1 Tuesday, 8 November 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.25 a.m.
6 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning to you all. The Chamber must
7 apologise for having kept you waiting this morning. When we were here, an
8 emergency arose which had nothing to do with this particular case which
9 required immediate attention. We are sorry that you've been kept waiting.
10 Good morning, Madam P-013, if you're used to that name by now.
11 May I remind you of the affirmation you made at the beginning of your
12 evidence which still applies.
13 WITNESS: WITNESS P-013 [Resumed]
14 [Witness answered through interpreter]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic? Oh, Mr. Bulatovic.
16 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour, good
17 morning do everyone. I wish to introduce myself to the witness. I am
18 attorney Bulatovic, one of the counsel appearing for Mr. Sljivancanin.
19 Cross-examined by Mr. Bulatovic:
20 Q. Madam, my colleagues have already told you about the manner of
21 examination so I will not waste time doing it again.
22 Madam, yesterday we heard you to say that your son brought you to
23 the hospital sometime in September 1991.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And you said that to the best of your knowledge, your son knew
1 Dr. Bosanac, the head of the hospital. I will ask you whether, with
2 reference to the acquaintance between your son and Dr. Bosanac, you know
3 something more, such as how long they had known each other, where they had
4 met, what kind of an acquaintance it was, and so on.
5 A. I don't know anything more apart from what I said. I think he
6 knew her from the time she was appointed head of the hospital, not before
7 that time.
8 Q. Do you know how they met?
9 A. No.
10 Q. You said that you arrived in the hospital in mid-September or
11 towards the end of September after your house and your garage were
12 destroyed, and that your husband remained. Can you explain to me where
13 your husband remained and why he remained?
14 A. He remained at home in the cellar. We had a small cellar and he
15 didn't want to go anywhere. He simply stayed behind. He stayed at home.
16 Q. Was he alone in that cellar or were there neighbours there with
18 A. I think that he was alone in our cellar. But after that, I don't
19 know where he went or where he stayed. For the most part, he stayed in
20 our neighbourhood. That's where he was wounded and, after that, brought
21 to the hospital.
22 Q. When you say your neighbourhood, could you explain what
23 neighbourhood that is?
25 (redacted) I don't know how familiar you are
1 with the place, about ten minutes' walk away from the centre.
2 Q. And how far is it from your house to the hospital?
3 A. Maybe two kilometres.
4 Q. You say your husband was wounded. Do you know under what
5 circumstances, where and how he was wounded?
6 A. He was outside, outdoors. A shell landed on the house across the
7 street from our house, and he was wounded in the neck by a piece of
9 Q. At the time of his wounding, was your husband a member of the ZNG?
10 A. I said yesterday that my husband was not in the ZNG. He was
11 wearing civilian clothes. My husband was an invalid, and he was wounded
12 like many other people in Vukovar when a shell landed. Shrapnel would fly
13 everywhere. That's how he was wounded and he was brought to the hospital.
14 Q. You say your husband was an invalid. Can you tell me what year
15 your husband was born and when and how he became an invalid?
16 A. My husband was born in 1950. As a young man he went to work in
17 Austria. He fell from a building. From the age of 25, he was a work
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mrs. Tuma?
20 MS. TUMA: Thank you. Just if there are any more detailed
21 questions in this area just to remind about the protective measures that
22 are concerned.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mrs. Tuma. I don't think there has been
24 a problem so far.
25 MS. TUMA: No.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. I'm sure Mr. Bulatovic is aware of that.
2 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour. Should I
3 put a question which would in any way endanger the protection of the
4 witness's identity, I will ask to go into private session, although I feel
5 there will be no need for that.
6 Q. Can you tell me whether you were present in the hospital when your
7 husband was brought in there?
8 A. I was in the hospital, but I was not present when he was brought
10 Q. How did you find out he had been brought to the hospital?
11 A. Somebody came to tell me that he had been wounded, and after they
12 dressed his wound, he was already in bed. I saw him on the following day,
13 lying there wounded.
14 Q. What time was it, do you remember, when you were told that your
15 husband has been -- had been brought to hospital and that he had been
17 A. I don't remember the hour, if he was wounded on the 31st, it might
18 have been on the following day that I learnt he was in hospital, not
19 before that.
20 Q. So he was wounded on the 31st of September and you didn't see him
21 on that day?
22 A. No, I didn't.
23 Q. But you did see him on the following day. In what ward was he?
24 A. There weren't any wards. It was all in the basement. There were
25 beds, even bunk beds there because there was very little space. There was
1 a patient on the lower bed and he was on the upper bed, above that other
3 Q. Was this in a hospital room, on the ground floor or in the
5 A. It was in the atomic shelter under the hospital, under the ground.
6 Q. Do you know how many other patients were there with him in that
7 atomic shelter?
8 A. There were a lot of patients, a lot of wounded, a lot. I didn't
9 count them so I can't tell you the number but there were very many of
10 them. Somebody was wounded and brought in every day.
11 Q. Do you know what doctor took care of your husband's injuries?
12 A. I don't know who was looking after him, but I always saw
13 Dr. Ivankovic and Dr. Njavro there. I saw others there from time to time,
14 but the ones I saw most often were Njavro and Ivankovic.
15 Q. From the 31st of September which you say was the date when he was
16 wounded until the 20th of November, did your husband get up, get out of
18 A. He could go to the toilet, but he was always there in that area
19 where they were all in bed, but he could move about and he could go to the
21 Q. At the beginning of your testimony, when you entered the
22 courtroom, you said that your husband's injury was not serious and that he
23 was missing and nothing is known of him to this day. Is that correct?
24 A. Well, when I say that his injuries were slight, because in a month
25 and a half or so he was able to move around, and when they had to go out,
1 all those who were able to walk were able to walk out of the building.
2 Those who were seriously injured, who were in plaster and so on, they
3 couldn't go out by themselves.
4 Q. When you mentioned plaster, if I'm not wrong, when you spoke about
5 Mr. Dosen, you mentioned that he was in a plaster cast. Can you explain
6 what part of his body was a plaster cast?
7 A. It was his whole leg from the hip downwards. I don't know how the
8 plaster was applied. I didn't apply it. I just saw it, but I can't tell
9 you anything specific about it.
10 Q. The reason I asked this was that it occurred to me in this context
11 to ask you something about your husband. During his stay in hospital, did
12 you visit him, speak with him?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Were there any consequences arising from the injury to his neck?
15 Any kind -- please wait. For example, was there a speech impairment or
16 was it difficult for him to move his neck or anything else?
17 A. He just said that he felt dizzy sometimes.
18 Q. I didn't catch the answer. I think I've missed it. I'll ask you
19 again. Has your husband been found?
20 A. No, he has not been found, to this very day.
21 Q. Thank you. Just another question in relation to your husband, to
22 wrap it up. Do you know who brought your husband to the hospital and how?
23 A. He told me that a man happened to be driving by when he was there,
24 he put him in this small car called Fica and brought him to the hospital.
1 (redacted) I am deliberately not referring to your
2 occupation for obvious reasons. What I want to know is where was this
3 kitchen physically located? Was it inside the hospital? Was it outside
4 the hospital? Or in which specific part of the hospital?
5 A. It was a makeshift kitchen. It was not a proper kitchen that a
6 hospital should have. It had already been shelled a great deal so it was
7 just a room being used, the ear, nose and throat ward formerly. It was in
8 the old building and this was where we were preparing meals for patients
9 and wounded.
10 Q. So the kitchen was in the old hospital building, wasn't it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Was there any physical link between the old building and the new
13 building, in the sense of there being perhaps an underground corridor, or
14 did people have to cross an open area in order to get from one building to
15 the other?
16 A. There was an underground corridor that people used to get from one
17 building to the other.
24 A. Next to the kitchen there was a room where we slept. The supplies
25 were brought in by other people, the supplies were brought into that
1 corridor, into that room. There was no need for me to move about.
2 Q. When you say that the supplies were brought by other people, were
3 these supplies being brought into the old hospital building or the new
5 A. They had to bring it to where the kitchen was, so that's what they
6 did. There were help workers, help workers there, who would bring
7 potatoes and bread or water. It was all brought to that room where we had
8 that makeshift kitchen, as it were.
9 Q. Were there any patients in the old hospital, if I may call it that
11 A. There were sick people and wounded all over the place, and that
12 applies to the building that you have mentioned, too.
13 Q. Do you know who was treating those wounded and until when? I'm
14 referring now to the old hospital building.
15 A. All the doctors who were at the hospital, nurses and doctors, and
16 there were quite a number of them. Some people died, some people never
17 got well, and some people were there until the fall of Vukovar. Some
18 people may have remained, even after the fall. I don't know.
19 Q. So up until the 18th of November, there were still wounded lying
20 around the old hospital, as well as sick people, weren't there?
21 A. Yes. There were wounded in the hospital up until the 18th, that's
23 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to show
24 the witness a photograph from one of the OTP exhibit sets. It's from the
25 65 ter list, 224, the number is 0053-1257, photograph number 3.
1 Your Honour, a correction for the benefit of the transcript, page
2 9, one line and 2, my question was: Were there any sick people in the old
3 hospital? And the answer only states "in the hospital," as opposed to
4 "the old hospital." I thought that needed clarifying.
5 JUDGE PARKER: I think the answer or the witness made clear that
6 there were people everywhere. The import of her evidence as the Chamber
7 understood it included the old building, if that helps you one way or the
9 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
10 Q. Do you have the photograph on the screen in front of you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can you recognise this building? We talked about this yesterday
13 so in order to not waste any more time on this, this is the hospital
14 building. We heard from our learned friends from the OTP yesterday that
15 this was a photograph that was taken back in 1997, if I'm not mistaken.
16 This means that this is certainly not what the hospital looked like back
17 then. However, do you recognise this building as similar to the building
18 in which you worked in the period that we are discussing?
19 A. Yes, but this is the new hospital building.
20 Q. Very well. Can you indicate in this photograph the rough location
21 of the old hospital building? This is probably -- I don't know -- is it
23 A. I'm unable to indicate what you've asked me in this photograph.
24 This is the inner face, so to speak, of the hospital, and the old building
25 is to the left in relation to the main entrance, which is something that I
1 can't see in this photograph. I'm not sure what the angle was that this
2 was taken from. I can't show it to you here.
3 Q. Could you perhaps indicate, using this photograph, where the main
4 entrance is?
5 Could you point at it, please?
6 A. No. I can't. I can't use this photograph. There are steps
7 leading to the main entrance which I can't see in this photograph. It
8 should be the other side of the hospital, at least the way I understand
9 this photograph.
10 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we show
11 photograph number 2 from the same set? That may make the situation easier
12 for the witness.
13 Q. Do you have that on the screen now?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you have the new one in front of you now?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you see the main entrance here?
18 A. Yes.
19 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not sure if the
20 technology is operating. I would like the witness to mark certain points
21 of interest. If that works, I would first of all ask that this photograph
22 be marked at the top of the photograph with the Roman numeral 4.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Am I supposed to mark it?
24 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation].
25 Q. Yes. At the top of the photograph, please.
1 A. [Marks].
2 Q. Thank you. Could you now use the Arabic 1 to mark the main
4 A. [Marks]
5 Q. Can you please place a circle around number 1?
6 A. [Marks]
7 Q. Can you please place an arrow to mark the direction of the old
8 hospital building?
9 A. [Marks]
10 Q. Can you please place the Roman numeral 2 on top of that arrow, or
11 the Arabic 2, rather, and please circle the number 2.
12 A. [Marks]
13 Q. Arabic 2, please.
14 A. Arabic? I'm not sure what you mean. You mean number 2, a -- just
15 plain number 2?
16 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, is the answer.
17 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Can you please mark any other entrances to the hospital, if you
19 can see any in this photograph? Can you please then explain what sort of
20 entrance we are looking at?
21 A. This is the main entrance, the one that I've just marked. I'm
22 about to mark the exit that we used to leave the building.
23 Q. Can you please put number 3 there and put a circle around it,
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. This arrow in the bottom right corner, what does that show?
2 A. That is the exit. There is a door next to this hall, and this is
3 where you leave the hospital. It's an auxiliary exit and it leads into
4 the courtyard.
5 Q. I am afraid that we have misunderstood each other. In my
6 photograph, the one that you've marked, I have an arrow in the lower right
7 corner. Did you place that arrow there and what does that mean?
8 A. You asked me about the whereabouts of the old hospital building.
9 It was to the left, from the entrance to the main building, so to the left
10 there was the old building. Used to be.
11 Q. I understand that and you placed the number 2 there, above that
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Just below that, there is an arrow on my scene in the lower left
15 corner. So I want to know what that means?
16 A. That is the main entrance to the hospital yard.
17 Q. Can you please use number 4 to mark that and circle it?
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. This building or entrance that you now marked by using number 4,
20 what is it?
21 A. This is the reception, or the emergency ward. I think the
22 emergency ward was on that side.
23 Q. In addition to these two entrances to the hospital that you
24 marked, were there any other entrances to the hospital? If so, can we see
25 them in this photograph and can you please mark them?
1 A. Where I put number 3, in peace time, this was a ward where the
2 sick and wounded would be brought into the emergency ward in an ambulance
3 usually. That was the surgery ward.
4 Q. Does that mean that in addition to these two main entrances that
5 you marked with 1 and 3, there was no other entrance to the hospital
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. You talked about the red cross signs that were placed to mark the
9 hospital off. There is one thing that I'm still not clear about, although
10 my learned friends have asked you about this. Where exactly were those
11 signs positioned? Before that, I would like to ask you the following.
12 This is a photograph of the hospital building that was taken in 1997. Do
13 you remember whether the hospital roof, and I'm now talking about the new
14 building, even before the armed clashes in Vukovar in 1991, looked like
16 A. I don't think so.
17 Q. To the best of your recollection, can you please describe what the
18 roof looked like, the colour and everything else?
19 A. No. Unfortunately whenever I went to the hospital, I didn't look
20 at the roof. If I was sick and I had to go, I went to the hospital but I
21 didn't look at the roof, and I can hardly describe it for you as a
23 Q. You told me that you would go to the hospital whenever you were
24 sick. My question is: At any time during 1991 and 1990, were you in fact
25 treated in the hospital as a patient? If so, why?
1 A. Back in 1989, I underwent surgery in the Vukovar Hospital. It was
2 a stomach surgery.
3 Q. To go back to the red cross markings, you said that on the old
4 hospital building, there was a Red Cross flag; is that correct?
5 A. Well, on the old hospital building -- I mean, perhaps I wouldn't
6 even look at it, but when I was coming to the hospital, you could see it,
7 when I was entering the hospital, when my son would bring me, then that
8 first section of the hospital next to the street, there was a sheet, a
9 piece of fabric, a flag, bearing the markings of the Red Cross.
10 Q. Could you please tell me how big the flag was and where was it?
11 A. It was quite big and it was located on the roof.
12 Q. You talked about two red cross markings that were located in the
13 courtyard. This photograph that is still on the screen in front of you,
14 is it possible on the photograph to indicate the place in the courtyard
15 where these two red cross markings were?
16 A. There is a tree there, but it would be here somewhere, between the
17 old and the new building.
18 Q. Could you please mark that place with a number 5?
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Were both of the signs there? And if so, how far apart were they?
21 A. I don't know how far apart they were, but they were placed at a
22 distance from each other.
23 Q. And where was the other sign placed? Can you please indicate that
24 on the photograph, if you can? And can you mark it with the number 6?
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. In your statement of the 18th of July 1995, you mention, and you
2 also said that here, that there was no water in the hospital. There they
3 said that you had to get the water from the well which was across from the
4 hospital. Can you show the place where the well was on this photograph,
5 the well from which you got water, the one that was across from the
6 hospital? If possible, please mark it with the number 7.
7 A. Well, I cannot do that because it was a bit lower down, next to a
8 house, a bit closer to the town.
9 Q. How far from the hospital was it?
10 A. Well, I don't know. Maybe some 200 metres. I don't know.
11 Q. According to what you said, you were in the hospital from mid to
12 late September until the 20th of November 1991, and in your statement --
13 I'm referring to your statement again, the statement that you gave on the
14 18th of July 1995, that you got water from the firefighters. You said
15 also that whoever left the hospital would be killed and that there was
16 also some doubt about where -- whether there were any people in the
17 hospital who provided information about what was happening in the hospital
18 to somebody on the outside. You said that there were such rumours. I'm
19 interested to know who was it who spread these stories. Is there anybody
20 you can tell us about in the hospital from whom you heard such stories?
21 A. The firefighters were getting killed when they went to get water,
22 and, as I stated earlier, and I'm stating it again, there were -- there
23 was talk that there were people inside the hospital who would tip off when
24 they went to get the water so that a shell would be launched or fired at
25 that place. But I don't know who these people were. I cannot tell you
1 something that I don't know.
2 Q. Well, you spent so much time in the hospital. When you came to
3 the hospital, were there any people there that you knew from before?
4 A. Very few. I used to -- I knew one woman who worked in the
5 kitchen. Her I knew from before. But the people that I met there and got
6 to know there, that was such a short period so that after such a long time
7 I really cannot remember their names anymore.
8 Q. Well, can you tell me, then, how these rumours are spread, if
9 people don't know each other, if they don't spend time in each other's
10 company? How are these stories spread then about people providing
11 information to the outside?
12 A. As I said, I spent most of the time in that room where I was, and
13 when there was talk about something like that, somebody would say
14 something, somebody would say something else. I mean, my ears were not
15 sealed shut. I did hear all of those things.
16 Q. You said that there were stories that there was a radio that was
17 being used to tip off information. Did you see any of those people who
18 were in the hospital, the wounded or anybody else, that were using a
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. You said that there were stories about Dr. Ivankovic having a
23 A. Yes. This is what people said, but I didn't see it. I cannot say
25 Q. You said that a Croat wounded man wanted to kill Dr. Ivankovic but
1 he was prevented from doing that by Dr. Njavro. What I'm interested in
2 is, how did he want to kill him? What happened? And how did Dr. Njavro
3 prevent him from doing what he intended to do?
4 A. He came to visit somebody who was wounded and I was just passing
5 by at that moment and I happened to hear that, and he started to shout at
6 Dr. Ivankovic, "What are you doing here, you Serb?" It was something like
7 that. Don't take it literally. But up until that moment, I didn't even
8 know that Dr. Ivankovic was a Serb and he kind of tried to -- went towards
9 him, but Dr. Njavro happened to be there and he took the soldier aside.
10 Of course later I don't know what happened. I mean, I wasn't standing
11 there. I was just passing by.
12 Q. You said that Dr. Njavro took the soldier aside, meaning that the
13 person who came to visit someone was wearing a uniform?
14 A. Well, most probably he was wearing a uniform, yes.
15 Q. Did he have a weapon?
16 A. I didn't see that.
17 Q. We talked about your work there. I'm interested in another thing.
18 Do you have information, based on your work there, how many meals were
19 prepared in the hospital?
20 A. Many meals were prepared. I can give you the quantities. We had
21 two enormous pots or caldrons but -- no, they were pots. It wasn't enough
22 for each person or each patient to eat his fill. It was just enough so
23 that people could survive. There wasn't enough food so it wasn't really
24 possible to make large quantities of food for everyone.
25 Q. Was there a dining room in the hospital? How did people eat the
1 meals that were being prepared in the hospital?
2 A. The food was distributed to wherever people were lying down. It
3 was food like soup or stew. It was not distributed in a dining-room. It
4 wasn't possible to set something up like that in a small space.
5 Q. And the people who worked in the hospital, the doctors, the
6 nurses, the staff, did they eat in the same way?
7 A. They were not treated any better, because, as I said, there wasn't
8 enough food.
9 Q. Do you know who actually took the food in the way you described to
10 the hospital director, Dr. Bosanac?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. Did you ever take food to her?
13 A. No, never.
14 Q. Did you ever, on any occasion, for any reason, go to Dr. Bosanac's
15 office or hospital room?
16 A. No, never.
17 Q. Did you ever, during your stay at the hospital, talk to her, in
18 view of the fact that you came to the hospital on the recommendation of
19 your son?
20 A. I never talked to her.
21 Q. I would like to ask you if you know whether there was a telephone
22 line at the hospital, and, if yes, did you -- do you know where this
23 telephone was?
24 A. I didn't see it and I don't know. If it did exist, it could only
25 be in the office of the hospital director, but I don't know.
1 Q. We heard from you that you heard that there were stories, I mean -
2 and this is a little bit different in your statement, but we will come to
3 that later - stories about this soldier called Sasa, and you said that
4 this soldier, Sasa, called General Raseta, and you described that
5 conversation. I would like to know when and how you found out that there
6 was a soldier called Sasa at the hospital.
7 A. I found out about it in the same way that I found out about
8 anything else in the hospital. People who moved around the hospital
9 perhaps would come to the kitchen where we were. There would be talk.
10 You had to talk about something. And amongst other things, I heard, as I
11 said, that there was a Serbian soldier lying in the hospital and that
12 somebody, one of the superiors in the hospital, told him to call this
13 General Raseta and that he, as a Serb soldier, should ask that the
14 hospital is not shelled. This is what I said yesterday, and this is what
15 I'm saying again today.
16 Q. Did you ever see this soldier, Sasa?
17 A. No, I didn't go to see that soldier.
18 Q. Did you hear, was this a soldier of the Yugoslav People's Army or
19 a Chetnik?
20 A. I heard that he was a regular soldier of the Yugoslav People's
22 Q. Did you hear, in the talks that went on, how the soldier was
23 wounded and how did he come to be brought to the hospital?
24 A. I didn't hear about that.
25 Q. Did you maybe hear if there were any other JNA soldiers who were
1 brought together with this soldier named Sasa?
2 A. I didn't hear that either.
3 Q. Did you hear where this soldier was accommodated?
4 A. They said that he had his own separate room.
5 Q. This information that he had a separate room, did you comment
6 about that with anyone? Was there a particular reason for that? Was
7 there any comment that you heard or made?
8 A. I didn't hear any comments to that effect.
9 Q. Compared to the -- or in relation to the time when you came to the
10 hospital, when was it that you heard about this soldier's conversation
11 with General Raseta? Was it two days after you came to the hospital, ten
12 days, a month after you came to the hospital?
13 A. This was already in late -- I don't know but I was probably at the
14 hospital for a month already. It was maybe sometime in October, but I
15 don't know when.
16 Q. You said that you heard in the hospital that some of the hospital
17 officials or senior staff had asked the soldier to speak with General
18 Raseta. While talking with the people who conveyed this information to
19 you, did you find out who Mr. Raseta was, where he was, what he was doing?
20 What would be the reason to call him? What was his significance so that
21 this soldier would have to call him?
22 A. I didn't hear any talk about that. We didn't talk about what was
23 the role of this Mr. Raseta.
24 Q. During your stay at the hospital, did you ever hear General
25 Raseta's name mentioned in any other context other than in the context of
1 this soldier?
2 A. No.
3 Q. In your evidence, as well as in the statement that you gave, you
4 often talk about Chetniks and the Yugoslav People's Army, these two terms,
5 Chetniks and the JNA. What I'm interested in is, how did you
6 differentiate between Chetniks and the JNA, if you did make a distinction
7 at all?
8 A. The Chetniks that I saw, that's what we called them, and we called
9 them that because they wore beards. They were the ones singing that song.
10 Q. The song they were singing, the one you mentioned here for the
11 first time yesterday, when did you hear it for the first time and saw
13 A. On the 20th, when we were already outside in the courtyard, and
14 when we were told to go to the main entrance of the hospital and out into
15 the street, and that there were buses there that would take us somewhere,
16 a large group of these men wearing beards and carrying a black flag with a
17 skull --
18 Q. Excuse me. That wasn't my question. My question was, was this on
19 the 20th or not?
20 A. It was on the 20th of November at about noon.
21 Q. And before that, before the 20th of November, at about noon, did
22 you ever see these men, as you described them, wearing beards, carrying a
23 black flag?
24 A. Men like them were around that morning, inside the hospital. I
25 mean men with beards.
1 Q. As far as I can understand, this was all on the 20th of November?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Until you arrived in the hospital in mid-September or late
4 September 1991, had you seen these men around your neighbourhood?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You say that you went out into the courtyard occasionally. Did
7 you see such men as you described them when you went out around the
9 A. No.
10 Q. How long have you lived in Vukovar? How long had you lived in
11 Vukovar prior to the 20th?
12 A. 30 years.
13 Q. You worked at a job where many people passed through during those
14 30 years you probably got to know a lot of people. You knew quite a few
15 people in Vukovar?
16 A. You could say that, yes.
17 Q. I will now mention some dozen names to you. Please just tell me
18 whether you had heard of those people. I will mention whether you knew
19 any of them personally. And if you did, what you knew about them.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mrs. Tuma?
21 MS. TUMA: Thank you, Your Honour. I don't know what kind of
22 names the Defence has in mind here but there could be a name specifically
23 that could be related to the witness. I'm just thinking about the
24 protective measures and I suppose the Defence know the answer of that.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic will obviously take that into
1 account. Thank you.
2 MS. TUMA: Thank you.
3 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, these are not people
4 who have any private link or at least I don't think so, that might
5 threaten the identity of the witness.
6 Q. Does the name Ivica Arbanas ring a bell?
7 A. Never heard of it.
17 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's because I had no
18 knowledge. This is something quite new. To avoid any future problems
19 that might possibly arise, I will ask to go into private session now.
20 JUDGE PARKER: I think a wise move, Mr. Bulatovic. Private.
21 [Private session]
11 Pages 1286-1289 redacted. Private session.
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: We are back in open session, Your Honour.
24 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. You spoke yesterday about your son. You said that he was a member
1 of the ZNG, a member of that particular unit. What I want to know is, can
2 you tell me what sort of a unit that was? After all, your son was a
3 member and your husband was a sympathiser. What sort of a unit was that?
4 Who set it up? Were they armed and to what extent? Who provided their
5 equipment, their weapons, their ammunition, their uniforms?
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mrs. Tuma?
7 MS. TUMA: Thank you, Your Honour. At least my ears haven't heard
8 that she has said that her husband was a sympathiser to the ZNG.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Nor have mine, Mr. Bulatovic. Is there some
10 particular reference in the transcript you have in mind?
11 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there was an omission
12 that I made. I wish to say now, additionally, that I draw on the
13 statement given by the witness on the 18th of July 1995.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Well, you'd have to --
15 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Which says more than this.
16 JUDGE PARKER: [Microphone not activated]
17 MS. TUMA: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'll try to phrase the
19 question without mentioning any of this.
20 Q. What do you know, Witness, about the ZNG as a unit, as a military
21 formation, in view of the fact that your son was a member?
22 A. Nothing.
23 Q. You say your son was supposed to do his military service in the
24 JNA and asked for this to be postponed for four years. In the meantime he
25 joined the ZNG. What I want to know is, do you know whether he was
1 trained in order to join this unit?
2 A. No.
3 Q. No, he wasn't trained? Or no, you don't know?
4 A. I don't know.
5 Q. Do you know that there was a Crisis Staff at the hospital,
6 so-called Crisis Staff?
7 A. No.
8 Q. You never heard anything about it, about meetings being held? The
9 hospital was being shelled after all, there was an armed conflict afoot,
10 and people were being killed.
11 A. I heard nothing.
12 Q. You explained some discrepancies between your statement -- your
13 testimony and the statement you gave back in 1995, and then what you
14 stated in your interview with the OTP when you came to the Tribunal.
15 These discrepancies concerned certain dates. I'm not asking you any
16 questions about those because my colleagues have sufficiently exhausted
17 the subject. But what I want to know about is the person known as Martin
18 Dosen. You said a while ago that he had a plaster cast from hip down all
19 along his left or right leg, I can't remember specifically. What I want
20 to know is, before this event that you spoke about, you weren't sure
21 whether it was the 19th or the 20th, you said that you had known Mr. Dosen
22 from before. Why was that?
23 A. I knew him by sight, and that was why I recognised him when he was
24 being carried out on a stretcher.
25 Q. Did you know what Mr. Dosen's occupation was before this, before
1 he arrived at the hospital?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you know his wife?
4 A. No.
5 Q. During your stay at the hospital, did you perhaps meet her?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know who his wife is at all? Or was he married?
8 A. No, I don't.
9 Q. Am I to take it this as, "No, he wasn't married," or "No, I don't
10 know anything about last wife"?
11 A. I do not know Martin Dosen's wife. That's what it means.
12 Q. You saw that he was carried out of the hospital and dropped from
13 the stretcher, as well as kicked while he was on the ground. Is my
14 understanding correct?
15 A. He was dropped off the stretcher and then they kicked him with
16 their boots.
17 Q. Is this taking place outside the hospital?
18 A. All of this is happening at the exit that we used to leave the
19 building, the auxiliary exit, as it were. It was midway down the path to
20 the buses waiting there outside the hospital exit, between the exit and
21 the buses, midway down that path or thereabouts. That's where he was
22 dropped from the stretcher and kicked.
23 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, can we please have
24 that photograph again?
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic, I've got to give you some bad news,
1 news that I suspect no one of us was aware of about there new technical
2 system and I've been told about it in the last quarter of an hour.
3 Apparently after a time, if the document isn't photographed and saved, the
4 markings are lost. So that when we resume after the break, it will be
5 necessary to have the witness remark the photograph, and then if you want
6 it tendered, to tender it so that it can be saved before the markings are
7 lost. I'm sorry to give you the bad news but I hope all counsel will take
8 note of that as we get used to this new technical system.
9 But I think that brings us to a convenient point now for the first
10 break, which will need to be half an hour because there have been a number
11 of redactions to avoid identifying information. So we will resume at 20
12 past 11.
13 --- Recess taken at 10.49 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.25 a.m.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Are we in public session?
16 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic, I wonder whether we can immediately
18 sort out that marking of the exhibit before you proceed.
19 Madam, you have in front of you the photograph which you marked
20 earlier. Do you see it on your screen?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
22 JUDGE PARKER: I'm afraid I must ask to you mark the photograph
23 again. Sorry to ask you to do this. Would you be able to put at the top
24 of the photograph a Roman 4, as you did before?
25 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, can you indicate with a number 1,
2 an ordinary number 1, the main entrance to the hospital, to the main
4 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
5 JUDGE PARKER: Could you put a circle around that, please?
6 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Could you indicate with a number -- an arrow the
8 direction of the old building? You've told us it's not on the photograph
9 but if you could indicate the direction of where the old building was
10 located, with an arrow.
11 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
12 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. And could you put a number 2 in a
13 circle by that arrow?
14 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, you mentioned that there was an
16 auxiliary exit which in peace time was used as the ambulance entry. Could
17 you put a number 3 where that is?
18 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
19 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Now, you mentioned that there is an
20 entrance or reception area and the emergency ward. If you could put a
21 number 4 in that position?
22 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. I think they were all the
24 markings, were they, Mr. Bulatovic? Oh, I missed two more, number 5. You
25 did mention that in the courtyard there were two red cross signs. Could
1 you put a number 5 where they were?
2 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
3 JUDGE PARKER: And you did mention that on the roof of a building
4 there was another red cross sign. Can you indicate with a number 6 where
5 that building was, if it's shown on this photograph?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't see that.
7 JUDGE PARKER: You did indicate on the photograph earlier a
8 position that you numbered as 6. Mr. Bulatovic was asking you at that
9 time if you would indicate where that other red cross sign was. Are you
10 able to help us by making that marking again?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Which number should I use?
12 JUDGE PARKER: Six.
13 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
14 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you for that. Perhaps we should clarify: Is
15 that a sign that was on the ground or is that a sign that was on the roof
16 of a building? Can you tell us that?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The sign that was on the ground.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that.
19 Now, Mr. Bulatovic, have I covered all your ground again?
20 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, it
21 is. This is everything.
22 Q. Just let's go back to number 5. Is this also the red cross sign
23 that was on the ground or not?
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic, do you wish to tender that as an
2 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. But first I would like to
3 ask the witness something else, if she could please use an arrow and mark
4 it as number 7, to mark the direction of the building bearing a red cross
6 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
7 JUDGE PARKER: Could you put a number 7 in a circle by that one,
9 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
10 JUDGE PARKER: Is that all, Mr. Bulatovic?
11 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe so, Your Honour. I move
12 that this marked photograph be accepted into evidence.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Yes. It will be received as an exhibit.
14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit number 55, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE PARKER: We learn, every day, Mr. Bulatovic, about the
16 wonders of modern technology.
17 Thank you for going through that again, Madam.
18 Now, you have further questions, Mr. Bulatovic?
19 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
20 Q. If we could please go back to the 20th, you spoke about the fact
21 that there were soldiers in the hospital sending women to the right and
22 men to the left, separating them, if I understand you correctly. Please
23 correct me if I'm wrong?
24 A. There was a soldier standing at the exit. I went to the right and
25 my husband went to the left, as well as all the other men.
1 Q. You went to the right, as all the other women, and all the men to
2 the left? Was that the case?
3 A. Yes, for the most part.
4 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we use this
5 photograph that we still have on our screens that has been admitted
6 already? So therefore I think we might need a new photograph for the
7 witness to mark a number of points.
8 JUDGE PARKER: You're correct, I believe. Mr. Bulatovic. We'll
9 just make sure that this has now been electronically saved, and when that
10 has been accomplished we will then put up the original, unmarked
11 photograph again for you.
12 [Trial chamber and registrar confer]
13 JUDGE PARKER: Carry on, Mr. Bulatovic.
14 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. You still have the same photograph in front of you, don't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you now please use this technology, use the pen to mark the
18 spot where you left the hospital and the direction you went after you left
19 the hospital? I'm referring to the main entrance.
20 A. [Marks]
21 Q. Can you please trace the whole path that you took, with a line and
22 place an arrow to mark the direction you were moving in?
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Can you please place a number 1 there and put a circle around it?
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Can you please use this photograph and draw or mark the direction
2 in which the men went to the left and place number 2 there?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. How long did all of this take? How long did it take for you to
5 leave this position marked as number 1 until you reached the end of the
6 arrow, as it were?
7 A. It started at 7.00 in the morning and went on until about 11.00
8 a.m. That's how long we were standing in this place, in this spot marked
9 as 1.
10 Q. Did you move from that spot?
11 A. Well, no. For the most part we stood there in a group.
12 Q. How many women were there in the group?
13 A. A lot. A lot of people, women and children, a lot.
14 Q. Can you give me an approximate number?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Not even approximately?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You mentioned Mr. Sljivancanin. You said you had seen him. On
19 this photograph, can you put a number 3 to mark the spot where you saw
20 him, if this is visible on the map? Where was he talking to this
21 representative of the ICRC or the European Community or whatever it was
22 and we'll establish that?
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. On this photograph, now that we are dealing with this, to avoid
25 any future technical problems, could the witness put a number 4 to mark
1 the place where the buses were, in which the women and children entered
2 into, including herself?
3 A. [Marks]
4 Q. Could you mark it with 4 and a circle?
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Can the witness mark with a number 5 the place where the buses
7 were on to which the men were loaded?
8 A. [Marks]
9 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic, I'm asked if you would just pause
10 for a little while, while some technical adjustment is being made.
11 [Trial chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Bulatovic, I'm going to have to do again what
13 you've just done. Hopefully, the snag has been overcome.
14 Madam, on this photograph in front of you, would you please mark
15 again the direction taken by the women and children as they left the main
17 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
18 JUDGE PARKER: And could you put a number 1 in a circle against
19 that, please?
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. If you would now mark the direction
22 taken by the men?
23 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
24 JUDGE PARKER: And could you put a number 2 in a circle?
25 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Could you mark with a number 3 the position where
2 you said you saw Mr. Sljivancanin and a man in a white coat?
4 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, on my
5 screen it's been lost again. It's disappeared.
6 JUDGE PARKER: And on mine.
7 [Trial chamber and legal officer confer]
8 JUDGE PARKER: We try again, Mr. Bulatovic. If this fails, I
9 think we will have a break while the technicians come to the bottom of
10 it. But we will try once again.
11 Madam, I'm sorry, but would you mind marking once again the
12 direction you took, and the women and children, as you left the main
14 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
15 JUDGE PARKER: Could you put a number 1 in a circle?
16 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
17 JUDGE PARKER: And now could you mark the direction the men took?
18 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
19 JUDGE PARKER: And number 2 in a circle?
20 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
21 JUDGE PARKER: Could you mark with number 3 the position where you
22 said you saw Mr. Sljivancanin and a man in a white coat or clothing as
23 they talked?
24 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
25 JUDGE PARKER: Now could you mark with a number 4 where the buses
1 were that the women and children went to?
2 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much for that.
4 Are there more positions that you want, Mr. Bulatovic?
5 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes. We marked with
6 5 the place where the buses were that took the men away.
7 THE WITNESS: [Marks]
8 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before I tender this
9 photograph into evidence, I would like the witness to answer one question.
10 Q. Position number 5, representing the buses, were these buses in the
12 A. In the courtyard of the hospital.
13 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I tender this
14 photograph into evidence.
15 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, this will be Exhibit number 56.
17 JUDGE PARKER: We will just wait to be sure, Mr. Bulatovic.
19 Mrs. Tuma?
20 MS. TUMA: My apologies but my co-counsel here he just checked
21 concerning Exhibit 55 to see if we did have still the markings on that
23 JUDGE PARKER: It's on screen and will be retrieved during the
25 MS. TUMA: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE PARKER: The absence of that was what alerted the court
2 officer to a continuing problem.
3 MS. TUMA: Thank you.
4 JUDGE PARKER: But it is there and it will be retrieved during the
6 MS. TUMA: Thank you.
7 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Now that we are talking about this topic, can the witness say
9 whether these buses that took away the men, what they were like? Can the
10 witness describe them?
11 A. All the buses that took us away, both the men and the women, were
13 Q. Did you have any information as to where these buses were going,
14 the ones that took you away and the ones that took the men away?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Let's go back to the conversation between the man in white and
17 Mr. Sljivancanin, which took place in the spot which you marked with a
18 number 3 on that photograph. Tell us, what time was it? Do you remember?
19 A. It was early in the morning. It was right away. I said we came
20 out between 6.30 and 7.00 and when we had all come outside and were
21 standing there in the morning, that's when this conversation took place.
22 Q. Did this conversation take place before the order to separate or
24 A. We had already been separated, because the official in the white
25 coat, who was from the international community, demanded to know the names
1 of the men who had been separated off. He insisted that a list be made of
2 the names of all those men.
3 Q. Will you tell me how long this conversation lasted, the one
4 between the man in white and Mr. Sljivancanin?
5 A. Well, it was quite a spirited conversation but it didn't last
7 Q. How far were you from where they were standing as they were having
8 this acrimonious conversation?
9 A. About three metres behind them, very close up.
10 Q. Do you perhaps remember whether there was anyone else there with
11 them as they talked, Mr. Sljivancanin and the man in white?
12 A. There may have been someone but I'm not certain. There may have
13 been another soldier. When I try to think back I still hear their
14 conversation in my head as it were, and, yes, when I think twice about it,
15 there may have been another soldier there.
16 Q. Did you perhaps see an interpreter interpreting their
18 A. There had to be an interpreter. I wasn't able to understand what
19 the man in white was saying, but I did understand what Mr. Sljivancanin
20 was saying.
21 Q. Is it the case that you assume that an interpreter was there? Do
22 you in fact remember that there was one or do you not?
23 A. There had to be one. Otherwise, I would not have understood,
24 since I did not speak English. He made an explicit demand that a list be
25 drawn up of the wounded and all the other men.
1 Q. So you didn't hear this from the man in white? You heard this
2 from an interpreter?
3 A. Yes. I certainly heard it from someone, these words that were
4 being interpreted and that there was a demand being made to draw up a
6 Q. Do you remember if it was a male or a female interpreter?
7 A. No, I don't.
8 Q. What exactly did you hear Mr. Sljivancanin say? Can you repeat
9 the very words for us, please?
10 A. He said, "Sir, this is my country. Sir, there is a war going on
11 here. I am the one giving orders here. When I come to your country, I
12 will behave as you expect me to. Therefore, you should behave in the same
14 Q. Did you perhaps hear that Mr. Sljivancanin mentioned the fact that
15 a lot of his own young soldiers had been killed in that spot?
16 A. Yes. He did say that.
17 Q. You said that you had read a great deal of things about these
18 people that I've asked you about while reading Major Sljivancanin's book,
19 if I understand you correctly?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you please tell me the name of that book and when exactly did
22 you read the book?
23 A. The book is called, "This is my country," and I read it perhaps
24 about three months before I arrived here.
25 Q. You often mentioned the JNA shelling you. Let me ask you this:
1 Did your late husband do his regular military service with the JNA? Is
2 this something that you know about, in view of the fact that you said he
3 was a disabled retiree?
4 A. I'm sorry, but I can't say.
5 Q. Can you explain what your view of the JNA was? What was your
6 experience of the JNA? What was this JNA? What exactly were they doing?
7 Your personal position on this, please.
8 A. At the outset, I saw the JNA as a peacekeeping presence of sorts,
9 but later on they sided clearly with the Serbs.
10 Q. Can you perhaps take these two terms one at a time? At the outset
11 and then later on. Can you please specify, in terms of a time line, when
12 you drew this line of division between the before and the after?
13 A. Well, the beginning was sometime in May or June. Borovo Naselje
14 was being targeted from Borovo Selo. The army decided to step in. I mean
15 the JNA when I say "the army."
16 Q. Do you know why the army stepped in and who the measures were
17 being taken against?
18 A. There were two parties involved, the army was not fighting itself.
19 There was the ZNG on the one hand, and the army on the other. There was
20 firing from Borovo Selo quite early on.
21 Q. You just mentioned "the Guards." Who exactly do you mean?
22 A. I mean the Croatian soldiers.
23 Q. Do you know that at this time, in May, the Socialist Federative
24 Republic of Yugoslavia still existed?
25 A. Perhaps, but I don't remember all the dates when independence was
1 declared and when Slovenia and Croatia split off. I no longer remember
2 the dates.
3 Q. Do you know who Mr. Stipe Mesic was?
4 A. I know he's now president of Croatia. I don't know what he did at
5 the time.
6 Q. Back in 1991, during this period of time that you are referring
7 to, do you know what Mr. Stipe Mesic's role was?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Was he a Croat, an ethnic Croat, or still is, for that matter?
10 A. I don't even know that.
11 Q. Do you know, or, rather, what would your reaction be if I told you
12 that at this time Stipe Mesic was president of the Presidency of the
13 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia?
14 A. After Comrade Tito, I was not aware of any one of the presidents,
15 nor was I aware of any individual name.
16 Q. You refer to the Guards. You probably mean the ZNG, the National
17 Guards Corps, don't you? Could you please clarify, if you can, what was
18 the ethnic makeup of the National Guards Corps?
19 A. First of all, I have to tell you about the ethnic makeup of the
20 town of Vukovar itself. It was mixed, very mixed. There was a large
21 number of mixed marriages; those in fact prevailed. Therefore, National
22 Guards Corps, too, was joined by people who were defending their homes.
23 Q. I still don't have an answer to my question. Let me try to
24 rephrase that. Were there any Serb members in the ZNG, to your knowledge?
25 A. I think so. There were. There were.
1 Q. Do you know how many specifically?
2 A. I didn't keep count, and I can't know how many, but I'm sure that
3 there were some.
4 Q. Do you know how many brigades or units the National Guards Corps
5 in Vukovar comprised?
6 A. No.
7 Q. If I'm not mistaken, you refer to a unit that you called the 204th
8 Brigade. What do you know about that unit?
9 A. Absolutely nothing.
10 Q. Who told you about its existence?
11 A. It was once we were no longer in Vukovar that somebody mentioned
12 it. There was a letter I received stating that my son had been a member
13 of the 204th Brigade and that's the extent of my knowledge about it.
14 Q. Can you remember what sort of a letter it was, who you received it
15 from, or why?
16 A. It was -- I'm not sure what to call it. A certificate, perhaps.
17 It was something that I needed to exercise my rights earned in the
18 homeland war.
19 Q. A while ago, you said the only president that you had ever been
20 aware of was Comrade Tito, as you called him.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What are your feelings about those times when he was president?
23 A. My feelings are very positive.
24 Q. Who, then, were the National Guards defending from, if the army
25 facing them was a Yugoslav army?
1 A. You asked me about the late Comrade Tito. I told you how I felt
2 about those times. What you're asking me now, why the guards were
3 defending and who they were defending from, is not a question that I
4 should be answering.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mrs. Tuma?
6 MS. TUMA: Yes, referring to yesterday, those questions are
7 speculative for the witness's point of view, I would say so, and it's also
8 a military question and she already stated yesterday that those matters
9 she is not so well aware of or having any deep knowledge about. Thank
11 JUDGE PARKER: That may be so, but Mr. Bulatovic is entitled to
12 explore them.
13 Carry on, Mr. Bulatovic.
14 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Since we are talking about these times, let me ask you something
16 else. Have you ever been heard the term "Ustasha"?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. When was that and can you please explain? Perhaps I know the
19 meaning of the term but maybe the Trial Chamber are not aware of it. What
20 did this term mean and when did this term Ustasha first come about, to
21 your knowledge?
22 A. I don't know when the term was first used.
23 Q. Who were Ustasha?
24 A. In the last war, there were no Ustasha. That's what people called
25 them. That's what people called each other, the Croats called the Serbs
1 Chetniks and, vice versa, the Serbs called the Croats Ustasha. But those
2 were no accurate terms and they didn't apply to the last war, the war in
4 Q. That would imply that there were no Chetniks and no Ustasha in the
5 last war, wouldn't it?
6 A. There were soldiers who were fighting, but the term is erroneous,
7 at least in my understanding. However, people obviously chose to use that
9 Q. Let me ask you something. Are you familiar with the ethnic makeup
10 of the JNA, of their units?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Were there any Muslims in the JNA in one of their units? Did you
13 hear anything about that?
14 A. Well, I'm not sure if you're asking me about before the war or if
15 you're asking me about 1991. Either way, the answer is still I don't know
16 anything about its ethnic makeup.
17 Q. In your opinion, who and why opened fire on the JNA units and
18 killed young JNA soldiers?
19 JUDGE PARKER: Now, Mr. Bulatovic, that is a question that
20 Mrs. Tuma's objection really does apply to. How can this witness answer
21 that unless she was there and saw fire opened?
22 So after a long delay, I think you've crossed the line Mrs. Tuma
23 was drawing much earlier.
24 MS. TUMA: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 MR. BULATOVIC: [Interpretation] I accept that, Your Honour. You
1 are entirely right. Just a minute, please.
2 Q. During your testimony, a lot has been said about the statement you
3 gave in July 1995. There are some things that I'm still not clear about,
4 and with the Court's permission I will need to ask you a few questions in
5 order to obtain clarification.
6 Where did you give this statement dated July 1995?
7 A. In Pula.
8 Q. Do you know how many people were present on behalf of the party
9 taking the statement when you were giving your statement?
10 A. There were two of them.
11 Q. The same day you gave the statement, did you also sign the
13 A. I most probably did.
14 Q. Did you or did you just most probably sign it?
15 A. I can't remember right now.
16 Q. What about after that interview? Did you ever talk to those same
17 two persons who took your statement in 1995 again?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Was this statement taken from you so that you talked and this was
20 dictated or what was the method by which the statement was taken?
21 A. I talked and one of them interpreted what I was saying to the
22 other one who was sitting there and typing.
23 Q. So the other one was typing what the first one was interpreting to
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. In what language did you make your statement?
2 A. In Croatian.
3 Q. And when your statement had been typed out, did you read again
4 what had been taken down?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Did you have anything to say, any objections to what you read?
7 A. I don't remember.
8 Q. When you arrived here in The Hague, did either one of the two who
9 took that statement attend? Were they present during your talks here?
10 A. No.
11 Q. How many people representing the OTP spoke to you here in The
13 A. The Prosecutor and an interpreter.
14 Q. You mentioned the month of August 2005. You said you were
15 interviewed then in connection with your testimony. Am I right?
16 A. By phone.
17 Q. And what exactly was said to you?
18 A. That the trial was about to begin and that I would be needed to
20 Q. When you arrived in The Hague, and when you were interviewed by a
21 representative of the OTP and the interpreter, how long did that interview
23 A. Not more than an hour and a half.
24 Q. Would you please explain what course the interview took? Was your
25 statement read out to you, the one we are talking about now, and were you
1 asked whether this was correct? Or did it take some other form?
2 A. There was an interview but that statement was not read to me then.
3 It was only after I had said everything, there were some minor
4 discrepancies, and that was it.
5 Q. With respect to these discrepancies, did the prosecutors ask you
6 to explain?
7 A. Yes. And I said then that it must have been misinterpreted, but
8 now I know what this is about. And then I said it should be corrected.
9 Q. Well, what was misinterpreted when you just said to us that the
10 statement was not read out to you at all?
11 A. No. It wasn't read out to me before the interview with the
13 Q. So what was misinterpreted?
14 A. It was afterwards that I read the statement I had made in 2005,
15 after my interview, and there was a sentence there that did not
17 Q. So it was only one sentence. Can you recall what the sentence
19 A. Well, the sentence where the discrepancy was, I named some
20 soldiers saying that they had taken away Martin Dosen and I said I had
21 said that I had seen those soldiers but it was not they who took Martin
22 Dosen away. It was some other soldiers whom I didn't know. That was the
24 Q. Was that the only discrepancy, and everything else in the
25 statement of July is correct, to the best of your recollection? It's
1 absolutely the way you saw and described it?
2 A. Well, to the best of my recollection, the way I remember it now
3 and the way I remembered it then.
4 Q. Thank you, Your Honours, I have no further questions for this
6 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Bulatovic. Mrs. Tuma?
7 MS. TUMA: Yes, Your Honour, just two questions in re-examination,
8 please. Or two issues, rather.
9 Re-examined by Ms. Tuma:
10 Q. The OTP statement taken in July 1995, I will now show the witness
11 the said statement and ask if it's her signature on that statement. And
12 the statement is bearing the ERN number 0032-7806 until 0032-780 -- 09.
13 And that is the English version. And in order to be correct, I will show
14 the witness the B/C/S version that is bearing ERN number 0032-7806 until
16 The B/C/S statement is not signed. It is the English version that
17 is signed. I will show her the both statements.
18 Usher, can I have some assistance here, please?
19 Q. Witness number P-013, on the last page, number 5 in the English
20 version, that is right now shown on the screen here, do you --
21 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, excuse me, I do apologise
22 but I think we are in public session and you can see the signature on the
24 MS. TUMA: Private session, please.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Vasic, indeed.
1 Private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 1316-1320 redacted. Private session.
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vasic?
2 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. After you've
3 explained to us the purpose of this document being admitted into evidence,
4 the Defence teams no longer have any doubts concerning the purpose of this
5 document will be used for and we no longer propose for the original
6 statement to be tendered and admitted. I just wanted to answer the
7 question that you asked me before the break, thank you.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Borovic? We haven't heard from you
9 today. This is a new surprise. Yes.
10 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 I will probably be surprising you a bit more often these days. I
12 would like to raise the legal issue that we announced on behalf of all
13 three Defence teams. I think the time has come for us to raise this issue
14 because today we admitted into evidence this addendum. Three protected
15 witnesses have been heard and there have been a number of such agenda. We
16 perceive this to be a problem, the Defence teams are frankly worried that
17 as Defence counsel we might reach a stage where the best interests of our
18 clients will be prejudiced, and the proceedings will no longer be fair.
19 We believe that evidence obtained by these methods, evidence to do with
20 protected witness as their testimonies as well as other witnesses that
21 will be appearing in the course of this trial, can be used to challenge
22 their credibility.
23 What exactly do I mean? If it continues to be the practice that
24 these addenda are served on to the Defence teams one or two days before
25 the witnesses appear, which has become a sort of established practice with
1 the OTP over the last days, such as the addenda to the -- to Witnesses
2 P-006, P-021 and P-013, then we have a violation of Article 21(3)(b) of
3 the Statute, pursuant to which the Accused does not have sufficient time
4 or appropriate conditions to react to all these addenda disclosed by the
5 OTP to the Defence teams. This would be a textbook example of a violation
6 of Article 21 of the Statute.
7 I do think, however, that there is another even more serious issue
8 at stake here that may occur during this trial. As I said at the outset,
9 this is about the methodology used to obtain evidence, the sort of
10 methodology and methods that we have witnessed over the last days. Each
11 and every statement has additional corrections made to it by using these
12 addenda. I'm now talking about the protected witnesses. But if you amend
13 a statement, that means that you in some way determine the general bearing
14 of a witness's testimony which sometimes is quite different from the
15 witness's original testimony in their statements. The OTP is perfectly
16 entitled to do this as are the witnesses, to amend their statements.
17 If we take for example Witness P-006, I have even prepared a
18 presentation analysing this case. However, I would be analysing evidence
19 which I have no right to do. That would be much too premature but if we
20 have a witness who took an oath when testifying in the Dokmanovic trial
21 and presented certain facts to the Tribunal, then again we have the
22 witness taking an oath and talking about the same facts in quite a
23 different way, or, rather, changing the facts. The Defence believes that
24 this may well be a case of false testimony after an oath has been taken,
25 or, rather, perjury.
1 Likewise, I do not wish to go now into who the instigator of this
2 punishable act might be. We do not wish to spoil the good relations
3 between the parties. The trial has unfolded in a manner that was
4 perfectly fair. That is at least before these addenda came up. We are,
5 however, worried that this practice will continue, namely that these
6 addenda will keep being forwarded to the Defence teams, giving them too
7 little time to react. We do not think that this is a legitimate practice.
8 And besides, the method used can affect the evidence in such a way as to
9 diminish its credibility. What this means in practical terms is when
10 obtaining evidence, admission into evidence of such addenda would be
11 contrary to the general atmosphere of dignity surrounding this trial. All
12 the more so if we consider the example of Witness P-006. At one point,
13 conditions were met for the application of Rule 91(B)(ii), and at this
14 point we have a problem that must also be addressed by the Trial Chamber.
15 Therefore we would like the OTP to express a position on these issues and
16 we also believe that, after we've expressed this concern of ours, the
17 Trial Chamber may want to issue instructions on what to do in the future
18 when obtaining evidence to do with the witnesses themselves. Thank you
19 very much, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Borovic, indeed.
21 I take it that was on behalf of all three Defence teams.
22 Now, I'm not sure whether Mr. Demirdjian or is it Mr. Regue
24 MR. AGHA: Mr. Agha, actually, Your Honours.
25 JUDGE PARKER: Very well, whether you're in a position to respond
1 to what has been submitted.
2 MR. AGHA: Well, I can respond very briefly Your Honours, if I may
3 regarding this question of addenda or addendum. Firstly, as Your Honours
4 and my learned friends from the Defence will appreciate, many of these
5 statements were taken back in 1995 which was quite sometime ago. And
6 although it's true some of these witnesses also gave evidence in the
7 Dokmanovic case, some of them did not. So in many instances, the witness
8 has not seen their statement until they arrive here for proofing. So in
9 fairness to the witness, they are given the opportunity to go through
10 their statement and to confirm that it's correct, because that is a
11 statement we have disclosed to the Defence. And if there are any errors
12 which they feel have been misinterpreted or are not clear, then, by way of
13 fairness, we disclose that to the Defence as soon as possible and,
14 admittedly, that's usually only a day or two before the evidence because
15 this is the first opportunity in which the witness has had the chance to
16 clarify the statement.
17 Now, the Prosecution's position is that this does not infringe
18 Rule -- Article, I beg your pardon, 21, regarding the right to fairness of
19 a trial. We are simply trying to disclose everything so that the trial is
20 as fair as possible to all parties. And if Your Honours would look at the
21 addenda submitted so far, they are not lengthy, and usually they clear up
22 some key points.
23 And if I may turn to the question of false testimony, with all due
24 respect, I don't believe that this would necessarily be the case because
25 if I might just, for example, use one witness who I won't name, they have
1 a pseudonym, but they also gave evidence in the Dokmanovic trial and the
2 points in her statement which she did not feel were correct were put to
3 her during cross-examination and she actually denied them and she gave
4 explanations as to why they were there. Therefore, those corrections were
5 made in testimony as soon as possible. And now that same witness is
6 coming to this Court today and she was shown her statement and she wanted
7 it amended in line with the evidence which she gave in Dokmanovic. So
8 actually far from any committing of perjury it was just making the
10 The Prosecution submits that obviously it doesn't hope in all
11 cases that there be addenda. It's only if the witness feels that
12 something has been misinterpreted and it can be very difficult as the two
13 different languages are concerned. Certainly, it's the position of the
14 Prosecution that the addenda do not cause any prejudice to the Defence.
15 So this is how we would like to initially respond.
16 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Agha.
17 Yes, Mr. Borovic?
18 MR. BOROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. Well, it's
19 quite obvious that my learned friend is not familiar with what I have been
20 talking about. The witness that I referred to, P-006, was not the last
21 witness to be heard, the witness we heard yesterday. I wouldn't like to
22 go any further into that because that is not the case in point.
23 The problem, however, is much more serious. The Chamber has heard
24 the Defence examine the first two witnesses, Vesna Bosanac and Binazija
25 Kolesar. We had no addenda for those two witnesses but, thanks to the
1 understanding of this Trial Chamber, we were given an opportunity to show
2 them statements that they had given the OTP, or statements they made to
3 other courts in other jurisdictions where they appeared as witnesses in
4 relation to this same case. After those cross-examinations, it became
5 patently clear that it was precisely those dates that those witnesses
6 spoke about were material and that there were contradictions in their
7 testimonies. And then we have a massive influx of addenda for the two
8 following witnesses, which clearly indicates that a method was used that
9 is not allowed. It is simply something that is not allowed. A witness is
10 being encouraged to give false testimony, and I do not necessarily specify
11 by whom. Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Lukic?
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly, Your Honour.
14 Our friend from the OTP has just confirmed that material matters
15 were clarified by these addenda. That was said on page 64, line 9.
16 That's precisely what causes us concern. It seems to have been a practice
17 for years. We are given witness statements and over time we prepare for a
18 trial with the help of our investigators. We make assessments of these
19 statements and we prepare our Defence. Sometimes on the very day a
20 witness arrives or one or two days previously to the arrival of a witness,
21 essential and material things are changed. If this continues, we may also
22 rip up the statements that we were given dated ten years ago. I can't
23 accept the fact that the witnesses are only shown those old statements
24 once they are here. All the witnesses confirmed that they saw and signed
25 the statements back then. Why is it that now, ten years later, these
1 witnesses are changed in their essential aspects? I think this is a
2 violation of the Statute Rule 21; specifically, we are not given
3 sufficient time to prepare our defence properly and adequately. This is
4 what causes us concern. Nothing else.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Vasic?
6 MR. VASIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 I would just like to add something to what my colleagues have
8 said, something in relation to the concern that we feel. All the
9 protected witnesses had some addenda and there appears to be an addendum
10 in relation to the next witness. This seems to be the established
11 practice now, that when a witness is brought before the Court, corrections
12 and amendments are made to statements that they gave ten years ago. I
13 would like to give a reply to my learned friend concerning one particular
14 aspect, namely the assumption that these changes are necessary in relation
15 to the way in which the statements were taken. The way the statements
16 were taken was the same in 1995, 1998 and today. The same method is
17 applied when obtaining witness statements by the OTP throughout. We all
18 know that full well. The statement is taken from a witness with the help
19 of an interpreter, the statement is it then read back to the witness in
20 their mother tongue and they then confirm the authenticity of the
21 statement with their own signature.
22 The interpreter, too, signs the statement to confirm that they
23 have interpreted the statement and that the witness accepted the statement
24 as their own.
25 Therefore, as far as the Defence teams are concerned, I don't
1 believe there are any doubts concerning the accuracy of the interpretation
2 or that the witness in fact stated what the statement reflects. But the
3 practice that we have now is a new one at the Tribunal or at least one
4 that I haven't encountered before although I've already been involved with
5 three different trials or cases before this Tribunal. I'm afraid that the
6 way it has been presented to us, this method might constitute a serious
7 violation of Article 21 of the Statute as well as the rights of the
8 Accused. Thank you.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you.
10 [Trial chamber confers]
11 JUDGE PARKER: Some issues of significant concern to the Defence
12 have been raised, arising from the provision to them of addenda to earlier
13 statements made by witnesses that are called by the Prosecution. These
14 addenda indicating that the witness takes a different position about some
15 matter that is recorded in the earlier statement. The addenda may also
16 identify some change the witness wishes to make to evidence given
17 previously in another trial in this Tribunal.
18 The Prosecution -- the Defence is concerned, first, that this may
19 give rise to an infringement of Article 21; that is, that they have not
20 been given adequate time to consider the new factual version and also that
21 there may be seen to be in what is occurring some encouragement to
22 witnesses by the Prosecution to change their previous evidence in some
23 material respects.
24 There is no doubt that the Defence of each Accused is entitled to
25 have adequate time to prepare their defence, and for this purpose, the
1 Prosecution is required to give them notice of a variety of matters that
2 are set out in the rules, and in particular, to provide notice of the
3 evidence that the Prosecution intends to lead from a witness.
4 In this case, which is fairly typical of cases before this
5 Tribunal, statements were taken many years ago from witnesses. So far in
6 this case, I think in each case, statements were first taken in 1995, ten
7 years ago. For some of the witnesses, they also gave evidence in another
8 trial in 1998. The concern of the Defence is that the addenda provided to
9 them shortly before the witness came into court to give evidence had
10 notified changes to the statement given in 1995 by that witness or perhaps
11 to evidence given in 1998 in the other trial.
12 There, in each case so far, has been no question that the witness,
13 in 1995, signed the statement and accepted it then as true. And in 1998,
14 the witness gave evidence on oath and that evidence is recorded in the
16 What has happened in each case is that the witness, having arrived
17 here in The Hague some days before now giving evidence in this trial, a
18 number of matters have been identified by that witness in which the
19 witness considers what is in the previous statement or in the witness's
20 previous evidence is not what the witness presently understands the truth
21 to be. Clearly, if that witness is now called by the Prosecution to give
22 evidence on oath, the witness will give evidence according to what that
23 witness now understands the truth to be. The witness's memory of events
24 may have changed in the intervening years. The witness may have come to
25 understand things differently, having heard something different from some
1 other source. There can be a number of reasons why a witness now has an
2 understanding of a fact which is different from that which the witness had
3 in 1995 or 1998 or at some other years, perhaps more recent.
4 Where a witness gives evidence on oath which is different from
5 what the witness said earlier in a statement or said earlier on oath in
6 this Tribunal or in some other court, then that is a basis upon which the
7 Defence may, first, cross-examine the witness to emphasise the change in
8 story, and, the more significant the change, the more material the point
9 that's changed, of course, the more significant this change may be to the
10 credibility of that witness. Secondly, the witness may be cross-examined
11 as to why they have changed, what -- whether has been some external force,
12 somebody has given them some new story, they have read a book, they have
13 done a number of things. In this case, there has been cross-examination
14 along that line and cross-examination as to whether there has been a
15 suggestion to them by the Prosecution that they should change some matter.
16 Where there is a change from a previous signed statement or
17 previous sworn evidence, very clearly this Chamber has to weigh whether
18 that takes away from the credibility of that witness, whether that
19 demonstrates that the witness is now mistaken, or perhaps telling a false
20 story, or perhaps it may indicate that a statement made earlier was false.
21 But those questions of credibility and why the changes were made are
22 issues which must be considered and faced by this Chamber. And that is
23 why it is so important that the Defence be able to cross-examine about
24 those changes to assist the Chamber to understand how and why it occurred,
25 and to determine whether or not there is something suspect about the
1 change of story such that the Chamber is not now prepared to accept the
2 evidence given by the witness on this point.
3 Where a witness indicates to a party calling that witness that
4 they propose to change the evidence they have previously given or a
5 statement they previously made on a material point, if that statement or
6 that evidence is known to the other side, it is proper that notice be
7 given to the other side of the change. In the case of the Prosecution,
8 there is a duty on the Prosecution to inform the Defence immediately that
9 a witness indicates that there is some material difference in what the
10 witness now proposes to give in evidence from what may have been said in
11 an earlier statement or in earlier evidence. One of the reasons, and a
12 very important reason for that requirement on the Prosecution to notify
13 immediately is to enable the Defence to prepare their cross-examination,
14 and, if necessary, to investigate the new version of facts before they
16 The purpose of the addenda is therefore to give to the Defence
17 notice of material changes. The fact that there are material changes
18 gives rise to questions of credit for the Chamber to consider and
19 determine. Because of their potential importance, the Defence must have
20 adequate opportunity to investigate and prepare to deal with the changes
21 as well as the earlier version in the statement or the evidence.
22 The circumstances in which this Tribunal sits does mean that there
23 will inevitably be occasions when a witness, having arrived here, will
24 indicate that their present understanding of material facts differs in
25 some respect from what they may have said earlier. In each of the trials
1 that this Chamber has been involved, that has occurred, and addenda have
2 been provided to give the Defence notice. The circumstances are not
3 normally surprising to find that there may have been some change or that
4 some correction is desired. Whether there is something more significant
5 or sinister about the change is something to be determined after the issue
6 has been tested in cross-examination, and in light of all the other
7 evidence given in the case.
8 It is clearly potentially a difficulty for the Defence if that
9 notice of any change is given at the last moment. Because of that, this
10 Chamber would reiterate what it has said in the past to the Office of the
11 Prosecutor in other trials; that is, that every effort should be made to
12 identify such changes at a time which enables the Defence to be given
13 adequate time to investigate and prepare to deal with the change.
14 There are times when the issues are relatively straightforward and
15 Defence counsel are able to deal with them almost on the spot without any
16 difficulty or injustice. There are other times where the change is of
17 such significance, perhaps it raises some entirely new version of fact,
18 which does require further investigation. When that occurs, this Chamber
19 certainly holds the view that it would enable a delay, allow a delay in
20 the cross-examination, so that the Defence has time necessary to deal with
21 the change. That can either be by deferring the whole cross-examination
22 or by deferring cross-examination on that change, whichever is the most
23 practical as each case occurs.
24 That is done to ensure that the Defence has been given proper time
25 to consider a material change and in an appropriate case to investigate
1 the new story.
2 By those means, this Chamber will, in this trial, ensure that the
3 Defence is not unfairly embarrassed by late changes. To avoid that
4 becoming a constant source of difficulty in the progress of the trial, as
5 I have indicated, the Prosecution should do what is possible to ensure
6 that changes are notified in adequate time, and clearly a day or two
7 before, for serious changes, is unlikely to be an adequate time.
8 For those reasons, in the assessment of the Chamber, it is to be
9 anticipated that there may well be further addenda. It has been this
10 Chamber's experience that they have occurred in every trial they have been
11 involved in. But by the means indicated, the Chamber will also ensure,
12 case by case, issue by issue, that the Defence is not improperly
13 disadvantaged so that the trial will be conducted, in the end, fairly.
14 The only other matter which I think should be mentioned is that in
15 the circumstances that have occurred so far, the Chamber sees no reason
16 for present concern that there has been any active course of conduct to
17 encourage a witness to change their present understanding of the relevant
18 facts. The Chamber naturally is alert to that, as the Defence naturally
19 will be. But at the moment, the circumstances appear to the Chamber to be
20 explicable by the ordinary fallibility of human recollection, or in at
21 least one case, by the witness having gained additional knowledge, in
22 particular by reading a book. So that we don't at the moment, as a
23 Chamber, have any concern that there has been some conduct of that nature.
24 We will continue to be vigilant to see whether anything of that nature
25 should appear.
1 I think I have said enough to indicate the Chamber's position
2 about the objection. We understand that it is a matter that may well be
3 of very serious concern to the Defence, and it is proper that it has been
4 raised at this early stage and we hope that what we have said will calm
5 concerns of the Defence that this could lead to great difficulty for them
6 and we also hope that it is understood by the Prosecution that we will be
7 alert to any undue lateness in notifications of changes of this nature and
8 that inconvenience that flows from that will have to be suffered by the
9 Prosecution, if that should occur. So with those words, we would indicate
10 that we don't presently see reason for any other action.
11 We have gone over time so we now must adjourn without calling the
12 next witness. We will resume tomorrow at 9.00 in the morning.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.58 p.m., to
14 be reconvened on Wednesday, the 9th day of November,
15 2005, at 9.00 a.m.