1 Friday, 28 October 2005

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We will need to sit for shorter

6 periods today. Apparently the witness was experiencing considerable

7 difficulty as the day progressed yesterday with her injured heel. So we

8 will confine sessions to about an hour.

9 [The witness entered court]

10 WITNESS: VESNA BOSANAC [Resumed]

11 [Witness answered through interpreter]

12 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Doctor. We will try sitting for

13 shorter periods today to see if it helps with your discomfort. If I could

14 remind you of the affirmation you made at the beginning of your evidence,

15 it still applies.

16 Mr. Borovic.

17 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Good

18 morning to my colleagues from the Prosecution.

19 Cross-examination by Mr. Borovic: [Continued]

20 Q. The first question. The staff where Dedakovic was, Dedakovic

21 called Jastreb, when did you go there and ask for assistance with

22 Dr. Ivankovic? When was it and where the staff of Mile Dedakovic was

23 located?

24 A. I can't remember the exact date. I think it was in October. At

25 the time, I was attending a meeting with Mr. Dedakovic in the basement of

1 the former municipal building.

2 Q. Thank you. How many times did you go to the police staff in the

3 course of those three months?

4 A. I can't say with any degree of specificity but more than ten

5 times.

6 Q. How far was the Main Staff, the staff of Dedakovic, from the

7 hospital?

8 A. About one kilometre.

9 Q. How far was the police station from the hospital?

10 A. About 200 metres.

11 Q. Thank you. When asked whether she took the faxes in a car, we

12 heard what the witness replied. My question is as follows: Could the

13 witness explain how this transpired, as she was driving in a car, were

14 there any other cars in the street, how long this took and so on.

15 A. It was quite difficult. The shells were landing everywhere. I

16 would get into a car in front of the hospital. Then I would drive through

17 the street which is now called Zupanjska street. I would pass by the

18 Court and police building. Then I would continue through the downtown

19 area, through the street that was called Bozidara Adzije street, then I

20 would go through Skolska street. I would stop there and go to the -- [No

21 interpretation].

22 JUDGE PARKER: The sound was interrupted there twice. I wonder,

23 Doctor, if you could repeat your answer. The sound is still interrupted,

24 it seems.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue now? Can you hear me

1 now?

2 JUDGE PARKER: Doctor, we had three interruptions now to the

3 sound. Would you mind repeating your answer?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can repeat it. However, I

5 can't hear the translation of your question now.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Are you receiving an English translation of my

7 question, Mr. Borovic?

8 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] No.

9 JUDGE PARKER: We appear to have a problem with English coming

10 through.

11 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Okay.

12 JUDGE PARKER: Okay? It's now through? You can hear the

13 translation, doctor?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear it now.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Let's hope we stay on air. Now,

16 perhaps you could back to your question, Mr. Borovic, and we'll try the

17 answer again. If you could put your question, please.

18 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

19 Q. Therefore, in your daily communication with the staff of the

20 Guards Corps, the witness went there daily in a car. Could she please

21 tell us what was the situation in the streets, how many cars there were,

22 was she the only person driving in a car?

23 A. It was difficult to drive through. The shells kept landing

24 everywhere and one could expect a fallen tree in any part of the road.

25 There were different pieces of debris everywhere, such as bricks and so

1 on. There were still cars in the streets but very few. Mostly one could

2 see the ambulance, fire trucks, and only a few civilian vehicles.

3 Q. Did she ever use an ambulance visibly marked with a red cross or

4 did she drive in civilian cars?

5 A. Civilian cars.

6 Q. How many members of the so-called ZNG were there in the three

7 months relevant in this case, ZNG being National Guards Corps?

8 A. I can't give you an exact answer. Do you mean the wounded and the

9 ill?

10 Q. I mean the wounded, ill, and anybody else who was present at the

11 hospital.

12 A. It's hard for me to give you a specific answer. Based on the

13 information that we have in that period of time, in 1991, there were 3.470

14 people who were wounded.

15 Q. Were they all members of the National Guards Corps?

16 A. No.

17 Q. My question pertained only to them.

18 A. As I have told you it's difficult for me to say that. If you need

19 an accurate and specific answer, I would need to look into the database of

20 the hospital. However, during that time, there were usually 50 to 60 per

21 cent of civilians, members of the ZNG or police members.

22 Q. So if the total number was around 3.000, 50 per cent of them would

23 be either members of the ZNG or police force?

24 A. It's an estimate, just an estimate.

25 Q. Thank you. The Crisis Staff, hospitals, who made decisions in the

1 Crisis Staff and who wrote faxes with appeals that the witness described

2 to us?

3 A. The Crisis Staff of the hospital comprised my fellow associates,

4 my colleagues at the hospital, and the faxes with appeals were written by

5 me, solely by me.

6 Q. Can the witness please explain to the Court why is it that she

7 drew up those faxes by herself without involving other members of the

8 Crisis Staff in the process? Because the purpose of the Crisis Staff is

9 to own sure that everybody takes part in these things.

10 A. I said that I wrote these appeals myself, but upon verifying the

11 information I had at the hospital. Other members of the Crisis Staff had

12 other tasks, such as surgeries, logistics and so on.

13 Q. Thank you. I'm not interested in that.

14 My question is: Does the witness believe that the hospital was

15 solely targeted by the JNA, in terms of shelling?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. My next question is: The Red Cross marks, were they

18 placed on the main building of the hospital where the patients and the

19 witness were or perhaps on some other auxiliary hospital buildings?

20 A. A large Red Cross mark was placed on the current administrative

21 building, where we also had patients in the basement. In addition to

22 that, we also had a large Red Cross mark on the lawn, which is between the

23 old and the new hospital. In the area next to the atomic shelter.

24 Q. My question is: Why wasn't the Red Cross mark placed on the main

25 building which was the precisely the building where the wounded and the

1 patients were?

2 A. Because the roof on the main building was impossible to access

3 from the outside. That building has five storeys, and when the decision

4 was made to place the Red Cross mark, there was already a lot of shooting

5 going on. It was quite risky, rather, impossible to climb on the roof of

6 the building which had five storeys.

7 Q. Would you agree that there was no visible mark on the building

8 where you were and where the patients were?

9 A. No. I wouldn't agree with that because immediately next to that

10 building was a very large, very visible, 30 metre long Red Cross sign.

11 Q. Thank you. How far from that Red Cross sign was the depot,

12 ammunition depot, of the Croatian MUP located?

13 A. I wouldn't be able to say that because I don't know where the

14 police depot or warehouse was.

15 Q. And you told us that the police station was 200 metres away?

16 A. Yes, 200 metres away. This is where the police station was, where

17 I went to make phone calls and send faxes. I don't know whether the depot

18 or warehouse was there.

19 Q. My question for the witness is as follows: Was the police

20 building targeted by the artillery or by planes?

21 A. Not only the police building but also the Court building and all

22 other buildings. Not a single building in Vukovar remained intact during

23 the war. They were all targeted. It was just a question of the extent of

24 damage.

25 Q. I asked you about the police building.

1 A. Like all the other buildings, I said this building was targeted

2 and hit many times.

3 Q. Which specific missiles were used on the police building?

4 A. I don't know exactly. It was shelled, bombs were dropped from

5 planes on it but I spent most of in the hospital and I can't say which

6 specific missiles were used on the police building.

7 Q. My next question and this is something that the witness has

8 already spoken about. She said she spent most of her time in the cellar

9 and the atomic shelter. My question is based on what did she make her

10 assessments as to where the missiles were coming from, given that she was

11 spending most of her time in the hospital basement.

12 A. I never in fact said that I was spending most of my time in the

13 basement or the atomic shelter. My office was on the ground floor. I

14 kept going out. I kept making rounds of the hospital. I would go to the

15 centre of town. I would go home. I would go to the headquarters. I

16 would go to the police building. Therefore I was in a very good position

17 to make an estimate as to how many shells or missiles were landing on the

18 building and the town itself.

19 Q. Based on this answer, I would conclude that the witness moved

20 about town on a daily basis quite a lot. The question is: How much time

21 did it take when she would go to the police building, when she would go

22 home and return to the hospital, when she went to the headquarters of the

23 National Guards Corps? How much time was she spending outside moving

24 about freely?

25 A. It wasn't exactly moving about freely, because there was

1 continuous shelling and I was always in danger of being hit by a shell.

2 However, I went either to the police building or to the headquarters in

3 order to send faxes from there almost every day. I would go back to a

4 residential neighbourhood, to the residential neighbourhood where I lived,

5 to bring medicine and food there. I would go home to sleep every night

6 and the next morning I would go back to the hospital, although every time

7 I was facing great deal of danger.

8 Q. Can you tell us how far your home is from the hospital? And did

9 you drive there twice a day, there and back, that is?

10 A. My home is about 500 metres away from the hospital.

11 Q. How did you go there?

12 A. By car.

13 Q. And back, right?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Was your vehicle damaged at any point in time throughout those

16 three months? You must have made the trip at least 200 times in the open

17 without taking into consideration your visits to the police building and

18 the National Guards Corps headquarters. And there were so many shells

19 falling after all?

20 A. Yes, it was damaged on a number of occasions. I remember this one

21 time I was on my way to send a fax, I was inside the police building,

22 meanwhile the vehicle had been hit by a shell. Whenever I drove, nearly

23 every day, it had to be at full throttle. There were no windows or wind

24 screens left on the car. Everything had been shattered by shells, and I

25 could see shells falling all over the place as I drove.

1 Q. Thank you. On that occasion when your car was hit in the front

2 yard of the police building, did it catch fire? Was it destroyed? Or did

3 you continue to use this vehicle to drive about town?

4 A. It didn't catch fire. It wasn't burned. It wasn't destroyed but

5 I had to walk back to the hospital because at that point I wasn't able to

6 use the car.

7 Q. So over the next days, how did you go to the headquarters?

8 A. In a different car.

9 Q. Whose car, what car?

10 A. We had hospital vehicles. The police had allowed us to use some

11 of their vehicles. We borrowed those vehicles, as it were. This was a

12 Yugo and this was the one that I used most often.

13 Q. Which colour is that car?

14 A. Red.

15 Q. Can the witness please explain to the Trial Chamber the difference

16 between bombs dropped from a plane and tank missiles? She was after all

17 speaking a great deal about that yesterday during her testimony.

18 A. What do you mean can I explain the difference? Of course I can.

19 You mean in terms of what the explosion --

20 Q. What the respective missiles look like and, secondly, how could

21 you tell from your vantage point inside the hospital the difference

22 between a bomb dropped by a plane and a tank missile? Is it based on some

23 military experience that the witness has or was it in a different way?

24 A. I have no military experience to speak of, nor had I ever known

25 before the war what a bomb or a shell looked like. However, when a shell

1 landed on the hospital, I saw the way it exploded and I saw the way that a

2 bomb dropped from a plane that weighed about 250 metres [as interpreted]

3 exploded. Two fell at the same time. One fell on the surgery ward in the

4 second floor, and the other failed to explode but rather fell on top of a

5 bed where a patient was lying. I can tell you the difference now because

6 now I'm familiar with the difference between an explosion caused by a

7 multiple rocket launcher, a bomb dropped from a plane or a tank missile.

8 And all these different kinds and varieties of weapons, I think I would

9 still be able to distinguish them today.

10 Q. I'll ask you about those differences later on. My question is you

11 saw that bomb which pierced through three floors of the building on its

12 way down. We heard about the bomb on the second floor. Was there any

13 other bomb dropped by a plane that pierced the floors of the hospital

14 building or was there this single one that the witness saw?

15 A. I saw at least 20 of those bombs dropped by a plane dropped on the

16 hospital yard, on the hospital surroundings or on the building itself.

17 Q. Excuse me but my question is did you see any other missiles

18 dropped by a plane like this one --

19 A. Yes, yes.

20 Q. But you didn't hear my question, please. That pierced three

21 different floors of the building and remained undamaged. Did you have any

22 other bomb falling through like that that you saw?

23 A. An unexploded one, you mean?

24 Q. Exploded or unexploded.

25 A. Yes. I told you about the one that exploded. It fell near the

1 atomic shelter, causing the corridor where the patients were to cave in.

2 There was another one that fell on the corridor connecting the two

3 hospital buildings causing the corridor to cave in. It fell on a

4 hospital -- on one of the hospital buildings and totally damaged it.

5 There was one that fell on the paediatric ward. There was another one

6 that fell on the hospital courtyard, and produced a crater that was 3

7 metres across.

8 Q. These are three examples. We heard the witness saying that there

9 were between 70 and 80 bombs being dropped by planes on the hospital

10 building itself. Well, it strikes me that your estimate seems rather

11 exaggerated in terms of the numbers mentioned in relation to what you are

12 saying today.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Moore?

14 MR. MOORE: I object to that question. My learned friend's

15 observations or his opinions on exaggeration or not plays no part in the

16 evidence.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, what you were doing then was putting

18 your own personal opinion. You've got to put a proposition to the

19 witness, one that is impartial, neutral, objective, rather than your

20 personal opinion. Your personal opinion and that of Mr. Moore and any

21 other counsel is not relevant in these proceedings. It's a matter of the

22 way you framed your question. Thank you.

23 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully agree with you.

24 You're quite right about this particular part of the question.

25 Q. My next question: The ambulances that you spoke about, were they

1 burned by phosphorus bombs?

2 A. The building next to which the vehicles were parked and where the

3 workshops were hit by incendiary shells which caused a fire.

4 Q. I was asking about the Red Cross vehicles. Were they in fact

5 torched by phosphorus bombs or not?

6 A. Yes. They did catch fire. They burned, but I'm not sure if that

7 had been caused by phosphorus bombs. When the shells were dropped,

8 everything caught fire and everything burned down within one -- within the

9 hour.

10 Q. Are you familiar with photographs that were taken of the Red Cross

11 vehicles where one can clearly see that they were damaged but never burned

12 down?

13 A. I'm not sure which photos you have in mind.

14 Q. So you don't know. We'll tackle that another time.

15 A. I'm saying I'm not sure which specific ones you're referring to.

16 I have seen a great deal of photos in situations to that.

17 Q. Did you see the photos of those specific vehicles that we are

18 talking about now?

19 A. I'm not sure which specific ones you have in mind, as I say.

20 Q. Thank you. About poisonous gases, we heard that bombs containing

21 poisonous gases were dropped. Do you know that such bombs destroy all

22 forms of life, not only humans?

23 A. Based on my modest knowledge, I know that there are several

24 different kinds of poisonous gases.

25 Q. Based on your modest education, which ones would these have been?

1 A. These were gases that caused tearing in humans, cough, and an

2 unpleasant smell somewhat like DDT.

3 Q. What do you think about this? When an area was targeted with

4 poisonous gases do you know that this area can't be used for a long time

5 later because it needs to be thoroughly decontaminated before it can be

6 used again and this takes a rather long time, doesn't it?

7 A. Well, that depends on the poison used.

8 Q. Thank you. Do you know that members of the ZNG would change into

9 civilian clothes in the hospital in order to avoid arrest by military

10 authorities after the fall of Vukovar?

11 A. I'm not familiar with the fact, at least not the way you're

12 putting it. Most of the people who were in the hospital did not have ZNG

13 uniforms at all.

14 Q. Thank you.

15 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Can the witness please be shown

16 Binazija Kolesar's statement dated the 19th and the 20th of June 1995,

17 page 6, the first six lines? This is a statement that we have forwarded

18 to the Tribunal. The technology does not seem to be fully operational, so

19 we have scanned only the portions that are going to be used and tendered

20 today so we should have it somewhere. I'm not sure if it can be shown.

21 In order to avoid further delays, we have printed copies of the relevant

22 portions too, in addition to what we have already sent to the Tribunal.

23 If you want, I can show the witness the relevant portions immediately so

24 that she can look at them.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. That would help.

1 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, may I object to the proposed course?

2 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Moore?

3 MR. MOORE: I would submit that it is not an appropriate way for a

4 witness to be cross-examined to be shown a witness statement from another

5 witness. I fully accept that it is acceptable procedure to say to a

6 witness, as indeed Your Honour had indicated, "What would you say if other

7 parties had indicated that clothes changed or perhaps referred to the

8 topic, but to actually show the statement of another witness," in my

9 submission, is an unacceptable practice. Because that other witness,

10 witness's statement only relates to that testimony itself, not in relation

11 to this witness. Certainly this witness is entitled to make observations

12 on a proposition but not the statement.

13 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, there is substance in what Mr. Moore

14 puts to me. You will recall yesterday what I said about this. The normal

15 practice would be for you to put questions relying on what you understand

16 to be a statement made by another person who may be a witness in this case

17 or by what you understand may be their evidence. But not usually can you

18 put the statement that you have of that other witness as such, unless some

19 justification emerges from the way the questions you put are answered. So

20 perhaps you could merely pose to the witness whether she would agree with

21 what you believe to be in the statement of this other person. Thank you.

22 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Well, I'll

23 try using this roundabout route. I accept that there is a rule to that

24 effect.

25 Q. Mrs. Bosanac, were there people in the hospital who provided

1 security there?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Was there internal security?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Done by whom?

6 A. Police members.

7 Q. How many?

8 A. About three or four.

9 Q. Where were they located inside the hospital?

10 A. At the entrance.

11 Q. And no where else?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Were they armed?

14 A. No.

15 Q. So what sort of security were they providing?

16 A. They were standing guard in a way. They were just being there.

17 Those inside the hospital were not armed.

18 Q. And which ones were?

19 A. Those outside the hospital, members of the National Guards Corps,

20 who were in charge of the hospital security.

21 Q. How many of them were there who were armed?

22 A. That changed. There were always between four and six of them.

23 Q. And how many inside?

24 A. Three or four police officers.

25 Q. So a total of, roughly speaking, ten every day?

1 A. I would say it's more like six.

2 Q. Well, this must be a question of math, then. There were between

3 four and six outside and three or four inside. That doesn't make six. It

4 makes ten?

5 A. Well, I would round the figure off to about seven but I can't say

6 that it was like that every day. For example, when the shells were

7 falling, there was no one outside. They all took shelter somewhere in one

8 shelter or another.

9 Q. Where?

10 A. The shelter at the entrance to the hospital -- no, not a shelter.

11 Inside the hospital entrance, the reception area, or in the emergency ward

12 somewhere. They could hide. Of course they couldn't just remain standing

13 out there watching the shells fall.

14 Q. Thank you. Once the combat activity stopped, what happened to the

15 policemen who were providing security inside the building?

16 A. Some of them remained in the hospital.

17 Q. In their uniforms?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. What happened? Did they surrender in uniforms, these policemen?

20 A. I can't say. I wouldn't be able to say because I was taken away

21 then. I know that two members of the police force, Lukenda Branko and

22 Tomislav Hegedus never actually wore a uniform, and those who were

23 internal security, they did. They rotated.

24 Q. You probably made a mistake. Did you mean external security?

25 A. Internal.

1 Q. You mean internal security had uniforms?

2 A. As I said, two of them did and two of them didn't. I don't know

3 in what state they were when the Yugoslav army arrived. I didn't see that

4 because that morning I had been taken away and I can't remember when they

5 were taken away. I know that some were taken away on the 19th, taken away

6 to be questioned. And the others are still considered missing.

7 Q. So what happened to the external security? You were outside.

8 This is where you were when the army arrived. What about the members of

9 the ZNG? What about that security? Were they standing there when the JNA

10 arrived?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Where were they?

13 A. I don't know.

14 Q. Did they flee?

15 A. I don't know. I didn't see.

16 Q. Do you allow that they might have entered the hospital to hide

17 there?

18 A. That is possible.

19 Q. Thank you. What would you say if I told you that there were

20 persons employed at the hospital who stated that there were armed members

21 of the Croatian MUP in the hospital, that there was a large number of

22 armed people who were members of the ZNG, and that it was difficult to say

23 who was wounded and who simply pretended to be wounded? How would you

24 interpret this kind of statement and would you agree that it is a truthful

25 statement?

1 A. I couldn't accept it as truthful because I know nothing about

2 that. I know that those who were wounded were indeed wounded. Now, as to

3 whether in those days, when about 1.000 people arrived from the shelters

4 in the vicinity, what was their status, I really couldn't say. I just

5 know that the people who were recorded in our books were indeed wounded.

6 Q. Did you or any of your doctors ever put bandages or a plaster on a

7 person who wasn't sick?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Can we please go into private session briefly, please?

10 JUDGE PARKER: Private session.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 [Open session]

22 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation]

23 Q. Where was this staff located in November of 1991? You said that

24 you went there frequently.

25 A. In the yard of the National Defence Secretariat.

1 Q. So the meetings were held in the yard or indoors?

2 A. In November, I did not attend the meetings at the Defence Staff of

3 the city of Vukovar. The staff was located in a yard in the atomic

4 shelter. I went there to send faxes, my appeals for help indicating what

5 we needed at the hospital.

6 Q. Thank you. Do you know Wilhelm Rudolf?

7 A. I know him but not personally.

8 Q. What can you say to the Court about that person?

9 A. I don't know whether we have the same person in mind. I know

10 somebody who is called that. I think he is a husband of one of our

11 colleagues who is a dentist.

12 Q. Yes. You're right. Was the witness ever in the municipal

13 building together with Rudolf, Wilhelm during these bombings?

14 A. Whether I was there? No, I don't remember.

15 Q. Do you remember ever being with him together in the ZNG Staff?

16 A. I don't remember. Perhaps he was there but I didn't see him.

17 Q. What would you say about a statement of the person claiming that

18 on the 17th of November 1991, in -- you attended a meeting of the ZNG

19 Staff and personally proposed that the members of ZNG shed their clothes

20 in order to save them? Is it possible that you proposed something like

21 that?

22 A. No. I didn't.

23 Q. I apologise. I wasn't specific enough. Did the witness propose

24 that they put on white hospital uniforms?

25 A. No. I didn't.

1 Q. We heard that the witness saw tank shelling. Would she be able to

2 say to the Court how far those tanks were across the Danube on the other

3 side? We heard yesterday that they were on the other side of the river,

4 on the Serbian side, so how far was that from the hospital?

5 A. Well, it's hard for me to say how wide the Danube is in that area.

6 The hospital is close to the bank. Perhaps some hundred metres, and I

7 think that the Danube is 200 to 300 metres wide in that area.

8 Q. So, in total, from the hospital to the tanks, would be how much in

9 your assessment?

10 A. 300 to 400 metres.

11 Q. This is not a personal question. I'm putting it for professional

12 reasons. Did you wear glasses then?

13 A. Yes. I've always worn them.

14 Q. What was your prescription then?

15 A. Minus 1.

16 Q. So at the time, from a distance of 500 metres from the basement of

17 the hospital, were you able to see the tanks on the other bank when there

18 was actually a building between you and the tanks?

19 A. I saw them, naturally I did. Otherwise I wouldn't have said what

20 I said. I drove in the car and I was able to see the other bank where the

21 tanks were.

22 Q. Very well. We heard from the witness that the roof was set on

23 fire once and that they put the fire out. My question is: What did you

24 use to put the fire out? Who took part in that endeavour? And how many

25 people climbed up to the roof to put the fire out?

1 A. In addition to me, another three people climbed there. The fire

2 was put out with water, and the fire was such that the area between roof

3 tiles and the wall was on fire.

4 Q. All right. Who else took part in that endeavour with you?

5 A. Marko Mandic.

6 Q. All right. Did you use the sand that was in the yard of the

7 building and intended for those purposes? It is mandatory to use it in

8 such cases. Do you know that?

9 A. No. We had sand in -- we had sandbags in the windows but we

10 didn't use them. We used water.

11 Q. If you had sandbags, was that used as a shelter for those who were

12 shooting from there as is typical in combat operations?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Did you have any sand in the yard?

15 A. What do you mean in the yard?

16 Q. Did you have large quantities of sand in the yard? Let me be

17 quite specific. Did you have sand heaps with weapons concealed in them?

18 A. No.

19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, is that a convenient time? We will

20 adjourn now until --

21 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I was just considering that, that we

22 could perhaps make a break. Thank you.

23 JUDGE PARKER: 10.15, we will resume.

24 --- Break taken at 9.54 a.m.

25 --- On resuming at 10.19 a.m.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Borovic.

2 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

3 Q. My question is: You explained to the Court everything related to

4 the roadblocks and the roads that were cut off. You explained in great

5 detail all the roads that were blocked, how, when and so on. You did that

6 when asked by the Prosecutor. My question is: Based on the great detail

7 that you provided about these roadblocks, I would like to know whether the

8 information you have is of military origin.

9 A. What do you mean?

10 Q. Did you personally go and tour these roadblocks or did you receive

11 information from somebody in the ZNG or police?

12 A. I received this information from the ambulance drivers, from

13 people who came to the hospital, mostly from the ambulance drivers whom I

14 sent out to provide assistance.

15 Q. In those days, did you have some military assignment perhaps?

16 A. No. At least I don't know what you have in mind.

17 Q. What I have in mind is everything surrounding your trips to the

18 ZNG staff, police and so on.

19 A. No.

20 Q. You said to the Prosecution that you received instructions from

21 the Defence Staff to keep records of the patients and so on.

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Could that be considered a military assignment or a task?

24 A. If you believe that to be a military assignment, then yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Did you ever receive information from any members of

1 the ZNG or police that you later on included in your appeals that you sent

2 out with your signature and on the hospital stationery?

3 A. No. I never received any information from them.

4 Q. When I asked you about the instructions for recording the names of

5 the wounded and so on, my question is when exactly did you receive these

6 instructions, from whom, and where?

7 A. First I received the instruction on keeping records of all wounded

8 persons and persons who were killed. I received that from the main

9 medical staff of the Republic of Croatia in August. They brought us a

10 computer with an installed programme for this type of record-keeping.

11 Q. And what about the instruction you received from the ZNG staff?

12 A. From the ZNG, I wouldn't be able to say exactly when. It was

13 either in September or October when we received instructions on

14 maintaining special charts called the charts for the wounded.

15 Q. Thank you. Did you receive the data, data processed in that

16 computer programme and, if so, then where could this data be found?

17 A. On the 6th of November 1991, this data was sent via electronic

18 transmission to the Main Staff, main medical staff of the Republic of

19 Croatia. We still have this data. As for the entire records, medical

20 records and so on, they were taken by the JNA to Belgrade after Vukovar

21 fell.

22 Q. Am I correct in assuming this is something that the Prosecutor

23 tried to inform us about, namely that upon their arrival in Vukovar, they

24 obtained information that would in future be disclosed to the Defence?

25 Was this perhaps the information that you gave the Prosecutor upon their

1 arrival in Vukovar?

2 A. I'm not sure what information the Prosecutor had in mind. You

3 were asking me about us preserving these records and I told you about

4 that. The original files are in possession of the Yugoslav army.

5 Q. When my learned friend the Prosecutor was last in Vukovar, did you

6 in fact hand this information over to him or not?

7 A. I gave a lot of information, a lot of files, including the

8 computerised information that we were passing on to Zagreb during the

9 aggression against Vukovar and the hospital.

10 Q. Thank you. In your call for help dated the 22nd of October 1991,

11 and this is Prosecution Exhibit number 6. If you can perhaps find the

12 document so that you are better able to follow what I'm saying. The

13 appeal reads that on that day, the 22nd of October, soldiers were brought

14 to the hospital, among them Sasa Jovic. Am I quoting the Prosecution

15 exhibit accurately?

16 A. Yes. That's right.

17 Q. In your statement dated the 19th and 20th of June, and the 21st

18 and 23rd of July 1995, given to the OTP, on page 4 of this statement, for

19 the Trial Chamber to be able to follow, this statement is 2D 01-0084. It

20 was a statement given to an interrogating officer, if that statement can

21 please be shown. This statement reads -- I didn't mean for the appeal to

22 be shown but rather Vesna Bosanac's statement that she gave to the

23 investigators. Is the technology working? The statement, page 4,

24 paragraph 3 of the statement, the statement made by Dr. Vesna Bosanac.

25 Could that page please be displayed on the screen?

1 My question is: Did she give a statement to the investigators on

2 the 19th and 20th of June and 21st and 23rd of July 1995?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. On page 4, paragraph 3 of the statement, which we see on our

5 screens, your statement reads as follows: The Croatian soldiers brought

6 three soldiers in November 1991, which is not consistent with the appeal

7 dated the 22nd of October, the Prosecution Exhibit number 6, that in fact

8 Sasa was brought on the day specified there. So what is true, in fact,

9 the date you gave the Prosecutor or what this statement seems to be

10 implying?

11 A. I must draw counsel's attention to the following fact. In my own

12 copy of my statement that I gave to the Office of the Prosecutor in 1995,

13 in paragraph 2, we see the following text: Up until November 1991.

14 Q. My apologies, Your Honour, but this is not the same statement?

15 A. I'm reading the statement that I gave.

16 Q. I only have one statement obtained from the OTP by Vesna Bosanac,

17 and it was disclosed in its entirety. There is only one statement?

18 A. I can show you the statement that I made.

19 Q. I believe it's a technical error.

20 A. This statement specifies in no uncertain terms "up until

21 November." It may be a mistranslation. However, at that time I wasn't

22 able to specify and that's why I used this wording. "Up until November,"

23 which means in the period leading up to the month of November.

24 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours the statement that we

25 see on the screen is the self same statement and it has been disclosed.

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My apologies, but I have a different

2 one. The international Tribunal for -- there. Perhaps you have a draft

3 of that statement or something like that.

4 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] In order to avoid further confusion,

5 it is no draft. There is only one statement.

6 A. Well, I have the statement. You can have a look and see for

7 yourself.

8 Q. What page are you on?

9 A. I'm on page 4.

10 Q. Is that the same statement that we can see on the screen right

11 now, if you could please have a closer look?

12 A. It may be the same statement but it's not the same version. My

13 statement has four paragraphs or passages. Sasa Jovic is in the second

14 one and in your copy it's the third, right?

15 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in order to avoid

16 wasting time through no fault of my own every single time, because I've

17 been very diligent in complying with your suggestions, but this seems to

18 be a little -- well, maybe the OTP can give us a hand. They are a party

19 to these proceedings, we can ask them. They disclosed these -- this

20 specific statement to the Defence and what I'm asking is, is this the same

21 statement?

22 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Moore?

23 MR. MOORE: Yes, well, I work from the English version obviously.

24 It is one statement. There is only one statement. In the English

25 version, I have it at page 4 of 13. I believe that is the page that's

1 being referred to. In the English version, it would be the second

2 paragraph and my translation reads, by November 1991. Now if my learned

3 friend is then moving on to a document which is before the Court and is

4 tab 6, as I call it, therefore it would be Exhibit 6 and page 13, I

5 presume that he's trying to correspond the fact that it is October the

6 22nd and by November. I know of no other statement and I'm quite sure

7 there is no other statement. But if I could just see the document that

8 the doctor has I may be able to assist. Could I perhaps see that, please?

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.

10 MR. MOORE: I'm told actually by my learned friend who sits at my

11 left, one is in Croatian and one is in Serbian. Now, whether that be

12 right or not I don't know. My learned friends would know better than I.

13 I thought they were pretty much the same language but who am I to say?

14 But we have a statement here which goes "do," d-o, [B/C/S spoken] and

15 obviously on the electronic version there is "u." So I think it's the

16 same statement, but perhaps it's the same statement but a modification of

17 the language. I see Mr. Lukic is nodding in a sage-like way in agreement.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Moore. I think we may have not only

19 the Serbian or B/C/S but we have also a Croatian version. Certainly, in

20 my extremely limited knowledge, B/C/S version and the English version

21 seems to be saying by November 1991. I'm not sure what is in the Croatian

22 version.

23 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this has been a very

24 nice attempt by the OTP, but despite my warm feelings, I can't quite agree

25 with the way the problem has been put forward. This is a very specific

1 issue. There is a statement that I want to show the witness, it's a

2 statement that she signed in both Croatian and Serbian, the date is

3 November 1991.

4 JUDGE PARKER: I think we are all in agreement on the date being

5 November 1991, Mr. Borovic. "By November." That's the issue, is it?

6 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] My apologies. I find it impossible

7 to agree. I'm not attempting to tender this statement into evidence --

8 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... correct me.

9 Don't worry about that.

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise for the

11 fact that every time I try to do something like this there seems to be a

12 technical problem but this is not something that I can just walk away

13 from. There is a crucial issue. Just one example, a -- the call for help

14 that I have singled out in an attempt to show the Court that maybe these

15 weren't in fact drafted by the witness. I do have a serious doubt and the

16 dates, there seems to be a discrepancy concerning the dates. On the one

17 hand you have the 22nd of October and on the other hand you have the first

18 of November. And this means a huge difference regarding events repeatedly

19 mentioned in the context of this trial. In the Croatian version signed by

20 the witness it says, "in November," and not "by November." I will leave

21 it to the Chamber to decide which of these two we shall accept as valid.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Would you -- I would suggest that it would be

23 beneficial if you were to put to the witness the Croatian version of the

24 statement and see whether she agrees with you that it says "in November."

25 Are you in a position to do that at the moment, Mr. Borovic?

1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] That is probably the best course of

2 action. Again, I will show the witness the Croatian version, which she

3 also has on the screen in front of her. And it reads --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a copy that I already have

5 but I want this document displayed here.

6 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Is this your signature?

8 A. I can't see my signature here. It says "signature" and then it's

9 initialed. I can't see my signature on either of these documents, and I

10 can tell you why.

11 Q. What about the last page?

12 A. One thing at a time, please.

13 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the meantime,

14 perhaps I can be of assistance. At the end of that statement, the

15 translator certifies that the statement was orally interpreted from

16 English into Croatian and what I'm showing the witness is in fact a

17 Croatian copy. The matter should really be quite simple.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are two different documents.

19 Neither bears my signature. Yours doesn't and mine doesn't. The first

20 document that you have shown me has 15 pages and the document that I was

21 given by the OTP has 13 pages. These documents were used during the

22 Dokmanovic and Milosevic trials, I expect, because the statement was taken

23 as early as 1995. If this is what you wish to discuss, I propose to the

24 Trial Chamber that originals by found of my statements that were signed by

25 hand because these are obviously mere copies and drafts.

1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, did the witness in

2 fact sign the English or the Croatian version of the statement? Which one

3 was it that the witness signed.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Or a B/C/S version. Are you able to help us there,

5 doctor?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I need to think back. That was back

7 in 1995, and I believe that I signed the English version. The

8 investigator showed me the statement but the crux of the matter lies in

9 this one word, really. Counsel is trying to prove that my appeal is

10 inaccurate but that can't be proven based on this statement dated 1995,

11 reading "by November" denoting a whole period of time and not one specific

12 day or date. The appeals are very specific about all these things, the

13 ones that I signed at least, when things happened and on what day. That

14 is what I still believe.

15 JUDGE PARKER: It is your evidence, as I understand it, doctor,

16 that neither of the copies or documents that have been placed in front of

17 you is an original, and neither has been signed by you. You made a

18 statement similar to at least one of them in 1995. Your best recollection

19 is that it was in English and you signed it. You think the two documents

20 before you are different because of their length. Is that the position?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

22 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Borovic, is it that you have access to

23 originals? I would think not but I ask you.

24 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, all of the documents

25 that I showed to the Trial Chamber and the witness are the copies of what

1 was disclosed to us by the Prosecution. We can see that this is the

2 translated version. We can see it based on this document. However, I

3 have a question for the witness.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Well, I'm going to just make it clear. If you need

5 the original, we could see if it is available. But you seem to be

6 focusing on what I understand is clearly a translation, and it may be that

7 in the translation there is an error from the original. The question

8 seems to be whether the word used in the original was -- or the phrase

9 was "by November 1991" or "in November 1991" and it may be that the

10 word "by" and the word "in" have suffered some inaccuracy in translation.

11 Now, I leave it to you whether you want to leave the matter there or

12 whether you want to question further on what is before you or whether you

13 want to try and obtain the original.

14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to put a question,

15 one question, to the witness, and I could go along with your instructions

16 to leave that aside.

17 Q. My question is: In what language did you give a statement?

18 A. In Croatian.

19 Q. Thank you. Next question: When was there an electrical blackout

20 at the hospital for the first time? And did you in fact have any

21 blackouts?

22 A. Naturally we did. I can't remember when was the first electrical

23 blackout.

24 Q. How did you manage when there was no electricity? Did you use

25 generators?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. What fuel do the generators use? Is it gasoline or oil?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. How did you acquire the fuel?

5 A. Initially, before the full siege we would go to Vinkovci, to a gas

6 station there, and to -- later on we would go to the city gas stations,

7 and we would also obtain it from private depots.

8 Q. All right. As we have heard from the witness that she went daily

9 home to sleep there and then in the morning she would come back to work

10 and then go to the police building, to the headquarters and so on, my

11 question is: Did you feel bad about using the fuel that was intended for

12 the generators and for the patients and did you think it was all right for

13 you to travel around in a car and be comfortable while other people had to

14 go without fuel?

15 A. What is your actual question?

16 Q. My question is: Did you feel bad about being so irresponsible and

17 careless about using the fuel in the way you did and did you feel bad as a

18 doctor going home to sleep every night in order to be comfortable yourself

19 whereas other people had to live in much grave circumstances and you have

20 forbidden other people to leave hospital without a good reason when you

21 yourself did not abide by that rule?

22 A. All right. You're first question: I drove a car which used

23 gasoline, whereas generators were powered by oil. So the fuel was not the

24 same. That was your first question. Your second question: I did not

25 allow people to leave hospital because it was too risky to go outside, in

1 view of the shells and bombs falling everywhere on the hospital, in the

2 vicinity, the entire city. I went home to sleep there during the night,

3 assuming the risk myself, because there were too many wounded and patients

4 at the hospital, and it would not have been humane for me to remain at the

5 hospital to sleep there. So I took the risk knowingly by going home. I

6 went there at night because normally there would be a lull in the evening

7 and there wouldn't be as much shooting.

8 Q. My next question is: Did other medical staff go home to sleep in

9 their comfortable beds or was it just you?

10 A. No. They didn't. And I have to tell you that those were not

11 comfortable beds. We all slept in the basements in those days, in

12 Vukovar.

13 Q. All right. My next question is: Can you tell us what a

14 long-range machine-gun looks like? Because there is a weapon that you

15 mentioned.

16 A. I don't know what it looks like but I can tell you how the bullets

17 look like, the ones that reached the hospital. I heard from the people

18 that those bullets were bullets fired by a long-range machine-gun.

19 Q. All right. These people that supplied this information to you,

20 were they members of the ZNG or police?

21 A. No.

22 Q. So they were laymen?

23 A. They were people who were at the hospital. My colleagues, nurses,

24 technicians, drivers, who had some experience having served in the JNA

25 previously.

1 Q. Next question: VBR or a multi-barrelled rocket launcher is a

2 weapon that you mentioned. How is it that you know that it can fire 16 or

3 32 shells per minute? Was that something you know on your own or was that

4 information supplied to you by your colleagues, doctors, or members of the

5 ZNG or police?

6 A. I can't remember now who told me that that was a VBR. However, I

7 know how it fires because I saw that and experienced it.

8 Q. How do you know that -- just a second, please, don't interrupt me.

9 How do you know that it can fire 16 to 32 shells? Who told you that?

10 A. I can't remember.

11 Q. Before I forget, what kind of electronic communication did you

12 have in 1991? You just mentioned that you had a computer in 1991. So

13 what did you use?

14 A. A computer.

15 Q. Which one?

16 A. I stated in one of my statements that we received that computer

17 from the main medical staff of the health ministry in August. A

18 technician came from the post office, who was a specialist for that. He

19 turned the computer on and entered data into it. I personally didn't use

20 the computer. I just dictated data. And dictated what kind of supplies

21 we needed, what kind of medical and other supplies. That was one computer

22 that we had. And the other computer was at the headquarters of Jastreb

23 that I also used occasionally when I dictated the data that I wanted to be

24 forwarded elsewhere.

25 Q. Thank you. Do you know that in 1991, there were no cluster bombs,

1 phosphorus bombs, or Durandal bombs among the ammunition of the JNA, do

2 you know that?

3 A. I have no idea what the JNA had. All I know is what landed on

4 Vukovar and the hospital.

5 Q. What do cluster bombs look like?

6 A. Based on my information, cluster bombs, at least that's what I

7 heard, are the bombs which do not explode immediately but, rather, upon

8 contact once they enter the ground or once they pierce something, they

9 explode only after several seconds and are quite destructive.

10 Q. Who told you that?

11 A. I don't know any more. I forgot who told me that.

12 Q. That person, did that person tell you that at the hospital?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Was that person a soldier or a policeman?

15 A. No, I don't remember. I don't think so.

16 Q. So who could it have been? So who could that person have been? A

17 person who had such an extensive military knowledge?

18 A. I can't remember. Truly I can't. But a bomb of that kind fell

19 near the shelter, near the hospital. And this is what prompted us to talk

20 about that and this is how we came to talk about that being a cluster

21 bomb.

22 Q. All right. My next question: What about a Durandal bomb, do you

23 know what that looks like?

24 A. No.

25 Q. You don't know, all right. So who told you then that one of the

1 bombs was called Durandal bomb?

2 A. Well, I don't know. People talked about that. I can't tell you

3 now who and when. But everything that I heard and that I learned I

4 recorded in my statements.

5 Q. Can we then agree that everything you learned about the type of

6 the ammunition, and so on, was not something you learned from soldiers or

7 policemen but, rather, from civilians in your hospital? Is that what it

8 means?

9 A. It just means that I simply can't remember what I heard and from

10 whom, and as for the effects of this ammunition, this is something that I

11 experienced myself personally.

12 Q. Thank you. When you gave a statement to investigators, I hope

13 that this bit was accurately recorded. This is all we have in our hands.

14 This is all that was disclosed to us by the Prosecution. I hope that the

15 translators acted bona fide in doing their job. So this same document,

16 D001-0084, page 3, last paragraph, you confirm that this is the statement

17 you gave and that this is the actual document? Could this page be shown

18 to the witness, please? Since she doesn't speak English, could she be

19 shown the Croatian version, please? Or, rather, B/C/S.

20 MR. MOORE: Does my learned friend happen to know the reference

21 for the English translation, please? That would help, if he's going to

22 refer to a Croatian document or whatever so that we can refer to it.

23 Thank you very much.

24 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I naturally know that there is an

25 English translation, but since this witness doesn't speak English, we have

1 both versions, and the number is 2D 01-0099. Last paragraph on page 3.

2 May I continue?

3 JUDGE PARKER: We are waiting for the document to come up,

4 Mr. Borovic.

5 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I hope we have that on our screens,

6 Your Honours, in English and B/C/S. So the witness has the B/C/S version

7 and you have the English one.

8 Q. In the B/C/S version, I'm saying this for the benefit of the

9 witness, it is stated, line 4 from above, page 3, "the JNA planes dropped

10 on several occasions phosphorus bombs which caused fires that we had to

11 put out. All ambulances in the courtyard were burned down. One girl had

12 serious injuries caused by the phosphorus shell."

13 My question is: Is it true what is stated here in the statement

14 given by Dr. Bosanac to the investigators? Is that true? Or perhaps what

15 she stated yesterday when asked by the Prosecutor, when she said that

16 Silvana Ivankovic was hit not in the yard where the ambulances were but,

17 rather, that she was brought in by the ZNG soldiers, that she had a

18 uniform on her and that she was brought in from somewhere else. What is

19 true?

20 A. What is true is that she was indeed brought in by the ZNG

21 soldiers. You simply misinterpreted this sentence. In this statement

22 given in 1995, I listed there, enumerated there, all of the damage

23 inflicted then in the hospital and elsewhere, and all of the consequences

24 we saw on that occasion. In the continuation of that passage you see that

25 I say there that her uniform was completely burned. We took it off and we

1 put it in a plastic bag in order to preserve it. My statement does not

2 state that she was in the backyard of the hospital.

3 Q. You are talking here about the phosphorus bomb that burned all of

4 the ambulances, but if this is your interpretation that's fine. We can

5 leave it at that. We will assess later on what is true.

6 A. No. You cannot assess that yourself. I know what is true myself.

7 MR. MOORE: I object to the way my learned friend is

8 cross-examining. I have no problems at all in cross-examination on any

9 topic, but I still haven't seen the English version. I don't know if the

10 Court have got the English version. We do not have the English version

11 here at all --

12 JUDGE PARKER: Well --

13 MR. MOORE: -- on the screen.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Three members of the Chamber have it.

15 MR. MOORE: We don't. And I've been trying to follow it on my

16 hard copy. I'm quite sure I've got the right location.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Page 3 of the English version, the last paragraph.

18 MR. MOORE: Correct. Well, actually --

19 JUDGE PARKER: Paragraph commencing, "From that time the situation

20 was terrible."

21 MR. MOORE: That is what I have believed it to be but I didn't

22 know if the Court has got, as I say, the English translation. We don't,

23 and I don't know why we haven't.

24 We have got it now.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Is that the point of your concern, Mr. Moore?

1 MR. MOORE: It's part of my concern because with the utmost

2 respect if my learned friend is going to cross-examine on the point, he

3 has to allow the witness to see all of the documentation that he wishes to

4 compare. I presume that what he is doing is comparing the evidence that

5 the witness gave yesterday with the statement that she has compiled, and

6 in my submission, if the witness is to be given an opportunity to answer,

7 the whole of the relevant passage should be quoted to her. That is my

8 objection.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, I'm afraid I've rather for the moment

10 lost track of what you were putting to the witness because of the

11 distraction of finding the paragraph in the statement. Is it correct that

12 you were comparing what was said by the witness in evidence yesterday with

13 what is in this paragraph of the statement?

14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first, if I may perhaps

15 teach my learned colleague a thing, everything, all the documents, have

16 been shown to the witness in both B/C/S and English. I wasn't setting her

17 any traps. Therefore his argument is unfounded. As for my question, it

18 was based on the context of what the witness has read out that I concluded

19 that a phosphorus bomb had fallen in the yard, burnt the vehicles, and

20 that on this occasion the young girl in question was burned. We got the

21 answer that we got. My next question is: At any other point in time, was

22 anyone else who was in the hospital or in the town and part of the

23 official medical record ever hit by a phosphorus shell or bomb, to your

24 knowledge.

25 A. No, never.

1 Q. Thank you. The witness talked about a captain in Negoslavci when

2 she went there for her talks with then Colonel, now General Mrksic. She

3 saw this Captain in Sremska Mitrovica. It's a statement that we heard

4 about. The question is: In which capacity did this captain speak to you

5 when you saw him in Sremska Mitrovica?

6 A. I think this person held the rank of captain. I saw him in the

7 room with Major Sljivancanin, so you have misconstrued my story, my

8 testimony. This person that I met with Major Sljivancanin then I also met

9 later when I was in prison in Sremska Mitrovica.

10 Q. What capacity, exactly? Please try to be more specific.

11 A. Difficult to say. I wasn't in touch with that person directly in

12 the room in which I was detained in Sremska Mitrovica. Several times on

13 any given day, a number of different officers and persons would walk in

14 and I just happened to see that person too on a number of different

15 occasions but I can't give you the person's name. I was never told what

16 the person's name was.

17 Q. Just to wrap this up, may I therefore conclude that this person

18 was there in an official capacity, someone who actually worked in the

19 jail?

20 A. My interpretation was that he was indeed there in an official

21 capacity.

22 Q. Thank you. Next question: Did you see a tank fire a grenade?

23 A. I saw a grenade falling and a tank firing but not that close to

24 me. The tank was firing from the opposite river bank.

25 Q. But you actually saw a tank fire a grenade or a shell?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. My question is: Now that you have all this military information,

3 would you be able to say if a tank could fire a shell indirectly?

4 A. What do you mean by "indirectly"?

5 Q. I mean, can a tank fire a shell high up into the air and then over

6 a building, hit a different target? For example, in order to make this as

7 graphic as possible, there is the opposite river bank, the distance is 500

8 metres, perhaps a kilometre, that's a different question we will deal with

9 that later. There are obstacles in between, buildings, facilities. Can a

10 tank fire a shell over all these buildings in order to target a different

11 facility that is way behind these obstacles?

12 A. I really can't say. I have no military education myself but I saw

13 tanks firing shells and I saw shells falling. Now, what a tank can do

14 over which buildings is not something that I know.

15 Q. My apologies. I can't give up this line of questioning. You

16 heard them firing and you saw the shells falling. My question is very

17 specific. Does it fly high before it falls or does it fly in a straight

18 line? I'm asking you about this because you have made this enormous

19 effort to become a military expert.

20 A. No. I have not endeavoured to become a military expert. It's a

21 result of my sad experience during the shelling of Vukovar based in 1991.

22 I'm telling you my experience about what I had to go through and you can

23 ask me whatever questions you like.

24 Q. In order to avoid confusing you, I will try and wrap this up. The

25 shell fly in a straight line or did it fly over various obstacles in order

1 to eventually land in the yard of the hospital? Should be a simple

2 question.

3 A. I saw tanks firing shells. I saw shells falling all over the

4 town. Which tank fired a shell in which direction, whether in a straight

5 line or flying over, I don't know.

6 Q. Did you see any of the shells coming from high up?

7 A. Not just one, millions of them.

8 Q. But from high up?

9 A. But I don't know where it was fired from the one that landed in

10 the yard.

11 Q. A tank shell?

12 A. I don't know. I can't tell you which type of shell it was. I

13 really have no military education, no military background. I know what it

14 looks like when it falls. I know what shrapnel looks like. There is a

15 lot of that remaining in Vukovar and I can send you one here so you can

16 have a look.

17 Q. In a number -- in her answers to a number of different questions

18 of the Prosecution, the witness explained that she saw tanks across the

19 Danube firing shells that landed in the yard. My question is whether she

20 saw a shell landing after it was flying high and then falling down but the

21 answer that we heard is not satisfactory. Did she ever in fact see,

22 because she was watching all the time, a tank firing a shell and then the

23 shell flying high and falling down?

24 A. To begin with I never said I was watching all the time. I said

25 this was something I saw. I didn't watch all those tanks all the time, I

1 didn't spend all my time watching tanks, but I saw the shells land and

2 they were landing from all sorts of different directions. From Borovo

3 Selo, from Negoslavci, from the barracks, from all the different sides.

4 The shells were coming in from everywhere. You're trying to suggest that

5 I was watching one particular shell being fired from a tank and then

6 landing in the hospital yard. I wasn't following one particular shell, an

7 isolated example of a shell being fired. I saw the tanks firing, I saw

8 thousands of shells falling. This is something that I saw. This is

9 something that I watched, and you can't prove other wise because that is

10 the simple truth of the matter.

11 Q. Okay. That's your answer. Let's move on. This might be a good

12 moment to ask the following question: Do you perhaps know what the term

13 "Ustasha" means?

14 A. I'm not sure what you have in mind. I've heard it used a number

15 of times.

16 Q. When is the first time you heard the term used?

17 A. The first time ever, you mean?

18 Q. Yes.

19 A. I can't remember.

20 Q. So why are you asking me?

21 A. Do you mean in Vukovar? During the war when I heard the term used

22 or do you mean in general, throughout my life. I heard the term used in

23 films when I was still a child, the term being used, "Ustasha." In

24 Vukovar, the first time I ever heard the term being used in Vukovar was

25 when I was driving that jeep, when I was on my way to Negoslavci, and then

1 a paramilitary person looking much like a Chetnik from films, from World

2 War II, he asked me if I was a Ustasha.

3 Q. What was your answer?

4 A. I answered nothing.

5 Q. Does that mean you accepted the fact that you were an Ustasha?

6 A. No. I refused to even talk to him. The young man who was with me

7 Voloder tried to explain that we weren't Ustasha, that we were people from

8 the hospital, that we were on our way to see people from the Red Cross.

9 But this person was the sort of person that I categorically refused to

10 even talk to. He was drunk, untidy, filthy. He had a knife, a dagger,

11 tucked into his belt. Not a person that I was able to talk to.

12 Q. According to information based on your film experience what did

13 Ustasha look like? Did that wear daggers, black uniforms?

14 A. It's difficult. I remember that they had uniforms. They had some

15 caps. I think the letter U was visibly displayed on their led covers.

16 Q. Were they members of the anti-Hitler coalition during World War II

17 or were they on the same side as Hitler's side, Germany. This is not

18 something you learned at school?

19 A. Well, maybe I did but I forgot.

20 Q. Thank you very much for that answer.

21 A. Not at all.

22 Q. Your husband and your sons, please don't get me wrong, were they

23 members of the National Guards Corps in Vukovar at the time, in the period

24 of time we are talking about?

25 A. My husband was a civilian engineer at the Borovo hospital and he

1 was charged with --

2 Q. Was he a member of the National Guards Corps?

3 A. You mean at the time in Vukovar? He was in the logistics session

4 of the National Guards Corps.

5 Q. Were your sons members of the National Guards Corps?

6 A. My eldest son it was a member of the National Guards Corps and my

7 youngest son was only 15 at the time.

8 Q. Thank you. What about your eldest son? Did he take part in the

9 fighting in Vukovar? Was he involved in combat and when did he leave

10 Vukovar?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. When did he leave Vukovar?

13 A. On the 17th of November.

14 Q. And when did you manage to get your youngest son to leave Vukovar

15 and how did that come about, since everybody had been advised not to

16 leave?

17 A. He was only 15. Everybody else was too busy and the situation was

18 too dangerous. It was in September that he left Vukovar with his friends.

19 Q. Thank you. In your appeal dated the 18th of October 1991, or,

20 rather, the 18th of November 1991, it's a Prosecution exhibit. You

21 mentioned that on that day, tanks were targeting the hospital. In your

22 statement, the one that is displayed on the screen, it's the same

23 statement that we keep referring to, I won't show it again. It's page 5

24 in both English and B/C/S. The statement reads, "On the 17th of November

25 1991, both the Serbs and the JNA stopped shelling the hospital and its

1 surroundings." Is it correct that you actually made an error in your

2 appeal or did you just provide the OTP with an inaccurate statement? Or

3 did you state that at all?

4 A. Yes, I did. On the 17th, which was a Sunday, there was a lull.

5 However, on the 18th, the next day, the tanks resumed firing. I found

6 this to be very worrying. I still remember that because we were expecting

7 that an evacuation would commence.

8 Q. What about the tanks on the 18th? Were they targeting the

9 hospital?

10 A. I don't know if they were targeting the hospital but I saw tanks

11 firing and I saw shells falling on the hospital.

12 Q. On the hospital?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. On the 18th?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Over the last 15 years, you never once referred to that except in

17 your appeal whereby I'm trying to show the Court that this appeal is

18 another one of these fake appeals that was sent out to international

19 organisations. Never referring to facts. And that's my conclusion.

20 Would you agree with that, that the fact that you never mentioned shells

21 falling on the 18th prior to this instance?

22 A. I'm repeating on the 17th there had been a lull in the shelling.

23 We were expecting that an evacuation would begin on the 18th. We were

24 preparing our wounded to be taken away. And they resumed firing again,

25 which I found worrying. It wasn't intense firing, there were several

1 shells that landed on the hospital. There was firing. I'm not sure if I

2 refer to the specific date in any of the previous occasions or not.

3 Q. Thank you. We shall certainly be drawing our own conclusions when

4 the time comes. When you first left the hospital to go to Negoslavci --

5 JUDGE PARKER: Before it comes a habit in this trial that sort of

6 last observation is not appropriate for any counsel to make. You put your

7 questions. You get your answers. You do not then put your observations

8 on what you may think of the evidence. When it comes to final submissions

9 to this Chamber, you may put your arguments as to what we should make of

10 the evidence or not. Do not put that sort of thing to the witness as you

11 go along. Now, I say that now so that all counsel can absorb that and we

12 cannot, I hope, have to refer to that sort of thing again.

13 Are you going to be much longer in your questioning, Mr. Borovic?

14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] That depends on the answers,

15 Your Honour.

16 JUDGE PARKER: In that case --

17 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I have three more documents to show.

18 JUDGE PARKER: -- We will have a break now and resume to a quarter

19 to -- Mr. Moore.

20 MR. MOORE: It's quite simply this. It's to do with witnesses.

21 We have another witness here at the building. I know that there is to be

22 cross-examination continuing and Mr. Lukic, and re-examination. I would

23 have thought that we should therefore take up most of the day. I, of

24 course, am quite happy to keep the witness here. But the witness is, I

25 think, approximately in her sixties and although --

1 JUDGE PARKER: Quite young.

2 MR. MOORE: And therefore quite young and, consequently, I wonder

3 if it's possible for that witness to be released until Monday?

4 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Moore.

5 MR. MOORE: Thank you very much.

6 JUDGE PARKER: We will resume at quarter to 12.00.

7 --- Break taken at 11.23 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.47 a.m.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Borovic?

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

11 Q. Can you describe the officer who took to you see Mrksic in

12 Negoslavci for the first time?

13 A. He wore an olive-drab uniform, a JNA uniform, quite tall, about

14 180 centimetres, rather dark hair, dark brown, I think, and he must have

15 been 40 to 45 years old.

16 Q. Thank you. Was he the one who escorted you back?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. What about the next time you went there to Negoslavci?

19 A. No.

20 Q. When you left the hospital the first time around, did you tell him

21 how to go about organising the hospital security? If so, what exactly did

22 you say?

23 A. I said that we were expecting an evacuation, that had been due the

24 day before. The International Red Cross was supposed to arrive, as well

25 as the European monitors. They were supposed to organise an evacuation,

1 and it was necessary for the hospital to be neutral ground and safe.

2 Q. Did you in fact see whether he organised the hospital before you

3 left or not? Did he organise security for the hospital and only then were

4 you in fact on your way?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. How exactly did that work? How many soldiers did he organise and

7 who did he give orders to?

8 A. He gave orders to a soldier who was supposed to carry it out. He

9 said that two soldiers should guard each of the hospital's entrances.

10 Later on, upon my return, I saw two soldiers standing at the entrance that

11 I used on my way in.

12 Q. And you supposed that there were other soldiers in front of other

13 entrances?

14 A. Yes. I suppose so.

15 Q. On your way back from Negoslavci, as you told us, upon your

16 request, the soldiers stopped the vehicle and your mother came in?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Upon your request, were the soldiers able to find your parents in

19 law?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Upon your request on that day, did Mrksic comply with your request

22 and were there food supplies awaiting you at the hospital upon your

23 return?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did they know that you were Vesna Bosanac?

1 A. Yes. I introduced myself.

2 Q. When you asked them to pick up your mother and to go look for your

3 parents in law, did they know that you were Vesna Bosanac, director of the

4 hospital?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Based on the reports of the international observers, do you know

7 how many people were transported in a convoy that was supposed to be

8 evacuated on that day?

9 A. I don't know.

10 Q. On the 19th of November, how many wounded and ill there were at

11 the hospital?

12 A. Between 400 and 450.

13 Q. All right. If in Ovcara regrettably so many people lost their

14 lives, and if based on the reports of international observers, over 400

15 people were evacuated, does that mean that there should have been 800

16 wounded at the hospital who should have been evacuated or not?

17 A. As I said, there were about 400 ill and wounded patients.

18 Q. All right.

19 A. Please allow me to complete my answer. Based on all reports, 174

20 wounded were evacuated, 120 on the first day, the 20th of November, and

21 another 54 on the second day. So a total of 174 wounded persons were

22 transported to Croatia. Please allow me to finish. Out of 200 exhumed

23 bodies, exhumed from the mass grave in Ovcara, based on our reports, 97 of

24 them were wounded.

25 Q. All right. We will deal with that on another occasion. I'm not

1 interested in that. Based on the information you had then, and today,

2 were you able to conclude who was the person in charge, representing the

3 JNA in charge of the evacuation?

4 A. I can say that up until the 19th, I believed that it was

5 General Raseta who signed the agreement. I believed him to be in charge

6 of the evacuation. On the 19th, when I was in Negoslavci, Colonel Mrksic

7 told me that only Raseta -- that Raseta can sign and negotiate anything he

8 wanted, but that Raseta was not there on the ground and that it was him

9 who was going to organise the evacuation. And then, on the 20th of

10 November, ultimately, the then Major Sljivancanin organised the evacuation

11 of the hospital.

12 Q. Do you know what role Nebojsa Pavkovic, the general, played?

13 A. No.

14 Q. You don't know, all right. Do you know Nestorovic, Ivica, the JNA

15 soldier from Zranjanin [phoen]? Have you heard of him?

16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the answer?

17 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Did you know where the warehouse of Borovo Komerc was located at

19 the time?

20 A. I heard that name for the first time in prison when I was

21 interrogated.

22 Q. I asked you about the Borovo Komerc warehouse.

23 A. I naturally knew where it was located. The basement of that

24 company was turned into a shelter. We sent the wounded there after

25 treating them at the hospital.

1 Q. Do you know how many wounded were there?

2 A. According to my information, there were about 200 wounded there

3 before the Priljevo locality was blocked off. I spoke to the then

4 Colonel Mrksic about it, and after the evacuation of the hospital, there

5 was supposed to be an evacuation of the people from Borovo Komerc.

6 Q. Did you take part in that evacuation in Borovo Komerc?

7 A. The people who were tasked with that location did that.

8 Q. And those were?

9 A. Kuzmanovic, Djordje, Ramik [phoen], Vladimir, and Simonovic,

10 Zlatko. They were all physicians.

11 Q. Did you know Dr. Kuzmanovic, Djordje, personally?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you ever receive the records of the wounded and the injured in

14 Borovo Komerc?

15 A. We only discussed the number of people, their needs, on the phone.

16 Q. Was that recorded somewhere after the telephone conversation?

17 A. Yes. We recorded all that. We recorded how much was sent or

18 rather how many people were sent there twice a week or on a daily basis,

19 and then we also recorded how many people were sent elsewhere once that

20 location was full.

21 Q. Was that information on the wounded and the injured from Borovo

22 Komerc entered into your computer database?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Why not?

25 A. Because while we were entering the data, people were entered into

1 the computer database when there were wounded and that was done at the

2 hospital. Once they were sent elsewhere it Borovo Komerc they would

3 occasionally come back to be bandaged or provided some further treatment.

4 Q. Your husband, who was the director of the warehouse in Borovo

5 Komerc, was he involved in that?

6 A. He was at that location. What period of time do you have in mind?

7 Q. War time.

8 A. Yes. During war time he was there. He was at Borovo Komerc.

9 Q. Did he have contact with the wounded persons?

10 A. Yes. He had contact both with the wounded, the ill, and the

11 doctors.

12 Q. What was his role in that period of time?

13 A. You mean my husband?

14 Q. Yes.

15 A. In the Borovo Komerc warehouse, they organised logistical support,

16 meaning electricity and water supply, bread-baking, then building coffins

17 for burying the dead and so on.

18 Q. In that Borovo Komerc warehouse, were there any members of police

19 or National Guards Corps?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. How many?

22 A. I don't know exactly.

23 Q. All right. Do you know Dr. Kovacic?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Were you ever called from the Borovo Komerc warehouse asking you

1 to treat somebody medically or not?

2 A. I stated in my testimony that all of the wounded were first

3 brought to the hospital because this is where we had operation rooms and

4 surgeons. When the Priljevo road fell, I don't know exactly whether it

5 was, but sometime in early November, then the wounded, the gravely

6 wounded, were first brought to the hospital. Later on, upon my return

7 from prison, I heard that they admitted and treated the wounded in Borovo

8 Naselje, those who were unable to reach the hospital.

9 Q. All right. Did you personally ever operate on a Serb?

10 A. Who? I? No, I'm not a surgeon.

11 Q. I'm just asking. Anybody can be a surgeon during wartime?

12 A. No, never. Only qualified surgeons operated in our hospital.

13 Q. Would you have done that? Would you have operated on a Serb if

14 you had an occasion?

15 A. I would do it only if I was the only doctor and there were no

16 surgeons anywhere around.

17 Q. Is it likely that you would have done that or would you have

18 definitely done it?

19 A. Well, depending on the circumstances. In exceptional

20 circumstances, if I were the only doctor, and it was an emergency, yes, I

21 would do that regardless of whether the patient was a Serb or a Croat,

22 because the patient is first and foremost a patient, and I have to analyse

23 the situation.

24 Q. All right. Now a more important question: Was there ever a

25 decision issued to commence investigation against you for committing a war

1 crime?

2 A. As far as I know, it wasn't.

3 Q. Do you know whether proceedings were ever instituted against you

4 for a war crime?

5 A. As far as I know, no.

6 Q. Did you give a statement to the military court in Belgrade in

7 relation to any criminal proceedings?

8 A. After I wrote the statement in Sremska Mitrovica, the one we

9 discussed, I was taken, as far as I could tell, to the military

10 investigative prison in Belgrade, where I was subjected to interrogation.

11 I don't know what the charges against me were. I know that they

12 interrogated me about why I wrote something against the JNA. At the time,

13 I still had some original faxes with me, and if this is what you have in

14 mind, yes, I did have a counsel assigned to me and the interrogation

15 lasted, I don't know for how many hours, perhaps a day. This Court

16 appointed counsel told me that he didn't think I would be indicted in the

17 end because pursuant to the then military regulations, there was no verbal

18 offence, and that was just prior to my being exchanged and sent in the

19 military plane to Belgrade.

20 Q. My next question: Were you exchanged in accordance with the

21 principle all for all?

22 A. I don't know how I was exchanged. I know that I was in a group

23 with another 44 persons. On that day we were first brought to the

24 military investigative prison in Belgrade, and then after two days we were

25 taken to an airport and transferred to Zagreb in two planes.

1 Q. My question is -- my next question is: The plane that transported

2 you to Zagreb, was General Aca Vasiljevic on that plane?

3 A. No. He was in the other plane.

4 Q. All right. Does that mean that all of you who came to the

5 military court in Belgrade were exchanged?

6 A. I don't know who was in the military court then, but I know that

7 it was all of us who were on that bus, all of us were exchanged.

8 Q. And how many people were there?

9 A. Well, I know that two people decided not to be exchanged and that

10 there was a total of 45 of us.

11 Q. All right.

12 A. I'm not sure.

13 Q. Some of the people were acquitted by the military court so they

14 never had to be exchanged. Do you know that?

15 A. I don't know. I don't know what they were charged with.

16 Q. Well, I'll give you some details. Soldier Vukas who was tried by

17 Colonel Milicevic was acquitted. Do you know that?

18 A. No, I don't.

19 Q. All right. You would probably be surprised if you were to hear

20 who defence counsel was?

21 MR. MOORE: I object to this question. I submit it has no obvious

22 relevance to the issue to be determined by the Court.

23 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, is there a relevance that you can

24 offer?

25 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] You mean my last question?

1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. And this line of questioning now about

2 acquittals.

3 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I naturally could explain the

4 relevance to you, but I will not proceed with it. Everything that I'm

5 putting to the witness related to the military court will be tendered into

6 evidence by me at the end of the cross-examination. My next question for

7 the witness is --

8 JUDGE PARKER: [Previous translation continues] ... demonstrate

9 then that it is relevant? So think about it and be ready with that. Thank

10 you.

11 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I'm quite prepared, and hence my

12 next question.

13 Q. Did the American embassy provide any support for exchanging Vesna

14 Bosanac?

15 A. I don't know that.

16 Q. Do you know that persons responsible for committing a war crime in

17 accordance with all international conventions may not be exchanged?

18 A. I'm not aware of that.

19 Q. I would like tab 2 to be tendered into evidence, tab 2, tab 3 and

20 tab 4. The number is 12-2 D 01-5. The next one is 13-2 D 01-007. And

21 the last one is tab 4 and the number is 14-2 D 01-0010. The documents are

22 information by the first department of the 1st Military District, taken

23 from Djordje Kuzmanovic, a physician, that the witness spoke about today.

24 The next thing we have is an official note?

25 THE REGISTRAR: Excuse me, could you just please read out again

1 the numbers you would like -- of the documents that you would like us to

2 present, the ID numbers, please?

3 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Tab 1, number 12-2 D 01-0005. Tab

4 13, number 13-2 D 01-007. Finally, 14-2 D 01-0010.

5 Is that all right now?

6 JUDGE PARKER: When you referred to tabs, were you referring to

7 the small bundle of four documents that you provided earlier?

8 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely so, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE PARKER: It's tabs 2, 3, and 4; is that correct?

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. But pursuant to instructions

11 we received from the Registrar, we read them out this way, tabs 1, 2, 3,

12 and 4.

13 Finally, Your Honour --

14 JUDGE PARKER: We are still looking at this issue. The first of

15 those is the document concerning Kuzmanovic. That's a document alleging

16 conduct concerning a private, Nestorovic, and his medical treatment. Is

17 that the one? Now, do you say that the witness has knowledge of this

18 document or are you simply seeking to tender it on the basis that it is a

19 document which on its face is authenticated and has some relevance to the

20 case?

21 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the documents from tab

22 2 and tab 3 are part and parcel of the document under tab 4, which is a

23 decision to commence investigation. The witness may not necessarily be

24 familiar with the first two documents but she must be familiar with the

25 request for an investigation to be conducted because she did say a while

1 ago that she was questioned at the military court.

2 This is 19/12 -- -12/92 from 1992. I believe them to be relevant

3 in every way because there is reference to Dr. Kuzmanovic, someone the

4 witness is familiar with. He is a source of information based on which

5 the military Prosecutor filed a request to institute an investigation.

6 JUDGE PARKER: As I understood the evidence of Dr. Bosanac, while

7 she appreciated she was being questioned, she said she did not know that

8 she had been the subject of a formal order for investigation. Is that

9 correct, doctor? Have you seen --

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

11 JUDGE PARKER: -- a document that formally orders there to be an

12 investigation into aspects of your conduct?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

14 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour?

15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes.

16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] By the Chamber's leave according to

17 the law of criminal procedure of the Social Federal Republic of

18 Yugoslavia, in order for someone to give a statement, there has to be a

19 request first to carry out an investigation. In order for someone to

20 declare their position, they have to have counsel assigned. We heard that

21 an attorney was in fact assigned ex officio. If this is an informal

22 interview, there is no counsel involved. Based on what the witness has

23 told us herself, based on the documents in the files of the military

24 court, this was the only place where she could possibly have given a

25 statement. The statement was not given in the military police building.

1 It was given at the military court on military court premises. It

2 definitely is relevant. She is free to say that she is not familiar with

3 this. She is free to say that she has no idea of ever being accused of

4 committing a war crime, but it's up to me to investigate the matter

5 further and to ask questions in relation to it.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, I do not at the moment have any basis

7 for doubting that these orders existed or were made. The witness, though,

8 says she knew nothing of them at the time.

9 Mr. More, is there any objection to the tendering first for the

10 order for investigation?

11 MR. MOORE: Yes. The documents in our submission really should be

12 subdivided into two specific categories. May I deal with the

13 investigation document? If we take by way of analogy and will he us say

14 we have Mr. Radic who is giving evidence, I ask him a question, "Do you

15 know the name of Madam Carla Del Ponte?", and he says "Yes." And I then

16 attempt to adduce in evidence a report compiled by her suggesting that an

17 investigation should proceed and itemising or particularising what the

18 belief is, in my submission, that would be a wholly inappropriate course

19 because it is of no relevance to the issue to be determined by the Court.

20 It is merely a document which suggests that an investigation should

21 proceed. There are two different issues here. One is the knowledge of

22 the investigation, and two, whether in fact there is an awareness of the

23 content of the document. And they should be subdivided. They cannot be

24 mixed. So that would be my first objection. This is merely a document

25 saying, commence investigation. The witness should be asked, are you

1 aware that you were under investigation? The answer can either be yes or

2 no but it bears no --

3 JUDGE PARKER: She has been asked. She says she was not aware of

4 a formal investigation but she certainly was aware that she was

5 questioned. And that a counsel was assigned.

6 MR. MOORE: Yes. I have no dispute and I take no point on that

7 and took no point but this is different. This is the actual document

8 itself that gives the parameters of the investigation. And the doctor has

9 said already that she was not aware of that existence or the existence of

10 this document. Therefore, in my submission, it is an inadmissible

11 document. Because there is no relevance to her. She does not know the

12 document itself, merely the fact she was being investigated.

13 JUDGE PARKER: You sound to be echoing good old fashioned common

14 law rules rather than the procedure of this Tribunal, Mr. Moore.

15 MR. MOORE: Well, I probably --

16 JUDGE PARKER: A document which on its face has apparent relevance

17 may be admitted here, whether it's of any weight or use being determined

18 later.

19 MR. MOORE: I am aware that I argue common law rules, perhaps more

20 than civil rules. However, the test --

21 JUDGE PARKER: These are not the Rules of this Tribunal.

22 MR. MOORE: Yes, but the test that must apply is the test of

23 relevance, vis-a-vis the witness or an issue to be determined by the

24 Court.

25 JUDGE PARKER: Can I pose as a possible relevance that the witness

1 says she was taken to a military prison where she was questioned and a

2 counsel was assigned, either one possible view is that was an entirely

3 illegal and outrageous procedure and shows the way that she was badly

4 treated. The other view is that it was conducted in accordance with the

5 law prevailing at the time and these documents establish that so that even

6 though the witness may not have known in fact that the lawful procedure

7 was being followed.

8 MR. MOORE: Well, one must try and ascertain to which issue this

9 document is driven. In my submission, the test has, as I say, be

10 relevance to either an issue to be determined before the Court, or within

11 the scope of the knowledge of the witness. Now, if the witness says no, I

12 do not know this, clearly, if there is a document in existence which may

13 state, well, this is wrong, clearly this is a situation where there was a

14 counsel or there was a procedure adopted, I would query whether in actual

15 fact the document should be admitted at this stage in any event. But I

16 equally submit that one has to look at the purpose of the document itself

17 and why it's being advanced. She has said I do not know of this document.

18 If that is the case, irrespective of whether it be civil or common law

19 rules, in my submission it is not a document that can come before the

20 Court at this stage.

21 It may well be that the Defence in due course will be able to call

22 evidence to deal with this issue. It may well be it can be done in a

23 formal way in the Defence case. To say quite simply it has been said in

24 evidence by Dr. Bosanac that she was not -- and then particularising A, B,

25 C, D. Now, do you happen to have any documents which deal with this

1 issue? And it may well be that there is someone from the judiciary or an

2 investigator who can demonstrate evidentially documentation that would put

3 the sore to Dr. Bosanac's evidence. But at this stage, it is

4 inappropriate and in my submission, whether it be common law or civil

5 jurisdiction, that is the way that it should be done.

6 JUDGE PARKER: The other two documents, Mr. Moore.

7 MR. MOORE: The other two documents? We have only really dealt

8 with one so far but I can deal with the other. If we deal with the report

9 from the 1st Military District command, it appears the 2nd of December

10 1991, and it seems to be a conclusion in relation to behaviour on the 13th

11 of November in respect of an incident at a warehouse. We would submit it

12 bears absolutely no relevance to Dr. Bosanac's evidence at all. It

13 relates to a different area. It relates to the 13th of November. There

14 is nothing to suggest that she participated in this and we equally submit

15 that the document itself is merely a finding, if it be a finding, in

16 relation to an irrelevant issue and, as such, can only be admissible if it

17 can be shown to be linked to this doctor.

18 Now, let me give a small example, if I may. If, for example,

19 there was evidence before the Court to show that Dr. Bosanac was actually

20 existing at this location at this time, was responsible for not only

21 medical treatment but surgical treatment, it may well be then argued,

22 well, You say that you do not do operations, or perhaps you could say, Do

23 do operations, but here we would suggest is an incident on the 13th of

24 November where it is said that this individual received no medical

25 treatment. I want to ask you the following questions. Firstly, are you

1 aware of this individual? Secondly, were you on duty at that time?

2 Thirdly, were you responsible for the operations that were to participate

3 or be participated in at that time? And if you were, how do you explain

4 the fact that this person received no medical treatment? The conclusion

5 of another party in my submission bears no relevance to Dr. Bosanac's

6 evidence. And there is no nexus to link it.

7 With regard to the second document, which I see is dated the 25th

8 of November, officially secret, strictly confidential, I'm not quite sure

9 exactly the purpose of this document. It hasn't been dealt with, as far

10 as I'm aware. It is merely an apparent finding. If that is the case, the

11 appropriate time for this evidence to be given is at the defence stage so

12 the Prosecution have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. As I

13 say, I don't know exactly what the purpose of this document is because we

14 have not heard as yet.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Moore.

16 Mr. Borovic, as you heard, there is an objection made to the

17 reception of all three documents. Now, if you wish to pursue them, could

18 you first of all explain to the Chamber the relevance to the issues in

19 this case of the document which is the order for military investigation?

20 That's if you want to pursue its admission.

21 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is of course what

22 I intend to do. My learned friend has used a lot of sentences, a lot of

23 words. My experience tells me that this is usually what you do when you

24 face an absence of arguments. I'm not even sure where we first began

25 although my power of focusing is usually great.

1 JUDGE PARKER: Can I try and assist you, then, to focus? I want

2 you to tell me what in your case is the relevance of this document.

3 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I am in fact very focused. I don't

4 think I require any assistance in that respect. My first question to

5 Vesna Bosanac was, Does she know Ivica Nestorevic. Now this is the

6 initial fact that I inquired about. The next was, Does she know about

7 Borovo Naselje, the neighbourhood, the third fact, that the fact that the

8 Vukovar medical centre was in charge, which is something this we know from

9 her previous testimony. Fact number 4, they register the wounded and ill

10 from Borovo Kladista [phoen] upon their admittance. Fact number 5, indeed

11 highly relevant, we do not have an alleged conclusion or a finding. We

12 have a court decision ruling to commence investigation. Vesna Bosanac,

13 the witness, never challenged the fact that she gave a statement to the

14 military investigator.

15 My question was -- I even have a transcript which deliberately I

16 will not be showing now. She signed it and this would be too early a

17 point to show it, in our strategy. There was a military investigator, a

18 court-appointed counsel and the statement was signed by Dr. Vesna

19 Bosanac. And to go back to the very beginning I asked her about Ivica

20 Nestorovic, the very soldier whose death Mrs. Bosanac is blamed for and

21 accused of. She is here being accused of a war crime. Everything is

22 linked up very closely. Everything is so closely knit. Djordje

23 Kuzmanovic is a doctor whose existence Mrs. Bosanac confirms. He was

24 there. It was based on his reports about the medical assistance provided

25 to this soldier, namely that it was refused by Dr. Vesna Bosanac who, as

1 the manager of the Vukovar medical centre, was in charge of all the minor

2 medical stations throughout the town's area.

3 In civil law, and I don't think there is a major discrepancy

4 between common law and civil law in terms of how war crimes are viewed,

5 and we are using a mixed system here, in a way, then we should be in a

6 very good position to discuss these facts that may or may not affect the

7 credibility of a witness being heard before this Tribunal. Therefore,

8 since there are indications, and I've tried asking the witness about that,

9 as to how she was exchanged -- may I continue? That means, I believed,

10 this whole subject matter to be highly relevant, all the more so since

11 this Trial Chamber and I certainly hope my learned friend and colleague,

12 too, know full well that there is no statute of limitations on a war crime

13 under no legal system in the world, and the person accused of a war crime

14 cannot be exchanged.

15 Why is the Defence bringing up a case like this? This is a fact

16 that we must discuss during this trial. It is highly relevant also to the

17 Trial Chamber when they make their decision. The fact is the reports on

18 National Guards Corps presence, the police, the shelling, everything. We

19 may be facing a person here whose credibility is in some way compromised.

20 It is my duty and obligation to inform the Trial Chamber accordingly. It

21 is my duty and obligation to question the witness on that count. And we

22 shall not pass up our opportunity to examine these matters before the

23 Chamber.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, do we understand that it is the

25 credibility of the witness upon which you focus?

1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] As I have said, this is the

2 conclusion of my cross-examination, and, yes, I would like to focus on the

3 credibility of the witness because we believe that she may be

4 testifying -- testifying about the facts that she is not competent enough

5 to testify about, and this is what we believe.

6 JUDGE PARKER: So that you are advancing this document as

7 indicating matters that may be adverse to the credit of this witness?

8 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] The reason why I started this was to

9 focus on the credibility but there is also a broader context. I cannot

10 describe the entire context through this witness. But all of this is

11 relevant because there is political influence not only whether it comes to

12 trials but also when it comes to everything going on in Vukovar. I didn't

13 ask her for no reason about whether she knew about Ustashas. The term

14 "filthy Ustashas" was used very frequently.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, you keep getting away. I'm not

16 looking for the whole of your case. I'm trying to understand what it is

17 about these documents that you see is immediately relevant. And as I

18 understand it, the order for investigation you are advancing as relevant

19 to the credit which the Chamber should attach to the evidence of this

20 witness. Is that it? Do I correctly understand that?

21 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you for your patience,

22 Your Honours. The one you display both in relation to the Prosecution and

23 Defence. It is important for the following reason. I will be very brief.

24 If the Statute of limitation cannot run out on a war crime, if we know

25 that the proceedings were suspended but not finalised, we know that this

1 all goes to the credibility of this witness who is a person who was

2 charged for having committed a war crime. The proceedings were never

3 finalised and she was never acquitted. This is the gist of what I'm

4 trying to say.

5 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. That's made that matter clear.

6 The other two documents, what is the relevance of those?

7 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the first and the

8 second document are the basis for the third document, which is the most

9 important. Based on the first two documents, which contain facts about

10 the crime for which the witness is charged, culminate in the final ruling

11 on investigation. So in order not to put to her just the third document,

12 in order to avoid any problems, I tendered the first two documents as

13 well. Thank you.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Now, as I understand it, the third document is an

15 order for investigation. Have there been formal charges? Is it your case

16 that there are formal charges that have been laid?

17 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is not your

18 obligation to be familiar with the proceedings that were instituted at the

19 time. However, all of this is formal and was done in accordance with the

20 then-law of the SFRY on criminal procedure. The Prosecutor, the

21 investigative judge, Defence counsel and the accused complied with all

22 relevant provisions at the time. She signed the statement in B/C/S. The

23 investigative Judge puts to the suspect the charges relevant in the case.

24 Therefore, I think we are wasting our time for nothing. This is an

25 official document, much more official than any of the faxes of which some

1 were signed, some were not, and sent to -- we don't know exactly whom.

2 Thank you.

3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, are you saying that there has not been

4 any further formal charge beyond this order for investigation?

5 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. I didn't quite

6 understand. There can be just one act of accusation. It is not called

7 "indictment" in our system. This is a decision to commence an

8 investigation, which is issued after a preliminary investigation and, in

9 the course of that, witnesses are questioned and facts are compiled, facts

10 concerning the death of this witness -- of this soldier, and only after

11 that is completed, the judge issues the decision to institute an official

12 investigation. And then the Court issued a decision to suspend

13 proceedings, therefore not to drop the charges but rather to suspend

14 proceedings and then the witness was exchanged but that means that the

15 proceedings are still in progress. The charges were not dropped and the

16 statute of limitation does not run out on war crimes.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Are you saying that there is and will be no further

18 form of charge than is contained in this document?

19 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Dr. Bosanac is charged with armed

20 rebellion as well. An investigation was conducted in relation to that

21 crime as well. A larger number of crimes were investigated. At the time,

22 Croatia was not internationally recognised, was not an independent state.

23 Therefore, all of these decisions were legally valid at the time,

24 including the ruling that we have here. Therefore, the crime of armed

25 rebellion in which the witness participated at the time, together with the

1 ZNG, and para-police forces, was detailed in all of these documents and in

2 the criminal proceedings conducted at the time, and at the end, a ruling

3 was issued stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the

4 witness committed all of these acts based on which an official

5 investigation ought to be instituted. So this is a formal state of

6 affairs.

7 I would like to ask the witness to refrain from laughing.

8 Unlike the indictment we have here --

9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, don't worry about the witness, if I

10 can suggest.

11 Very well, they, all three of them go to credit, and the credit,

12 you say, is of significance because the witness may well be under

13 investigation with -- of the possibility of herself having committed

14 serious war crimes, and that may well influence and affect the nature of

15 the evidence she is giving in this case. Is that the position?

16 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] That's precisely so, Your Honours.

17 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If I could now once again turn to

18 Mr. Moore? Credit is said to be the relevance. Now, Mr. Moore, can you

19 tell me whether you question the authenticity of the documents in the are

20 in the sort of form that comes from the OTP. And the question is whether

21 or not -- not all of them but at least the ruling, as I understand it.

22 MR. MOORE: I will try and not give evidence. The statements that

23 I have seen are not OTP documents.

24 JUDGE PARKER: Are they not? Right.

25 MR. MOORE: But can I just say there is over 900 documents and I

1 can't honestly put my hand on heart to say they are not OTP documents but

2 I believe they are not. My -- the second matter is my learned friend

3 has - I don't mean to be unkind - given evidence in relation to the

4 procedure. But as far as I understand there has been no formal charge -

5 I'm having that matter checked now - and I submit that that is an

6 important criteria, with regard to the documents. Answering your

7 question, I do not know if they are valid or not.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Very well.

9 [Trial chamber confers]

10 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Borovic, the Court at the moment would propose

11 to admit these three documents only as marked for identification. The

12 question of their authenticity is at issue, and it will be necessary for

13 you, if you want to pursue them into evidence as exhibits, to deal with

14 the question of their authenticity, either by persuading Mr. Moore in

15 discussions that they are authentic or by establishing their authenticity

16 in due course. On their face at the moment, we don't see that

17 sufficiently established. Nor is it clear to us, for example, whether the

18 document which is the investigation order and ruling is one that was made

19 in -- on the 4th or some date in May of 2000, or, as you say, in 1992,

20 because what is on it doesn't give that date at all but only gives one in

21 2000. So each of these documents will now be received only as marked for

22 identification.

23 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I naturally cannot

24 question your rulings. I accept them. I would like to point out that the

25 Prosecutor interrupted me when I started questioning the witness about

1 this JNA soldier, when she said that she heard about him. I was about to

2 put additional questions in order to reach the whole point. If she heard

3 this in the military court --

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't hear it in the

5 military court, but in the prison when I was investigated.

6 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. No need to go into that because the Court has ruled.

8 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] All right. I'm not going to comment

9 on your ruling, and I will be able to prove all of these things later on,

10 and this will be admitted in the evidence, I believe. There is another

11 document that I wanted to tender, 2D01.

12 JUDGE PARKER: And the Court officer will now give these documents

13 their identification number.

14 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. The report signed by m

15 Major General Mile Babic, that will be Exhibit marked for identification

16 number 00041.

17 The official note of the provisional secretariat of interior will

18 be identified as number 42.

19 And the ruling of the military court in Belgrade will be

20 identified as number 43, marked for identification.

21 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Borovic, you were going on to some other

22 matter?

23 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I will have just one more question,

24 but prior to that, yesterday I tendered into evidence reports we received,

25 or rather a decision to remove from office issued by the Ministry of

1 Health under number 2D 01-0001. This is the decision -- this is the

2 document discussed yesterday, both by the Prosecution and Defence, and I

3 believe that the time is ripe now for it to be tendered.

4 JUDGE PARKER: Is this the document at your tab 1?

5 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] That's right.

6 JUDGE PARKER: Any objection, Mr. Moore?

7 MR. MOORE: No objection.

8 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received as an exhibit.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. It will be Exhibit number

10 44.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Now, was there any other document, Mr. Borovic, or

12 is that the end of the documents?

13 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] No.

14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, were there any other questions?

15 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] I think perhaps two.

16 JUDGE PARKER: Two?

17 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Two.

18 JUDGE PARKER: Go ahead now.

19 MR. MOORE: Your Honour, may I just make one small inquiry of my

20 learned friend via the Court? And it is this: That he has already said

21 that there is a document that was signed by Dr. Bosanac at these hearings.

22 I don't know if in actual fact it is the intention for the doctor to be

23 shown that document and to confirm whether it is her signature or not. I

24 would not wish that document to come in later on in the trial without it

25 having been confirmed that it is her signature or not.

1 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Does this have to do only with the

2 issue of the signature or perhaps some other issues that I could put to

3 the witness? But at any rate, I do not believe that it will come up later

4 as something that Dr. Vesna Bosanac has to comment upon that, because

5 there are other pieces of evidence that later on we should be able to

6 tender. Therefore, we will not be showing any document to this witness

7 now, nor did I propose any other document.

8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Well, you are on notice of Mr. Moore's

9 point. You had two questions.

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] That's what I said.

11 Q. The first question: Do you know that members of the National

12 Guards Corps were called Ustashas by their opponents in this military

13 conflict?

14 A. No, I'm not aware much that.

15 Q. You never heard that?

16 A. No. Except what I have previously stated, that one of the

17 passengers in the car asked whether those were Ustashas.

18 Q. And if I may ask, were you ever a member of the Communist Party?

19 A. I became a member of the Communist League, the youth section, but

20 I was never a communist by conviction.

21 Q. So what's the difference between becoming a member and not

22 actually being a communist?

23 A. I was proposed for membership and accepted into the Communist

24 Party, and actually being a communist means being actively involved in the

25 activities of the party.

1 Q. A subquestion to my previous question: When you applied for your

2 position, did you have to declare your political -- your political

3 affiliations?

4 A. I can't remember.

5 Q. At that time, it was mandatory to declare yourself politically. I

6 think everybody was a communist in Croatia back then.

7 A. I don't think you're right on that point but I really couldn't

8 say.

9 Q. Thank you very much.

10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] No further questions.

11 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic. We will take a break now

12 and resume at quarter past 12.00 -- quarter past 1.00.

13 --- Break taken at 12.53 p.m.

14 --- On resuming at 1.17 p.m.

15 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Lukic?

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on account of our

17 changes in schedule, shall we stop at quarter to 2 or shall we press on?

18 I need to know this in order to be able to formulate our questions.

19 JUDGE PARKER: There is another hearing to follow us in this

20 courtroom.

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:

23 Q. Mrs. Bosanac, good afternoon to you.

24 A. Good afternoon.

25 Q. My name is Novak Lukic. I'm an attorney at law from Belgrade. I

1 will ask you a number of questions on behalf of Veselin Sljivancanin'

2 defence team.

3 Before I start with my questions, I wish to inform you that there

4 are certain issues about which I will try to refresh your memory, the

5 expression we use in legalese, especially as concerns your contact with my

6 client. I will try to inform you about his position regarding some of

7 your statements and claims which you will then be at liberty to confirm or

8 deny based on your own information concerning certain evens. I will try

9 to phrase my questions in such a way that you would be able to answer

10 briefly, mostly yes or no questions. If there are further clarifications

11 you feel you need to provide, the Prosecutor can clarify matters with you

12 on re-examination.

13 First of all, I would like to ask you a number of questions about

14 the October evacuation that you spoke about. You said that the October

15 evacuation, on October 1991, had been organised by an organisation known

16 as Medecins Sans Frontieres, doctors without frontiers; is that right?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Does the name Michel Robert mean anything to you?

19 A. I can remember that name.

20 Q. For the sake of the transcript, I said Michel Robert. Do you have

21 any information that this person or someone else escorting the convoy on

22 behalf of that organisation, changed the route previously suggested by the

23 JNA of their own accord? Do you have any information concerning that?

24 A. No.

25 Q. At this point in time, and we are talking about October 1991, was

1 the JNA able to offer anyone guarantees of a safe passage through the

2 village of Bogdanovci?

3 A. You mean the time the convoy took place?

4 Q. Yes, I mean October.

5 A. Yes. I think they were able to.

6 Q. It is your submission that the village of Bogdanovci was under JNA

7 control at the time in its entirety?

8 A. Yes, I think so but I'm not quite certain. In early October, at

9 least based on the information that I had, the JNA took over Bogdanovci in

10 its entirety. But I can't give you exact date.

11 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the vehicle with two Swiss

12 nurses from Switzerland were wounded, that was part of the convoy when it

13 came across a minefield, that specific piece of territory was under the

14 control of the Croatian forces? Is this something you know?

15 A. No. I'm not sure about the exact spot where this incident

16 occurred.

17 Q. Thank you. Do you know that those nurses were then offered

18 medical assistance at the military medical academy in Belgrade?

19 A. No, I didn't know that.

20 Q. On the 25th of October, I think that was the first day of your

21 testimony, which is when you addressed there subject, on page 33 of the

22 transcript, you said that the convoy was supposed to transport Croatian

23 soldiers and wounded civilians for treatment. Do you remember that you

24 said that?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Who decided on behalf of the medical personnel of the hospital who

2 would be joining the convoy?

3 A. Dr. Njavro and his associates. He set the priorities in terms of

4 who would be allowed to go in order to receive further treatment.

5 Q. Do you know that a soldier was forced to join the convoy against

6 his free will, a man named Ivan Zivkovic who was being treated at the

7 hospital at the time. Do you know anything about that?

8 A. No. I've been asked about that already. I know nothing about

9 that.

10 Q. Did you later hear that he called out for help to JNA soldiers

11 from the convoy, yelling that he was there against his free will and

12 asking them to release him from this convoy en route for Zagreb? Do you

13 know anything about that?

14 A. No.

15 Q. Today, when answering questions by my colleague Mr. Borovic in

16 relation to the ceasing of the shelling of the hospital, you said

17 something that is not consistent with your statement from 1995 when you

18 said that the shelling stopped on the 17th, whereas today you said there

19 were still shells falling in the hospital yard or around the hospital on

20 the 18th. Isn't that correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I've been following the transcripts from other trials at this

23 Tribunal. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. You keep claiming that this

24 was an aggression and not a conflict. You said so in the Milosevic trial.

25 Is that your submission to this Chamber?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Do you know that Vukovar was shelled from the direction of

3 Vinkovci by the Croatian army? Is this something that you're familiar

4 with, yes or no?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you know that when the Vrazdin Corps was surrendered prior to

7 the Vukovar operation the Croatian army had obtained a huge amount of

8 heavy weaponry which was subsequently transferred to Vinkovci?

9 A. No, I don't know about that.

10 Q. Were you ever interested in how many JNA soldiers were killed

11 during this operation? Are you familiar with the specific figures or did

12 you ever want to know?

13 A. I heard something but informally. I certainly would like to know

14 but I do not have the information.

15 Q. If I told you that my information was that during the clashes, the

16 JNA suffered over 1.100 casualties, would you tend to agree with that?

17 A. I really can't say anything about that. I simply don't know.

18 Q. What do you think killed those people, regardless of their exact

19 numbers, as a medical worker? What do you think?

20 A. I don't know.

21 Q. I assume that you were in touch in some way with Mr. Dedakovic for

22 as long as he was present in or around the town. He was the commander of

23 Vukovar's defence, right?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Did he personally or anyone else ever inform you of their

1 conversations with my client, Mr. Sljivancanin, via radio link whether

2 they talked about Mr. Sljivancanin's desire for the Croatian Army to

3 surrender so that the destruction of the town might be stopped? Do you

4 know anything about that?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Mrs. Bosanac, do you have any direct, personal knowledge, did

7 anyone tell you, perhaps, that in the last days of war operations in

8 Vukovar, the 17th and the 18th, there is a certain amount of confusion

9 about the specific date, namely that rather large number of ZNG members

10 tried to break through Luzac, which was under the control of the Croatian

11 forces, and many of those who failed to achieve a breakthrough returned to

12 the centre of town specifically to the hospital? I have a number of

13 questions about this. Please tell me whatever you know.

14 A. I know that they were trying to organise a breakthrough for

15 several days. I know about that week, around the 17th, when my son was

16 involved in one of those attempts at a breakthrough. I also know that

17 some of them were killed in these attempts. Some were captured. I don't

18 know who came back eventually or where they went to.

19 Q. Can we please go into private session briefly?

20 JUDGE PARKER: Private session.

21 [Private session]

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 [Open session]

18 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honour.

19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].

20 Q. In your testimony, you said that you spent the night between the

21 19th and the 20th in Negoslavci; is that right?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. What about the next day, when you returned to the hospital, or

24 later on, generally speaking? Did you ever hear that on the evening of

25 the 19th, four JNA soldiers were killed by mines in the vicinity of the

1 hospital? Did you hear anything about an incident like that?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Yesterday or rather the day before yesterday, on the 26th, in

4 answer to a question by the Prosecutor about whether you knew whether the

5 hospital was being used for non-medical purposes, on page 27 you said that

6 you were spending all your days at the hospital and then certainly you

7 would have known had the hospital been used for any other purposes but

8 medical. Isn't that what you said?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. I assume you did not spend all of your time sitting in your

11 office. You must have been able to move about the hospital, inspect the

12 situation, see for yourself what was going on?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Furthermore, I assume that as hospital manager you took an active

15 part on what the rules of behaviour would be in those days inside the

16 hospital?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. I'm putting it to you, Mrs. Bosanac, that you were fully informed

19 about the fact that members of the ZNG were in fact in the hospital on

20 those last days trying to change clothes and dress as civilians and

21 medical staff in order to conceal their true identities. Would I be

22 mistaken in saying that?

23 A. Yes, you would be mistaken.

24 Q. Do you know who Tomic Jozo is?

25 A. You mean the doctor?

1 Q. That's precisely my question. Who was Jozo Tomic? What did he

2 do?

3 A. Dr. Jozo Tomic was a general practitioner, a physician. He had

4 just begun his residence with the gynaecology ward, but then he was called

5 up for military service and in September 1991 he returned to Vukovar. He

6 worked with the emergency unit at the Vukovar Hospital.

7 Q. To the very last day, right?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was he one of the doctors who were in charge of drawing up lists

10 of wounded? Do you know anything about that?

11 A. Yes. He was one of them. All of the doctors who were treating

12 the wounded had to produce lists. Dr. Matos and Dr. Tomic made lists of

13 patients who just came in in order to have their wounds dressed.

14 Outpatients in other words.

15 Q. Do you know that he personally placed people on these lists who

16 were in fact not wounded at the time? Do you know anything about that?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Prior to this, I asked you about a person in a private session. I

19 done want to repeat the name now. But would it mean anything to you if I

20 were to tell you that one of these three persons asked this doctor to

21 place them on the list of wounded even though he was not wounded? Did you

22 ever speak to Dr. Tomic about that?

23 A. No.

24 Q. Mrs. Bosanac, would you approve someone's name being put on the

25 list of wounded or would you approve camouflaging somebody as a patient if

1 that person wasn't that? Would you approve that?

2 A. No.

3 Q. Does the name Mihalj Kolesar mean anything to you?

4 A. I think he's the husband of Mrs. Kolesar; is that right?

5 Q. I was unable to establish that based on the statement I received.

6 A. I'm not sure about that.

7 Q. The person in this case was born in 1935 and, according to his

8 statement, he was at the hospital from October on, helping there. His

9 wife worked at the hospital.

10 A. Yes. Then that's probably the same person.

11 Q. Did you have -- did you ever have a conflict with there person?

12 A. No.

13 Q. If I were to tell you that he stated to the OTP that it was you

14 who said that everybody should put white coats on when the wounded were

15 taken out, do you think that he had any reasons to lie?

16 A. I don't know whether he had any reasons to lie but I never stated

17 anything like that, and I don't know that he ever testified. Perhaps we

18 are not referring to the same person.

19 Q. At any rate, it is your evidence that you never told anybody to

20 put on white coats; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Yesterday we looked at your list, or rather the list from the

23 indictment marked by you. As far as I understood, and you can correct me

24 if I'm wrong, it is your evidence that all of those marked with an "S"

25 indicating -- denoting soldier, were members of the ZNG who were actually

1 wounded, is that your evidence?

2 A. No. Some were wounded. Some of those marked with an "S." But

3 there were also persons I marked as help workers, and soldiers who were at

4 the hospital as part of security detail, and as part of help workers and

5 who were actually policemen or soldiers.

6 Q. So in that list of yours, you treat them as help workers?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So you are trying to say that among the people killed in Ovcara,

9 there were no?

10 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please repeat his question?

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]

12 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation].

13 Q. Those whom you marked with an "S," marking them as soldiers, were

14 all of them ill? Were all of them wounded?

15 A. According to my information, yes.

16 Q. Do you know that among the bodies in Ovcara that you are aware of,

17 and who have been identified, do you know whether there was a single

18 person among them who was a policeman or a soldier, without being wounded,

19 without being a medical worker, without being a civilian?

20 A. What do you mean a single person?

21 Q. Well, do you know of any?

22 A. As I have stated previously, I have the accurate list of persons

23 identified so far from the mass grave in Ovcara. The list that we have

24 here states that those were the missing persons. In addition to that, I

25 also have a list of the wounded who were wounded and identified in Ovcara.

1 Q. However, you did not answer my question, and I will repeat it.

2 Among the persons whom according to you, you knew before the events in

3 Ovcara, do you remember whether among them there were any policemen or

4 soldiers? Yes or no?

5 A. I can't answer your question specifically. Please tell me who do

6 you have in mind specifically? If you have somebody in mind.

7 Q. In your list, you categorised people into several categories.

8 Those people whom you knew. You didn't mark any of them as soldiers?

9 A. Yes, I did. I marked them with an "S."

10 Q. Well, let's clarify this. So in this "S" category, were all of

11 the people in that category wounded?

12 A. Those whom I knew, yes.

13 Q. Do you know that in relation to this statement, even the OTP does

14 not believe you? Have you actually read the indictment? Because it's a

15 public document.

16 A. No, I haven't.

17 Q. The OTP claims that among the persons listed in paragraph 32, they

18 were -- some of them were active soldiers, are you aware of that?

19 A. What are you trying to ask me here? I have not read the

20 indictment, not officially.

21 Q. All right. I was just trying to establish your credibility, and

22 it is not your duty to be familiar with the indictment.

23 I would like to briefly touch upon another topic. I hope to

24 conclude before we adjourn. It has to do with the number of the ill,

25 wounded and those who went missing later on who were at the hospital and

1 were supposed to be evacuated.

2 I will put several questions to you in relation to your appeals.

3 We spent almost an entire day going over them, and in terms of their

4 content these appeals were quite dramatic. Mrs. Bosanac, would you agree

5 with me that, ultimately, you did manipulate with the number of the

6 wounded when sending those appeals, yes or no?

7 A. No.

8 Q. I think you stated yesterday, but I can't be certain of it, that

9 the information on the number of the wounded was sent by you on a daily

10 basis to the Ministry of Health and some of that information was

11 transmitted by MUP?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. You also said that from the 18th on, no new wounded arrived in the

14 hospital, or rather no new names were registered; is that right?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Please tell us, the lists you forwarded to the Ministry of Health

17 on a daily basis, upon your arrival in Zagreb, did you have occasion to

18 see them, yes or no?

19 A. Some of them, yes, some no. I saw the database that we

20 continuously entered into the computer, and then sent via e-mail.

21 Q. We would like to know what kind of electronic communication

22 existed in 1991?

23 A. The one that I'm describing to you. I don't know what you are

24 expecting of me.

25 Q. And why is it that you didn't send your appeals via electronic

1 mail?

2 A. Because I couldn't. As I told you, the computer was

3 pre-programmed and we used it to enter data into it.

4 Q. And then you forwarded it by electronic mail?

5 A. Yes.

6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have some documents to

7 put to the witness and I think it would be more appropriate if we did that

8 on Monday.

9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Lukic.

10 We must now adjourn. I'm sorry that we have not been able to

11 conclude your evidence there week, doctor. We resume on Monday, and it is

12 in the afternoon next week.

13 This will be the first time that counsel and accused have

14 encountered the sittings that run until 7.00 at night in this trial. We

15 start at 2.15 and go until 7.00. On the first day, Monday, we will break

16 earlier, which may help people to adjust into that programme. We will

17 break, I think, at a convenient time between 6.15 and 6.30, but you will

18 understand that we will have to get into the pattern of finishing at 7.00

19 if we are to keep the pace of the trial working. In the weeks that

20 follow, for most of November and December, we seem to be alternating

21 weeks, mornings one week, afternoons the next week.

22 So I hope you will all be able to adjust to that work pattern.

23 We will now adjourn and resume at 2.15 on Monday.

24 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.47 p.m., to

25 be reconvened on Monday, the 31st of October 2005,

1 at 2.15 p.m.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25