1 Tuesday, 16 August 2016
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness takes the stand via videolink]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.31 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Good morning to everyone in and around this
8 Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case
10 IT-09-92-T, the Prosecutor versus Ratko Mladic.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
12 Before we continue, I'd first like to establish whether the
13 videolink is functioning well. Could the representative of the Registry
14 at the other side, the Moscow side, of the videolink confirm that he can
15 hear us and that he can see us.
16 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]
17 JUDGE ORIE: I see that the representative is speaking, but I
18 don't hear him. We can see you but we can't hear you. Is the microphone
19 switched on at the other side?
20 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, good morning, Your Honours.
21 I hope you can hear and see us clearly.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we now not only can see you, but we also can
23 hear you.
24 Before we continue the cross-examination of the witness, I'd like
25 to move into private session for a short while.
1 [Private session]
11 Page 44237 redacted. Private session.
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
9 We'll take a break of five minutes to try to resolve a certain
11 --- Break taken at 9.40 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 9.46 a.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: We have resolved the technical problem, but we still
14 have to go into private session for most likely only a few minutes again.
15 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What about my comments to the
24 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
1 If any questions will be put to you about the memorandum, then
2 you may answer them. At this moment, the Chamber was focusing on whether
3 it could be made public and nothing else for the time being.
4 Before we continue to hear your testimony, I'd like to briefly
5 deal with a remaining issue.
6 On the 15th of June of this year, P7840 was marked for
7 identification pending agreement between the parties as to what portion
8 of the document was to be tendered.
9 On the 9th of August, the Prosecution advised that it had reached
10 an agreement with the Defence to tender the document as currently
11 uploaded in e-court under Rule 65 ter number 33827. That same day, the
12 Defence advised that it does not oppose the document's admission into
13 evidence. And the Chamber instructs the Registry to assign Exhibit
14 Number P7840 to the document bearing Rule 65 ter number 33827 and admits
15 it into evidence.
16 Mr. Demurenko, in a few seconds, I'll invite the Prosecution to
17 continue its cross-examination. But before I do so, I'd like to remind
18 you that you're still bound by your solemn declaration you gave at the
19 beginning of your testimony that you'll speak the truth, the whole truth,
20 and nothing but the truth.
21 Finally, may I remind the parties that the parties are invited to
22 seek agreement on the distance between the point of impact and the --
23 where the suggested line of firing would cross the Pale-Lukavica road. I
24 think we have not heard about that.
25 MR. IVETIC: That's correct, Your Honour, you have not. The last
1 time the witness was here, I checked with certain staff members on our
2 team that have better knowledge of the scenario and there are apparently
3 two roads at issue, one being further along and one being closer. And so
4 we were not able to reach -- I did talk with one of the members of the
5 Prosecution as to that issue after having that discussion.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then if there are two roads but you could agree on
7 the one and the other as far as distances are concerned, and then the
8 Chamber will further consider how to understand the testimony considering
9 the distance you agreed upon for both of the roads. Although it's my
10 recollection that the Pale-Lukavica road was a road very, very often
11 mentioned and I think always referring to one, that is, the shortest
12 road, but perhaps we could even ask the witness further about it.
13 MR. TIEGER: Yeah, I'm sorry we didn't make progress on that. A
14 variety of circumstances may explain it, but I'm happy to meet with
15 Mr. Ivetic at the first break. We have a couple of documents that we
16 consider makes the issue easier to resolve and we'll see if that assists.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. There was -- by the way, there was another
18 matter, Mr. Ivetic. I think you announced there would be a preliminary
19 matter to be raised and I think our information is that it could be done
20 in the presence of the witness. If it has to be done now, you have an
21 opportunity to do so. If you can do it later, then, of course, we would
22 not bother the witness with it in terms of time.
23 MR. IVETIC: I think it does need to be done now so that if the
24 issue does arise during the cross-examination, Your Honours already have
25 the information and have had time to think about it. It relates to a --
1 there's a microphone open on the other side.
2 The issue relates to four new documents that late yesterday, just
3 before 4 p.m., the Prosecution gave notice of these four new documents
4 for use in cross. They are 65 ter numbers 33830, 33831, 33832, and
5 33833. And at that time they were not released and available to the
6 Defence in e-court until sometime after 4 p.m.
7 Given that the cross of this witness started two months ago, in
8 June, cross documents were to be given to the Defence at that time in
9 June. These four were not among those notified to the Defence at that
10 time. The Defence were further advised that all documents to be used
11 with the witness for today's videolink had to be ready and given to the
12 Registry last week, I believe by Thursday. Thus, we were quite
13 surprised, under these circumstances, to only receive new documents late
14 yesterday instead of at any of the prior occasions when such documents
15 were due to be given. We would thus ask for a ruling from this Chamber
16 in relation to this untimely disclosure if the Prosecution actually does
17 seek to use any of the documents that they have given notice of
18 potentially using with the witness.
19 And that would be the submission of the Defence.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Ivetic.
21 Mr. Tieger, I leave it in your hands whether you want to respond
22 now or whether you want to wait how cross-examination develops.
23 MR. TIEGER: Probably better to respond now, although part of my
24 response implicates some -- at least one issue that I wouldn't want to
25 share with the witness at this point, so if there is any way of doing
1 that technically I would prefer to do so. Otherwise I'll try to speak
2 more elliptically, whatever the Court chooses.
3 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
4 JUDGE ORIE: I do understand that the technicians can mute the
5 videolink which means that Mr. Demurenko will not hear anything. At the
6 same time, the representative of the Registry will not hear anything
7 perhaps either, but that's perhaps acceptable as long as we're not
8 hearing the evidence of the witness.
9 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
10 JUDGE ORIE: You may proceed, Mr. Tieger.
11 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 In essence, this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot for several
13 reasons. First of all, of the exhibits that were mentioned, those four
14 exhibits, two of them contain information that the Defence has long had.
15 One is stills of the video of Mr. Demurenko on the 2nd of
16 September that's already in evidence and that was displayed in several
17 cases before. The second one is an exhibit list from the Karadzic case,
18 the case from which the amalgamated statement tendered by the Defence was
19 produced, and the -- of course, the transcripts of those proceedings and
20 the amalgamated statement that all the information contained in there,
21 including the actual live action tendering of the exhibits was -- was
22 available too.
23 The other two items are, in fact, two photographic depictions
24 that I intended to use to discuss with Mr. Ivetic in connection with the
25 Court's inquiry about the distance of the Pale-Lukavica road from the
1 point of impact. I didn't -- I don't at this time have any intention to
2 use them in the examination, so perhaps that puts the entire issue to
4 Beyond that, this is -- the assertion that this is untimely is
5 the invocation of a rule that doesn't really exist. We provided these
6 documents --
7 JUDGE ORIE: Could you read screen. There was some observation
8 by the interpreters, I think, about speaking into the microphone or
10 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, happy to do that.
11 The documents have been provided before the time they are being
12 used. I can't recall a single time in my time in the Tribunal when
13 there's been any attempt by an opposing party to block the admission of a
14 document proposed to be used in cross-examination because of its
15 so-called untimely submission. Indeed, I've never heard of it even when
16 the documents were not on the list. In fact, what would typically happen
17 is that people would note that they weren't on the list, ask for more
18 understanding from the other side because it made following the
19 examination much easier and the parties moved on.
20 So I would say there's no -- and that certainly has to be the
21 case when we're talking about two documents that simply contain a
22 permutation of information already available to the other side.
23 So there's no basis for an assertion that these documents should
24 not be used by the Prosecution. That would be true of the two
25 photographs at 33832 and 338333 if we propose to use them, but it's
1 certainly true of documents which are only another form of the
2 information which the Defence has long had.
3 Mr. Ivetic.
4 MR. IVETIC: I still have not heard from Mr. Tieger any
5 explanation for why these documents were disclosed to us two months after
6 all the other cross documents for this witness. That's first.
7 And second -- I'm still talking.
8 As second, to say the Defence has these documents, we have
9 hundreds of thousands of other documents, the guidance of the Chamber and
10 the procedure in this Chamber for notification of documents for cross, as
11 Your Honours have multiple times referenced, is to give notice to the
12 other side of particularly the set of documents that are going to be used
13 with a witness. That is the purpose of it. To say that, yes, in one of
14 four expert reports, each of which is over a hundred pages long, none of
15 which were prepared by this witness or identified this witness, that a
16 single page from that multiple hundred-page report might be used with the
17 witness is surely something that the Prosecution knew about earlier and
18 had an obligation to advise the Defence of so that we could just prepare
19 for any additional efforts that we have to undertake to try to prepare
20 for redirect examination.
21 And to say that the Defence has something, yes, but they
22 disclosed millions of documents to us, but I dare say -- and if that --
23 if their position is that that is in compliance with their understanding
24 of this Court's ruling as to cross document lists and when they should be
25 provided and what should be on them, then I would ask for Your Honours to
1 rule on that, if that is the Prosecution's submission, because I think it
2 is wholly at odds with the way that we have conducted this trial for the
3 past several years.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, one question, are you suggesting that a
5 still from a video which is already in evidence, if I understand
6 Mr. Tieger well, that we should look then at the video, stop it at the
7 relevant portion, rather than to use the still already prepared for
8 practical purposes, I take it.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, my position is that the still
10 obviously was known to the Prosecution earlier and should have been
11 disclosed earlier.
12 JUDGE ORIE: But that's not my question. My question is whether
13 you suggest that this Chamber should rule that the still cannot be used
14 but that, of course, what is in evidence can be shown to the witness and
15 can be -- and that we then look at the video, stop at the time slot where
16 the still is, and you would oppose for practical purposes to use the
17 still rather than to -- and that you would not have any objection against
18 playing the video, stopping it at a certain point in time, and then look
19 at exactly the same what is shown in the still?
20 MR. IVETIC: I don't have objection as to stills being used in
21 lieu of video. The problem is with stills, when the Defence has wanted
22 to use stills, we've had to disclose them to the Prosecution at an
23 earlier time period so everyone knows.
24 JUDGE ORIE: If the video --
25 MR. IVETIC: And the other two documents are the ones that I'm --
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second, one second.
2 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
3 JUDGE ORIE: If the video is still in evidence, then every single
4 split-second of that video is evidence --
5 MR. IVETIC: That's correct.
6 JUDGE ORIE: -- whether you play the video and stop it, or
7 whether you have extracted the still from the video. Would you suggest
8 that that's the appropriate way of dealing with the matter; that is, to
9 just play the video and say, Stop at 43 seconds point 8?
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I believe we're arguing over
11 semantics. Either is, I think, an acceptable method, either to play the
12 video and stop it or to use a still. The issue is the timing of
13 disclosure and it's more in relation to the other two documents that are
14 not video stills.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The other two documents, I do understand,
16 Mr. Tieger announced that he does not necessarily need to use them to the
17 witness -- with the witness.
18 What we'll do is we'll wait until any of these documents comes up
19 and then decide on that particular moment whether or not Mr. Tieger is
20 using the documents rightly or that the late notification is opposing the
21 use of the document.
22 Therefore, could I invite the Registry, the representative of the
23 Registry in Moscow, and Mr. Demurenko to put on their earphones again.
24 Then, Mr. Tieger, if you are ready to continue --
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
2 Mr. Tieger, if you are ready to continue your cross-examination
3 you're invited to do so.
4 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
5 WITNESS: ANDREY DEMURENKO [Resumed]
6 [Witness answered through interpreter]
7 [Witness testified via videolink]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger: [Continued]
9 Q. Colonel, when we concluded at the end of the day on the 15th of
10 June, I had been about to present a number of photographs that were
11 taken, but rather than simply doing that now, I think it's -- it will be
12 more fair if I recap slightly where we were at the time so that you can
13 understand the nature of those photographs, if you don't recall what had
14 transpired at the end of the last session in court.
15 We had been discussing, in part, paragraph 123 of your statement
16 in which you refer to the terrain east of the direction of your
17 investigation and noted at the end of that paragraph that that terrain
18 was rocky and full of slopes, therefore not suitable for the mortars and
19 said this would apply to bearings less than 170 degrees. So we had
20 discussed that.
21 And then I showed you a satellite photo of the Trebevic area
22 which you had already seen previously in the Milosevic case. That's
24 MR. TIEGER: Perhaps it's good to show it to the witness once
25 again. And display it to the Court as well, please. That's in tab 10 of
1 the Registry's binder, but I think Mr. Doraiswamy is able to identify
2 those items by the chronology of the P numbers or 65 ter numbers.
3 JUDGE ORIE: I don't have it on my screen --
4 MR. TIEGER: I don't either.
5 JUDGE ORIE: -- yet. Although I see that others in this
6 courtroom have.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: There seems to be a little technical problem for us.
9 The document is available in Moscow?
10 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, it is, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
12 MR. TIEGER:
13 Q. P2380 now appears to be available to everyone in the courtroom
14 and to you as well, Colonel. As you can see, and as I mentioned on the
15 15th of June, it depicts three areas, three way points, to the east of
16 the 170 degree line, that's way point 5, 10, and 6. And I -- those way
17 points are represented, in part, by photographs that were taken earlier
18 and that are reflected in part in the ERN chronology in P2382 indicating
19 the ERN ranges of the photographs that were taken for the various way
21 And now I'd like to call up P19792 to look at some of the
22 photographs of the area -- did I say P? 65 ter 19792. So that we can
23 look at the photographs of portions of the areas east of 170 degrees.
24 And if we could look first at page 38 of 19792, that depicts a portion of
25 the terrain at way point 5.
1 Next, page 39, e-court page 39, which is ERN 06197174.
2 And next, page 40, the very next page, also depicting a portion
3 of the area in -- at way point 5.
4 Next looking at way point 6, if we could turn to page 47 in the
5 e-court, and page 50.
6 And finally turning to way point 10, if we could look at page 90
7 of 65 ter 19792.
8 Page 92, please, and page 93.
9 Having now had a chance to see some of the area, some of the
10 terrain east of 170, Colonel, it is incorrect to say that the area east
11 of 170 is "rocky and full of slopes and therefore not suitable for
12 mortars." Isn't that right?
13 A. Absolutely not. First of all, I never claimed that this
14 territory is 100 per cent unsuitable for setting up a mortar. You will
15 not find that in my evidence. I said that many spots are of that kind.
16 Second, these photographs have nothing to do with the
17 investigation because as you see, this film was made 12 years -
18 12 years - after the event. During that time, new roads could have been
19 built, all roads could have been destroyed. Lots could have changed.
20 These photographs have nothing to do, no relation to my investigation
22 Q. Do you have your statement in front of you, Colonel?
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Mr. Tieger, we have two pages of
24 the statement, pages 13 and 14, that's been provided --
25 MR. TIEGER:
1 Q. Well, Colonel, I will read to you the pertinent portion of
2 paragraph 123 of your statement:
3 "I would also like to emphasise that the terrain east of the
4 direction of my investigation, east of 170 plus or minus 5 degrees, was
5 rocky and full of slopes, therefore not suitable for the mortars. This
6 would apply to bearings less than 170 degrees."
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: For the record, Mr. Tieger, your quotation
8 started at: "I would also like to emphasise ..."
9 MR. TIEGER: Yes, that's correct, and it ends with "less than 170 degrees."
10 Q. And on 15th of June, 2016, you confirmed to the Court that you
11 did not test the area that -- that particular area east of 170 as you did
12 the parts that you considered to be part of the investigation. And
13 that's found at T 44193.
14 So, Colonel, the fact is you did not assert that the area east of
15 170 had been -- contained many areas or a number of areas suitable for
16 the placement of mortars but that you had somehow examined and excluded
17 them. You claimed categorically that that area was rocky and full of
18 slopes and unsuitable for mortars and you'd hadn't investigated it.
19 That's the truth of the matter, isn't it?
20 A. No, that's not right. I want to say, once again, that the sequence
21 of the investigation was as follows. We took the bearing from the
22 possible point of impact and following the line presented by the French
23 or English experts – I don't know who was there – drawn on the sketch,
24 we checked, going over these points with our own feet, with still cameras.
25 That's what it was about: that we established that the BE /unclear
1 acronym/ was not true. Now, as to what was true - that's something that
2 other people were supposed to investigate, instead of making a statement
3 2 hours after the explosion. We were doing our investigation several
4 hours after the explosion. Now, 12 years after the event, these
5 photographs have absolutely no relation to our investigation.
6 MR. TIEGER: I tender P19792, Mr. President.
7 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It's not a P number, it's a 65 ter number.
8 MR. TIEGER: Sorry, 65 ter 19792. Getting ahead of myself.
9 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I note that the document in e-court
10 appears to be 104 pages of which we've seen --
11 MR. TIEGER: Those -- I misspoke. Of course, those pages of
12 P19792 that were shown to the witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You'll upload that extract.
14 MR. TIEGER: Yes, we will.
15 MR. IVETIC: That resolves my issue.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then 65 ter 19792, although I take it to be uploaded
17 with a small a attached to it, will receive, Madam Registrar, what
18 exhibit number?
19 THE REGISTRAR: P7843, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE ORIE: P7843 and -- once uploaded is admitted into evidence.
21 Please proceed.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. Colonel, you sought authorisation or permission from the VRS to
24 go to the areas that you looked at in -- on the -- during your
25 investigation; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. TIEGER: And if we could call up, please, 65 ter 1D03888.
3 That's at tab 13 of the Registrar's binder.
4 Q. Colonel, this is a document you've seen before during the course
5 of the Karadzic case --
6 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Is there an English translation available?
7 MR. TIEGER: Yes, there is. It was a recently --
8 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we see that side by side.
9 MR. TIEGER:
10 Q. Colonel, this is a document dated 29th of August, 1995. It's
11 from the security and intelligence department of the Sarajevo-Romanija
12 Corps to the Main Staff of the VRS. And it reflects the receipt of
13 information that you disagreed with the assessment of UNPROFOR, requested
14 information from the VRS to personally visit the location which UNPROFOR
15 assessed as the point from which the shell was fired, the proposal by the
16 signator of the document, Marko Lugonja, that you be given permission to
17 visit the location after you marked the place where you will visit. And
18 then it continues:
19 "He also requested to visit hospitals where those who were
20 wounded in the shelling in Blazuj on 28 August are being treated."
21 That reference, Colonel, to the shelling in Blazuj is a reference
22 to the shelling of a Serb area on the outskirts of Ilidza; correct?
23 Colonel, do you recall your request to visit hospitals where
24 those who were wounded in the shelling in Blazuj on the 28th of August?
25 A. I don't remember, but it's possible.
1 Q. And are --
2 A. I visited many places where people were wounded or killed.
3 Q. Just to clarify the contents of this document, are you aware that
4 Blazuj was a Serb-held area and the victims of that shelling would have
5 been Serb?
6 I saw a gesture. I don't know if there was an audible response,
7 but I didn't hear one.
8 A. I don't understand. What is the question? Is the question
9 whether I visited hospitals where wounded people were lying? Yes, I did.
10 If you want to ask something else, please do.
11 Q. It should be clear that wasn't the question. The document refers
12 to your request to visit hospitals where those who were wounded in the
13 shelling in Blazuj on the 28th of August were being treated. So I asked
14 for clarification purposes with reference to this document whether you
15 could confirm that Blazuj was a Serb area and victims of a shelling in
16 Blazuj would be a reference to Serb victims?
17 A. As for that case specifically that you're asking me about, I
18 don't remember. But I know for a fact that I visited all the places
19 where shelling had taken place, including hospitals. That was one of my
21 Q. Okay.
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Mr. Tieger, I don't quite understand the sentence
23 to necessarily mean that the people who were injured in Blazuj. They're
24 hospitalised in Blazuj. They were injured in an incident of shelling of
25 the 28th of August. Do I understand you to suggest that the injuries --
1 that the shelling was on Blazuj?
2 MR. TIEGER: I agree there's a potential ambiguity there, but,
3 yes, I understood that to be based both on the syntax of the sentence and
4 some independent review that it refers to the shelling rather than the
5 location of the hospitalisation. That's how I understood it. But that's
6 why -- in part why I was seeking confirmation from this witness of his
7 understanding before moving on to the rest of the document.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: Okay. Thank you so much.
9 JUDGE ORIE: And could we then perhaps take it step by step.
10 Mr. Demurenko, was Blazuj a Serb -- was that in Serb-held
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't remember now, but I'm
13 prepared to trust the document that's before me.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Well, it was a question by Mr. Tieger, not --
15 MR. TIEGER: Well, we're getting a little short of time so I'll
16 move on to the next page before we --
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but perhaps we -- can you do that in a couple
18 of minutes, otherwise --
19 MR. TIEGER: Yes, I believe --
20 JUDGE ORIE: -- we would have to take the break.
21 MR. TIEGER: I believe so.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then please proceed and we'll take the break
24 MR. TIEGER: Okay. If we could turn the page in English, please.
25 I would note that we had submitted a revised translation from
1 CLSS to the Defence. They agreed to upload it. It apparently has not
2 been uploaded. I will read instead the English translation from the
3 revised document that both parties agree should have been uploaded.
4 Q. The document by Colonel Lugonja continues, Colonel, saying:
5 "I propose granting him permission for this too. Demurenko wants
6 in this manner to dissuade the UNPROFOR command that" --
7 JUDGE MOLOTO: Persuade.
8 MR. TIEGER: I'm reading from the revised document, Your Honour.
9 That's -- and the reason for the revision is that it contains a double
10 negative that makes it hard to understand and I think CLSS tried to
11 untangle that a bit.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Could you start reading that again.
13 MR. TIEGER: Yes. Again, starting the last -- the second page of
14 the document in English in the last sentence of the document:
15 "I propose granting him permission" -- last two sentences, excuse
17 "I propose granting him permission for this too. Demurenko wants
18 in this manner to dissuade the UNPROFOR command that the Serbs fired the
19 shell and that they were not targeted."
20 Q. So Colonel, what Colonel Lugonja is referring to here are the two
21 portions of the request by you that he noted early; that is, the request
22 to visit the location where it was assessed that the shell was fired,
23 and, two, to visit victims of the shelling on the 28th, the Serb victims
24 of shelling on the 28th. And so he says that he -- he alludes to that by
25 saying: Demurenko wants to dissuade UNPROFOR that the Serbs fired the
1 shell on Markale, and, two, wants to dissuade UNPROFOR from the position
2 that the Serbs too were not targeted during that period of time. Is that
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I will object to the question if he is
5 asking Colonel Demurenko what Colonel Lugonja was trying to do without
6 establishing foundation for how Colonel Demurenko would know what
7 Colonel Lugonja had on his mind when drafting this document.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Let me re-read it.
9 Well, it's what the text alludes to, alludes to as what
10 Mr. Demurenko would have said and that's a proper question to put to the
12 Perhaps you repeat the question, Mr. Tieger.
13 MR. TIEGER:
14 Q. Colonel, do you understand this as -- these last two sentences as
15 referring to your two-fold request: One, to visit the location where --
16 from which you assessed the Markale II shell had been fired; and, two, to
17 visit the victims, the Serb victims of the shelling in Blazuj? That's
18 the first question. Is that how you understand that?
19 A. I understand it in the following way.
20 First of all, your sentence said that I asked for a permission.
21 That's not true. I could not ask for permission, neither from the Serb
22 nor the other side.
23 Q. Well, can I stop --
24 A. As for the -- as for the sequence of --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Somebody keeps typing
1 while the witness is speaking and audibility is zero.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I don't know who the -- well, I see one face
3 expressing some feeling of guilt and the typing stopped, which is highly
5 Could you continue your answer, Mr. Demurenko.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, the word "permission"
7 is out of place completely. I could not ask for permission in view of my
8 duties, neither from the Serb side nor the Bosnian side. They were not
9 my bosses. They were not my superiors.
10 If we are speaking about establishing contact with them to get
11 them not to shoot at my personnel, then, in that case, yes, I did write
12 various communications to them but they are not called "permissions."
13 Without their permission, I was available to visit whatever I wanted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you the following question. You now
15 explained what you brought to their attention, that you would rather not
16 be shot at.
17 Let's take it step by step. Did you ask this in relation to
18 visiting a potential firing position?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- every time. Communications were
22 made in writing and sometimes phone calls were made.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm focusing exclusively on the document which
24 is before us. Did you at that point in time make any submission that you
25 wanted to visit a potential position of firing?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. As part of the investigation,
2 I needed to visit both sides of the front line with my assistants, both
3 the Bosniaks and the Serbs.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Did you raise the matter of visiting the
5 hospital in Blazuj?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I already said I can't remember. I
7 don't think I had been there.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is no record, no evidence of
10 my visiting that hospital, although I visited many of them.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Next question is: Whether the reasons reported for
12 your requests, whether you remember that you gave those reasons in your
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I think that is correct.
15 Because to the question "why do you need this" asked by the Serbs about
16 my visiting the Serb side, I could have answered: in order
17 to either confirm or to refute the statement that was made
18 2 hours after the explosion.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Less than two hours after the
22 JUDGE ORIE: The reasons you are now giving are not exactly the
23 same as we find in the report. Could you explain whether what the report
24 says is right or whether we have to rely on what you tell us now?
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, can we have clarification as to what
2 report you're referencing?
3 JUDGE ORIE: Well, I meant the letter where I said the report.
4 But it has been reported that this was the reason given by Mr. Demurenko
5 for his requests. In that sense it is a report as well.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot answer for opinions or
7 interpretations of some colonels on the Serb side. They could have
8 written whatever they pleased.
9 I explained to you why I wanted to visit the Serbian territory.
10 How they interpreted it and what they put in their document, I can't
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but you read it now. Are you telling us that
13 it is not accurate what is in this letter?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, this letter is not in
15 Russian. It's possible for me to miss important details. And, second, I
16 don't want to be answerable for somebody else's letters. I answer only
17 for myself.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, the text has been read to you and translated to
19 you in Russian, but I leave it to that.
20 We'll take a break first. We'd like to see you back in
21 20 minutes; 5 minutes past 11.00, local time in The Hague.
22 --- Recess taken at 10.43 a.m.
23 --- On resuming at 11.06 a.m.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Is the videolink still functioning properly, sound
25 and what you see?
1 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] [Microphone not activated]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Could the representative of the Registry confirm
3 that the videolink is --
4 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, we can --
5 JUDGE ORIE: It is?
6 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Yes, we can see and hear you
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Then, Mr. Tieger, please proceed. But before
9 you do so, I take it that you read from a corrected translation which is
10 apparently not in e-court yet and we have to --
11 MR. TIEGER: Correct.
12 JUDGE ORIE: -- give permission to replace the translation by the
13 newly uploaded one and then to give the Defence an opportunity to comment
14 on it.
15 MR. TIEGER: That has been done and there was an understanding
16 between the parties that the new version would be uploaded. It's simply
17 that that logistical aspect just wasn't completed. But the discussions
18 took place --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's under a -- yes, then the Registrar
20 is hereby instructed to replace the existing translation of -- could you
21 remind me of the number, Mr. Tieger?
22 MR. TIEGER: 1D3888.
23 JUDGE ORIE: That the newly uploaded version replaces the old
25 Please proceed.
1 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Colonel, before we leave this document, two hopefully quick
3 matters. If we -- I just want to confirm that you were shown this
4 document in the Karadzic case.
5 MR. TIEGER: And if we could turn to 65 ter 33681, e-court
6 page 25, which is transcript page 28965; it's in tab 17 of the
7 Registrar's binder.
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Can you repeat the transcript page
9 number, Mr. Tieger?
10 MR. TIEGER: 28965.
11 THE REGISTRAR: [Via videolink] Thank you.
12 MR. TIEGER: That's the correct page on our screen.
13 Q. Here in the middle of the page, Colonel, we see the discussion
14 about the document being presented for your perusal, indicating this is a
15 document issued by chief Colonel Marko Lugonja, et cetera. First, the
16 discussion about information that you had disagreed with the assessment
17 of UNPROFOR, proposed being given permission to visit the location which
18 UNPROFOR assessed as the point from which the shell had been fired, also
19 indicates that had you requested to visit hospitals in Blazuj --
20 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Can we have that document enlarged, please, and
21 it's not necessary to have it twice. Thank you.
22 MR. TIEGER:
23 Q. And then it continues:
24 "I propose" -- with Colonel Lugonja continuing:
25 "I propose to grant him permission for this too," et cetera.
1 Turning the page in English now.
2 And then, Colonel, if which look at -- toward the bottom of the
3 next page 28966, e-court page 26 --
4 MR. TIEGER: I know there are technical problems. I just want to
5 confirm that the -- okay, thanks.
6 Q. You were asked:
7 "Q. Okay. So this document is then accurate in its confirmation
8 that you sought and received permission to go to particular areas?
9 "A. Yes, yes."
10 And, Colonel, you can confirm that that was your testimony in the
11 Karadzic case; correct?
12 A. No, I can't because the text in front of me is not in Russian.
13 Q. Based on --
14 A. And my experience from previous sessions is that my words were
15 often replaced by different words -- by different words, so I can't
17 MR. TIEGER: Then I tender these two pages.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar. Still to be uploaded in its
19 extracted version, Mr. Tieger.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Receives Exhibit Number P7844, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence, at least in the new version,
22 only two pages.
23 Please proceed.
24 MR. TIEGER:
25 Q. Colonel, in addition, the request was made, the reply was
1 received to that request, it was determined when it would be implemented,
2 with whom, and a military guide was made available to assist you and your
3 team in going to the location; correct?
4 A. Yes. They always had to second a representative of one or the
5 other side to accompany us into, for instance, a minefield or help us not
6 get shelled or something.
7 Q. Okay. And in this instance, of course, the representative was
8 from the VRS; right?
9 A. If we are talking about that side of the front line, then yes.
10 Q. Colonel, I'd like to turn next to another portion of your
11 statement. This located at paragraph 38 of your statement, which is, for
12 the benefit of the parties, D02120.
13 Paragraph 38 of your statement, Colonel, states the following:
14 "The only incident between the Serb forces and the UNPROFOR in
15 Sarajevo after the NATO bombing of the Serb positions that I remember was
16 the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity Bridge in Sarajevo. There were
17 two check-points from both (Serb and Muslims) sides of the bridge and the
18 Serbs and Muslims were shooting against each other. The Serb soldiers
19 then went on an offensive and captured the Bosnian Muslim trenches. The
20 Bosnian Muslims informed the French UNPROFOR about this and the French
21 command ordered its French troops to attack the Serb units at the
22 occupied check-point. The French soldiers attacked the Serbs and both
23 French and Serb soldiers got killed in this attack. If I remember
24 correctly, some seven French and ten Serb soldiers got killed in this
25 fighting. It was a big scandal within the UN because the UN forces
1 directly attacked one of the warring sides."
2 Now, Colonel, during your testimony in the Karadzic case, I
3 presented you with a code cable from General Janvier to Kofi Annan dated
4 the 27th of May, 1995, which is P2559 in this case.
5 MR. TIEGER: And if we could call up P2559, please. It's tab 12
6 of the Registry's binder.
7 Q. And if we look toward the bottom of the page under the item
8 marked 4, we see the following report from Janvier --
9 JUDGE MOLOTO: Could we have it in English, please.
10 MR. TIEGER:
11 Q. Starting at the second sentence of item 4:
12 "At about 0430 hours this morning a group of BSA, Bosnian Serb
13 army (assessed to be special forces), dressed in French UN uniforms and
14 equipment, took over the FreBat 4 OP at Vrbanja bridge in Sarajevo and
15 removed ten French soldiers. During the course of this action one French
16 officer escaped. At 0800 hours FreBat 4 mounted a successful operation
17 to regain control of the OP. As a result of this operation, one Bosnian
18 Serb army soldier was killed and three are held by FreBat 4. Two French
19 soldiers were killed (one not related to the operation to recover the OP)
20 and two wounded (one seriously)."
21 After I presented you with that document, Colonel, I asked you at
22 page 28974 of the Karadzic transcript:
23 "So, in fact, Colonel, it was not the case that the Muslims ran
24 to UNPROFOR after their position was captured and then UNPROFOR went on
25 the attack on their behalf. It was the case that the Bosnian Serbs
1 attacked the French observation post wearing French uniforms and then the
2 French Battalion retook the position. Isn't that correct? "
3 And you answered:
4 "No, no, that's not right. You took as evidence a report from
5 the Superior Command, as I understand, a report by General Janvier to the
7 Now the next -- this continues on page 28975 of 65 ter 33681:
8 "Why don't you take a sitrep that speaks to the same incident in
9 Sector Sarajevo where it happened and compare the information in one
10 report and the other. As you understand, on the ground things are much
11 clearer than up at the top and then you would see what actually
13 Now, Colonel, can I take it that you agree that what I just read
14 accurately reflects what was asked and what you answered on the 17th of
15 October, 2012, during your testimony in the Karadzic case?
16 A. I agree with the position --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness be asked to speak into the
18 microphone, please, and all other microphones should be switched off.
19 The witness has to start over.
20 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
21 Witness, could you, first of all, speak into the microphone and
22 could you again start your answer, or coming closer to where the
23 microphone is located, and could you repeat what you said and finish your
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you hear me now?
1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It's good.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once again, what you said is
3 absolutely correct concerning the fact that there were perfectly correct
4 descriptions below compared to the top. In one place there was a correct
5 report on the victims and in other places something completely different.
6 To be quite honest, I don't remember exactly what the report of
7 General Janvier said about the -- the dressing in French uniforms --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- but it happened frequently.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, one second. The only question Mr. Tieger
11 asked you at this moment is whether what he read to you, whether that
12 reflects what you testified in the Karadzic case.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am not taking back a single word
14 I said in previous trials. I talk about things that I remember.
15 Whatever I remember, I'm prepared to say.
16 JUDGE ORIE: And what was read to you, you recognised that as the
17 answers you gave in the Karadzic case.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A lot has been read back to me.
19 Janvier's report, the sitreps, et cetera. Many of these things are
20 mutually contradictory. Now I am hard put to say that to a comma and to
21 a full stop everything is correct.
22 JUDGE ORIE: What was read to you by Mr. Tieger a second ago, the
23 gist of that reflects what you remember to have testified in the Karadzic
24 case. Is that correctly understood?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I trust the materials of the Court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
2 MR. TIEGER: I should -- in that case should probably tender the
3 materials of the Court. That was page 28974 and 28975 of the Karadzic
4 case which is 65 ter 33681, pages 34 through 35.
5 JUDGE MOLOTO: But 33681 has already been admitted, Mr. Tieger,
6 as P7844.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Another portion. Would it not be good that finally
8 that you would upload all those pages you used from the Karadzic
9 transcript and that we gather them together under that one number.
10 MR. TIEGER: Yes, absolutely. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ORIE: I see Mr. Ivetic --
12 MR. IVETIC: That's what I was going to suggest, Your Honours,
13 since I believe that -- I believe counsel is going to add one more page
14 at least with the following questions.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Could be.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Tieger.
17 MR. TIEGER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. All right. Well, Colonel, let's follow up then on that response
19 and your suggestion to look at a local sitrep, a sitrep from
20 Sector Sarajevo and see what it says about the incident.
21 MR. TIEGER: And in that respect, can we call up 65 ter number
23 Q. Okay. Now, as can you see, Colonel, this is a sitrep of the same
24 date, the 27th of May, 1995, referring on its very first page to the
25 confrontation between the Bosnian Serb army and UNPROFOR with reconquest
1 at the Vrbanja OP East, and that's in the fourth item down under "general
2 assessments" on the first page.
3 And as we see in the middle of the page, Colonel, the releasing
4 officer on this sitrep from Sector Sarajevo is Colonel Demurenko, is you.
5 Now, if we turn to page 4, please, we'll see further discussion
6 of the event. On the second small paragraph under "assessment of impact,
7 the hottest point was the reconquest of FreBat 4 of the Vrbanja bridge
8 OP seized by trickery during the last night by Bosnian Serb army, dressed
9 like UNPROFOR personnel with dead, wounded and captured personnel OP of
10 both sides (two times dead and one time -- or 11 time injured French
12 There's a further reference down there to orient you to the time,
13 to the Bosnian Serb army keeping personnel like hostages especially the
14 Ukrainian WCP in Ilidza.
15 If we turn then to page 7, further discussion of this incident in
16 the local sitrep which you suggested we look at. Here in the second
17 listed item:
18 "FreBat 4 at 27," meaning 27 May, "0400, Bosnian Serb soldiers
19 invade the Vrbanja bridge OP dressed with UN equipment. Between 0800 and
20 0900, a platoon of FreBat 4 reconquered the OP accepted the OP western of
21 the position (inside, there are eight Bosnian Serb army soldiers and one
22 UNPROFOR soldier, French). One UNPROFOR soldier was killed and UNPROFOR
23 soldiers were wounded. The FreBat 4 have four BSA prisoners."
24 And finally turning to a couple of more pages, first page 10 and
25 11, where we can see the chronology of events from the 26th to the 27th,
1 looking at the second item from the bottom:
2 "Reports that today about 0430 Bosnian Serb army soldiers who
3 were wearing in the UN French clothes (uniform, helmet, flakjacket)
4 seized Vrbanja bridge and blocked 12 French UN soldiers in the OP."
5 And if we turn to the next page looking at the fourth item down:
6 "Vrbanja bridge OP East is reoccupied by French soldiers. One
7 Bosnian Serb army soldier is killed and three injured. Three another
8 Bosnian Serb army soldiers are seized as prisoners of FreBat 4.
9 "One FreBat 4 soldier is killed and two soldiers injured."
10 So, Colonel, contrary to your suggestion that if we looked at a
11 local sitrep from Sector Sarajevo addressing this incident we would find
12 that Janvier was wrong and the characterisation of events in your
13 statement was correct, the truth is that the sitrep, the local sitrep,
14 which was released by you on the date of the incident, confirms that the
15 Bosnian Serbs using trickery attacked and took the French position and
16 then the French retook the position a few hours later, not that the UN
17 attacked after the Bosnian Muslims had been routed. That's the truth of
18 the matter, isn't it, sir?
19 A. No, that's not right. Why do you always take examples about
20 Bosnian Serbs and you don't take examples of Bosniaks who used this
21 trickery of changing into different clothes? That's one.
22 Second, I am the author of the sitrep and I sign it, whereas the
23 information is provided by other people and it's often wrong. The
24 intelligence was, for instance, mainly US, and the information they
25 provided was frequently not objective. And you keep citing examples of
1 Bosnian Serbs and their trickery, whereas you can find equal examples of
2 Bosniaks using the same trickery.
3 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I tender 33674, please.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 33674 receives Exhibit P7845,
6 Your Honours.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
8 MR. TIEGER:
9 Q. And let's turn next to 65 ter 33714, a document I know you're
10 familiar with, Colonel.
11 A. I can't see it yet.
12 Q. It's in tab 21 of the Registrar's binder. It's a publication of
13 Komsomolskaya Pravda entitled: The Bosnian confession of
14 Colonel Demurenko. If you look at the very -- sorry, do you have it
15 available now, Colonel? I see you do.
16 Look at the top of the article, next to the picture at the top,
17 it's the introduction to the remainder of that publication. It refers
18 first to you, noting that there was one person who dared to doubt and
19 that was peacekeeper Demurenko, that you conducted your own
21 Next paragraph, it indicates your name again. Demurenko was
22 declared a national hero by the Serbs, and then in the final sentence of
23 that paragraph, it indicates this is very complicated when more and more
24 trenches are needed by some and this is what Andrey Demurenko writes
25 about his diaries, and then it contains various excerpts which I think
1 you'll recall we discussed in the Karadzic -- some of which we discussed
2 in the Karadzic case; right?
3 A. Yes, I understand that --
4 THE INTERPRETER: We would be very grateful if counsel could turn
5 off his microphone while the witness is speaking.
6 MR. TIEGER:
7 Q. I'm not sure we got your full answer, Colonel. I think you said:
8 "Yes, I understand that." But if you said more, it might have been cut
9 off when the interpreter was admonishing me to turn off my microphone.
10 A. I'm saying that articles about the former Yugoslav war were many.
11 I remember that this correspondent took an interview with me, and I
12 remember that an article was written. Yes, I remember it.
13 Q. All right. And in particular, Colonel, if we turn to page 3 of
14 the article in English, and for you, that would be found in the second
15 column in approximately the middle of the page next to that insert to the
16 right, you talked about the fact that it would be difficult to find a
17 better commander than General Mladic. He is extremely talented,
18 exceptionally literate, tough commander. You talked about the closeness
19 between Russians and Serbs saying, "yes, these are people whom we
20 consider very dear, we were brought together by history and there is no
21 point in breaking these ties." You talked about General Mladic saying to
22 your face that Russia had betrayed the Serbs, accusing Russia of
23 betrayal, and explaining that "we would be happy to help our neighbours
24 but that we were having trouble with our own ailments" and you were very
1 And if we turn the page in English, we see a more casual
2 reference to General Gobilliard's three-mile morning run along
3 Sniper Alley.
4 And during the course of your testimony in the Karadzic case, you
5 confirmed the accuracy of the article's representations about your
6 position. Correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right.
9 MR. TIEGER: I tender 65 ter 33714, Mr. President.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It receives Exhibit Number P7846, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
13 Mr. Tieger, where are we in terms of time?
14 MR. TIEGER: I have -- well, we're close. I mean, I'm in my
15 last -- now my last section which deals with one -- with one discrete
16 issue which deals with two issues, but I would say I would be optimistic
17 of completing that within ten minutes or so, ten to 15 minutes and no
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then I suggest that we take the break first because
20 it would be another extended session and that you have 15 more minutes
21 after the break.
22 We take a break. Mr. Demurenko, we'd like to see you back at
23 five minutes past 12.00.
24 Before we, however, leave the courtroom, Mr. Ivetic, could you
25 give us an estimate of the time you would need.
1 MR. IVETIC: Probably not more than 30 minutes.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, that's clear.
3 We will resume at five minutes past 12.00.
4 --- Recess taken at 11.42 a.m.
5 --- On resuming at 12.05 p.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Expecting that Moscow can see and hear us, you're
7 invited, Mr. Tieger, to proceed.
8 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Can I take up three
9 housekeeping matters first.
10 Number one, the excerpted photos from 65 ter 19792 have now been
11 uploaded under 65 ter 1972b -- 19792b, and we would therefore ask that it
12 be assigned P07843.
13 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you check the number again, please.
14 MR. TIEGER: Of the P number, Your Honour, or the 65 ter number?
15 JUDGE FLUEGGE: The 65 ter number.
16 MR. TIEGER: I'll recite it again as it's written, 19792b.
17 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let me just check. Yes, it already has the
19 number. It's now -- you have uploaded the selection of photographs which
20 was admitted under this condition.
21 MR. TIEGER: Right.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Therefore, the condition is now fulfilled.
23 Yes, next one.
24 MR. TIEGER: And next is -- I realised I didn't tender 65 ter
1 JUDGE ORIE: Which was? Which was, Mr. Tieger?
2 MR. TIEGER: The Lugonja report or ...
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yeah. Madam Registrar.
4 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter number 1D03888 receives Exhibit Number
5 P7847, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Admitted into evidence.
7 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 JUDGE MOLOTO: [Microphone not activated] And the last one?
9 MR. TIEGER: That's still an ongoing matter. There may be more,
10 so I'll refrain from tendering that at this point.
11 Q. Okay. Witness, earlier, that is, in June, you were asked at
12 transcript page 44175 by His Honour Judge Moloto the following:
13 "I have another question too. You've talked about taking
14 photographs as you were walking along that distance. Do you have those
16 And you answered:
17 "I handed them over at the last trial I attended. Of course, we
18 made a huge number of photos, hundreds, but I supplied the most important
19 ones, I think 10 or 20. I had brought them with me to prove my point."
20 And then at the next page, at 44176 of the transcript of the
21 15th of June, you added:
22 "I remember the Court," referring to the Karadzic Chamber, "had
23 no doubts about the veracity of my testimony because the Court accepted
24 the photographs."
25 Then added you didn't know which party had tendered the
1 photographs into evidence.
2 I'd like to look, then, at a list of the exhibits that were
3 tendered through you in the Karadzic case. That's 65 ter 33830.
4 Now, there were approximately a total of -- we looked at -- last
5 page -- 67 exhibits tendered during the course of your Karadzic testimony
6 by the Defence or Prosecution, but the photographs are reflected on the
7 first page of this exhibit.
8 MR. TIEGER: So if we go back to the first page.
9 Q. In items 4, 8, 9, and 10. And, unsurprisingly, those are the
10 same photographs that were admitted in this case of you. So D2273 in
11 Karadzic is D2140 here in this case admitted; 2277 is D2145; D2278 in
12 Karadzic is D2144 here; and D2279 in Karadzic is D2146. And those four
13 photographs which have now been tendered in the last two cases in which
14 you testified depicting locations which you visited are the exact same
15 number as the specific locations you identified in your press conference
16 video, D2122, that you said you visited, pointing to -- with your pen to
17 four separate locations on the Bosnian Serb side of the confrontation
19 That's the truth, isn't it, Colonel, that there are four
20 photographs that were introduced by you in both cases, not ten or 20 or
21 any other number?
22 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I'll object as it misstates the
23 evidence. The portion of the transcript read by Mr. Tieger indicates
24 that the witness gave 20 photographs to -- I believe he may have
25 identified Marko from the Karadzic Defence. It does not specify the
1 number that were admitted. He just says the Trial Chamber admitted --
2 MR. TIEGER: You know -- I have to interrupt. That's a speaking
3 objection which is trying -- which has the purposeful or unintended
4 effect of signalling items to the witness. We can take some time to
5 discuss it but as I referenced --
6 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, am I allowed to make my objection on
7 the record. The section that --
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: -- he read from the transcript --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic.
11 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger was responding. You shouldn't interrupt
13 him at that moment.
14 MR. IVETIC: He cannot respond until I'm done giving the
15 objection. I was still speaking, Your Honours. He interrupted me.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If that's the case, then I may have missed that.
17 Your objection should be limited to not -- should be limited in the sense
18 that it doesn't guide the witness.
19 MR. IVETIC: Okay.
20 JUDGE ORIE: And if need be, you can make objections while the
21 witness takes his earphones off.
22 MR. IVETIC: Well, if we can go back to the section of the
23 transcript -- if I go back to -- I'll just read Mr. Tieger's question,
24 let's put it that way.
25 At temporary transcript page 39, line 9, Mr. Tieger starts by
2 "Okay. Witness, earlier, that is, in June, you were asked at
3 transcript page 44175 by His Honour Judge Moloto the following:
4 "'I have another question too. You've talked about taking
5 photographs as you were walking along the distance. Do you have those
7 "And you answered:
8 "'I handed them over at the last trial I attended. Of course, we
9 made a huge number of photos, hundreds, but I supplied the most important
10 ones, I think 10 or'" -- it says 120, but I think it was 20 in the
11 Karadzic transcript -- pardon me, in our transcript from June 15th. "'I
12 had brought them with me to prove my point.'"
13 Then Mr. Tieger goes on to the next page of the transcript of the
14 15th of June:
15 "... you added:
16 "'I remember the Court,' referring to the Karadzic Chamber, 'had
17 no doubts about the veracity of my testimony because the Court accepted
18 the photographs.'"
19 He is not talking about all of the photographs he took. It's not
20 identifying what number were accepted. So to say that this document now
21 shows a different image than what the witness testified about is
22 misstating the testimony.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay. Let's try to cut matters short. If the same
24 number of photographs were tendered and admitted in Karadzic, and I take
25 it that that's your position, just four, and if the same are admitted
1 here, then the Chamber will be able to assess the probative value of the
2 testimony of the witness that accepting such photographs means what the
3 witness -- the meaning the witness attaches to that, because the
4 situation then in Karadzic and the situation in this Chamber is exactly
5 the same.
6 Let's leave it to that.
7 MR. IVETIC: And, again, the photographs are tendered because
8 they were associated to the statement which is the Karadzic statement.
9 JUDGE ORIE: The only thing I say is if the witness gives a
10 specific meaning of the Chamber accepting the photographs, which I do
11 understand also on the basis of your submission, that is tendered and
12 admitted, then we are exactly here in the same situation, and this
13 Chamber is fully able to make up for itself on what it means that those
14 four photographs are admitted into evidence as they were in the Karadzic
15 case. I think it's -- there's not much more to be said about it.
16 I don't know whether you insist on further asking questions about
17 this to the witness, Mr. Tieger, because then [Overlapping speakers] ...
18 MR. TIEGER: No, Mr. President.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Then we leave it to that. The question is put,
20 objected to, and Mr. Tieger does not insist on an answer to his question.
21 Please proceed.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 MR. TIEGER:
24 Q. And, finally, Colonel, in respect of your testimony to this Court
25 that the Karadzic Chamber had no doubts about the veracity of your
1 testimony, I'd like to look at, in fact, what the Trial Chamber
2 considered about your testimony.
3 MR. TIEGER: And in that respect, I'd like 65 ter 33829, found at
4 tab 22 of the Registrar's binder. This is paragraph 4342 of the Karadzic
6 Q. Turning to the fourth sentence of that paragraph:
7 "Thus, the Chamber did not find Demurenko credible when he
8 testified that no suitable positions existed on the SRK side of the
9 confrontation line nor did it believe him when he testified that he in
10 fact examined an area much larger than the one he discussed in his
11 interview of 2 September 1995 and in his evidence in the Dragomir
12 Milosevic case. The Chamber considers that examining an area covering
13 all of the directions of fire established at the time, together with the
14 margin of error, would have been impossible in the limited amount of time
15 Demurenko had. In addition, the Chamber finds it telling that he only
16 mentioned this broader investigation [sic] after the Trial Chamber in the
17 Dragomir Milosevic case" --
18 JUDGE FLUEGGE: It says "inspection" instead of "investigation,"
19 "this broader inspection after the Trial Chamber ..."
20 MR. TIEGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. I'll repeat the sentence.
22 "In addition, the Chamber finds it telling that he only mentioned
23 this broader inspection after the Trial Chamber in the Dragomir Milosevic
24 case had dismissed his investigation as having been too narrow. The
25 Chamber is, therefore, convinced that Demurenko simply changed his
1 testimony in order to counteract the findings of that Trial Chamber."
2 The fact is, Colonel, that contrary to your claim to this Court
3 that the Karadzic Trial Chamber found -- had no -- "had no doubts about
4 the veracity" of your testimony, they considered that you were not
5 credible; right?
6 A. I don't understand. Is that a question to me?
7 Q. Yes, it is.
8 A. If I'm to take you at your word in your last sentence, namely,
9 that the Court does not trust Witness Demurenko, then all my activity in
10 my coming to this court to give evidence over the past few years is
11 pointless. What was the point of listening to my arguments instead of
12 just saying, No, you are wrong. This just shows your bias and lack of
13 neutrality. You are biased and it was clear already at the last session
14 when during the second day, the President of the Court repeated the
15 questions of the Defence counsel three times and repeated your questions
16 13 times. That was clear pressure on the witness.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, you are supposed not to comment on the
18 behaviour of the parties or of this Chamber. You are here, again, not to
19 hear your -- that we can hear your argument. We are here to listen to
20 your testimony as a witness of fact.
21 Would you please be so kind to answer the question. The question
22 was about where you claimed that the other Trial Chamber by accepting
23 your photographs thought that you gave reliable evidence, that this
24 portion of the Judgement suggests or states that they were not convinced
25 by the reliability of your evidence in this specific respect.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right, I'm answering the way I
2 see it. I provided these photographs because they were needed at the
3 moment. If the Chamber had asked me for more photographs, I have dozens,
4 if not hundreds. Some of them I still keep. I would have provided the
5 rest but they were not needed so they remained in my private archive.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it's not exactly an answer to Mr. Tieger's
7 question as I repeated it.
8 But, Mr. Tieger, please proceed. But I'm looking at the clock.
9 MR. TIEGER: I'm mindful of the time, Mr. President, and I think
10 at this point I would only tender the remaining portions of 65 ter 33681
11 that now is the -- the excerpt is from the Karadzic transcript. They've
12 now been uploaded into e-court under 33681a and we'd ask that they be
13 assigned P7844.
14 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we note that transcript page 28964 of
15 the Karadzic transcript dealing with the Lugonja document which has now
16 been admitted into court is not included in the section that Mr. Tieger
17 discussed the witness with [sic]. We would ask that that be included as
18 well for context since that's where the questioning starts about that
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could you verify that, Mr. Tieger, apart from that
21 it is mainly an administrative matter, to have uploaded the portions also
22 Mr. Ivetic referred to. Take your time to verify. I mean, it's not an
23 urgent matter. It's not -- no decision on admissibility in itself has to
24 be taken. It is just an administrative follow-up.
25 MR. TIEGER: Fine. Thank you, Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then this concludes your cross-examination?
2 MR. TIEGER: It does.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Demurenko, Mr. Ivetic will now re-examine you
4 once he has installed the furniture.
5 Mr. Ivetic, if you are ready, please proceed.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Re-examination by Mr. Ivetic:
8 Q. Colonel, first of all, allow me to greet and welcome you back,
9 since it has been such a long time. I, therefore, wish you a good day.
10 The first questions that I want to ask you about is in relation
11 to the multiple times in the transcript of the cross-examination when you
12 were asked about your prior answers in the Dragomir Milosevic trial.
13 Do you recall if, during the Dragomir Milosevic trial, your
14 testimony was completely done with Russian translation or were there
15 times when it was also conducted in English?
16 A. Just as here today, standard procedure.
17 Q. Okay. And now I want to move to focus on the investigation of
18 the Markale market incident.
19 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, do you allow me to put one
20 question --
21 MR. IVETIC: Yes.
22 JUDGE FLUEGGE: -- with respect to interpretation.
23 Mr. Demurenko, do you remember if in the Karadzic case you
24 testified also with interpretation or in the English language?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, 99 per cent of the time I speak
1 Russian. Although there were a couple of sentences I said in English in
2 those trials, but that was a mistake. I testified in Russian.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you very much.
4 Mr. Ivetic.
5 MR. IVETIC:
6 Q. Now I'd like to focus on the investigation that your team
7 undertook as to the Markale market incident. You were asked several
8 times about the video of your press conference that you gave in 1995,
9 which has been admitted as, I believe, D2122 in those proceedings, and
10 you were asked several times by the Prosecution and Trial Chamber as to
11 the angle of descent and the issue of a line being drawn on a map. And
12 we see this primarily from the transcript of the 15 June 2016 court date
13 at transcript pages 44115 to 44116. And you repeatedly told both the
14 Prosecution and the Trial Chamber the same thing; namely that you relied
15 on the results of the prior investigations for both the line on the map
16 and the angle of descent. And we'll get to that, but I'd first like to
17 ask you: After getting information from the prior investigations, what
18 steps did your team take to determine what path you had to travel on the
19 actual territory to conduct your investigation?
20 A. Well, it was quite simple. We had a map and it was visible on
21 the map. We only had to agree with the warring parties about the
22 possibility for the group to travel that route, and we headed out with
23 cameras and with the required good will to investigate properly.
24 Q. And, sir, you indicated you had the map. How did you use the map
25 to identify the path that you had to travel through? Were there any
1 steps taken before setting out?
2 A. For a military man, a professional, nothing much is needed. As I
3 explained in the previous session, not even a GPS is needed. We can see
4 on the spot the lie of the land. We mark landmarks and we follow the
5 route uphill from one way point to another way point, following the route
6 as indicated on the map, as charted.
7 Q. And, Colonel, you say that you marked landmarks and you follow a
8 route via way points. What devices or procedures are undertaken to
9 identify landmarks and way points?
10 A. As I said, we had no GPS. We used the artillery compass and
11 basic equipment, and that was enough to make a plan and chart a route.
12 Q. And now to focus on the interview, that is to say, the press
13 conference that you gave in 1995, you were asked about -- by the Judge
14 about why you did things the way you did in that press conference. And
15 at transcript 44126, you said you were not a PR specialist and had no
16 preparation for talking to the media.
17 And I want to ask you: How much time did you have to prepare
18 before giving that press conference?
19 A. I cannot tell you exactly to an hour but I had not more than one
20 or two days to prepare. I had my bullet points and the photographs that
21 I showed.
22 Q. And now, several times during the cross-examination back in June,
23 Mr. Tieger focused on the documents that you held in your hand during
24 that interview, during that press conference. And he showed you 65 ter
25 number 14297a and that is now in evidence as P7841 --
1 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Could you please repeat the 65 ter number.
2 MR. IVETIC: 14297a.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Thank you. That's correct.
4 MR. IVETIC:
5 Q. And then in the cross-examination, Mr. Tieger further showed you
6 another document which he said showed that the UN investigation got
7 160 degrees and the other document that he showed you was P797, page 7,
8 but he did not go through some other parts of that document or other
9 documents with you.
10 Now, at the transcript at page 44082, that's the part of the
11 video of the press conference, when talking about the French report you
12 say as follows:
13 "No, the main serious facts for us is following. This is a
14 material, maybe one portion of the whole material of UN specialist about
15 the shelling. This is a short report with, is centred on French language
16 but with strange conclusion."
17 And then the press conference goes on.
18 Now, based on what you recall, beyond this French report did you
19 have access to other material from UN specialists in relation to Markale?
20 A. In theory, I could have perhaps asked for other documents, but it
21 was simply not necessary. All the UN experts were part of the contingent
22 that was subordinate to me. It was enough for me to listen to the press
23 conference that was falsely given by one representative, then to look at
24 the drawings and sketches and maps showing trajectories and alternative
25 trajectories, and then what remained was to assemble a group, get
1 agreements from the two sides, and proceed with the investigation. It
2 was rather a simple matter for a professional military man.
3 Q. Okay. And during your press conference you referred to a photo,
4 and it is 65 ter number 33705 on the Prosecution's list, which you should
5 have there, so if you would like to take a look at it, but it's a photo
6 you showed. And at transcript page 44083, lines 2 through 6, again, this
7 is transcript from your press conference, you say as follows:
8 "This is a picture about, it's very interesting, this material of
9 Bosnian police, I mean, I mean, government Bosnian police, is about angle
10 between ground and shell. As you can see degrees, and the last paper is
11 really" --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I see on the transcript 70 degrees, as
13 you can see 70 degrees and I missed that in your reading, the number.
14 MR. IVETIC: I apologise, I must have ... yeah, that's correct.
15 You are correct, Your Honours, I must have skipped over that in my
17 JUDGE ORIE: Could you re-start then. It's about angle and
18 then --
19 MR. IVETIC: "... is about, about angle between ground and shell.
20 As can you see 70 degrees, and the last paper is really, this is a small
21 slice of copy from map, and this is my idea which I can explain on this
23 Q. And then at this point of the press conference you started to
24 draw with a free hand on paper to illustrate your investigation.
25 And I want to ask you: Apart from this photo that you had in
1 your hand from the Bosnian police, did you or members of your team
2 perhaps consult other parts of the report of the Bosnian police as to the
3 Markale incident?
4 A. As I said before, we had two pieces of paper in our hands. One
5 was an excerpt from the map indicating possible trajectories; and the
6 second was a drawing indicating the shell as it was landing at a certain
7 angle --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Extra microphones must be
9 turned off.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So I'm repeating. I had two pieces
11 of paper in my hand. One of them was a diagram showing the shell and the
12 angle of impact and also some numbers; and the second was an excerpt of
13 the map showing two possible directions of descent. That was enough for
14 any professional to search for possible positions where it was fired
15 from, which we proceeded to do.
16 MR. IVETIC:
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. IVETIC: And just for the record, Your Honours --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, I didn't mind what the witness said in
20 answer to your question. I leave it to that, but apparently you're
21 satisfied with it.
22 Yes, please proceed. For the record ...
23 MR. IVETIC: For the record, P797, which Mr. Tieger used in
24 cross-examination, at page 3 identifies 170 degrees as being found by the
25 UNMO team. P2608, page 36 in Serbian and page 20 in the English
1 similarly identifies 170 degrees, not the 160 Mr. Tieger was making
2 reference to. And P496, page 2 in English and page 3 in the B/C/S, is
3 the report of the official Bosnian police which says 170 degrees plus or
4 minus 5 degrees, which again is not the 160 that Mr. Tieger was
5 referencing during his cross-examination.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, apparently this seems to be the
7 beginning of argument, but could you please briefly respond on a
8 factual -- 160 degrees --
9 MR. TIEGER: I was just rising to make the same point. This is
10 not appropriate for cross-examination. This the commencement of argument
11 which will eventually take place but is not about the cross-examination I
12 conducted or the steps taken by this particular witness.
13 MR. IVETIC: Well, Your Honour, when I made that same objection
14 to the Prosecution doing this very same thing, I was struck down. So --
15 JUDGE ORIE: We're not going to further argue. You are referring
16 to the 160 Mr. Tieger used. If you could, not necessarily now
17 immediately, give us the exact transcript page where we find that. And
18 again you can continue now to start with, but ...
19 MR. IVETIC: Okay, I can continue and I'll get back to that. I
20 think -- actually I can tell you right away. It was transcript page
21 44190 of the Mladic -- 44190.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, anything to add at this moment?
23 MR. TIEGER: I didn't think such clarification was necessary but
24 maybe it was. My point was -- arose out of the documents that we can see
25 visible in the video, on the documents the witness indicated he had, and
1 trying to decipher what was written on those documents and that was it.
2 It is not a further argument about what happened in relation to the
3 investigation more generally that didn't have to do with this witness.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Now it's clear what Mr. Ivetic was referring to.
5 Please proceed, Mr. Ivetic.
6 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
7 Q. Colonel, I would now like to return to the map that you held in
8 your hand with a line drawn on it. It's visible at 4 minutes and
9 14 seconds of the press conference video. Who drew the line on that map,
10 was it your team or someone else?
11 A. Certainly not. That was precisely why it was valuable to get a document
12 from an interested party, such as the map and the trajectory of the shell,
13 specifically so that later on, they could not say that the Russians or
14 the Serbs or the UN or whoever deliberately made a sketch and conducted
15 an investigation for themselves. We took as a basis a document made by
16 the other side, started investigating and showed: you are cheating.
17 Q. And if we could focus on that bearing line that you went into the
18 field to review based upon the map, you repeatedly told the Prosecution
19 in cross-examination that you went along the whole line and not just
20 points of the line. And so I want to ask you a question. If a
21 120-millimetre mortar had been fired by anyone along or near to that
22 bearing line that you followed, what type of traces would you have
23 expected to see evidencing such a mortar as being fired?
24 A. I already answered that question before but I will answer it
25 again with pleasure.
1 A mortar cannot be suspended in air. It has to rely on something
2 and has to leave traces. There always - and I repeat always - remain
3 traces of the use of land to place a mortar and to fire it, and there
4 remain boxes lying around and cases of ammunition, et cetera. Nobody
5 cleans up a place after using a mortar. It's not a public park.
6 Either it was true and it had to be accepted that the Serbs were
7 the aggressors or one had to inspect the possible places of firing and to
8 prove otherwise, and then it was up to the UN to investigate further who
9 actually fired the shell.
10 Q. And now during cross-examination, the Prosecution kept asking you
11 about different types of 120-millimetre mortars and different types of
12 120-millimetre mortar shells. Do -- strike that.
13 Are there any differences in the traces that you would expect to
14 be found depending on the type of shell that was fired from a
15 120-millimetre mortar?
16 A. I'll answer that. The consultants that advised Mr. Tieger did a
17 very bad job.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Could you -- would you --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, there were
20 120-millimetre mortars and shells of the same calibre provided by the
21 Yugoslav army, but that is completely irrelevant. In any case, traces
22 remain. They cannot evaporate, vanish into thin air. Some kind of trace
23 always remain. They told us to look for 120-millimetre mortar shells or
24 traces of a 120-millimetre mortar. We didn't find any, which means that
25 there was nothing.
1 MR. IVETIC:
2 Q. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, again no answer to the question, but if
4 you are satisfied, please go on. The question was whether the different
5 types of 120-millimetre mortar shells leave different traces, yes or no.
6 MR. IVETIC: And the answer then at line 11:
7 "In any case, traces remain."
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Oh, if that's an -- if you consider that to be
9 an answer, then please proceed.
10 MR. IVETIC: Let me then ask a follow-up question to address
11 Your Honours' concerns.
12 Q. Does the existence of a trace on the ground from a fired mortar
13 matter -- pardon me. Does the type of round used in a mortar matter in
14 relation to the existence of a trace on the ground from the firing of
15 that mortar?
16 A. Well, in order to understand whether something was fired or not,
17 it doesn't make any difference. But if you put the question differently.
18 We know that something was fired. You, the investigators, find out which
19 type of mortar and which type of ammunition was used. Then we would use
20 different equipment to find out what kind of cases are left, to establish
21 diameters of traces, et cetera. We would do it differently. But that
22 question was not put. The question was whether a mortar was fired from
24 Q. And in relation to that question of whether a mortar was fired
25 from there, does the type of shell used make any difference as to the
1 existence of traces on the ground from that firing?
2 A. Absolutely none. Any mortar shell, modified or old
3 120 millimetre or other, leaves the same kind of traces. And the same
4 shrapnel and the same crater.
5 Q. Now I'd like to turn to the questions posed to you today as to
6 paragraph 38 of your 92 ter statement, D2120, and it will be on page 13
7 of the document. I will read it to you since I thought I heard that
8 the -- that that page was missing from the materials that were sent
9 there. And this is -- this the statement talking about the incident
10 between the French UNPROFOR and the Serbs, and it says:
11 "The only incident between the Serb forces and the UNPROFOR in
12 Sarajevo after the NATO bombing of the Serb positions that I remember was
13 the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge in Sarajevo. There were
14 two check-points from both (Serb and Muslims) sides of the bridge and the
15 Serbs and Muslims were shooting against each other. The Serb soldiers
16 then went on an offensive and captured the Bosnian Muslim trenches. The
17 Bosnian Muslims informed the French UNPROFOR about this and the French
18 command ordered its French troops to attack the Serb units at the
19 occupied check-point. The French soldiers attacked the Serbs and both
20 French and Serb soldiers got killed in this attack. If I remember
21 correctly, some seven French and ten Serb soldiers got killed in this
22 fighting. It was a big scandal within the UN because the UN forces
23 directly attacked one of the warring sides."
24 And the first question I have for you is: What is the basis or
25 source for the information that you have relayed in this paragraph of
1 your statement?
2 A. It was all in the reports, all types of reports, because they
3 were made not only by intelligence units but also all the contingents of
4 the UN, all the check-points, all the military observers, et cetera.
5 So several times a day, we received reports on the situation in
6 the sector, and as soon as that happened at the Brotherhood and Unity
7 bridge, I found out about it and I headed out to see with my own eyes
8 what had happened.
9 Q. And you indicated you wanted to see with your own eyes what had
10 happened. Were you able to, in fact, see with your own eyes any part of
11 these activities that are relayed in paragraph 38?
12 A. What I did see was the place, the results of the tragedy that had
13 taken place, the blood on the tarmac. The wounded and the killed had
14 been taken away by that time, but they were already in hospitals, and I
15 regularly visited hospitals for moral support.
16 I had been at that bridge many times, and after the incident, I
17 simply went out on purpose to see the aftermath of the incident.
18 Q. Thank you, Colonel.
19 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, for the --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask one --
21 MR. IVETIC: Yeah.
22 JUDGE ORIE: -- additional question in this respect.
23 When you went to that place, did you see an observation post
24 which, I think it was number 4, FreBat number 4, there?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I saw the observation point on
1 both sides.
2 JUDGE ORIE: I was asking for specifically this observation point
3 from FreBat 4 which appears in the report you signed.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I saw the observation point of the
5 French Battalion. Now, the name of the battalion and the number of the
6 observation post I can't tell you now because I had seen thousands. It
7 was not my purpose at that time to establish this type of detail.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Is that where you saw the blood?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. The blood-stains were around
10 the Bosnian check-point and the Serbian check-point, where the fighting
11 had taken place using automatic weapons, where the killed and the wounded
12 had spilt their blood on the tarmac. That has nothing to do with the
13 observation point.
14 JUDGE ORIE: So what you describe in paragraph 38, then, of your
15 statement is not the same event as was in the reports we have looked at
16 about FreBat 4?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Is that a question?
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, a question.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. Several times
20 Mr. Tieger referred to some problems in Blazuj, in some other locations
21 in Sarajevo. It all got blended together and confused.
22 JUDGE ORIE: No, my question is not blending anything together.
23 What I was asking you is that the re-taking of a certain position by the
24 French UNPROFOR, whether they re-took both their own observation post and
25 a check-point or whether it's all one event.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I remember well, the Serbian
2 troops did not take any observation points. That was a war between two
3 parties, the Bosniaks and the Serbs. The Serbs did not set themselves
4 the task of capturing an observation post. The Bosnians attacked, and
5 the French tried to repel the attack.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Again, not an answer to my question. But,
7 Mr. Ivetic, if you wish to proceed, please do so.
8 MR. IVETIC: I'm trying to figure out how to proceed,
9 Your Honour, but Your Honour has asked two questions that I don't see
10 being the same questions.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Ivetic, there's no need to comment on my
12 questions. If you have any questions to be put to the witness, you may
13 put them to the witness, and the thinking is not necessarily done aloud.
14 MR. IVETIC:
15 Q. If we can take a look at what was 65 ter number 33674 used with
16 you today and therefore it should be there in the packet that the
17 Prosecution provided. It has now been admitted into evidence as P7845 or
18 95, I can't read my own handwriting, but this was the -- there it is on
19 the screen right now.
20 I believe this is what --
21 JUDGE MOLOTO: It's -45.
22 MR. IVETIC: -45, thank you.
23 Q. I believe this is the report that Judge Orie was asking about as
24 to FreBat 4. And the question that I would ask in follow up is: Do you
25 know if this incident which is said to take place at the Vrbanja bridge
1 is the same incident that you describe in paragraph 38 of your statement
2 as being at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge. Do you know if they're one
3 and the same or what can you tell us about that?
4 A. Why are you starting from that? First of all, we can look at the
5 times. 27 May was the date of the incident in Vrbanja, and at the
6 Brotherhood and Unity bridge the incident was in September, and these are
7 two different places rather far, one from another.
8 Q. Thank, you, sir.
9 MR. IVETIC: Now for my last several questions, I actually need
10 the guidance of Your Honours. At the beginning of today the witness
11 waived confidentiality for a certain document, from the memorandum, and I
12 have some questions to pose as to that memorandum. The Defence position
13 always has been that the memorandum with the names of the VWS personnel
14 redacted should be public, I think we've made that clear in our various
15 filings, and therefore we believe the questions posed about that
16 memorandum, excerpting the names the VWS personnel, should be made in
17 public. But Your Honours gave a date of 22nd August for both parties to
18 provide any objections to any parts of that being made public, and so I
19 don't know whether I should proceed now in open session or otherwise, and
20 I ask Your Honours' instruction.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, of course, the time is not there yet
22 when you're supposed to make submissions. Reference to the memorandum,
23 certainly without giving names of VWS officials, would that be opposed by
24 the Prosecution to do that in open session?
25 MR. TIEGER: No.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Then I have to consult with my colleagues.
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 JUDGE ORIE: If you cautiously use that memorandum, then there is
4 no problem. But before you would do so, I have one question to the
6 Witness, you have read the memorandum shown to you earlier where
7 you waived your right to confidentiality of your document. Yes, you are
8 showing it to us. You also wrote us a letter. Now, do we have to
9 primarily rely on the letter or do we have to primarily rely on the
10 content of the memorandum in which VWS refers to communications with you?
11 Which of the two gives the reasons? Because they're not the
12 same, as you may have noticed.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Naturally, please rely
14 on my letter because the memorandum does not reflect the whole truth. I
15 can comment further if you give me the possibility.
16 JUDGE ORIE: If you say the memorandum does not give the whole
17 truth, do I have to understand that at least what is said in the
18 memorandum, that is, you being unhappy and perhaps even slightly
19 irritated or strongly irritated by what happened to you on the 15th of
20 June and perhaps the preceding day or days, that that still stands
21 although is not the whole of the story. Is that how we have to
22 understand it?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I want to stress that the emphasis
24 in the memorandum is on my emotional outbursts and dissatisfaction. You
25 can ignore that. You can set that aside. That's not important. What is
1 important is literally the last sentence, when you told me that it was
2 necessary to continue the session the next day, and I told you that I had
3 no time. And if you remember, the initial letter was I was able to
4 attend from the 10th and the 16th -- until the 16th. To which you
5 answered: It's your problem.
6 You did not want to listen to me and you ignored my problem.
7 That was the point, and I described all that in the letter.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Now one final question. You say your emotional
9 response is not relevant. We can ignore that. But I would like to know
10 is what is described there, whether that is what you communicated with
11 VWS, the Victims and Witness Section, irrespective of how relevant that
12 is? Does it reflect the content of your communication with the Victims
13 and Witness Section?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It reflects it truthfully.
15 However, the secondary points were made in front of the most important
17 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, fine.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said, most importantly, that I
19 could not stay the night because the next day I had to be at work. They
20 did not, in other words, include in the memorandum what I said first.
21 They included instead things that I had to say of the second order, to
22 put it that way.
23 JUDGE ORIE: And on the 15th of -- you did not tell us, the
24 Chamber, when we adjourned for the day and told you that we'd like to see
25 you back the next morning on the 16th, you didn't tell us at that point
1 in time that you couldn't come because you had to return to work. Is
2 that your recollection as well?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I remember only that you did not
4 let me say it. I was raising my hand, wanted to ask three questions. I
5 could ask two and I couldn't ask the third. You didn't let me express my
6 point of view.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Proceed --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said immediately when they
9 addressed me that I am going to leave.
10 JUDGE ORIE: You've answered my question.
11 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed, I'm also looking at the clock. How
12 much time you think you would need?
13 MR. IVETIC: I can't do it in two minutes, so why don't we take
14 the break and we'll just have a short last session.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, we have a few other matters to deal with as
16 well --
17 MR. IVETIC: That's fine.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- so if we could -- if there's any chance that we
19 could continue until 2.30, then that might be -- if you are short, and,
20 Mr. Tieger, how much time would you need in --
21 MR. TIEGER: Very short.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Very short.
23 MR. TIEGER: Five minutes at most, I think.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Okay.
25 MR. IVETIC: I think we're good with that.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes? Yes, but you don't know what we have on our
2 agenda until 2.00.
3 Madam Registrar, could you try to find out whether we could have
4 a little bit of an extended session, and, Mr. Ivetic, could you discuss
5 with your client whether we have to come back tomorrow or whether we
6 could finalise it even if we go a little bit over the usual time.
7 Then we'll take the break first, and how many more minutes you
8 said you would need?
9 MR. IVETIC: I would anticipate five to seven.
10 JUDGE ORIE: We'll take the break first. We'll take the break
11 and we'll resume at 25 minutes to 2.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 1.11 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 1.36 p.m.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Expecting that the videolink is functioning well,
15 Mr. Ivetic, please proceed.
16 MR. IVETIC: Thank you.
17 Q. I'd like to highlight various portions of this memorandum and I
18 hope you have it in front of you in the Russian language. Unfortunately,
19 I only have the English and therefore will have to read the English
20 version. And again, we should not mention any of the names of the people
21 that are identified in the memorandum.
22 But I'd like to look at the third paragraph of this memorandum,
23 which I will read in full and then ask some questions about, and it says:
24 "Shortly thereafter," and then a name which we will not repeat,
25 "visited the witness at the hotel and informed him that his testimony was
1 not finished and that he had been orally instructed by the Trial Chamber
2 to appear the next day at 9.30. She also advised him that the
3 Trial Chamber could possibly hold him in contempt or at least subpoena
4 him to complete his evidence. Upon her return to the office," again we
5 won't mention the person's name, "informed VWS that the witness expressed
6 the words to this effect that he felt under pressure and treated in an
7 aggressive and unreasonable way, that he was insulted that he was not
8 allowed to shake hands with General Mladic, and that he was not going to
9 continue his testimony, that he had to return for his work and that he
10 planned to make his own way to the airport and depart Holland, if
12 And I think you've already answered to Judge Orie that everything
13 here is true, just that the order is not accurate. Is everything here
14 complete in terms of the information that you gave to the VRS -- to the
15 VWS personnel on the 15th of June, 2016, or is something missing?
16 A. That's the truth. It's only that the stresses are wrong, in the
17 wrong places. In the first place was my need to return within the
18 time-frame indicated in the letter that had been sent earlier from
20 Q. And in relation to that letter, was that a letter sent by your
21 employer or by yourself; and to whom?
22 A. I myself.
23 Q. And was that with VWS or somebody else?
24 A. You mean did someone else help me write the letter? No. I wrote
25 it myself from Moscow.
1 Q. No, no, I'm saying that was the letter to VWS that you're talking
2 about. Is that the letter we're talking about?
3 A. If I remember well, it was addressed to (redacted) - the woman
4 who --
5 Q. We shouldn't --
6 JUDGE ORIE: Witness --
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- had been in touch with me
9 JUDGE ORIE: We have to be very careful here, Witness. Is
10 that -- the letter that you're referring to, is that the letter sent to
11 the Victims and Witness Section and, as the Chamber understood, as letter
12 of the same content to the Defence? That is the letter you're referring
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like us to talk about one
15 and the same letter. I don't know her official position or title, but
16 it's the woman who had been keeping in touch with me before I arrived.
17 MR. IVETIC:
18 Q. Okay. And now in this paragraph, it is indicated here that you
19 "felt under pressure and treated in an aggressive and unreasonable way."
20 By whom did you feel pressured and treated aggressively and in an
21 unreasonable way?
22 A. May I refrain from answering that question? I would not like to
23 create any more discomfort for the esteemed personnel of this Tribunal.
24 Q. Okay. Then I'll ask you, earlier you indicated you had -- you
25 wanted to make some comments or commentary as to this memorandum, and I'd
1 like to give you the opportunity now to identify any other comments that
2 you have about the content of this memorandum, but cautioning that you
3 should not identify the names of any of the individuals that are
4 mentioned in it from the VS service.
5 A. I did express my position in bits and pieces already. Going up
6 to the first paragraph, the questions and answers in the first session.
7 Then referring to the confidential part. There's the issue of my
8 employer and his requirements. The fact that the session was first
9 scheduled for the 13th, then was delayed until the 14th, then was
10 postponed until the 15th. And eventually my employer decided to
11 accommodate only me personally and gave me permission to stay away until
12 the 16th. I have nothing to add, really.
13 Q. Okay, Colonel. Then, in that case, I only would thank you again
14 on behalf of myself personally and my client and the rest of the team for
15 all of your testimony and for agreeing to come back via videolink to
16 complete it. We thank you and appreciate it and apologise for any
17 inconvenience that you may have felt from the Defence side, if there was
18 any. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Tieger, any further questions for the witness?
20 MR. TIEGER: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
21 Further Cross-examination by Mr. Tieger:
22 Q. Colonel, my only remaining question concerns page 38 of your
23 statement, that portion of the statement that deals with the incident on
24 the bridge. Earlier today you'll recall that in connection with that, I
25 pointed out your testimony in the Karadzic case during which the Janvier
1 report was shown to you - that report is 2559 in this case - and read out
2 to you what you said at the time in response to being shown that document
3 and what you said to this -- and it's now in evidence -- that transcript
4 is going to be in evidence. You pointed out that -- or why -- you asked:
5 "Why don't you take a sitrep that speaks to the same incident in
6 Sector Sarajevo where it happened and compare the information in one
7 report and the other. As you understand, on the ground things are much
8 clearer than up at the top and then you would see what exactly happened?"
9 And then we continued during the course of your examination today
10 to call up your sitrep or the sitrep you released from the 27th of
11 May and discussed that, but what we didn't do -- I would now like to turn
12 to what you said in the Karadzic case when you were confronted with the
13 same document.
14 And that's found at transcript page 28975 of the Karadzic
15 testimony, which is 65 ter 33681 at page 35. That should be one of the
16 pages -- the last page uploaded under -- or one of the pages uploaded
17 under 33681a already.
18 And so after your invitation to take a sitrep that speaks to the
19 same incident in Sector Sarajevo, we called this document up in the
20 Karadzic case. We looked at it here today. Here's what you said in --
21 so you were asked about that, and as we can see from this portion of the
22 transcript and the question, you had a chance to see the same references
23 in that document that you saw here today: The reference on the first
24 page; the references on page 4 about the hottest point was the reconquest
25 by FreBat 4 of the Vrbanja bridge; the reference on page 7, Bosnian Serb
1 army soldiers invade the Vrbanja bridge dressed in UN equipment. And
2 then the references in the chronology on pages 10 and 11 of the document
3 reflecting that at 0430 Bosnian Serb army soldiers who were wearing the
4 UN French clothes, et cetera, seized the bridge, blocked the soldiers,
5 and then the reference on the next page to the retaking of that.
6 And when presented with that document in the Karadzic case, you
7 said the following, Colonel, and that's found on the next page, 28976:
8 "It would be advantageous for me to use your methods when you
9 compared the figures, the figures that I mentioned and the figures that
10 you had had in your hands. If we were to have a bit more time, which we
11 don't have, and if we were to look at the first report where it said 4.30
12 in the morning, nine soldiers, ten soldiers, and then they mention the
13 uniform of the special forces of the French army, whereas in this
14 document they mention the UN uniforms, not the French uniforms. So
15 there's a lot of contradiction in these three reports. This is just
16 another indication of the manipulation that took place. Depending on who
17 signed the report, they twisted the truth, they twisted the reality, put
18 their spin on it. So in all these three documents that you showed, the
19 time, the participants, the uniforms, all of that is described
20 differently. That means that one could play it any way one wanted,
21 relying on each of these reports individually."
22 So when presented with your sitrep in the -- from 27th of May,
23 when presented with that document in the Karadzic case, you did not
24 assert that this represented a different incident than the one referred
25 to in paragraph 38 of your report. You said, just as you had said about
1 the Janvier report, that it can't be trusted because of the alleged
2 contradictions, about the uniform and the number of persons killed and so
3 on, between your sitrep and the Janvier report. Correct?
4 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, I will object because the section that
5 has been quoted also says at line 5: "If we were to have a bit more
6 time, which we don't have," and then talks about what they could find
7 looking through the documents. So I don't believe that it's fair to say
8 that this is a complete analysis or rendition of the various documents
9 that were shown to him.
10 JUDGE ORIE: I didn't hear Mr. Tieger presenting it as a complete
11 analysis. He just put, I think, to the witness what he found in the
12 testimony, and indeed the words you apparently considered to be of
13 importance have now been added.
14 Please proceed.
15 MR. TIEGER:
16 Q. That's essentially correct, isn't it, Colonel, that what you said
17 was that the alleged discrepancies between the description of the event
18 in your sitrep and the Janvier report indicated that it couldn't be
19 trusted, but you never suggested that, in fact, the Janvier report and
20 your 27 May sitrep were referring to different events than the one
21 described in your statement in paragraph 38?
22 A. Is that a question?
23 Q. Yes, it is.
24 THE INTERPRETER: There is too much background noise. The
25 interpreter can't hear anything.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is the question?
2 MR. TIEGER:
3 Q. When you testified in the Karadzic case and were shown the same
4 documents you saw here today, you said that the Janvier report and your
5 own sitrep, the sitrep you released yourself on the 27th of May, simply
6 couldn't be trusted about what happened on that date because of the
7 alleged discrepancies that you referred to, but you didn't suggest, much
8 less -- you didn't say, much less suggest, that these -- that the Janvier
9 report and the 27 May sitrep referred to a different event than the one
10 described in paragraph 38 of your statement.
11 A. I drew your attention to the fact that these were two different
12 sitreps and two different locations. Vrbanja and the bridge -- and the
13 other bridge are two different places.
14 Q. You also --
15 A. There is never a 100 per cent coincidence.
16 Q. All right.
17 MR. TIEGER: I'll just add, if I may, add that to the Karadzic
18 excerpts and leave it at that.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Could I ask you one question. How far away are the
20 two bridges from another?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Several kilometres.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. One other question. You said you went
23 to the place of the incident. That's where you saw the FreBat 4
24 observation post. Where was that bridge located?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Brotherhood and Unity bridge
1 used to be at least across the Miljacka river in the centre of the city,
2 approximately, near the memorial plaque saying that it was a site where
3 Gavrilo Princip had killed Crown Prince Ferdinand. And I just walked
4 across that bridge.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, when you visited the site of the incident?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I said, within two hours of the
8 JUDGE ORIE: So the incident took place two hours away from the
9 centre of Sarajevo?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I said two hours within --
11 within two hours from the incident and the -- the bridge is in the centre
12 of Sarajevo.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Thank you for those answers.
14 MR. TIEGER: I think for the sake of completeness, if I may have
15 just one more reference to refer to.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Please do it --
17 MR. TIEGER: Quickly.
18 JUDGE ORIE: -- quickly.
19 MR. TIEGER: I will try to.
20 If we could turn to page 32 of 33681, and we -- this will
21 complete the entire colloquy during that time.
22 Q. Colonel, in the Karadzic case you were asked the following,
23 starting at the bottom, actually, of page 28972, that's page 32, as
25 "Colonel, you discussed an incident that you asserted took place
1 at -- you discussed was what you called the only incident between Serb
2 forces and UNPROFOR after the NATO bombing, and that was what you said to
3 be the fighting at the Brotherhood and Unity bridge. That's at your
4 amalgamated witness statement at paragraph 38. Would it refresh your
5 recollection about where that incident took place if I told you that the
6 only incident that took place between Serb forces and UNPROFOR after the
7 NATO bombing was -- took place at the Vrbanja bridge. Is that the -- was
8 that the incident you were discussing?
9 "A. To be quite honest, I don't remember if the Brotherhood
10 Unity bridge is the same as Vrbanja bridge or it's a different bridge. I
11 simply don't remember. But I remember that on the Brotherhood and Unity
12 bridge there was a lot of bloodshed in a mutual attack when many UNPROFOR
13 soldiers, French soldiers, were killed, and there must have been other
14 cases. I do remember. They did happen."
15 And then we went on to discuss the documents we referred to
16 earlier. Is that an accurate reflection of what you said in the Karadzic
17 case as far as you recall, Colonel?
18 A. This only goes to show that I'm not an automaton. I may have
19 said that the Brotherhood and Unity bridge in my mind is not the same as
20 Vrbanja, but it was in any case at totally different times. One was in
21 May and another was in September.
22 Q. Then, with that, I thank you for the time.
23 MR. TIEGER: Mr. President, I would add those pages to 7844 and
24 tender it.
25 JUDGE ORIE: They will be included in the still-to-be-uploaded
1 portions of the testimony.
2 Mr. Demurenko, we are at the conclusion of hearing your evidence.
3 I would like to express that we were glad that you could conclude your
4 testimony, and I wish you a safe return home, even if it's not as far as
5 it was before.
6 Thank you very much. We can conclude the videolink.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Would you
8 allow me to add something? To thank everyone.
9 JUDGE ORIE: That's appreciated. Thank you. We'll now conclude
10 the videolink.
11 [The witness withdrew via videolink]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we'd move on with a few procedural items I
13 still have on my agenda.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE ORIE: I'd first like to deliver the Chamber's decision on
16 the Defence supplemental submission to admit the evidence of
17 Jasmin Odobasic dated the 1st of August, 2016.
18 On the 17th of June, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion
19 pursuant to Rule 92 quater of the Rules tendering the written statement
20 of Odobasic and related documents. The parties indicated that they would
21 make a supplemental submission tendering excerpts of a book authored by
22 the witness.
23 On the 28 of July, the Chamber deferred its decision on the
24 tendering of these excerpts as the parties had not yet agreed on which
25 excerpts were to be tendered.
1 On the 1st of August, the Defence filed a supplemental submission
2 tendering into evidence the excerpts agreed between the parties which
3 were uploaded into e-court under Rule 65 ter number 1D05976.
4 The Chamber recalls the applicable law for the admission of
5 evidence is as set out in Rule 89(C) of the Rules, which allows a Chamber
6 to admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value.
7 The Chamber has reviewed the proposed exhibit in light of
8 Odobasic's statement and, although the witness did not specifically refer
9 to the book in his statement, the Chamber considers it appropriate to
10 have the proposed exhibit tendered through him as the subject matter of
11 the book is sufficiently related to the witness's statement.
12 With regard to relevance and probative value, the Chamber finds
13 that the proposed exhibit contains information about exhumations
14 throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina and is therefore relevant to crimes charged
15 in the indictment. The Chamber observes that the proposed exhibit
16 contains information regarding its author and its publication and
17 therefore considers that it bears sufficient indicia of reliability and
18 authenticity for the purpose of admission into evidence.
19 In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Rule 89(C) of the
20 Rules, the Chamber grants the motion and admits the document bearing
21 Rule 65 ter number 1D05976 into evidence.
22 Madam Registrar, could you assign an exhibit number.
23 THE REGISTRAR: The exhibit number is D2180, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE ORIE: D2180 is admitted into evidence, and this concludes
25 the Chamber's decision.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Then I move to item in relation to Exhibit D2035
3 which was on the 8th of June, 2016, admitted by the Chamber and the
4 Chamber instructed the Defence to upload into e-court an English
5 translation that corresponds to its B/C/S original.
6 On the 4th of August, the Defence informed the Chamber and the
7 Prosecution, via an e-mail, that the revised translation had been
8 uploaded under doc ID 1D31-1538. The Chamber hereby instructs the
9 Registry to replace the existing translation of Exhibit D2035 with the
10 revised one.
11 The Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
12 Next item deals with Exhibit D2132.
13 On the 26th of July, the Chamber admitted Exhibit D2132 into
14 evidence. On the 3rd of August, the Defence e-mailed the Registry, the
15 Chamber, and the Prosecution advising that the revised English
16 translation of the exhibit had been uploaded into e-court under doc ID
18 The Chamber instructs the Registry the replace the current
19 English translation of the exhibit with the revised one.
20 The Prosecution has one week to revisit the matter, if necessary.
21 I now come to my final issue. The Chamber recalls that
22 Mr. Demurenko was the last witness to testify during the Defence case.
23 Furthermore, during the last Status Conference on the 8th of July of this
24 year, the Defence listed outstanding evidentiary motions, all of which
25 would be filed within two weeks. The Chamber understands from all of
1 this that the Defence has rested its case.
2 And, Mr. Lukic, can you confirm this?
3 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we --
4 JUDGE ORIE: I invited Mr. Lukic to --
5 MR. IVETIC: Oh --
6 MR. LUKIC: Yeah, Your Honour, if you allow Mr. Ivetic to
7 respond. He is more privy with these details.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Mr. Ivetic.
9 MR. IVETIC: We have a confidential decision that Your Honours
10 issued yesterday in relation to two individuals which we will be filing a
11 motion seeks certification to appeal. And we have filed a public motion
12 on the 8th of August in relation to documents that were excerpted from
13 the witness statement of Amor Masovic and admitted by this Chamber upon
14 application by the Prosecution as bar table documents which we believe to
15 be improper under the recently recited criteria that the Chamber has used
16 to deny the Defence the ability to do likewise with documents that are
17 not from witness statements, and therefore, in that motion we have sought
18 for those documents to be stricken or, in the alternative, for the
19 individual in question, Amor Masovic, to be called as a witness. And so
20 subject to those three witnesses, Your Honours, the Defence does not
22 JUDGE MOLOTO: Did you say "does not rest," Mr. Ivetic?
23 MR. IVETIC: Does not rest. We don't consider those matters to
24 be closed yet.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Do they have any suspensive effect on the
1 presentation of evidence?
2 MR. IVETIC: Three witnesses which we believe still should be
3 heard, yes, Your Honours. Therefore we cannot rest until those matters
4 are fully litigated.
5 JUDGE ORIE: And if the Chamber would - I'm not saying it will -
6 but if the Chamber would deny that, then there's nothing remaining, isn't
8 MR. IVETIC: That is correct. And at that time then we would be
9 able to reconsider this issue. But as I stand here now, I cannot rest
10 because there are matters still pending.
11 JUDGE FLUEGGE: Mr. Ivetic, a motion for certification is the
12 next step -- and the decision about certification to appeal is a step to
13 be taken after the decision by the Chamber is filed. Therefore, it's
14 not -- no longer part of the Defence case.
15 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, again, I repeat: On August 8th, 2016,
16 we filed a motion for which this Chamber has not issued a decision, so,
17 therefore, I do believe it is part of the Defence case.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Is that the motion dealing with systematic bias, is
19 that the one?
20 MR. IVETIC: No, no.
21 JUDGE ORIE: No?
22 MR. IVETIC: Dealing with Amor Masovic.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Okay, Masovic. The Defence in the Masovic filing
24 seeks reconsideration of a decision admitting charts into evidence during
25 the Prosecution's case, and in the alternative, Masovic's testimony is
1 sought, but it is not sought as part of the Defence case. It's not
2 presentation of evidence by the Defence, and, therefore, in view of that,
3 it has no impact on closing. As a matter of fact, you're suggesting what
4 we are supposed to do or what the Prosecution should do, but it's not
5 announcing what the Defence wishes to present as evidence. That's as far
6 as Masovic is concerned.
7 The others you're referring to ...
8 MR. IVETIC: Was the confidential decision yesterday as to two
9 individuals. That's -- it's the -- Your Honours had -- had denied a
10 motion that had been filed upon the suggestion of the Honourable
11 Judge Moloto at the Status Conference that we had in relation to two
12 witnesses that we wanted to still call that were on our witness list, and
13 that decision said that although they had not been removed from the
14 witness list, the Defence could not call them. And that's the decision
15 that we will be doing a certification to appeal. Those two witnesses are
16 foreseen as being part of the Defence case, were indeed on our list, and
17 as I understand it, we have not exhausted the time granted by Chamber for
18 presentation of our Defence case. And, therefore, we believe that those
19 two witnesses are definitely within the bounds of our Defence case. And
20 again, it was a confidential decision, otherwise I would gladly tell you
21 their names. If needed, we can go into private session.
22 JUDGE ORIE: At this moment we only have a request for issuing a
23 certification to appeal, isn't it? Or not? Or not yet. You intend to
24 do that.
25 MR. IVETIC: Not yet. Your Honours filed the decision -- late
1 yesterday we received it, so I don't know when it was drafted, but we got
2 it late yesterday.
3 JUDGE FLUEGGE: But it was decided upon yesterday and that means
4 at the moment that your motion found a final decision, and if you now ask
5 for certification to appeal, that is the next step beyond the resting of
6 the Defence case.
7 MR. IVETIC: But, Your Honours, we also asked for reconsideration
8 which would be within the bounds of this Chamber, not to the Appellate
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. IVETIC: For those two, it was not decided.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE ORIE: So we have filed the decision yesterday and we now
14 hear what plans the Defence still has.
15 MR. IVETIC: Yes, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then it may join some of the other certification
17 motions which are still pending and which have no suspensive effect, if
18 it will be filed. All those certification motions, including one which
19 may come but we're not aware of yet, are evidentiary. Certification or
20 reconsideration motions do not have a suspensive effect and therefore do
21 not impact on any closure of the case.
22 One second, please.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then there is one other matter which is D2177. The
25 Prosecution, I think, responded that it would oppose reconsideration or a
1 certificate to appeal but would not oppose tendering the whole of the
2 document where the Chamber admitted only four pages until now, that it
3 was about the positions taken by Russia and the witness testifying on
4 whether he agreed with those positions, yes or no. I also do understand
5 that the Defence in its motion gave as a final alternative to have the
6 whole of D2177 to be admitted into evidence. The Chamber is inclined to
7 follow the suggestion by the parties; that is, that D2177 will be
8 admitted from the bar table and -- in its entirety.
9 Any comment on what the Chamber ...
10 MR. IVETIC: You have correctly stated the positions. I have
11 just one procedural question. Since you had already instructed us to
12 upload a redacted version which -- pardon me, a reduced version, can we
13 upload the full version in the same 65 ter number or do we need to do
14 anything different? That's the question I had.
15 JUDGE ORIE: I think it was marked for identification as D2177.
16 If you would upload the complete version of that document, then the
17 Registry is hereby instructed to replace the present version of D2177 by
18 the complete version of the same document.
19 Mr. Tieger, you are looking as if something bothers you.
20 MR. TIEGER: Just logistical, we thought that the entirety
21 already existed under -- uploaded under a number, but one way or another
22 that can be resolved.
23 MR. IVETIC: It does, it does.
24 JUDGE ORIE: So the entire document is already uploaded --
25 MR. IVETIC: Yes. The original document was the entire -- you
1 had asked for a reduced portion which had been uploaded and I don't --
2 I'm not sure if it had been replaced yet or not. That's why I wanted to
3 make sure we didn't leave it hanging.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, you're right, there is nothing to be replaced.
5 I withdraw now the instruction to upload a four-page extract of that
7 And D2177, as it is uploaded now into e-court, is admitted into
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE ORIE: Under these circumstances, no evidentiary issues
11 remaining, the Chamber establishes that the Defence rests its case and
12 that the Defence case is closed, with the caveat of the -- no, I think I
13 leave it to that.
14 One second, please.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: Then I'll move on. The Chamber further considers
17 that it is in the interests of an expeditious completion of the
18 evidentiary stage of this case to already receive any submissions
19 pursuant to Rule 85 (A)(vi) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and
20 Evidence tendering into evidence information relevant to determining an
21 appropriate sentence if the accused is found guilty and orders the
22 parties to make any submissions by the 25th of August, 2016.
23 Lastly, I address the Prosecution. The Prosecution filed its
24 rebuttal motion on the 21st of June, 2016. Not much Defence evidence has
25 been admitted since, but I wanted to verify that there's no need for the
1 Prosecution to supplement its rebuttal filing or is there?
2 MR. TIEGER: That's absolutely correct, Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ORIE: That's then hereby verified.
4 I have no further items on my agenda. Any matter to be raised?
5 MR. TIEGER: Well, first of all, a strict housekeeping matter
6 that Ms. Stewart advises me of. We didn't complete the tendering of
7 P7844. All of the excerpts are now uploaded and those are T 28964
8 through 66 and T 28972 through 76 of the Karadzic transcript.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Uploaded under what number?
10 MR. TIEGER: 33681a.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, all the -- only the pages dealt with with the
13 MR. IVETIC: And the one that I added that was -- yeah, that's
15 JUDGE ORIE: Is included as well.
16 Madam Registrar, could you please assign a number to 65 ter --
17 MR. TIEGER: I think number -- it's P7844.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Oh, the number is -- yes, the number was already
19 reserved. P7844, which now covers the document uploaded under number
20 33681a, is admitted into evidence.
21 Any other matter, Mr. Tieger?
22 MR. TIEGER: Only to mention that Prosecution also has an
23 interest, as I think everyone in the courtroom does, in the most
24 efficient and expeditious resolution of the case. We will continue to
25 consider any steps including meeting with the Defence that may facilitate
1 that, and in that connection would be prepared, I think, to seek from the
2 Court periodic Status Conferences, even of relatively short duration, in
3 the interests of moving matters forward and keeping the parties abreast
4 of the status and any additional steps that could usefully be undertaken.
5 So I'm not suggesting a specific date at the moment, but I think that
6 foreshadowing that possibility even on a semi-regular basis is -- could
7 be a useful method to move us forward.
8 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber appreciates you -- your position.
9 Mr. Ivetic.
10 MR. IVETIC: Your Honours, we have one issue we would like to
11 stress to the Chamber. We have a motion seeking additional time for the
12 final brief deadline which Your Honours had deferred ruling upon, and so
13 maybe it's something you already had in mind, but I just want to make
14 sure that that was still out there and that we do need a decision on
15 that, to make sure that that wasn't left lost in the clutter.
16 JUDGE ORIE: It is not lost, but we did not want to anticipate
17 too much on what still could happen and now are in a better decision to
18 decide on that motion, and we'll do that within due course.
19 Any other matter to be raised? Then I didn't hear anything yet
20 about roads and distances. I looked at it again, and I saw that one of
21 the issues might be whether there's any macadam roads within 6 kilometres
22 or there are no macadam roads within 6 kilometres from the point of
23 impact. That perhaps gives a bit of more precise description of
24 apparently what the Chamber encourages the parties to agree upon.
25 If there is nothing left, most likely we will not see each other
1 very soon again, we adjourn sine die.
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2.26 p.m.,
3 sine die.