13 June 1997 judgement
16 of the Sarajevo Cantonal Court against you, Haris Pezo, and Refik Muran.
17 I would just like to go through some of the evidence that was presented
18 during your original trial.
19 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 8 of the B/C/S
20 original and page 7 of the English translation.
21 Q. Mr. Garaplija, I'd like to direct your attention to the lower
22 middle of the page where it discusses the material that was available to
23 the medical expert in the trial. According to the judgement, this
24 material included Herenda's medical records from the Kosevo Hospital, the
25 emergency medical centre in Sarajevo; a neurologist's report; x-rays of
1 Herenda's leg and head; and a CT scan.
2 Then if I could direct you toward the bottom of the page where it
4 "On the basis of the available medical documentation" --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down. Thank you.
6 MR. WEBER:
7 Q. "... Expert Witness Dobraca ultimately reported that several
8 injuries were in evidence on the injured party's body, some of which were
9 minor and others serious. He noted there were two areas of soft tissue
10 damage in the parietal-occipital region of the head consisting of two
11 wounds limited to the soft tissue of the scalp which are therefore minor
12 injuries. However, the CT scan and the testimony of
13 Witness Sulejmanpasic indicated that one of these injuries also included
14 the fracturing of the parietal and occipital bonds on the right side and
15 the injury qualified by Expert Witness Dobraca is a serious bodily
16 injury. Interpretation of the CT scan showed that one of several
17 features of the injured party's two head wounds included a skull
18 fracture. Having been informed of the results of the analysis of the
19 ballistics expert, that metal debris found in the skin of the injured
20 party's scalp were parts of bullet rounds."
21 Sir, the truth is that Herenda sustained serious injuries to the
22 head during the interview as a result of a gun-shot; right?
23 A. Not correct. You're quoting from the judgement which resulted
24 from the rigged proceedings in the year 2002, when we decided to remain
25 silent and when the corrupted panel tried to hush up the role of
1 Herenda --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Witness --
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- and the crimes that he had
4 committed --
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Witness, let me stop you. Whether the
6 judgement was rigged or not, that is immaterial. That is what is written
7 in the judgement; is that correct?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much --
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- that was part of the
11 judgement --
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you so much. That was the question.
13 MR. WEBER:
14 Q. On page 2 of this decision, which is also on the bottom of page 2
15 in the B/C/S, the court found that the injuries suffered by Herenda
16 included the serious bodily harm of fracture of the temporal and
17 occipital bones, a number of less serious bodily injuries, consisting of
18 haematomas, and scratches on the skin of the face, arms, the chest below
19 the right breast, front side of the abdomen, left side of the chest, and
20 left lower leg.
21 The truth is Herenda was beaten and shot during your
22 three-day-long interview and sustained multiple injuries to different
23 areas of his body; right?
24 A. This is based on the report of expert Dobraca who himself was a
25 Seve member. You can find that in previous documents and statements.
1 This is not correct because we treated Herenda --
2 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm going to stop you, sir. You keep criticising
3 and commenting on the quality of the evidence given. That's not the
4 question. The question is that what is being read to you is what is in
5 that judgement. Now, whether Dobraca was part of the Seve or not is not
6 the question.
7 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, actually, the question by the
8 Prosecution was not as Your Honour had said. He's actually asking the
9 question that the witness is answering, so I would take exception to that
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. In that event, then you may carry on,
12 Mr. Weber.
13 MR. WEBER: At this time the Prosecution tenders 65 ter 31918
14 into evidence. It's excerpts from the judgement. We've reduced the size
15 of it to the relevant parts.
16 JUDGE MOLOTO: 31918 is admitted into evidence. May it please be
17 given an exhibit number.
18 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7280, Your Honours.
19 MR. WEBER:
20 Q. Sir, I'd like to change topics with you and discuss your evidence
21 related to the death of Sefer Halilovic's wife. First I'd like to look
22 at your previous testimony regarding this event.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have D980, page 17.
24 Okay. If we could scroll down just towards the middle of the page.
25 Q. This is another part of your testimony in the Karadzic case.
1 During this examination you were asked:
2 "And how was this presented to General Halilovic, and what was
3 the public told? What was the official position on this matter?"
4 You answered:
5 "The public was told that this was a shell launched by the
6 Serbian Army, or the Army of Republika Srpska, that it was a guided
7 projectile of the Maljutka type, as far as I can recall from Herenda's
8 statement, because he and the other perpetrators left a Maljutka wire,
9 which is a characteristic of that particular projectile. They left that
10 behind in order to create the impression that this was a Maljutka
11 launched from Serb positions."
12 You describe a projectile, a Maljutka. This is a type of
13 rocket-propelled anti-tank missile; correct?
14 A. I'm not a ballistics expert. I suppose so, yes.
15 Q. The closest Serbian position to the north of the Halilovic
16 residence was several kilometres away from their place; right?
17 A. I believe that it was not so much away because the closest
18 position near the Jezero hospital were about 1 kilometre as the crow
19 flies and Halilovic's apartment was in the part of the city known as
20 Ciglane, brickworks.
21 Q. Do you know that Maljutkas have a firing range of up to
22 2800 metres, which in this instance would make it a weapon that would not
23 likely have come from Serb positions? Are you aware of this?
24 MR. IVETIC: I object to the question as it mixes up the evidence
25 based upon the distances that we've just discussed.
1 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I think it's a perfectly phrased
3 JUDGE MOLOTO: I'm not -- I don't understand that basis,
4 Mr. Ivetic. Because it mixes up the evidence upon the distances that
5 we've just discussed.
6 MR. IVETIC: We've been talking about kilometres and now we're
7 talking about 2800 metres according to the transcript. So to say that
8 it's beyond the range of the weapon is not accurate, where we've just had
9 the evidence that 1 kilometre, which would be 1.000 metres in my
10 understanding, so it would be within the range of the weapon. So to
11 state that the fact that the rocket has a range of 2800 metres eliminates
12 it from being a potential used -- it misstates the evidence we've just
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: But the position of the Prosecution is that it was
15 3 kilometres away which would make it 3.000 metres.
16 MR. IVETIC: Then he should phrase the question that way,
17 Your Honour. That's not the question that he asked.
18 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. --
19 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, I think I put the question fine to the
20 witness. It is our position what I asked, so I would like to hear his
21 answer on the question.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic would like you to state based on your
23 position not based on -- his says it was a mile away, you say it was
24 3 miles away.
25 MR. WEBER:
1 Q. Sir, our position is that the Maljutkas have a firing range of up
2 to 2800 metres, and based on the actual distance between where the
3 residence was and the closest Serb positions that it would have unlikely
4 come from the Serb side; right? Are you aware of this?
5 A. I believe that there is some confusion here. Herenda admitted
6 that an explosive was planted and that it killed General Halilovic's wife
7 and brother, and then it was made believe that it was Maljutka. A wire
8 was left there just to make believe that it was Maljutka. But what
9 happened was that they planted explosives which they activated from the
10 building across the road. When they realised that Halilovic's wife and
11 her brother came out on to the balcony, at that moment when they saw
12 them, they actually thought that Mrs. Halilovic's brother was
13 Mr. Halilovic himself. That's when they activated the explosive.
14 Q. You really didn't answer my question, but I'm going to move
15 along. I appreciate that you're not a ballistics expert, but do you
16 realise that a Maljutka is a different type of projectile than an
17 artillery shell fired from a howitzer?
18 A. I'm telling you again, I'm not an expert in ballistics, but I
19 know it was mentioned that an explosive device was set up. There was no
20 talk about a projectile or any other detail.
21 Q. So that's the extent of your knowledge; is that what you're
22 saying? That just a statement was made to you and that's it?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. Then it's correct that you did not check any fire tables or
25 conduct any ballistics measurements which may or may not indicate an
1 artillery shell from a 122-millimetre howitzer impacted the balcony area?
2 You're not aware of any of that?
3 A. That's right, because we were arrested immediately after the
4 interview with Herenda --
5 Q. Sir, you've answered --
6 A. -- and we had no authority. It was not in our purview to do
8 Q. Sir, I'm going to try and finish with you today. If you could
9 please just focus on my questions. The explosion that killed
10 General Halilovic's wife and associate occurred on 7 July 1993. Were you
11 aware of that?
12 A. I know that.
13 Q. In your previous testimony, you claim that Herenda told you he
14 planted an explosive to eliminate General Halilovic because, a couple
15 months beforehand, General Halilovic had been removed from his authority
16 over the ABiH and Herenda understood him to be an enemy of the state, at
17 least according to what Herenda told you. Are you aware that
18 Alija Izetbegovic relieved Sefer Halilovic of his duties as Chief of the
19 Main Staff of the ABiH on 1 November 1993, after the death of his wife?
20 A. I don't know that, but Herenda said that he had received an
21 assignment from Ugljen to eliminate Halilovic by setting up an explosive
22 device on his balcony.
23 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have 65 ter 32369 for
24 the witness.
25 Q. This is the 16 April 1999 decision of the Sarajevo cantonal
1 prosecutor's office which dismissed the criminal complaint of
2 Sefer Halilovic related to the event that we've been discussing on
3 7 July 1993.
4 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 2 of both
6 Q. In the top paragraph before you, which is the second paragraph in
7 the statement of reasons section, the decision indicates that the support
8 for the allegations was based on a hearing and an interview with you.
9 There is then a number of articles listed from "Slobodna Bosna" and
10 "Dani" from September and October 1998.
11 These articles contained interviews or statements from you;
12 correct? These were the newspapers that you provided interviews to in
13 September and October of 1998; correct?
14 A. No, these journalists received my statements that I had forwarded
15 to the Human Rights Chamber and then they published it, I don't know
16 through which channels. I see this document for the first time. And I
17 see that it was issued by the cantonal prosecution office that rigged my
18 trial in 1998.
19 Q. Okay.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have page 3 of the
21 English translation.
22 Q. At the end of the next paragraph, the decision states that the
23 official reports of the forensic commission and of the experts for
24 ballistics from 7 July, the date of the incident, 20 and 31 July 1993,
25 claimed beyond any doubt that the individuals at the residence were
1 killed by an artillery projectile which came from the direction of the
2 enemy positions from Vogosca.
3 This is in fact what happened. The artillery -- there was an
4 artillery projectile fired from Vogosca and that's why these charges were
5 dismissed; right?
6 A. I stress again, I am seeing this document for the first time, and
7 as far as I know, right now there is a re-trial going on in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina trying to establish whether things happened the way I
9 described it or it was a shell from enemy positions.
10 MR. WEBER: The Prosecution tendered this document into evidence,
11 65 ter 32369.
12 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Registrar.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P7281, Your Honours.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
15 MR. WEBER:
16 Q. I would like now to discuss with you the shooting of the French
17 member of UNPROFOR. In your past testimony, you commented upon the
18 document that indicated this event occurred on the 15th of April, 1995.
19 This document was admitted with your testimony.
20 MR. WEBER: Could the Prosecution please have Exhibit P3, e-court
21 page 25 for the witness.
22 Q. I would like to go through some of the things that you've said
23 about this event.
24 MR. WEBER: And if we could please have the photograph on the
25 right-hand side. Great. And if we could just slide down a little bit
1 and zoom-out one time, please. So if we could have the yellow building,
2 the Holiday Inn, and the buildings on the lower side of the river
3 visible, that would be great. Perfect. Thank you so much.
4 Q. Mr. Garaplija, you recognise the area depicted in the photograph;
6 A. I recognise this.
7 MR. WEBER: If the court usher could please assist the
8 Prosecution with -- or the witness with a pen to mark on the photograph.
9 Q. At transcript page 33388 of your Karadzic testimony, you
10 indicated that Herenda supposedly told you he fired from the
11 Executive Council building. Could you please mark the location of this
12 building with the letter E.
13 A. It's not true, nor did we specify exactly where it came from, but
14 I suppose it's this large building here. He didn't say exactly. Now it
15 houses the Executive Council of ministers and the Parliament building,
16 but he didn't tell us the exact position in his statement, nor did we ask
17 him for the exact position. But the very fact that he shot an
18 international observer astounded us, so we didn't look into the details.
19 Q. The Executive Council building was located in the area under
20 control of the ABiH army throughout the war; right?
21 A. Right. This is the separation line, that's the river --
22 Q. Sir, if you can hold off making any markings on the document. I
23 see that you've made a horizontal line where the river is to denote where
24 the separation line was.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: And could that line be please deleted.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. [Marks]
2 MR. WEBER:
3 Q. I see you've marked with a circle the general area where you
4 believe Herenda told you he was at. In your 2000 interview with the OTP,
5 you indicated that the French soldier was hit across the way or opposite
6 the Holiday Inn on a crossroads where there is a museum. Is this right?
7 A. Yes, that's right.
8 Q. Could you please mark the approximate location where the French
9 soldier was hit with the number 1.
10 A. Well, now I don't know exactly which location it is, whether it's
11 this intersection or this one. There is an intersection here and there's
12 the second one here, and this is the hotel, Holiday Inn. So these two
13 intersections are on the two sides of Holiday Inn. But I'm telling you
14 we did not ask for the exact position.
15 Q. Sir, and I can show this to you if you want, you indicated
16 previously that that occurred across the way or opposite the Holiday Inn
17 on a crossroads where there is a museum. Do you remember saying this?
18 That would be -- what you previously said, that would be where location
19 number 2 is at; correct?
20 A. If I may mark, this is the museum and this is Holiday Inn, so
21 both intersections are across the street from Holiday Inn. I can't tell
22 you which of the two it is because I'm telling you at that time we didn't
23 look for the details. We just dealt with the fact that he committed this
25 Q. Now, is it right that Herenda supposedly told you that he climbed
1 up to one of the upper floors of the Executive Council building to fire
3 A. I can't tell you with any certainty from which position he fired.
4 I only know that he mentioned the building of these two joint
5 institutions, the Executive Council and the Parliament. One building is
6 lower than the other, six floors versus 15.
7 MR. WEBER: Your Honours, could I have one moment, please.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: You may.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 MR. WEBER:
11 Q. Sir, Mr. Herenda didn't tell you that the Executive Council
12 building where he was at or that area was fired upon after the UNPROFOR
13 soldier was shot; correct?
14 A. I can't remember exactly whether he was exposed to fire.
15 MR. WEBER: Your Honour, just so we have a complete record, the
16 witness marked with an H the location of the Holiday Inn and an M the
17 location of the museum. With that, the Prosecution would tender this
18 document as marked.
19 JUDGE MOLOTO: The document as marked is admitted into evidence.
20 May it please be given an exhibit number, Mr. Registrar.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P7282, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you.
23 MR. WEBER: And with that, Your Honours, I have no further
24 questions for the witness.
25 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much, Mr. Weber.
1 Mr. Ivetic, any re-examination?
2 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours, it will be brief.
3 If we could first turn to the prior testimony, D980, page 23 in
5 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
6 Q. While we wait for that, a Dr. Dobraca was mentioned by the
7 Prosecution in relation to the testimony as to Mr. Herenda's alleged
8 injuries and you indicated that a doctor -- that that was the doctor who
9 had been part of the Seve. If we can wait for the part of the transcript
10 that we're waiting for --
11 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Ivetic, while we're waiting for it, can I
12 interrupt you a little bit?
13 MR. IVETIC: Sure.
14 JUDGE MOLOTO: I've just been made aware of the fact that P7281
15 was not properly admitted. It is hereby admitted into evidence. Thank
17 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Sir, in this part of your testimony in the Karadzic case you're
19 talking about a pathologist, Ilijas Dobraca, whose job was to provide
20 medical certificates after certain assassinations to cover them up. Is
21 this the same Dr. Dobraca that provided the medical information
22 purporting to show Mr. Herenda's injuries resulting from the interview?
23 A. That's correct. There was only one doctor named Ilija Dobraca.
24 Q. Now, sir, in answer to the Prosecution's question where they
25 said: Isn't it true that Herenda was beaten and shot during the
1 three-day interview with multiple injuries as confirmed by Dr. Dobraca,
2 you were not allowed to answer the question fully. I would like to give
3 you the opportunity to complete your answer as to the Prosecution's
4 assertion that Mr. Herenda was beaten and shot during the three-day
5 interview with multiple injuries therefrom.
6 A. The very order we received said it was a dangerous armed
7 criminal, and when he was bound and handcuffed, certainly it left traces
8 on his arms. During the arrest and his treatment, we followed the law
9 governing the agency and it's not true what the trumped-up indictment
10 said. But during his attempt to escape, Herenda took advantage of a
11 moment of inattention by Haris who was guarding him, tried to seize his
12 weapon, and it resulted in him being injured in the leg. After that, we
13 turned him over to Mr. Fikret Masic, who was to treat his injury. But
14 even before that, we bandaged his leg and thus provided him with
15 emergency medical assistance before turning him over to the doctor.
16 MR. IVETIC: And I'd like to now look at P7279, which was also
17 used during the cross-examination, and to start off I'd like to look at
18 page 3 of the same.
19 Q. This will be the 2002 decision on admissibility and merits of the
20 Human Rights Chamber for Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I'd like to look at
21 paragraph 17 of the same, which states:
22 "On 5 October 2000, the applicant also challenged Judge Malik
23 Hadziomeragic on the grounds of partiality due to the allegation that he
24 was in contact with the secret service AID (Agencija za istrazvanje i
25 dokumentaciju). The applicant explained before the Supreme Court panel
1 that persons from the AID told him during the first set of the
2 proceedings that the dispute would be solved positively due to the
3 collaboration of the mentioned judge with the AID. He complained that,
4 contrary to the promise, the result was not positive. On the same day,
5 5 October 2000, the president of the Supreme Court decided to reject the
6 applicant's challenge propter affectum as ill-founded due to the lack of
7 evidence in support of the motion and on any other indication of
9 And now that the translation is finished, the question I have for
10 you, sir, is: First of all, does this accurately describe the fact that
11 the Chamber decided the same day as you gave them all this information to
12 dismiss the allegation of partiality on the part of the stated judge,
14 A. As far as I know.
15 Q. And in relation to your complaints about the judge, did another
16 organisation also present a report about the same in support of your
18 A. Yes, Amnesty International cited my trial as an example of a
19 rigged trial and an example of a violation of human rights. They
20 actively followed it all the time, from 1998, when I first appealed to
21 the Human Rights Chamber.
22 MR. IVETIC: For Your Honours' reference, on the next page,
23 paragraph 22 discusses Amnesty International's position. Since this has
24 been entered into evidence, we don't need to have that read.
25 I'd like to now turn to page 14 of this exhibit, and I'd like to
1 focus on section 2.2. And the bottom of this page is signed
2 Giovanni Grasso, and in 2.2, it says as follows:
3 "In the present case the fear of the applicant as to the
4 impartiality of the Court appears to be fully reasonable and justified
5 because not only some but all the judges who decided upon the renewed
6 appeal had already decided upon the previous appeal, taking a clear
7 position on his criminal responsibility after an evaluation of all the
8 circumstances of the case. The subject matter of the renewed appeal
9 proceedings and of the original proceedings was exactly the same, so that
10 the impartiality of the judges who had already taken a decision on the
11 case is clearly open to doubts."
12 At temporary transcript page 52, lines 20 to 24, you indicated a
13 dissent of Mr. Grasso. Is this the dissent that you're talking about?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And for purposes of the record, could you please tell us who
16 Mr. Grasso was, what position he held?
17 A. Mr. Grasso presided over the Human Rights Chamber in the first
18 proceedings, otherwise he is an Italian judge as far as I know. There
19 were a total of six international judges from different countries.
20 Q. Mr. Garaplija, thank you for answering my questions and for your
21 time today.
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, that completes my redirect.
23 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
24 Nothing arising, Mr. Weber?
25 MR. WEBER: No, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE MOLOTO: Thank you very much.
2 Mr. Garaplija, that concludes your testimony before the Tribunal.
3 I want to thank you very much for coming all the way to come and answer
4 the questions, and we wish you a safe return back home. You may follow
5 the usher.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 [The witness withdrew]
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Is the Defence ready to call the next witness?
9 MR. LUKIC: No, we are not, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MOLOTO: You're not. Thank you very much.
11 MR. LUKIC: We had -- probably you were informed that we had some
12 technical problems with this witness --
13 JUDGE MOLOTO: We just wanted to have it on the record that we
14 don't have one. Thank you so much.
15 In that event, we will stand adjourned, and we will reconvene
16 tomorrow morning at 9.30 in the morning in the same courtroom, I. Court
18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.03 p.m.,
19 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 1st day of
20 April, 2015, at 9.30 a.m.