1 Tuesday, 13 November 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is case number IT-98-34-T,
8 the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Thank
12 WITNESS: FRANCISCO AGUIRRE [Resumed]
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Krsnik: [Continued]
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness, dear colleague. I have a
15 few more documents to look at briefly. I think that I have a few
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] And let's just say that document
18 P475.1 and document P629.1 and P740.1 are missing from these binders,
19 although they are on this list, on this summary. However, we haven't
20 received them so we just wish to draw the attention of the Honourable
21 Trial Chamber to that as well. You probably haven't received copies of
22 these documents either. So I'm not going to put any questions regarding
23 those documents. Let us start with document 241 -- actually, I assume it
24 is document 241, but it's in binder number 3. Oh, sorry, I didn't realise
25 you haven't got it yet. Armed conflict number 3. And it has to do with
1 Exhibit 886.
2 Madam Registrar, it has to do with 886, that binder.
3 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry, we don't have it at this moment.
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I don't think it has anything to do
5 with the third binder. It should be in the chronological binders. It's
6 simply 886 in the binder, in the 17 binders that --
7 JUDGE LIU: Oh, yes.
8 MR. SCOTT: It has nothing to do with volume 3.
9 JUDGE LIU: Do you mean the list, the list of those documents in
10 volume 3?
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have the documents in
12 a logical sequence, according to 886, and I have a separate binder, and I
13 thought that you did too.
14 Q. Witness, I think we are going to have some difficulties now. This
15 is document P241.1. I don't know which binder this is in now. Yes. It's
16 from those 17.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Madam Registrar, let me make it
18 easier for you.
19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, it should be -- I don't think it's up
20 to the Prosecution to find the documents for the Defence, but they are in
21 binder number 6. It's in binder number 6, 241.1, and it is in my binder.
22 I'm looking at it right now.
23 JUDGE LIU: In my binders, I only have 241 rather than 241.1.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my document is marked
25 241 as well. There is no .1.
1 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Line 13 on page 2, counsel
2 specifically said 241.1, so that's what I was responding to.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Distinguished colleague, I think that
4 it is some kind of a misunderstanding. I only talked about the documents
5 that were missing. Those documents had .1. But this particular document
6 is only 241. And the first documents that I mentioned, the three
7 documents that are missing that were put forth by you all have a .1 at the
9 Q. Witness, I don't know whether you have these documents in front of
10 you. Yes, you will be getting them. All right.
11 Witness, I have just one question with regard to this. How is it
12 possible to do the translation on the basis of this copy? Because in the
13 Croat original, you absolutely cannot see a thing, absolutely nothing.
14 This is the -- a copy of the Croatian original that I have. Absolutely
16 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, first of all, that's not an appropriate
18 question for this witness. The witness didn't provide the translation.
19 If counsel has a problem with the copy, he could have asked me for an
20 additional copy. These documents were provided some time ago. If counsel
21 had approached me and asked for a better copy, we would have certainly
22 sought to do that. So if counsel wants to complain to me about the copy
23 he was provided, I am happy to have him do so. I'm happy to respond. But
24 it's not a question for this witness, Your Honour. I object.
25 JUDGE LIU: I agree with you, but we also share the same problem
1 with Defence counsel. We have three pages attached following the
2 document, and the one page is quite illegible, and the other two are just
3 blank paper.
4 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I take the Chamber's comment as a
5 request, and I will respond to it as soon as possible.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I assume that none of my
8 questions are right from the point of view of the Prosecution, but I would
9 like to say the following to my learned friend. We got this abundance of
10 documents, and we requested extra time to look at them, and I did not know
11 what would be tendered into evidence. And I did not, therefore, know what
12 I should note and what I should not, and that's why I think that these
13 remarks were inappropriate. It is totally illegible.
14 I have no questions with regard to this document because I have no
15 idea what it's about and I cannot match it to the original, so then I'm
16 just going to move on to the next document, 364.
17 Q. We have two questions in this regard. What's the source of this
18 document? Does it belong to milinfo 005 or something else? There is no
19 signature; we can't really see anything. And on the last page, this
20 military unit, what does this belong to?
21 A. Yes, sir, I understand. This is a document -- sorry -- of the
22 same kind that we discussed yesterday, and I will -- all what I can tell
23 is what I already said yesterday. We discussed a similar document also
24 produced by BritBat. So the information available to me is that this was
25 submitted by the British forces, that this seems to be an internal report,
1 and that is why it doesn't have signature or stamp. I can tell you that
2 milinfo is the general denomination for these kind of reports produced by
3 the British battalion, milinfosum, as you can see. PWO is one of the
4 names of such British battalions, the same as yesterday we saw the
5 Cheshire denomination. Here, this is -- I believe it's Prince of Wales.
6 I don't know what the O stands for, but that was the name of such
8 I believe that this is an acceptable document because we have
9 interviewed a significant number of officers of the British battalion from
10 the commanders, the top commanders of the battalion, to the liaison
11 officers, intelligence officers, and -- well, I would say a number of
12 officers involved in the production of such reports; and our experience is
13 that they are objective sources, that they reported objectively and that
14 the reports are credible.
15 Q. I still have not understood whether this report belongs to milinfo
17 A. Well, you can see in the heading. It says, "milinfo 006," right?
18 Q. Yes. But now look at the other page, the last sentence, [In
19 English] "... to milinfo 005."
20 A. Right. Well, I believe that the logical explanation for this is
21 that they missed -- they eventually forgot to attach this to the previous
22 report and they are attaching it to the next one, to number 6. That's
23 what it says here, "The missing annex to milinfo 005 is contained as an
24 annex to this report." That's what I understand.
25 Q. My understanding was different, that this drawing on the other
1 page is an annex to 005. Now, tell me, what does this drawing pertain to,
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
4 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I object. Again we are having comments
5 and argument by counsel. The document speaks for itself. The witness has
6 already answered. He simply read what it says on the bottom of page 2,
7 and then we just, again, have this continuing series of arguments with the
8 witness. I object.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not arguing at
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, we also want to know what this means
12 and how it's attached to this document. We would like to hear the
13 explanations from this witness, if he knows.
14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I have absolutely no objection to the
15 witness providing as much insight on the attachment of the 303 Brdska
16 Brigada if that can assist the Chamber. In terms of how it became
17 attached to the -- this particular milinfosum, I'm at a loss to any
18 mystery in the courtroom. The document says quite clearly on the bottom
19 of page 2 why it's attached to the document. I don't see any mystery
20 about that.
21 JUDGE LIU: Let's hear what the witness is going to tell us.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. There is no controversy on
23 this. We agree. There seems to be a drawing that should have been
24 attached to milinfo number 5, but for some, I understand, I guess - I can
25 only guess - some human mistake, it ended up added to the next report, to
1 the report number 6. That is what the document itself says. As far as I
2 can see, actually, report 6 does not refer to this unit. Most likely,
3 report 5 would contain some information related to this unit. I am not
4 familiar with this unit. I cannot assist you much with this. I can see
5 here that here it says, in the original, in Bosnian language, 3rd Corps,
6 which is certainly a denomination of the army of the Republic of Bosnia
7 and Herzegovina. 3rd Corps, I believe, was the corps deployed in Central
8 Bosnia. That is as much as I can tell you. Most likely this refers to
9 certainly a Bosnian unit from Central Bosnia.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Have I understood you correctly, then, that this other page of
12 this document, together with this drawing, comprises a single entity and
13 has nothing to do with page 1 of that document?
14 A. Well, that is my understanding, following what the document states
15 at the bottom of page 2.
16 Q. Thank you very much, Witness.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I beg your pardon, Your Honour, if
18 you have --
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I wonder whether you could assist the
20 Chamber. We found that those British government documents are very
21 peculiar. We need some corroboration concerning those documents. Are you
22 going to call some more witnesses of the British army, or are you going to
23 provide us more documents to support those documents you tendered?
24 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm glad you asked that question. I'm
25 glad to have the opportunities to address this because I was thinking
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 about this this morning. Your Honour, the uncontradicted state of the
2 testimony right now, the only evidence in this case -- the only evidence
3 in this case is the uncontradicted testimony of this witness that these
4 documents were provided by the British government. That's not contested.
5 We agree it doesn't say -- doesn't have a signature, doesn't have a stamp,
6 for the reasons this witness has already explained. That's also
7 uncontradicted. So I'm at a bit of a loss as to what more we can do on
8 that. If someone questions that it didn't really come from the British
9 government, I will be happy to contact the British government and have a
10 witness come from the British government who can say, "These are our
11 documents," if that's the Chamber's concern.
12 But, Mr. President, we know the Office of the Prosecutor has an
13 extensive record-keeping system. What this witness did, and what he has
14 said several times now since he began testifying last week, that we can go
15 to our records, we can go, we look up this number, 00274020, we go back in
16 our records, we can find when it was provided, where it was provided
17 from. It came from the British government. That's uncontradicted. That
18 is the state of the evidence in this case. There is no reason,
19 respectfully, to question that. Until counsel raises some question, puts
20 that assertion in doubt - there has not been one, I submit - then the
21 state of the evidence is this is a document provided by the British
22 government. If the Chamber wants me to provide additional information, I
23 will certainly do that. I will certainly follow the Court's direction,
24 obviously. This is -- there is a large volume of these documents that
25 have been provided in the Central Bosnian cases, probably by the hundreds,
1 in the Kordic case, in the Blaskic case, just like the Spanish battalion
2 did INTREPS and INTSUMS, the British army calls this similar document,
3 their daily reports, a milinfosum which is an abbreviation for "military
4 information summary."
5 This particular brigade, which had its tour of duty in Central
6 Bosnia in the first six months, approximately, of 1993 was the Prince of
7 Wales Own. Just like the Canarias Group and just like the Malaga Task
8 Force, they were a British army battalion that was assigned peacekeeping
9 duties in Central Bosnia. They made daily reports. They didn't sign
10 their reports. They made them just like this, and they were admitted by
11 the hundreds in the Kordic and Cerkez case and in the Kordic case --
12 excuse me, in the Blaskic case, and in a number of other -- and in
13 Kupreskic, and in virtually every Central Bosnia case. So that -- I can
14 provide the Chamber with that additional information. If the Chamber
15 wishes me to call a representative of the British government, I will only
16 be happy to do so.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. In fairness to the Defence
18 counsel, and in the interests of justice, we will require you to provide
19 us any additional information concerning those documents. And if
20 possible, you may call a witness from the British army.
21 Yes, Mr. Krsnik, you may proceed.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
23 Q. Now I would like to move on to Document P419. Witness, before
24 that, can I ask you whether you wrote this summary or -- these summaries
25 or, rather, do you know who wrote them, these summaries accompanying the
1 exhibits? Have you written that?
2 A. No, sir, I have not.
3 Q. I'm asking you because with regard to this particular document -
4 and there are several such documents - somebody has been claiming that
5 this is somebody's signature, and it has nothing to do with the document
6 actually. So I hope you understand why I asked you this. And on the
7 other hand, it has been tendered.
8 For example, this Document 429, it says that it was -- I'm sorry,
9 made a mistake. This is Document 419, that it was signed by Zeljko
10 Bosnjak. And now, please look at the Croat original and look at the
11 signature. Of course, all of us coming from the Croatian area, first of
12 all, see that somebody signed this paper for him, and that the signature
13 certainly does not correspond to Zeljko Bosnjak. We will have other such
14 problems, too, however, since this was tendered, I am a bit concerned.
15 So could you please look at the Croatian original. And at first
16 glance, does this look like the signature? Of course, you're not a
17 signature expert. I'm not going to tire you with this much longer, but I
18 think this is quite evident, isn't it?
19 A. Yes, sir, I can agree with this. It is actually not necessary to
20 look at the original because that shows in the translation as well. The
21 translation says "For Zeljko Bosnjak," meaning that someone else signed
22 for that.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note that we haven't got any of
24 these documents, and it's very difficult to work that way.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. I don't think that there is no
2 misunderstanding really. This is what it says in P886, and it coincides
3 with the document. I just hope that there is no misunderstanding between
4 us. That's what I'm trying to say.
5 And my next question is --
6 A. Let me qualify. Normally, this may happen, this actually happens
7 in many documents. It's a normal occurrence in any organisation. We
8 normally explain these, making a distinction between type-signed and hand
9 signed. So it can be also said or explained this, that the document was
10 type-signed by Zeljko Bosnjak, because you can see that his name is
11 typewritten, but this is a minor qualification. Essentially, I can agree
12 with you, yes.
13 Q. And my next question, how did you conclude that this is the stamp
14 of the Convicts Battalion? Because in the original that I have, you can't
15 see what the stamp says at all, or whether it says the Convicts Battalion
16 stamp at all.
17 A. Well, sir, in the copy that I have, I can't see Convicts Battalion
18 written. I can see Department of Defence, right, and Convicts Battalion
19 is mentioned in the body of the text as well as in the signature.
20 Q. We can read the text. We can read that the commander of the
21 Convicts Battalion - all of this is typed, without the signature - is
22 Zeljko Bosnjak. What I was asking about, however, is the stamp.
23 A. The answer is that, indeed, the stamp is partly illegible, almost
24 totally illegible.
25 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. Let us move on to the next
1 document, 429. I think it follows the sequence.
2 A. [Previous translation continues] ... qualification to understand
3 how this goes. The documents that you see with the ERN number, they are
4 all kept in a CD format. When we want to retrieve a document, we have to
5 print it from a CD, from a compact disk, and then we have to make a
6 photocopy. So in the process of copying or reproducing, the quality may
8 What happens in many cases - this may be the case in other cases -
9 is that the original is sufficiently good to read it and to translate it.
10 But in some copies, it deteriorated and, in fact, you cannot read that.
11 In many cases that can be solved, making an effort to print a better copy,
12 to provide with a better copy. That's a technical problem that in most of
13 the cases can be solved.
14 Q. I agree with you, you know, but this is being tendered as
15 evidence; and if you have the originals, why aren't they put in a special
16 separate binder so that we can have a look at them? That's why I'm asking
17 these questions of you.
18 MR. SCOTT: Once again, Your Honour, that is --
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
20 MR. SCOTT: Once again, that is not a question for the witness.
21 If Mr. Krsnik would like to contact me out of court, I would be happy to
22 discuss these matters with him.
23 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, I think all those questions could be
24 solved outside this courtroom. We should make the best use of time
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. However, I
2 absolutely disagree with my learned friend from the Prosecution. He is
3 now inviting me to cooperate regarding the documents that he is tendering
4 and on which we spent weeks of work and which are about to be admitted
5 which are also outside of my control. And when I'm pointing out the
6 deficiencies in these documents, he is inviting me to cooperate better.
7 It's not as if he has given us enough time to prepare in advance. This is
8 not an early stage of study of these documents.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you have to know that this witness - he,
10 himself - did not prepare those binders. The question you asked is why
11 aren't they put in a special separate binder so we could have a look at
12 them. I think preparing the binders is the job of the Prosecutor, rather
13 than this witness.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I agree. I agree absolutely, Your
15 Honour. But look, why is something being claimed here that cannot be seen
16 from the document? It doesn't follow from the document. On Exhibit P886,
17 certain claims are made and are also tendered as evidence, and we don't
18 have a document that confirms that.
19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.
20 MR. SCOTT: Well, once again, Mr. President, counsel just said a
21 moment ago that they have been working on these documents for some weeks.
22 That was counsel's own words. I would have been only too happy if he had
23 contacted me in the past two weeks to obtain a better copy. I object to
24 the procedure by which counsel works with the documents for weeks, doesn't
25 approach me for a better copy, and then sits and makes an objection and
1 cross-examines the witness on a matter that isn't even the witness's
2 responsibility for. Again, as I indicated earlier, if counsel would like
3 to contact me, I will make arrangements to provide better copy. Thank
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we agree with you.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Then, Your Honour, I have a different
7 proposal. I will ask, since this witness is employed here in the Tribunal
8 in the Office of the Prosecutor, we need a day or two to make a list of
9 all the bad copies, and we'll make this list available to the Prosecutor
10 so that he can provide us with a better copy or with originals, and then
11 our cross-examination will make more sense, if that is indeed so, and if
12 Mr. Prosecutor really has better copies.
13 And the witness is here. He is always available, if I understood
14 correctly. Because we have a lot of such documents. We will ask to be
15 provided with better copies from the Prosecution for our own sake and for
16 the sake of the Trial Chamber as well, of course. And then we'll proceed
17 with cross-examination. Otherwise, we will be engaging in an exercise in
18 futility. The logical thing to do would be to stop this now and ask for
19 better copies.
20 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, I'm surprised to hear what you are saying
21 to us. We had this witness last Wednesday, and we had two days for you to
22 prepare your cross-examination. And you are not in the position to make
23 this kind of request because you had those documents long before your
24 cross-examination, and some even could date back before this trial. So
25 you still need two days for this witness to be under the oath, and you
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 come back to cross-examine this witness. I'm very surprised to hear
3 Mr. Scott.
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I simply want to note for the record --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: I simply want to note for the record my direct
7 examination, 55 minutes. The cross-examination has now gone on for more
8 than five hours, after this witness being specifically adjourned so
9 counsel could prepare from last Wednesday. And now it is almost a week
10 later. There has been ample opportunity for counsel to prepare. And as
11 Mr. President just noted, many of these documents have been possessed by
12 counsel since December 2000. Thank you.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, can I ask you a question. Am I correct
14 in assuming that very few of these documents exist in the office of the
15 OTP in their original form?
16 MR. SCOTT: Correct, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE CLARK: In fact, that you have received copies from
18 verifiable sources.
19 MR. SCOTT: In the vast majority of instances, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE CLARK: Is there a possibility that some of the original
21 copies which you received from the various sources - and there are many
22 sources - are, in fact, not very clear?
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, absolutely, Your Honour. It's true. It's
24 absolutely true. There are some that the quality is poor. For instance,
25 to give the Court an example, and you may be able to relate to this in
1 your own experience, some of these old type of fax material with the
2 pages, the print tends to fade over time. That's one example. So it is
3 true, Your Honour. Some of the documents, even the best copy available to
4 the OTP as provided by the various sources, in some instances, the copy is
5 quite poor.
6 However, as the witness said a moment ago, there are often many
7 instances where if one goes to what we call the original, which is a bit
8 of a misnomer, the original copy, if we can use that terminology, if we go
9 to the original copy, it is very often the case that a much better copy or
10 document can be obtained, and we have done that on many occasions. And
11 again, if the Chamber wishes, would like some additional specific
12 documents to be pursued, we're happy to do that. Obviously, we produced a
13 large volume of documents in this case. We have tried to exercise some
14 quality control.
15 Obviously, we haven't done it perfectly. There is a huge volume
16 of papers, as everyone knows. But if the Chamber has particular documents
17 it would like us to pursue, obviously we are only too happy to do so.
18 JUDGE CLARK: My query was really to see how we can resolve the
19 problem of Mr. Krsnik examining documents in their original form until it
20 occurred to me that you don't have any originals. The Spanish army or the
21 British army or United Nations or indeed the Bosnian government would have
22 the originals, so there is no possibility of offering Mr. Krsnik an
23 opportunity to examine.
24 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour Judge Clark, you're right, there are a few
25 -- I don't want to mislead the Chamber. There are a few instances where,
1 for whatever reason, we have actually obtained some original documents,
2 but the vast majority of the collection is the original -- first
3 generation copy, if I can say it that way.
4 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Document 429, please.
7 Q. My first question is: How was this document obtained from the BH
8 government? That is, which institution in the BH government, which
9 agency, was the source of this document? If you know that, of course.
10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. Is it part of your practice to have documents which do not have a
12 delivery number, your own reference number?
13 A. [Previous translation continues]...
14 Q. These are so-called admission stamps, stamps confirming admission
15 of a certain document, or a number under which the certain document is
16 logged in the book of documents received. This number is -- exists on
17 number documents. It doesn't exist on others. I'm asking: Have you come
18 across such documents which lack this number, in the course of your work?
19 A. Sir, I don't know if this has been explained before. I mentioned
20 before the ERN number, which you can see in every piece of evidence. This
21 is an individual number for every page of evidence. You can see that in
22 the translations as well as in the originals. For example --
23 Q. No, no, no. That's not what we are talking about. I'm not asking
24 about the ERN number. I'm asking about the admission stamp made by this
25 unit, affixed by this unit, here on the document, and it's called, "A list
1 of soldiers of the Convicts Battalion who should receive apartments."
2 A. Yes. The original stamp? Which stamp, sorry?
3 Q. Here, in this spot, there should be a stamp confirming admission
4 with a number under which this document is filed in the unit. I'll show
5 you another document to clarify what I mean. Exhibit 492 --
6 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, again, we have counsel testifying. There
7 is no evidence in the record of what the normal HVO document practices
8 were, and simply counsel's assertion. If he wants to call witnesses to
9 that effect, he can do so, but he's simply asserting facts that are not in
11 JUDGE LIU: Would you please clear it up, Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's precisely what
13 I'm trying to do. I'm giving an example. For instance, document 492, it
14 has in the heading, number 0021, followed by a certain text of the
15 letterhead, and that's what I'm asking.
16 Q. You are testifying to the foundation for documents, and I'm asking
17 you why is there no admission number on this document?
18 A. Yes, sir; I can explain.
19 MR. SCOTT: That's the point. How can he address that? How can
20 he say why some HVO document clerk did not put a document -- put that on
21 this number? How can this witness say that? He can say -- we can all
22 read the document and say, "I look at it now. I don't see that on the
23 document." Now, the witness can do that, but he can't say why some office
24 -- some officer, presumably some junior officer, of the Convicts
25 Battalion, or clerk who made this list, he can't say why he didn't put
1 this number on this particular document.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] The witness was just about to give me
3 an explanation. I really don't understand the anger of my learned friend
4 from the Prosecution, because the witness said he had been studying
5 documents from the archives, from all the other sources, that he had dealt
6 with these documents, that he's familiar with them. And he's a witness
7 for the Prosecution. He's here to clarify it for us and for you. I don't
8 know who else to ask. And I believe that the witness has just started
9 giving his answer.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you have to understand the Chamber
11 is also not very familiar with the format of those documents. And we
12 believe that there is some reasonings behind the objections from the
13 Prosecutor, but in this case, if the witness would like to answer the
14 question, let him to answer your question, if he knows the answer.
15 Yes, Witness?
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. There are several points of
17 interest for this Chamber in connection to this document. This document
18 was submitted, was given to us, by the Bosnian authorities. Normally, it
19 is often the case that these documents come from seizures that the Bosnian
20 army did during the war. I believe that this is the case. As you may
21 know, the Bosnian army seized the northern barracks of the HVO on the 30th
22 of June of 1993, and they had the opportunity to seize some documents, the
23 northern barracks as well as the area of Bijelo Polje, and that's how they
24 could take -- they could seize documents of the 1st Battalion of the 2nd
25 Brigade, which is the unit that was deployed in that particular area.
1 That is the logical explanation for that.
2 And that is the same case for some documents given to us by the
3 Bosnian authorities from Doljani. In the same way, the Bosnian army
4 managed to capture documents in Doljani. I believe that that happened in
5 July 1993. And they delivered to us copies of those documents. That is
6 how we have documents from those particular units and not from other units
7 given by the Bosnian authorities. These we have been able to establish
8 with the discussions and with the process of verification the authenticity
9 of the documents.
10 More. HVO units, normally, as were you saying, there was some
11 truth in what you were saying; normally they do have a registration
12 number. I was confused because you were referring to the stamp, which is
13 something else. But there is such a, we can say, registration number or a
14 serial number, so that the documents are registered in a logbook or in a
15 registry book. That is a common procedure. So, as you were rightly
16 saying, that is the case normally - not always, but normally - that is the
17 regular procedure for documents issued by the main staff of the HVO. And
18 that is how I could tell you yesterday that that was in fact a document of
19 the main staff, because I could recognise the numbering system.
20 As for the main staff of the HVO, we have also the logbooks, the
21 registry books. So that's why I'm certain -- that's why I conclude that
22 the document of the main staff that was presented yesterday is an
23 authentic one. I have checked that against the registry book, against the
24 logbook, and I have seen the entry. The entry says the number, the date,
25 and the addressee of the document. This can be checked. This is -- if
1 Trial Chamber finds this of interest, this can be checked against the
2 logbook, the original logbooks. We don't have all of them, unfortunately,
3 but we have a number of them.
4 Let me tell you, this information is all available in the indexes
5 of the state archive of Croatia. You can see the indexes. The staff of
6 the Croatia archive has done a very professional job, very good job, and
7 in the index you can find the logbooks, you can go to the logbook and you
8 can verify yourselves if the logbook matches with the document itself.
9 That is the regular procedure, that is right. Nevertheless, in
10 the HVO, like in any other organisation, there were anomalies. Some
11 subcommanders were not complying with such a duty, or the clerks or
12 whoever was in charge of such duty would neglect it, and there is the case
13 in which some documents do not have such registration number. I believe
14 that's the reality. That's what happened.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Thank you very much for this explanation. And precisely for the
17 sake of finding out what the reality is, I would like to ask you to look
18 at this Croatian original. Is it a draft document? Is it a memo? Is it
19 a completed document? Is it an effective HVO document? Because, you see,
20 there is something crossed out here. And my last question: Could it be
21 someone's forgery? For instance, a soldier who wanted to receive an
22 apartment could have put his name on the list and forged his signature.
23 That's precisely what I was going to ask you, and thank you for your
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. SCOTT: Again, Your Honour, as with yesterday afternoon, we
2 are back to asking for pure speculation. I object.
3 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, do you have any evidence to show this
4 document is a forged document? You may ask the questions about
5 authenticity of these documents but not come to the conclusions before
6 your question.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Witness, can you claim with certainty that this document is not a
9 forgery? Do you have evidence to prove it is not?
10 A. I cannot claim that with absolute certitude. That very rarely is
11 the case. I think that most likely this is an authentic document. I
12 believe so.
13 Q. Thank you very much, Witness. We can move on.
14 MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, Your Honour, so there is no
15 confusion on this point, absolute certainty is not the standard of
16 admission in this Tribunal, as I'm sure the Chamber will know from the
17 Rules of Evidence. It's up to the Chamber to decide, in the totality of
18 the circumstances, ultimately, what has probative value and what weight to
19 assign, but there is no requirement that any document be authenticated
20 with what counsel said, absolute certainty.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for reminding us of this point.
22 Mr. Krsnik, you may proceed.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour. If
24 I may, please, have the document 565.
25 Q. Witness, may I ask you first how this document came into your
1 possession, if you know that?
2 A. Yes. This is stated in the list, in the schedule that you
3 received. This was given to us by the Bosnian authorities.
4 Q. I see in the left-hand top corner the fax number. Is that a
5 facsimile number, 15th August, 1993? The time is indicated as well.
6 A. Yes, that seems to be a fax number.
7 Q. And you see on the right-hand side, there is a page number. The
8 first page is missing. You see P2, P3, P4. Then pages 5 and 6 are
9 missing. And we have page 7. Do you know where the other pages are in
10 order to have a complete document? Because it's for trial purposes. At
11 least, that's -- it's a legal document; at least, that's what we
13 A. I would like to take a brief look on the original, please.
14 Q. [In English] Yes, yes.
15 A. Well, sir, by the numbering of the pages, I believe there is no
16 page missing here. You can see at the top right side that you have two
17 numbering systems. I don't know if you can -- can you follow this?
18 Q. Mm-hmm.
19 A. You have one numbering series, which starts with P, P.2, and it
20 follows. And then you have the other one, which is the normal one for fax
21 transmissions, with a symbol and then 004. If you follow the 2 numbering
22 series, I think that you can conclude that these four pages follow one
23 next to the other, and I believe that the document is complete as such.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Distinguished colleague, I see there are -- I
25 said there are pages 2, 3, and 4, and then 5 and 6 are missing. But this
1 is a legal document, a legal act, something that we are familiar with.
2 And then follows an explanation of three or four sentences, and then the
3 last page 007, so the pages 005 and 006 must be missing. Tell me only if
4 you know. If you don't, it doesn't matter.
5 Tell me, please, do you --
6 A. Sir, you're making a statement. If the question is if I agree
7 with such a statement, I do not agree with such a statement. Maybe there
8 is a confusion between the original numbering and the numbering of the fax
9 transmission. What I am saying is that if you read properly, if you see
10 together the two numbering systems, you can see 004, 005. Then we cannot
11 see the next number, and then the last one is 007. So we have that
12 problem. We don't see the fax numbering in the third page. If you follow
13 the P-dot numbering, P.2, P.3, P.4, then we can't see what is the last
14 numbering of the last page, but we can see the fax numbering, which is
15 007. So if you see together the two numbering series, I think that --
16 Q. I agree.
17 A. -- you can conclude that, in fact, these four pages come together
18 and make together the whole of the document. That's what I understand.
19 Q. I can agree with your thinking now that I heard your
20 explanations. We were only concerned that this document explains a
21 decision on custody, and it is illogical for it to be too short. But
22 anyway, I agree with your explanation.
23 Can a legal document, a court document, be without a signature and
24 without a stamp of the court concerned? Because -- well, I'm getting used
25 to this system. I mean a handwritten signature, not a typewritten
1 signature. In our part of the world, you always have to have a
2 handwritten signature. The name can be typed out on a computer or
3 typewriter or whatever, but there needs to be a handwritten signature and,
4 of course, the stamp of the court concerned affixed to the document.
5 A. Yes, sir, that's a requirement in most parts of the world, and I
6 would consider this an anomaly.
7 Q. We will agree that there is no handwritten signature and there is
8 no stamp of the court concerned.
9 A. Yes, we can agree on that. I think that this is -- this seems to
10 be an anomaly. In fact, my comment on this, my experience dealing with
11 documents produced by HVO military or civilian authorities is there was a
12 certain deal of amateurism. People that were not trained professionally,
13 because of the circumstances of the war, took positions that were beyond
14 their professional ability which had an effect on the quality of the war
15 and the documents that they produced.
16 I can agree with your earlier comment that documents of this kind
17 should be longer. That's a reasonable expectation. That happens also
18 with some HVO orders, which with regular proper training would be longer
19 and better produced. But due to certain amateurism of the officers, you
20 may find such anomalies.
21 Q. This is the district military court in Mostar, the highest
22 military institution, highest military court institution, because civilian
23 institutions were not functioning. So this was the highest judicial
24 institution that was operating?
25 A. Mm-hmm.
1 Q. And you found these anomalies there as well, that court decision
2 can be valid without a signature, without a stamp? Perhaps we haven't
3 really understood each other. You see, I mean, a judgment, after all, is
4 a judgment.
5 A. This isn't a statement of yours --
6 Q. [In English] Yes, this is my statement.
7 A. I can assist you with some comments. The original structures were
8 affected by the war. Many people left the country. Many highly qualified
9 professionals left the country. Others were dismissed because of their
10 ethnic background, and that affected the quality of the work of these
12 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, can I intervene at this stage. I know
13 it's about seven or eight weeks ago, [redacted]
15 [redacted] If my
16 memory serves me right --
17 MR. SCOTT: Judge Clark, my sincere apologies. I think perhaps we
18 should go to private session for this because I think we get very close to
20 JUDGE CLARK: I said he had a pseudonym.
21 MR. SCOTT: The document is not under seal. If we could go to
22 private session, please.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to the private session.
24 [Private session]
13 Page 5532 – redacted – private session.
13 Page 5533 – redacted – private session.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
9 [Open session]
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
11 Q. My final question: In 1997, you testified actually that you were
12 in Bosnia, if I remember your direct examination well. That was your
13 testimony, wasn't it, that in '97, you were in Bosnia?
14 A. To be precise, it was in '96. In '97, I joined the Office of the
16 Q. Did you have an opportunity of visiting courts in Mostar,
17 Sarajevo, and, for example, to ask for documents that have to deal with
18 judicial institutions? Did you get them actually in order to compare what
19 the government gave you and what you would obtain from court archives?
20 A. Well, sir, when I visited Bosnia before joining the Tribunal,
21 certainly I wasn't interested in judicial matters as such. After I joined
22 the Tribunal, it's a different situation. The problem is that the Office
23 of the Prosecutor has requested repeatedly from the authorities of Croatia
24 and the Croatian authorities in Bosnia a number of documents under
25 cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, they have never been helpful.
1 They have not responded to our requests, so there is basically no
2 cooperation, no opportunity for us to get such cooperation from Croat
3 authorities until there was some changes in the institutions of the
4 Republic of Croatia recently, relatively recently. And with those
5 changes, the new authorities did grant us access to the state archive of
6 Croatia. So in short, the Office of the Prosecutor has great difficulty
7 to have cooperation, to obtain cooperation from those authorities.
8 Furthermore, I would like to say something else, which is that
9 these -- I would not consider these a reliable source. The military court
10 in Mostar, it's not what I would call an independent source, certainly.
11 This is an institution that was cooperating and assisting to the HVO. And
12 their main purpose - this is my assessment - was to assist the military
13 effort of the HVO, which casts some doubts about the reliability, or their
15 Q. Colleague, you have just presented some very interesting
16 thoughts. If I have understood you correctly, when talking about the
17 government of BH, you're referring to the Muslims in the Federation of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina; when you're talking about the Croat authorities, you
19 are referring to the Croats in the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Have
20 I understood you correctly?
21 A. Well, problem is that there are some contradictions in the
22 institutions of the federation and in the implementation of the
23 institutional agreements, but I would prefer -- I would rather not comment
24 on those matters. There are some contradictions in that issue, but this
25 is political, institutional problem of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
1 Q. Mr. Witness, we were at the court in Mostar and they told us that
2 all the documents were here in The Hague, all the material that we
3 requested. That's why I asked you whether you were perhaps in court and
4 whether you asked for any of this. I'm talking about the years when peace
5 prevailed in Bosnia, in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000. That's why I put
6 that question.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to suggest we are getting
9 very, very far afield. We could spend, undoubtedly, days talking about
10 the problems in Bosnia post-Dayton and the fact that there continued to
11 be, in fact, illegally, a number of parallel institutions, and, indeed
12 even now, there are very senior Bosnian Croat officials, some of whom were
13 kicked out of the presidency by the Office of the High Representative, who
14 are calling for a completely separate entity and reject the legitimacy of
15 the BiH government. Now, we can spend days talking about that and about
16 the fact that there are still, to this day, parallel Bosnian Croat
17 institutions and all that, but we will spend a great deal of time on that,
18 and I think it's beyond the scope of this witness and beyond the scope of
19 the authentication of these documents.
20 I can also -- if the Chamber wishes to have a hearing on these
21 matters, I would be happy to talk about my years of trying to obtain
22 documents from the Bosnian Croat part of the federation. Years. I'll be
23 happy to discuss that at length, but we don't need this witness here to do
24 that. Thank you, Mr. President.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, please do
1 allow me to respond to this speech made by the Prosecutor. Such
2 statements in the courtroom of a world court are simply inaccurate and
3 they cannot be put that way. The point is that Bosnia-Herzegovina is
4 governed by a governor. If somebody is legally elected in an election in
5 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the governor can overturn the result of this
6 election. But this is something that doesn't belong to this courtroom.
7 This is a debate that can be carried out elsewhere; in which direction
8 democracy is moving in the world and the UN, et cetera.
9 However, thank you for having allowed me to respond to the
10 Prosecutor. I haven't got many other questions. I have only three or
11 four left, which distinctly show how illogical some of these things are.
12 I would like to ask for document 737 now, please.
13 Q. Mr. Witness, my first question: As concerns such documents that
14 are being produced in court, are the translations checked? You will agree
15 with me that if a translation is not accurate, there can be major damage.
16 As you can see in this document, the English version says, "Older than
17 25." If you look at the Croat version - of course, we checked that out
18 properly - it says, "Up to the age of 25."
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Secondly, in addition to this translation --
21 A. I mean, I cannot comment on issues of translation, frankly. I
22 think this question should be addressed to the people in charge of
24 Q. As far as you're concerned, that pertains to any document, right?
25 I mean the question of the translation and the original. You always read
1 the English version, right, not the Croat original? You read the English
3 A. I normally read both.
4 Q. I wanted to ask you - I do beg your pardon - what is the point of
5 this document? Why is it here? Especially since it doesn't have a
6 signature either. As far as I understood this, this is a professional
7 unit Baja Kraljevic. Will you agree with me that interpreters -- that the
8 translators cannot provide for an interpretation, explanation?
9 So please --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel slow down, please? Because the
11 interpreters do not have these documents, the interpreters repeat.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
13 Q. The job of the translators is to put "ATJ," not to go into
14 explanations. How come a translator would know that this is an
15 anti-terrorist unit?
16 A. This question should be better addressed to the translators, but
17 my assessment is that this is actually the right spelling of such an
18 acronym. I have seen it repeatedly, and normally, in this context
19 particularly as related to this unit, "ATJ" stands for "anti-terrorist
20 unit." I think this is a correct translation and explanation.
21 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President?
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
23 MR. SCOTT: Where is it that this information raised by Mr. Krsnik
24 is not on the Bosnian Croat original? On 00495032, I can't -- seems to
25 say rather clearly on the letterhead, "Anti-terrorist group, Baja
1 Kraljevic," and it says that again in a box of information below that. So
2 I'm not sure where counsel is finding the problem.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] It's very clear, Your Honours.
4 Please look at the Croat original. "The professional unit, ATJ Baja
5 Kraljevic." It doesn't say anything else. That's what the Croat original
6 says. And now look a bit further on, and then the translators have added,
7 "Anti-terrorist unit." And then further on, document 738, the very next
8 document, 738, now it says, "ATG." And then what was added was,
9 "Anti-terrorist group." In the Croat original, this does not exist. It
10 just says, "Professional unit, ATG, Baja Kraljevic."
11 And now look further on, Mr. Scott, and Your Honours. In the
12 English original, the number is 248/94, 249/93. Are these the same
13 documents, or are -- or is this a translation of another Croatian
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I think this goes back to the similar
17 question that Judge Clark raised about a document some minutes ago. If
18 counsel is seriously suggesting these documents -- that they are not
19 accurately refer to the Baja Kraljevic ATG, if we are engaged in semantic
20 exercises here, Your Honour, I respectfully submit it's a poor use of the
21 Chamber's time. If Mr. Krsnik seriously wants to put to this witness that
22 it should not be -- this is not the Baja Kraljevic ATJ or ATG, it is not
23 the Baja Kraljevic anti-terrorist group, then put that very clearly and
24 succinctly to this witness. Otherwise, Your Honour, we are wasting a
25 great deal of time on these matters. Unless that's the case. If counsel
1 seriously contends, and has a good-faith basis for doing so, that the
2 document is not otherwise what it purports to be, if he has that basis,
3 then by all means I give him full opportunity to attack the document.
4 Otherwise, we are wasting a huge amount of time.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, you have to ask direct questions to
6 this witness.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, if I weren't interrupted that
8 often. And I think that I have indeed established a logical sequence in
9 my questions. Your Honours, this is quite difficult for me, but I do try
10 to focus and I think I am focused, and this examination would not last
11 that long otherwise.
12 The witness said to me that we should put this question to the
13 translators, and I am concerned about the translation of these documents,
14 because somebody cannot just add things to these documents if they are not
15 authorised to do so, because in that case, the documents get a completely
16 different meaning.
17 As for this particular document, I have no further questions,
18 because the witness answered me that I should put a question to the
19 translators. So I have raised my doubts, yes. The translations are such
20 that they can cause great damage, because these are completely different
22 Now, document 738, "up to the age of 25," and "over the age of
23 25," we have clarified this, I think. If we have not, please go ahead.
24 JUDGE LIU: I believe the witness would like to say something.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 THE WITNESS: As for the acronym ATJ, I think in fact there is
2 some minor discrepancy, but I don't think this is important, frankly,
3 because both denominations, anti-terrorist group, ATG, and anti-terrorist
4 unit, ATJ, both were used for such units within the Convicts Battalion. I
5 have seen several documents use both acronyms. I think that the
6 discrepancy between the two is really not very important. They mean the
7 same in this context; anti-terrorist group or anti-terrorist unit. It
8 seems that the translator took some liberty on adding this comment, but I
9 think this is the right comment. This is -- this is consistent with the
10 reality. I think so.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
12 Thank you, Witness.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's time for a break. We will resume at
15 --- Recess taken at 11.00 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.30 a.m.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Could you tell us how long you are
18 going to last for your cross-examination.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I think I have - let me see - about
20 five documents that we have selected as examples. I think I will take no
21 more than half an hour. If I could ask the Trial Chamber to allow me to
22 go into private session so that I could address Judge Clark in private
23 session, very briefly.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll go to the private session.
25 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Witness, sir, we are now dealing with Document 738. It's the
22 document immediately following the previous one. We can look at the
23 English version, the English translation, and the Croat translation.
24 [In English] 738, yeah.
25 [Interpretation] In the right-hand upper corner, it says English
1 translation -- there is a number indicated; and in the Croatian document,
2 it says reference number. In the English original, the registration
3 number is 248/94, and in the Croatian document, the number is 249/93. Is
4 this a translation of a different document?
5 A. I will need a few seconds, please.
6 Well, first, I think that your observation is right. There is a
7 discrepancy in the reference number in the original and in the
8 translation. Now, if it is a translation of the same document, I will
9 need to check this carefully.
10 Sir, it seems to me that there is a discrepancy or a mistake, as
11 you mentioned, in the translation, in the reference number, but the rest
12 of the translation I believe is correct.
13 Q. Witness, can you confirm that the registration number is a
14 designation of the document, of a certain document?
15 A. Yes, the purpose is to identify the document, yes.
16 Q. Therefore, I'm asking on this English version, the registration
17 number is a year older, although I do allow that as far as the contents is
18 concerned, there is no discrepancy with the Croatian document. However,
19 the registration number seems to indicate that it's a translation of a
20 different document from year 1994.
21 A. I can agree with that, yes.
22 Q. Please be so kind as to tell me, was the source again the
23 government of the Muslims of the Bosnian -- of the Federation of Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina, that is, the Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
25 A. The source of the copy in Bosnian language, that's right. The
1 translation, no. The translation was done here, I believe.
2 Q. Tell me, then, can you confirm that this document was signed,
3 type-signed, by deputy commander, but there is no handwritten signature?
4 A. Can I see? Yes. That's right. That's visible on the document.
5 Q. Generally speaking, did you find units where half of the members
6 are highly ranked officers? This unit has 86 members, out of which 42 are
7 highly ranked officers.
8 A. Well, yes, I would say that this is quite unusual. This doesn't
9 seem to be very logical, but that can be the case in the context that I
10 explained before, which is a certain amateurism by the commanders of
11 certain units of the HVO.
12 Q. Do you think it's logical for it to be signed by the person who is
13 fifth on the list, lower ranked than the first two, who is, on top of
14 that, the deputy commander? Do you find that logical?
15 MR. SCOTT: Objection, Your Honour. I think we are getting far
16 afield into asking this witness to speculate about the HVO practices in
17 this regard. I'd also remind the Chamber that one of the earlier
18 witnesses in this case actually testified specifically to the fact that
19 there were large number of senior officers in this unit, that, in fact,
20 that people in Zagreb objected to. Thank you.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, will you please skip this question.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honour.
23 Q. And my final question: Here, the professional unit of Baja
24 Kraljevic is referred to as an ATG, and again, it is a liberal
25 interpretation of the translator. Regardless of the fact that we know
1 what it is, and as my learned friend put it, we know it to be true, but
2 it's a different issue whether the translator has the right to interpret a
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes?
5 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Mr. President, but again, two things. Again,
6 it's not a question for this witness. I'm also informed - I've actually
7 been informed during the break - that the practice, in fact the standing
8 instructions to the translation unit, is if they come across
9 abbreviations, based on their experience they believe to be the case,
10 their instructions are to provide that information as much as possible.
11 If there is then some question about that, they are to indicate with a
12 question mark in brackets as to if that's the correct abbreviation or
13 not. Now, that is apparently the practice of the translation unit.
14 Whether that's true or not, whether counsel objects to that or not, it's
15 not a question for this witness. Thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: I also believe that it's not a question for this
17 witness, Mr. Krsnik.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I would like to
19 move on to the next document, 752.
20 Q. Do you have the document in front of you? Witness, I have one
21 question. Here we see the date of 8th March, 1994. Is that correct?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. Could you please tell me, is this the signature of Mladen
24 Naletilic himself? Of course, I'm asking your answer not as an expert,
25 but you did say that you read both versions of the document and that you
1 can find your way around both English and the Croatian version.
2 Can you confirm to me that it's the signature of Ivan Andabak?
3 A. Sir, the quality is not very good, but I believe that that is
4 right. This may be the case. Besides, I know that Ivan Andabak acted as
5 a deputy of Mr. Naletilic, and there are a large number of documents in
6 which we have seen that it is type-signed Mladen Naletilic and hand-signed
7 Ivan Andabak. This may well be the case.
8 Q. How do you know that Ivan Andabak was the deputy of Mr. Mladen
10 A. Well, sir, that's what I have learned from the evidence available
11 to the Prosecutor, primarily documentary evidence as well as statements of
13 Q. Witness, it says here, "Commander," and it's personally signed by
14 Ivan Andabak. If it were a deputy commander, there should be the word
15 "for," or "on behalf of."
16 A. Sir, with due respect, I think that your observation is not
17 right. It's typewritten "Commander" and type-signed "Mladen Naletilic."
18 Q. Exactly, exactly. But it doesn't say "on behalf of" the commander
19 or "for" the commander. When you sign something personally, it's the
20 normal practice to add this. If Ivan Andabak signed it, it should have
21 "on behalf of" or "for" added to the "Commander."
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, once again we have counsel testifying.
24 We don't know what Ivan Andabak's practice was; we don't know how he
25 signed documents apparently for Mr. Tuta. I say that now because there
1 are, indeed, a large number of documents in the record. But I don't think
2 this witness can speculate as to what Ivan Andabak's signature practices
3 were or whether he signed it in his own name or whether he put "on behalf
4 of" or not. It doesn't say that, and everyone in the courtroom can look
5 at the document and say, I don't see anything that has been interpreted
6 "on behalf of" or "for." But I don't think, beyond that, this witness
7 can speculate as to Ivan Andabak's signing practices. Perhaps Mr. Andabak
8 should come as a Defence witness.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, we believe that document speaks for
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honour.
12 Q. I have just one more question regarding this document. What was
13 the source?
14 A. I believe this is stated in the schedule that you received, but we
15 can check that. It seems that the source was the Government of Bosnia and
17 Q. I have one more question still regarding this document. Do you
18 have any evidence at all that Mr. Naletilic had knowledge about the
19 existence of this document and the document signed by Mr. Andabak?
20 MR. SCOTT: I again object. Speculation. It goes beyond the
21 scope of direct examination and the purpose of calling this witness, Your
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik, it's really beyond the scope of
24 direct examination.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. When you say the government, I mean the Bosniaks in the BH
2 federation, the source of this document precisely was the Agency for
3 Investigations and Documentation or the Ministry of the Interior or
4 somebody else?
5 A. I'm sorry, sir, frankly, I don't know.
6 Q. Thank you very much. I think we can move on to document 778.
7 Witness, first of all, can we agree that the Croatian version is
9 A. It seems to me that the Croatian version, it's partly legible,
10 that one can read about 80 per cent of the content. This issue has been
11 raised before. What I can advise is that certainly if a translation was
12 made by us, at some point there was available, or there is available, a
13 sufficiently good copy. If the translator finds that the original, it's
14 illegible, it will show in the translation, in between brackets, it will
15 show "partly illegible" in the translation itself.
16 Q. Can you confirm that what we have here is a supplement to some
17 previous statement that somebody gave to the Centre of Security Services
18 in Zenica?
19 A. Yes. That's what the document states.
20 Q. Can you agree with me that the previous statement is missing in
21 this compilation of evidence? Or perhaps you have it at the Prosecutor's
23 A. I'm sorry, I have not reviewed the whole collection, all the
24 binders, so I cannot comment on this.
25 Q. I didn't ask for your comment. I think my question was clear. Is
1 this a supplement to some earlier statement? In order to understand the
2 supplement, we need to have this earlier statement. Can you confirm that?
3 A. That it is a supplementary statement, I already answered, yes. It
4 seems to be so. That if you need or if you need the first statement,
5 that's for you to assess. If the first statement is available in the
6 collection, I don't know, because I have not reviewed the whole
8 Q. Can you confirm that it is a statement or testimony given to the
9 police in the Security Services Centre of Zenica?
10 A. Well, sir, you can see, this is visible from the document itself,
11 it says, "Zenica Security Services, Ministry of the Interior."
12 Q. Such a statement was presented here as evidence, and such a
13 statement given to the police cannot serve as evidence. The witness
14 should be brought here. I don't know what you want to prove with this
15 because that's a statement given to the police and the man --
16 MR. SCOTT: Again, Your Honour, I'm not sure how that's a question
17 for this witness to answer. If Mr. Krsnik has a legal objection to this
18 exhibit, he can address that to the Chamber, but I'm not sure how this
19 witness can assist about that.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. You have gone a little bit too far
21 in this question.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
23 would like to address you. With my questions that are constantly being
24 restricted, I am trying, for our sake and for the sake of the Chamber, to
25 make some things clear, because a statement was presented here and an
1 attempt is being made to tender it into evidence. I think the witness
2 should be brought here, because we don't have the earlier statement, we
3 don't know what he originally stated, and that's all I meant to say.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you want to do that, you have the full
5 opportunity to ask this witness to be here as your own witness, to dispute
6 this document. Mr. Krsnik, you may ask why the original statement is
7 missing. I think this is a legitimate question.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have asked that
9 question among the first questions I asked. I asked the witness whether
10 he knows about that statement, where it is, whether they have it in their
11 possession, and I think the witness answered. He said he didn't know, if
12 I understood him. But I don't know what the basis is for introducing this
14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, can you provide us with some information
15 about the first statement of the witness.
16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I'll inquire. Thanks.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
18 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, can I ask you the same question that
19 Mr. Krsnik is trying to put to the witness, and I, myself, am confused as
20 to why the record of an interview with somebody is included in these
21 documents. What is its probative value? It's an unusual document
22 included in all the others, and I, myself, I have discussed it with other
23 members of the Chamber.
24 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, it's put in -- Your Honour, I understand
25 the Chamber's concerns, and I would say it is, indeed, different than some
1 of the other documents. It is, however, like many of the other HVO
2 records or ABiH records, it's simply an historical report, just as there
3 are a number of other historical reports by the HVO; report of an action,
4 report of an incident. And this is just an historical document. It
5 wasn't prepared for trial. It wasn't prepared for this case. We didn't
6 ask anyone to prepare it. It was just an historical record of these -- of
7 this matter. And we thought that since the content of it directly relates
8 to matters in the case, that it might assist the Chamber.
9 But I do understand -- I do understand -- I think I understand the
10 Chamber's -- Judge Clark, your concerns. And I agree; it's a somewhat
11 different type of document. But I think that's the only answer -- the
12 best answer I can give the Chamber. I'm happy to look for the related
13 statement. Thank you.
14 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, we agree that your questioning in
15 relation to this is extremely valid as to why is it included at all, and
16 we'll give it a little more thought.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Q. I would like us to move on to Document 654. Witness, could you
19 please look at the last sentence, the last sentence, [In English]
20 "... defence of Croatian territory battles up to now ..."
21 And now we look at the Croatian original. In the Croatian
22 original, it says quite clearly, and also in the spirit of the language
23 quite explicitly, that it is "... the defence of Croat territories in
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina ..." On the basis of the English translation, one
25 would think that it were the defence of the Croatian State, to radically
1 explain what all of this is about.
2 A. What is exactly the question?
3 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I would suggest that the translation --
4 if there's a dispute about translation, maybe the booth can simply
5 translate that sentence on the bottom of the B/C/S original for us, and
6 simply -- I think that's the best answer, if there's a translation
7 question. I don't see -- I admit not speaking B/C/S, but when I look at
8 the B/C/S original, I don't see anything in there that suggests that it
9 makes reference to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, you may read the original documents in the
11 B/C/S. Let's hear what the translation is.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly. This is a question that
13 is very sensitive because it has to do with a pistol that is being awarded
14 by a minister, the minister of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. And
15 he submits his proposal to the president of the Croatian Republic of
17 That is why this is an extremely sensitive question, and now I'm
18 going to read the sentence in the Croatian language. So there was a list
19 of names. "All the mentioned persons are members of the Convicts
20 Battalion, and they gave an outstanding contribution to the defence of
21 Croat territories in the previous battles." So above Award, or Accord,
22 it says: "On the basis of Article 30, paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 of the decree
23 on the armed forces of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, Narodne List
24 number 6/92. I propose that you award ..."
25 My question is very clear: Is this being awarded on the basis of
1 a contribution that was given for a struggle that was waged in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or, on the basis of the English translation, as we
3 understood it, is it being accorded for the Defence of Croatia?
4 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I think that's argumentative. The
5 literal translation is, as by the interpretation booth just now, was
6 Croatian territory. Now, that can mean a lot of different things perhaps
7 to different people, and one could argue in this case that it means
8 something quite specific about the claims to this particular part of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, that in fact was -- this was considered Croatian
10 territory. Now, I don't want to argue that point now, but that's exactly
11 my point; it's argumentative for counsel to put that to the witness.
12 We've had the literal translation of the document, and that's what it
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I omitted -- of course,
15 interpreters cannot testify in court, but my learned friend doesn't know
16 the Croat language and syntax of the Croatian language. In the Croat
17 original, "Croat territories" is written with a small letter "H,"
18 "hrvatski territorija," whereas if we were speaking about the Republic of
19 Croatia, then the noun "Croatia" would have to be spelled with a capital
20 "H," "Hrvatski." This is something that we studied in primary school, so
21 we all know this.
22 And this is the rule that I am invoking, Mr. Scott. And I have
23 really focused on my questions and my concentration is being broken all
24 the time and I'm really asking my learned friend to let me finish the
25 cross-examination of this witness.
1 If the witness does not know how to answer these questions, then
2 he can say so himself. But this explanation was necessary because I'm
3 just trying to point out to the Trial Chamber of how many problems are
4 included in these documents; the language itself, the numbers, et cetera.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the points expressed by both parties
6 have been correctly recorded in the transcript. Let's hear the answer
7 from this witness.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. From the text of the
9 document, it can be interpreted both ways. This is ambiguous. It could
10 have been in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina or it could have been in
11 the territory of the Republic of Croatia. This is a problem of ambiguity
12 derived from, well, the various -- the very intent of the originator of
13 the document. What I mean is that precisely the authorities of the HVO
14 were avoiding to refer to Bosnia and Hercegovina as a distinctive entity.
15 So if they avoided references to Bosnia-Herzegovina, then this is the
16 result. The result is sort of ambiguous. It could have been both.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Witness, what does the letterhead say, this document and any
19 other document of the HVO? Doesn't it always say, "The Republic of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina"? Have you found a single document where it does not
21 say, "The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina"?
22 A. Yes. That's formally true to some extent. Let me explain you
24 Q. Thank you very much.
25 A. Sorry, can I explain this?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE LIU: Let's hear the explanation from this witness.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honour. Of
3 course I had no wish to interrupt the witness in any way, but I do
4 apologise, Your Honours, but with all due respect, this gentleman is
5 testifying right now, and my learned friend Mr. Seric had many questions
6 of this kind that he wished to put to this witness.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, let us hear the explanations from this witness.
8 And Mr. Seric, you have passed your turn of cross-examination, I
9 have to remind you. We cannot give you another chance to do that.
10 Yes, please.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. You can see that the
12 letterhead is not consistent with the heading and with the signature. The
13 letterhead is an old one referring to the Croatian Community of
14 Herceg-Bosna, while the text refers to the Croatian Republic of
15 Herceg-Bosna, which is a significant discrepancy. So this is an old
16 letterhead. It can be the only reference to assessing this matter. And
17 as for the text, I can confirm what I just said. They tended to avoid
18 references, clear references, that would imply a recognition of Bosnia and
19 Herzegovina, and the result could be then ambiguous, and this is an
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Witness, have you found a single document where it said "The
23 Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna" without it saying "The Republic of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina" right above that?
25 A. Yes, I think so. There are different kinds of documents. You may
1 be right in which -- in saying that very often, formally, that was stated
2 in the letterheads. That is true. Particularly in letterheads, they were
3 careful on keeping that formality.
4 Q. I wanted to ask you who this was. Who was very careful, when you
5 said "they" were very careful?
6 A. I meant the authorities of Herceg-Bosna and the HVO.
7 Q. Can you explain this to me? I see the origins are the same, the
8 state archives. You have two identical documents, one is with a stamp and
9 the other is without a stamp. So how many other copies are there? And
10 you put both into the file, one with a stamp, the other one without a
12 A. I cannot say more than what you can see from the documents. One
13 copy is stamped, and the other one is not. And I understand the right
14 thing to do in such a case is to submit two of them.
15 Q. And now the last document, 777. Please, which newspaper was this
16 taken from?
17 A. From "Slobodna Dalmacija."
18 Q. And you claimed that on the basis of what?
19 A. In this case, the system is the same as we followed pieces of
20 evidence, because that's what our database registers. When the evidence
21 is received, it is entered in the database. And normally, this is stated
22 submitter, the origin of the evidence, and so on. Besides, you can see
23 that it is handwritten there as "Slobodna Dalmacija." I understand that
24 the person who submitted this evidence wrote that, such explanation.
25 Q. On the 20th of June, 1994.
1 A. That's what the handwriting says.
2 Q. Then I do hope that you have the entire newspaper, or at least the
3 front page, the date. I see that three pages are here.
4 A. Well, to find the original of a daily newspaper is not a problem.
5 That can be found.
6 Q. Very well. Thank you. You call newspapers a document, don't
7 you? For you, Croatian newspapers are of documentary value and probative
8 value, for that matter?
9 A. Depends. They need to be analysed and assessed critically.
10 Depends on the newspaper, on the background of the newspaper, on the
11 journalist that produced the piece, depends if these are statements of a
12 suspect or what kind of reports. Depends on many things, and it is to be
13 assessed one by one, every piece of information.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do apologise, Your Honours. I
15 think you haven't got the English translation of this. So I'm not going
16 to make any comments on the contents of this. I think you haven't got the
17 English translation, Your Honours, so I don't want to go into the contents
18 of this.
19 Q. I'm going to put three final questions to you, sir. Today you
20 said that the military court in Mostar is unreliable because it helped the
21 HVO. So now I'm asking you the following: Why did you include their
22 document, then, in your own files? What is the probative value of that
23 document, then?
24 A. Well, sir, as you know, as I already explained, I did not make the
25 selection. Nevertheless, it can be the case that a source that is not
1 credible for a certain matter, it is nevertheless relevant to explain, for
2 example, how the justice system of the HVO worked or what was the position
3 of such an institution, although the information contained in the relevant
4 report or decision in itself is not reliable.
5 Q. Thank you very much.
6 As a researcher of documents of two parties that were at war,
7 should be impartial, objective. However, through your testimony and your
8 answers, you did not question the credibility at all of documents provided
9 by Bosniaks and the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. However, everything
10 that comes from the other side is under a question mark. Are you being
11 objective, impartial there?
12 A. Sir, I entirely disagree with your statement. It is my
13 professional duty to keep a distance and to assess critically any piece of
14 evidence that we receive, regardless of the origin. That is the
15 professional standards that we apply for any source. If you want, we can
16 discuss item by item all sources, all documents originating from Bosnian
17 source, and I will be happy to explain you the issues of authenticity,
18 reliability, and credibility. I try to keep high professional standards
19 for any possible source.
20 Q. My last question, Witness: You are a member of the Office of the
21 Prosecutor. You work on indictments, you work together with trial
22 attorneys, Prosecutors. Isn't that right? And are you interested in the
23 overall outcome of the indictments before this Tribunal as a member of the
24 Prosecution team?
25 A. Yes, I am interested. My interest is basically the interest of
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Witness and
3 distinguished colleague. I do apologise if I went on a bit too long, but
4 I was only doing my duty. And you will agree that these are serious
5 matters that are being decided so I hope you won't mind. And perhaps you
6 can help me in my future work when I have dilemmas regarding certain
7 documents. Thank you very much.
8 THE WITNESS: I will be pleased to do so if that is procedurally
9 allowed and convenient and approbate.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
11 Mr. Scott, any re-examination?
12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I had originally planned to have some
13 re-examination, but I think mercy requires that I not. So no questions.
14 JUDGE CLARK: I just have one question.
15 Questioned by the Court:
16 JUDGE CLARK: As an expert examiner of documents, is there an
17 internationally accepted system of grading the reliability of documents?
18 A. Yes, Your Honour, there are different systems of grading.
19 Normally such systems are used in agencies of investigation, of police
20 investigation or intelligence investigations. Normally those systems
21 refer to two criteria, which are the reliability of the source and the
22 credibility of the information. So that would go basically grading by A,
23 B, C, 1, 2, 3, and so on. Nevertheless, those systems normally are not
24 applicable or are not used in jurisdictional bodies because the system --
25 I mean, the purpose and the mission of the institution is different. So
1 normally attorneys like to make their own judgments, and the whole
2 functioning is different.
3 So we see the Office of the Prosecutor being a jurisdictional
4 body, we don't apply such scales or such systems of grading. To the best
5 of my knowledge, that's not the rule, that's not the practice, in
6 jurisdictional bodies, in Prosecutor's Office. That is the practice,
7 indeed, in police or intelligence investigation bodies.
8 JUDGE CLARK: Well, when you work wearing your hat as an
9 archivist, I take it that there are different grades of reliability and
11 A. Certainly.
12 JUDGE CLARK: But wearing your hat as an assistant to the
13 Prosecutor, do I understand you to say that if it has any relevance, you
14 include it in the documents?
15 A. Well, I have a responsibility of selection. I certainly don't
16 forward or don't give the attorney in charge anything. So I have, say, a
17 first filter, so that if I see gross inconsistencies, if I see signs of
18 forgery or suspicious signs, I will certainly discard that. I can make
19 that judgement, that initial judgement, myself. In case of doubt, it
20 should be the attorney the one who will decide. Receiving my assistance,
21 my assessment, it should be the attorney to decide if that is acceptable
22 or not.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Well, as a semi-specialist, did you have any input
24 at all in rejecting or questioning the documents which had been selected
25 by other parties before you became involved?
1 A. You mean in the selection made by the trial team, by the
2 Prosecutor? No, I didn't have input in this selection. I had input in
3 processing these documents at earlier stages but not in the selection
4 presented here.
5 JUDGE CLARK: Well, can you be of assistance to this Chamber and
6 indicate to us whether there are any documents included in that selection
7 which you, as an archivist, would have any questions about? That's a tall
8 order, but I'm relying on your integrity.
9 A. Thank you, Your Honour. I have not reviewed the whole collection
10 you have mentioned -- it has been mentioned some 17 binders. I have
11 reviewed --
12 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, I'm not talking about the 17 binders. I'm
13 talking about the documents that you yourself have dealt with that are
14 included in these two indexes.
15 A. Yes. The answer is no. I didn't find any document that I would
16 find -- I would assess as suspicious or dubious. There is room for
17 interpretation and room for assessment, but I didn't find any that I would
18 consider, say, notoriously or clearly unreliable. Nevertheless, I have to
19 say that I share your concerns. I think that it is advisable, whenever
20 possible, to corroborate documents that are internal work product, and as
21 such, they don't have stamps or so on. If this is possible within the
22 available means, that is always advisable, certainly.
23 JUDGE CLARK: I think you know the documents that we are talking
24 about. Thank you. Thank you very much for your assistance.
25 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judge Clark's question? Yes,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Mr. Seric?
2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I do have one question which follows
3 from Judge Clark's questions.
4 Further cross-examined by Mr. Seric:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Sir, when collecting and analysing documents that
6 come from the police community or the intelligence community, did you
7 apply the so-called mirror principle?
8 A. Sir, I think that I will need you to explain me, what do you mean
9 with that?
10 Q. Mr. Witness, I would be glad to do that. However, I have been
11 restricted in my questions because of the limited scope of your expertise
12 with regard to criminal law and other aspects of the law, so I shall
13 present all of this in writing.
14 A. I'm happy to explain you is that the basic rule that we follow is
15 trust nobody except yourself. Which means that we are obliged to make our
16 own assessments. We cannot take evidence at their face value as they are
17 submitted by anyone, either a police body, an institution or a witness.
18 We need to make our assessment for each piece of evidence. Even
19 well-meaning people can make mistakes. All sorts of mistakes or problems
20 can arise. It is our duty, that's the instructions that we have, that we
21 need to assess the credibility, the reliability and authenticity for each
22 piece of evidence that we receive.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
24 Further cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
25 Q. [Interpretation] What my colleague Mr. Seric and I are trying to
1 ask, and also if I understood the Honourable Judge Clark correctly, how
2 can you know that a document was not planted by someone in the context of
3 special warfare to you precisely as the Office of the Prosecutor, if you
4 do not have a system of checking and double-checking different sources?
5 So in most democracies, contemporary democracies, police and intelligence
6 reports do not have probative value before a court of law. In my country,
7 anything coming from the police cannot be evidence in court, let alone
8 what comes from intelligence communities. The judges cannot see this at
9 all. That is taken aside and sealed in a special envelope. Have you
10 developed this system and analysis and studying the source, the source
11 where the document was created, not that moment when it came to you at the
12 Office of the Prosecutor?
13 Dear colleague, we have had witnesses that had to do with
14 credibility, people who wrote documents, and this was for their internal
15 use only, for the purpose of their own safety. Mr. Seric and I want to
16 ask you whether you have such methods and whether you have applied such
18 A. Okay. Some more information that I can give you for this point --
19 Q. I do apologise. Let me just give an additional piece of
20 explanation. In this courtroom, we had a witness saying that he never
21 signed a document that was received from the AID, and that was supposed to
22 be his own statement.
23 A. Can you please help me? What is exactly the question?
24 Q. In order to prove that a document can have probative value, and is
25 not part of special warfare or an intelligence war, have you developed a
1 system of analysing and comparing sources? I think that I have helped you
2 with the rest with my own explanations.
3 A. The answer is absolutely yes, of course. It is just unthinkable
4 or impossible to take documents or any evidence given by a warring faction
5 at its face value. We need to corroborate, double-check, and authenticate
6 as much as possible each piece of evidence.
7 I would like to mention also -- it wasn't mentioned on the first
8 day because it was brief, but I would like to mention that I also got a
9 degree from the Canadian Police College on criminal analysis. Among other
10 issues, that's -- well, through such training, one can learn about the
11 proceedings that we have discussed before, which is, in a way, basic
12 training for such a duty.
13 Now, every piece of evidence needs to be checked against the rest
14 of the evidence as much as possible, and that's what we are doing
15 regularly. If you want, I am happy to go back to any item of the
16 collection and explain you in detail. I understand your concerns. I
17 think it is a fair concern that if evidence is given by a third party, it
18 needs some corroboration. We accept that. That is part of our rules, our
19 professional rules. By any party, any evidence that we get, we try to
20 corroborate and to double-check by the available means. That is part of
21 our job, our profession.
22 Q. Mr. Witness, let me make this even clearer: Witness X on the
23 ground gave false information to Agent X. Agent X writes a report to
24 Agency X, and this agency submits the document to you. Now, how can you
25 check -- does an analysis -- sorry, Agency X does an analysis and submits
1 it to you. Now, how can you check this source?
2 A. Sir, this happens often. That can easily be the case. Whenever
3 possible, what you do is identify, locate, and interview the primary
4 source. Of course, the best quality of evidence arises -- comes from
5 primary sources, not from secondary sources. In such a situation, the
6 normal thing, something that I have done myself on many occasions, is to
7 find and interview the original, the primary source, the witness, and then
8 check if what the witness reported -- if what the primary source reported
9 is consistent or not. That's ideally the best. If that is not possible,
10 there can be other systems also of corroborating such evidence.
11 Q. I asked you this. In specific cases, in examples we used, you say
12 you hadn't checked a court document, for instance, and you said you didn't
13 go to check it. It is the most trivial of documents.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. Thank
16 THE WITNESS: I would like to answer to this, which in a way I
17 already did. Ideally, it is certainly advisable to go and find the person
18 that signed the document. In this case, it has not been possible for the
19 Prosecutor because we have had very poor cooperation from the side of the
20 Bosnian/Croat authorities. It has been very difficult to gain any
21 cooperation. If you want my opinion about why that happened, I can give
22 you that opinion, too.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Witness, for helping us by giving your
25 evidence. We wish you good luck in the future. The usher will show you
1 out of the room.
2 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honour. I only wish first to say
3 thank you to the Chamber for your attention, particularly to thank the
4 Defence counsel for addressing me as an expert, which I take as a
5 compliment, and wish you success in this complex duty.
6 [The witness withdrew]
7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, at this stage, do you have any documents to
9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, all the documents were tendered last
10 Wednesday. We made a record. I would not make an additional record at
11 this time. They were all tendered last Wednesday. I would ask the
12 Chamber to provide as much guidance as you care to in terms of some of the
13 questions that you've mentioned.
14 For example, I think it's been rather clear, which I appreciate,
15 that you would like to have a witness from the British army concerning the
16 UNPROFOR reports generated by the British army. If there are other
17 documents or sources that fall into that category, it would be most
18 helpful to the Prosecution -- excuse me -- to have that additional
19 guidance so that we can attempt to address that, Your Honour. Thank you.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have some doubts concerning certain documents
21 because those documents do not have a signature, a stamp, a letterhead, or
22 any signs of the official character; namely, the Document IAC 26, 46, 52,
23 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 92, 96. Those documents are either from the British
24 government or from ECMM or UNPROFOR.
25 Are there any objections to all those documents tendered by the
1 Prosecution at this stage?
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do have some
3 objections that we will submit in writing within seven days, as
4 envisaged. We have no objections only to official documents of the
5 United Nations such as resolutions, peace agreements, et cetera. But we
6 will write our motion stating these objections within 30 days -- sorry,
7 it's 30 days. I hope you will approve of this deadline. We discussed it
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just as my colleague
11 Mr. Krsnik, I object to the introduction of the same documents as
12 Mr. Krsnik with the same arguments, and I am also asking for 30 days to
13 write a motion where I will also state certain objections that I did not
14 have the opportunity to clarify with this witness. Thank you.
15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric, there's one thing I want to hear your
16 opinion. That is, about those UN documents with the proper format, with
17 the letterhead, do you object to those documents being admitted into the
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, no. I've just said
20 that my objections are the same as Mr. Krsnik's. They are to the same
21 documents, and our motion will be a joint motion.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
23 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I say UN documents,
25 I mean documents not those which were under the umbrella of the
1 United Nations. I mean documents originating from the United Nations,
2 such as resolutions and so on and so forth.
3 JUDGE LIU: How about those letters, you know? Every government
4 has its sovereign right to address to the Security Council and the
5 Secretary-General, and the Security Council will distribute those letters,
6 those communications as an official document of the United Nations which
7 has its proper number system there.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] That is an original document. When a
9 letter comes to the United Nations, it gets a number, and it becomes an
10 original document. When I say under the umbrella of the United Nations,
11 though, I mean the SpaBat, the UNPROFOR, such things.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, just allow me to clarify this for the
14 record: In terms of the 30 days, the Prosecution would just raise -- say
15 again the concern that we raised some days ago. Obviously, 30 days from
16 now will be after the 11th of December, I think if that's the correct
17 day. I believe that's the correct day, the last day before the Christmas
18 adjournment. We are still making -- the Prosecution is making every
19 effort to conclude its case, to call all of its witnesses by the 11th of
20 December. Again, as I mentioned earlier, obviously - and the Chamber will
21 understand - we are not in a position, will not be in a position, to rest
22 our case or conclude our case until there has been a final ruling on all
23 the tendered exhibits so that we have a further opportunity to address any
24 of the rulings the Chamber might make.
25 So the problem with allowing 30 days, consistently 30 days,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 especially at this date, is that it will put us after -- potentially after
2 the time that we would otherwise conclude our case. Thank you.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, first things first. There are several documents
4 in the proper format of the United Nations, which means that originated
5 from the United Nations, in those two bundles. Those are IAC 9, 18, 27,
6 45, 53, 80, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 97. They are admitted into
7 evidence at this stage.
8 As for the time frame, we were informed by the Registrar that, in
9 December, another case may be on trial, which means we'll share our
10 courtroom with another Trial Chamber. We might sit even shorter for a
11 sitting every day. So we'll have very serious doubt whether we could
12 finish the Prosecution's case before the Christmas. It may be prolonged
13 into January, after the Christmas break.
14 MR. SCOTT: For scheduling purposes, Mr. President, can I inquire
15 when the Chamber might know whether that in fact is going to be the case,
16 since it's a matter of only a couple of weeks away? Are we going to be
17 sharing the courtroom between now and the 11th of December, or do you know
18 or not?
19 JUDGE LIU: We are not quite clear, but what is clear to us is
20 that Galic's case will be on trial from the beginning of December.
21 Whenever we are informed, we will inform both parties about the
22 new scheduling of the sittings.
23 There is another thing I would like to mention, that is the
24 clarification of the order on translation of the documents. By written
25 decisions of 18th October, 2001, the Chamber ruled that the exhibits which
1 the party intends to submit for admission should be available in a
2 language that the accused understands, as well as in at least one of the
3 official languages of the Tribunal. It was further decided that decision
4 should enter into effect on 12th of November 2001, and that from 12th
5 November onwards, documents which are not in a language the accused
6 understands may not be submitted to the Chamber for admission.
7 In the meantime, parties approached the Chamber to seek guidance
8 with regard to the scope of this order. In particular, parties seem to be
9 uncertain as to which exhibits shall be translated before submission to
10 the Chamber. Therefore, the Chamber, by this oral order of today, wishes
11 to clarify this order of 18 October 2001 as follows:
12 Documents that shall be translated are the following:
13 First, all documents that refer directly to facts that constitute
14 the grounds of the charges in the indictment;
15 Secondly, all documents that refer directly to one of the accused
17 Thirdly, all documents that concern the specific area where the
18 crimes were allegedly committed in the time frame set out in the
20 Documents that do not have to be translated are the following:
21 First, official United Nations documents and reports;
22 Secondly, excerpts from books and other publications that are
23 publicly available;
24 Thirdly, documents that contained really background evidence, for
25 instance, information that does not relate specifically and directly to
1 the incidents, charges, or to the accused as set out above.
2 This oral ruling shall be applied to both parties in submitting
3 their evidence.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the Chamber
6 very much for that additional guidance. That will be helpful.
7 JUDGE LIU: I thought you were going to brief us about the next
9 MR. SCOTT: If you want, we can. We are ready. It's up to you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, you may give some background for the next
12 witness in this five or ten minutes. Are there any protective measures
13 you request?
14 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, Mr. Poriouvaev will be handling the next
15 witness. Thank you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
17 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Thank you very much, Your Honour. The witness
18 who is called to testify now has not requested any protective measures.
19 He is about to testify in the open court. Of course, at some point, maybe
20 for some seconds, I will ask you to go into private session, for reasons
21 already known in this courtroom.
22 JUDGE LIU: What's the relevance of his testimony?
23 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour. The witness who will testify
24 now will testify mostly to the following parts of the indictment:
25 Background, paragraphs 7, 11; Superior Authority, paragraphs 14 through
1 17; General Allegations, paragraphs 18, 19; counts 2 through 8, paragraphs
2 35 through 38, 40, 41, and 44.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. What do you suggest we are going
4 to do? Are you going to call your witness or we will have your witness
5 appear this afternoon?
6 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I'm in your hands, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE LIU: So we are adjourned until 2.30 this afternoon.
8 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.55 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 2.30 p.m.
2 [The witness entered court]
3 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness. I think you have to put on
4 your earphone.
5 WITNESS: ALLAN ASBJORN KNUDSEN
6 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon. Would you please make the solemn
7 declaration in accordance with the paper the usher is showing to you.
8 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
9 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. You may sit down, please.
11 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
13 Examined by Mr. Poriouvaev:
14 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. Please, for the record, state your name,
15 full name, middle name.
16 A. My name is Allan Asbjorn Knudsen.
17 Q. I think that you should spell your middle name because there is
18 something specific about Danish spelling.
19 A. Yes, my middle name, A-S-B-J-O-R-N. That's right.
20 Q. Okay. You were born on the 30th of August, 1967. Is that
22 A. That is correct, yes.
23 Q. You were born in Denmark, and you are Danish by nationality?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. Mr. Knudsen, do you speak English?
1 A. Yes, I speak English. And German as well.
2 Q. Can you give your testimony in the English language?
3 A. Yes, I can give it in English language.
4 Q. What are the foreign languages do you know?
5 A. I know German and, of course, Danish.
6 Q. Mr. Knudsen, in the course of 1993, at some period you were a
7 soldier of fortune. Is it correct?
8 A. Yeah, that's correct.
9 Q. Where did you get the idea to become a soldier of fortune?
10 A. Primarily I got it from the television, looking at what was
11 happening down there. And finally I got a magazine called "Soldier of
12 Fortune" which gave exact travel directions and where to go, who to talk
13 to. And it was complete, so it was easy to go.
14 JUDGE LIU: Witness, I'm sorry to interrupt. But I have to inform
15 you that since you and the Prosecutor are speaking the same language, and
16 whatever you are going to say will be translated into the other two
17 languages, please make a pause before you answer the question. In front
18 of you, there's a screen. Whatever you said will be typed out on the
19 screen. If you see the typing stop, you may answer the question.
20 Otherwise, those who follow the other languages could not follow you.
21 Thank you very much.
22 THE WITNESS: Sir.
23 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed, Mr. Prosecutor.
24 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
25 Q. So what did you read in the magazine?
1 A. I read that the HVO in Tomislavgrad needed foreigners to go, and
2 there was strictly travel direction from where to go in Croatia and who to
3 talk to.
4 Q. On which side did you decide to fight?
5 A. I decided to fight for the HVO because it was the army mentioned
6 in the magazine, and at that time I think it didn't matter because Muslims
7 and Croats were fighting alongside against the Serbs.
8 Q. When did you go to Yugoslavia?
9 A. I went to Tomislavgrad, as it was the easiest.
10 Q. When?
11 A. I went in 1993.
12 Q. Do you remember the month?
13 A. Yeah. It was January.
14 Q. Was it easy to join any military unit in Tomislavgrad?
15 A. Yes. It was very easy, because there was these direct
16 description, so basically you took the bus from Split and into
17 Tomislavgrad and went to the headquarters of the Croatian forces in
19 Q. Which unit did you join?
20 A. I joined Kralj Tomislavgrad at first but --
21 Q. Don't hurry. Let's talk about this unit first. What does Kralj
22 Tomislav stand for?
23 A. It stands for King Tomislav.
24 Q. Who was in command of the unit?
25 A. Not quite sure who was in command of the unit or in the unit, but
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 we spoke to Mr. Glasnovic, the commander, and this is the one we were
2 responsible for.
3 Q. What military rank did he have?
4 A. We found out he was called Colonel Glasnovic, so that was his
5 rank, I guess.
6 Q. Was it an HVO unit?
7 A. Yes. Sorry, yes, that was an HVO unit.
8 Q. And do you remember who were members of the unit? I mean your
9 soldier mates.
10 A. Not exactly. I remember a German guy named Uwe who joined the
11 unit with.
12 Q. Who else was among the soldiers of the unit?
13 A. Only foreigners.
14 Q. Were there any Croats within the unit? Or Muslims?
15 A. Not as I recall.
16 Q. What kind of training did you get in the unit?
17 A. We had sniper training and ambush in a few months before joining
18 up the unit.
19 Q. Did you have any military training before in Denmark?
20 A. No. I didn't have any.
21 Q. Who were your instructors in military training?
22 A. There was a German guy and an Austrian guy who trained us.
23 Q. Were they professional military?
24 A. Yes, they were both professional, as I recall. They had both been
25 to German, Austrian army, and later on, Foreign Legion.
1 Q. Do you know who was Glasnovic -- Colonel Glasnovic's superior?
2 A. I'm not quite sure who was in Bosnia. We were told that he talked
3 to or had visit from Tudjman one time.
4 Q. Do you know who was giving orders to him?
5 A. Not exactly.
6 Q. You just told that he talked or had to visit Tudjman, Tudjman, one
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Do you know any facts which allow you to make such a conclusion?
10 A. Yes. I remember it because we were not supposed to be there at
11 the time. The brigade was supposed to be lined up, but he told us that
12 foreigners were not allowed because he didn't want Tudjman --
13 Q. Witness, don't hurry. You were warned by the Presiding Judge.
14 A. Because he didn't want us to be around so that Tudjman could see
16 Q. And who told you not to be present there?
17 A. I talked to Glasnovic, and then our Croatian commander in the unit
18 told us not to be around because Tudjman would come to visit Tomislavgrad.
19 Q. When did this happen?
20 A. That was in '93.
21 Q. More or less period of time?
22 A. I can't exactly remember.
23 Q. Did Tudjman really come to the location where your unit was
25 A. We didn't see him. But we were told that he would be there or
1 that he was there, because a guy told us that Glasnovic left town because
2 he didn't want to see Tudjman.
3 Q. Do you know any reasons for that? I mean Glasnovic being away
4 from Tomislavgrad area.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
6 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I object to that
7 question. It calls for pure speculation, based upon the prior answer this
8 witness has previously given. It's pure speculation, and I object.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Prosecutor, would you please rephrase your
11 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
12 Q. Do you know why Glasnovic left Tomislavgrad area or wanted to
13 leave the area when Tudjman was about to visit that area?
14 A. I can only say what we've heard ourself from other Croatian
15 soldiers, and they told us that was because Glasnovic did not respect or
16 have any respect for Tudjman as a leader of the Croatians.
17 Q. Did you participate in any military actions under Commander
19 A. We were sent to Gornji Vakuf with the brigade and went there for
20 approximately 14 days before we returned to Tomislavgrad.
21 Q. What kind of actions did you perform in Gornji Vakuf?
22 A. It was only --
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
24 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, I must raise an objection
25 to this line of questioning concerning Gornji Vakuf. It is not
1 encompassed anywhere in the indictment against my client, nor my
2 colleagues' client, Mr. Martinovic. I don't believe it's relevant, and
3 the probative value is zero. Thank you.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, you must know that some things do not
5 happen in one day. There must be a sequence before that.
6 Mr. Prosecutor, I hope you could lead your witness directly to the
7 incidents with more relevance to the indictment.
8 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour, I will do that. But the
9 actions of the witness afterwards should be motivated somehow. That's
10 why I am asking all these questions. I don't try to dwell too much on all
11 these questions, just for general information and the reasoning of his
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it's proper for you to lay the proper background
14 on this issue, but we hope you could lead up as soon as possible.
15 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, yes, Your Honour. I will do that.
16 Q. So against whom did you fight in Gornji Vakuf?
17 A. The Muslims.
18 Q. How long did you serve in that unit and why did you leave it?
19 A. I was there for a couple of months. I left it because when we
20 left for Gornji Vakuf, we were not told we were supposed to fight against
21 the Muslims.
22 JUDGE LIU: Witness, I have to warn you once again that those
23 relying on the translations of the other two languages have difficulty to
24 follow you.
25 A. It is going too fast?
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, it is going too fast. You have to make a pause,
2 and you have to look at the screen before you. Thank you very much.
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Okay. I was a couple of months in the unit, but we left the unit
5 because we were not told that we were supposed to fight against the
6 Muslims. And I didn't want to do that. We were just taken to Gornji
7 Vakuf, like, in a hurry.
8 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
9 Q. Did you go back to Denmark after that?
10 A. I went to Zagreb because I believe that Croatian is -- Croatia is
11 a country which still was not in the war in Bosnia. So I mean, if you
12 have a base, everybody had something like HVO you could find in Croatia, I
13 think you can also find a Bosnian club.
14 Q. Did you join any other HVO unit?
15 A. Yes. I found a Bosnian club in Zagreb who told they could send me
16 to Orasje in northern Bosnia where we could join up in 106th HVO Brigade.
17 Q. Did you meet any foreigners within that unit?
18 A. Yes. I met another Danish guy and I met two Germans.
19 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, could we go into private session
20 just for a couple of seconds because the name is to be revealed which is
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, a couple of seconds is too short. We will go to
24 [Private session]
17 [Open session]
18 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
19 Q. So this time within that unit, am I -- is it fair to say that you
20 were fighting against the Serbs?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. My next question will be just to skip some minor details. Did you
23 participate in the war in 1993 on the side of HVO against Armija, against
25 A. Yes. I did that.
1 Q. How did it happen?
2 A. It happened that we went from Orasje down to Zagreb, where we sat
3 in a bar at the railway station.
4 Q. Mr. Knudsen, when you are talking about a group of people, "we,"
5 you should at least indicate who those people were.
6 A. Yes. Those people were two German guys and a Danish guy and
8 Q. Did they serve in the same unit with you before?
9 A. Yes. We in the same unit in Orasje.
10 Q. Now, you may go ahead with your story in Zagreb.
11 A. Yes. We were sitting at a bar at the railway station, and
12 waiting, didn't really know what to do. And a Polish guy came to us,
13 giving us a few beers, and we started talking to him, and he told us that
14 he could help us because he knew somebody. So after that, he made a phone
15 call and a guy came to us, a small guy in a grey suit, presenting himself
16 as Branko Barbic [Realtime transcript read in error "Babic"].
17 Q. Could you repeat the name you have just mentioned?
18 A. Yes. Branko Barbic. This guy talked to us and said that he would
19 help us but he was a bit tired of foreigners because everybody wanted his
20 help, but he wanted to help us anyway, so he told us that next day we
21 should come to the parliament in Zagreb.
22 Q. Mr. Knudsen, we will return to the record of the witness
23 statement, just to page 75, line 14, just about the spelling of the name
24 of this Branko Barbic.
25 A. Yes.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Is his full spelled correctly?
2 A. No. You miss Branko; it's okay. Babic is B-R-A-R -- no,
4 Q. Thank you. Did Branko Barbic introduce himself somehow in what
5 capacity he was talking to you?
6 A. Yes, he told us he was that a military attach‚ for the troops in
7 Central Bosnia and Southern Bosnia, and that he was taking care of
8 supplies and troops for these places.
9 Q. Did you go to the parliament the following day?
10 A. Yes, we went to the parliament in full uniform.
11 Q. HVO uniform?
12 A. HVO uniform. And there was no problem getting in.
13 Q. Did you talk to Barbic in the parliament building?
14 A. Yes, because -- yes, because we asked for Barbic and said we have
15 an agreement or an appointment with him. That was not a problem. Barbic
16 collected us and took us down the basement for a meal. And after that, he
17 asked us exactly what we wanted, and we replied to him we wanted to
19 Q. What was Branko Barbic's proposals to you, if any?
20 A. The first one was that he would have us into Central Bosnia with a
21 convoy because at that time they cooperated with the Serbs. The problem
22 was that the list was already made, and he was afraid the Serbs would pull
23 us off and kill us because we were foreigners. So instead, he proposed us
24 that we could go to Mostar.
25 Q. Did he make any arrangements for you to go to Mostar?
1 A. Yes, we had a letter from Barbic that all units in Croatia and
2 Bosnia should help us to get to Mostar.
3 Q. And where did you stay in Mos -- sorry, in Zagreb while waiting
4 for your leaving to Mostar?
5 A. We stayed at the railway station.
6 Q. All the time?
7 A. Yes, all the time because that -- he offered us a hotel apartment
8 for the night, but we didn't want to exploit him in any way, so we just
10 Q. Can you describe the man called Branko Barbic. What did he look
11 like at the time you saw him in 1993?
12 A. He looked like a -- he was a small guy. At the present time, he
13 was wearing a grey suit, and he was about 50, 55.
14 Q. In what language did you speak to him?
15 A. We spoke to him in German language.
16 Q. And now, to return to the document that was issued by Barbic, was
17 it given for the four of you?
18 A. Yes, it was given for the four of us.
19 Q. And did you have any problems while getting from Zagreb to Mostar,
20 having that document?
21 A. No, we didn't have any problem at all, even when we went to
22 Rijeka. They would accommodate us and give us something to eat.
23 Basically, we were picked up in Rijeka and driven to the ferry next
24 morning by the HV. So after that, we took the boat to Split.
25 Q. Did any officials ever ask to provide a document given to you by
2 A. Excuse me, one more time.
3 Q. Yes. Did anyone - officials - ever ask you to produce the
4 document given by Barbic to you, for the four of you? I mean on your way
5 from Zagreb to Mostar.
6 A. No. It was like this document would open all doors.
7 Q. Why do you think so?
8 A. My impression was that this guy was an important person.
9 Q. Could you explain your opinion, your thinking of Barbic as a very
10 important person. Do you know about any facts that could confirm that he
11 was really an important person, influential person?
12 A. Yes. What I mean is that we went to Rijeka, the HV guys,
13 soldiers, didn't like us because we are foreigners coming to fight in
14 their country, but anyway, these guys picked us up, very unfriendly, but
15 they gave us a place to sleep, they gave us food, only because of this
16 letter. And the same in the train. We showed this letter, there was no
17 problem. Normally, you have to buy a ticket, and we didn't have any other
18 papers at that time.
19 Q. And now let's return to the parliament building in Zagreb. Do you
20 remember in which office Branko Barbic received you?
21 A. Branko Barbic received us down below. When we came in, we asked
22 for him and he came down and given us this badge so we could enter.
23 Q. And what did his office look like?
24 A. How would you call it? I would say, old, old English style, dark
25 office, dark furniture. You had a large desk in front of you when you
1 got in.
2 Q. Did you see a door plate on his office?
3 A. You saw a map on the wall over Bosnia with some tabs on it, small
4 needles, and from here I can only guess what the needles --
5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Meek?
6 MR. MEEK: Your Honours, Mr. President, I certainly strongly,
7 strenuously and always will object to this witness guessing about
8 anything, and in his answer he was starting to guess, and I object to
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. But that guess is not that important, right?
11 MR. MEEK: It might be. I don't want to find out.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
13 Well, Witness, now we are only to hear the facts and not what you
14 are thinking, what you are guessing at that time. Thank you.
15 MR. PORIOUVAEV:
16 Q. Did you see any people around Branko Barbic at that time in his
18 A. Not in his office, but like I said, we went to basement, and he
19 talked to a lot of people, so obviously people knew him.
20 Q. Did you ever see Branko Barbic afterwards?
21 A. Yes. I saw him when I left for Denmark at the time.
22 Q. At what kind of meeting was it?
23 A. I needed a letter to go back to Mostar.
24 Q. Did he give you a letter?
25 A. Yes, he gave me that.
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Now, Your Honour I would ask the usher to help me
2 with Exhibit P658.
3 Q. First, I would ask you to look into the B/C/S version of this
4 document. Mr. Knudsen, is this the document given to you by Mr. Branko
5 Barbic on the 22nd of October, 1993?
6 A. Yes. This is the document.
7 Q. What kind of right did it give you? I mean the document.
8 A. Yes. This is supposed to give me help during my trip to Mostar so
9 I could get there without any problems and that people should help me on
10 my way.
11 JUDGE LIU: Do you have an English translation?
12 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes.
13 Q. Was it signed by Branko Barbic in your presence?
14 A. Yes, it was signed by him in my presence.
15 Q. Did this document appear to be helpful to you on your way to
17 A. Yes, very much indeed.
18 Q. Could you recount a little bit the events and the situation in
19 which the document helped you.
20 A. What I mean is -- means nothing -- I took the train again and
21 people would give me the food; if I got to a checkpoint, by the Croats,
22 they would help me further going to Mostar.
23 Q. Did they really help you?
24 A. Yes, they did.
25 Q. Just for the record, I would direct you to the part of the
1 document -- I mean the English version, the second item. The document is
2 directed to the employees of HV, Croat army, HVO, and Ministry of the
3 Interior of Croatia and the Republic of Herceg-Bosna.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
5 MR. MEEK: Well, like Mr. Scott this morning, is there a question
6 in there, or is that just a statement?
7 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I don't think --
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, sometimes we need some statement because the
9 Prosecutor said that just for the record.
10 You also could ask a question to this witness about what you want
11 to have in the record.
12 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I think that all my questions have been already
13 done concerning this situation.
14 Q. When did you go to Mostar?
15 A. I went to Stela's unit.
16 Q. When, when? I'm sorry.
17 A. When? I went in -- the first time?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes. The first time, I went in end of August '93.
20 Q. Had you ever been to Mostar before August 1993?
21 A. No, I didn't.
22 Q. And where did you go in Mostar?
23 A. The first we went to Croatian headquarters to see a Croatian
24 officer because, at that time, we did not know in which unit to be
25 deployed. This guy told us that we could only go to Kaznjenicka Bojna,
1 Stela's unit, because it was the only one allowed to take volunteers.
2 Q. Did you produce the document signed by Branko Barbic to them in
3 the HVO headquarters?
4 A. We had this paper, the first paper that was for the four of us.
5 We had that with us at Stela and were told that we should give it to him.
6 Q. Do you remember the location where the HVO headquarters was
7 deployed? Just, I would ask you to give a very brief description of the
8 building and area.
9 A. As I recall it, it was not far away from Stela.
10 Q. But I didn't ask you about Stela yet.
11 A. No, but I can't remember exactly how it looked like. But it was a
12 big building.
13 Q. So then where did you go after the HVO headquarters?
14 A. After that, we went to Stela's headquarter.
15 Q. Would you describe now Stela's headquarters, just again very
17 A. I would say it was like a villa, in two storeys with a basement.
18 And if you go inside, you would have this entree. And on the left side,
19 you would have Stela's office; on the right side, it was for storage.
20 Q. Had you ever heard Stela's name before you came to his
22 A. No, we didn't.
23 Q. Did Stela receive you? Did he talk to you?
24 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, Prosecutor, I'm a little bit lost. Are you
25 talking about the very first time that this witness went to Mostar?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE CLARK: What happened to the other three people? Have we
3 lost them?
4 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Not yet. I haven't asked about them.
5 JUDGE CLARK: It's a little bit disjointed because you went back
6 and forward.
7 MR. PORIOUVAEV: We had to move a little bit back and forward with
8 respect of Branko Barbic.
9 JUDGE CLARK: I think that's how you lost me. But you keep saying
10 to go quickly. Why don't you allow this witness to actually tell his
11 whole story instead of pushing him forward all the time, because now it's
12 very relevant to the charges.
13 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, I'm aware of it. That's why I'm asking him
14 about the conversation with Stela and all that will follow. Thank you.
15 Q. So to return to Stela's headquarters and your conversation with
16 him. By the way, were you on, let's say, three other guys with you?
17 A. Yes. The four of us got to Stela's apartment or headquarters, and
18 he received us, the four of us, and he didn't really ask us any question,
19 just telling us that we could go to front line, as they called it, the
20 next day, and that we would get weapons the next day.
21 Q. Did you produce the document signed by Branko Barbic to Stela?
22 A. Yes, because we were asked for it, that we were supposed to be
23 delivering it back. So we did that. And after that, he assigned us for
24 an apartment -- actually, two apartments, so we could get two guys in each
25 one. We stayed there for the night.
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Now I would like the usher to show the witness
2 Exhibit number 11.18, Exhibit P. What's the problem? I can't
3 understand. Maybe it will be better for him to use a larger document.
4 It's too small for the purposes of our examination today.
5 Q. Mr. Knudsen, I would like you to look closely at the map of Mostar
6 and tell me, if you will be able, just to indicate on this map, by putting
7 numbers, the place where HVO headquarters were located, Stela's
8 headquarters, and your apartment you stayed.
9 A. As I recall it --
10 Q. To the best of your recollection, of course.
11 A. Excuse me?
12 Q. To the best of your recollection.
13 A. All right. As I recall it, you had Stela's headquarters here.
14 Our apartment was here. And then, like I said, I'm not sure, but as I
15 remember, I think the headquarter was around here.
16 Q. Across the street or just in the corner?
17 A. In the corner.
18 Q. Could you please take a marker and put number 1 to Stela's
20 A. [Marks].
21 Q. Number 2 to HVO headquarters.
22 A. [Marks].
23 Q. And number 3 on the place where the building with your apartment
25 A. [Marks].
1 Q. Okay. Thank you. You may put this exhibit aside, but it's quite
2 possible that we will need it later.
3 Could you describe, to the best of your recollection, how Stela
4 looked like in September, 1993, when you saw him first.
5 A. I guess he looked a bit like he do now, but he's a bit more --
6 what's -- he has a bit more belly.
7 Q. He has or he had more belly? I'm sorry, it's not clear from my
9 A. The only way you can say it.
10 Q. Witness, Mr. Knudsen, then you are just giving a witness statement
11 now without indicating a person you compare with now. Maybe you can
12 indicate a person that looks like a person you were comparing Stela with
13 here in the courtroom.
14 A. Like he was short hair. He was not fat in any way. He was not,
15 what you call it, heavy, heavy build. American uniform, as I recall.
16 Sharp face. He was not tall but he was, like, big.
17 Q. What you have just told us that he saw -- that you have saw -- you
18 saw since one person who looks like Stela. Do you see him now?
19 A. I see him now.
20 Q. Yes?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you please show --
23 A. He's up there.
24 Q. It's not very polite to show persons with fingers.
25 A. I know that but you asked me to --
1 Q. Please, could you describe where the person is seated now, how is
2 he dressed?
3 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Prosecutor, we are in a war crimes tribunal.
4 Somebody pointing to a witness is not going to offend anyone.
5 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Thank you.
6 Q. Please.
7 A. Yes, he is number 2 from the left.
8 Q. What is his name?
9 A. Stela Martinovic.
10 Q. Do you know his first name?
11 A. Yes, that's Stela.
12 Q. Thank you for that. In what language did you speak with Stela?
13 A. I spoke German or English with an interpreter.
14 Q. Who was that interpreter?
15 A. It was a Croatian guy named Alan.
16 Q. Was he from Stela's unit?
17 A. Yes, he was from Stela's unit.
18 Q. Did Stela introduce himself somehow to you?
19 A. Yes, he introduced to us as "Stela."
20 Q. Did he tell you what position he occupied?
21 A. Not at the time when we started up.
22 Q. Did he tell you anything about the unit?
23 A. No, not at the first.
24 Q. When did he tell you about the unit and his functions?
25 A. He only told us he was the commander of the units. That was
1 basically what he told us direct when we came there.
2 Q. Did he explain to whom he was subordinate, who was his superior?
3 A. Not in the beginning, no.
4 Q. When did he do that?
5 A. That was, I think, a time after. He talked to Alan, and Alan told
6 us it was, I think, just before an attack. That's how I remember.
7 Q. And who was his superior, according to his story?
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Your Honours, may it please the Court, it's not so much
10 an objection at this point in time as it is could Mr. Prosecutor, my
11 colleague, establish a time frame when this could have occurred.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may clear it up, Mr. Prosecutor.
13 MR. PORIOUVAEV: It was covered by my question, when. But I ask
14 the witness to specify more or less the time frame when it happened.
15 A. I can't remember the dates exactly.
16 Q. So what did he tell you?
17 A. Basically, everybody was talking about that Tuta was in charge.
18 The reason I recall this is I remember one day at the base, we had a black
19 Mercedes from the Second World War that was worth a lot of money, and we
20 asked Alan, the Croatian soldier, about this car. And he told us that
21 Stela had taken it from some Muslims, and he was getting paid for it by
22 Tuta. The car was there for about two days, and then we didn't see it.
23 Q. Now, let's return to your -- the beginning of your service in
24 Stela's unit. Did you receive any weapons confirming your membership
25 within the unit?
1 A. Yes, we received a Kalashnikov. At first, I got the Romanian one,
2 which has a handle on the front of it. And when a German guy got hit, I
3 got his, which was a Russian one and a slightly better model.
4 Q. What kind of uniform were you provided with?
5 A. We had -- we had a Croatian uniform, but the most we got from
6 where we were before.
7 Q. Did your uniform have any insignia patches, badges?
8 A. I only had the Croatian HVO.
9 Q. What about the rest of the soldiers of the unit? Did they have
11 A. Everybody, everybody had it. Some people worn it; some didn't.
12 Q. Did you get to know the name of the unit on your arrival?
13 A. We knew the name was Kaznjenicka Bojna when we got there, but not
14 before. But we never knew what it -- in the beginning, what it meant
15 until somebody told us down there.
16 Q. And what did you learn about the name of the unit and its
18 A. We were told, again by Alan, that it was a -- what do you call
19 it? Punishment platoon, and most of these guys were murderers, rapists,
20 who were allowed to be in the unit. And if they fought the war with the
21 Croats, they would have the freedom when the war was over.
22 Q. By Kaznjenicka Bojna, or Convicts Battalion, do you mean the
23 overall unit or the unit you were serving in?
24 A. I mean the unit I was serving in, because at that time we did not
25 know of other Kaznjenicka Bojnas. We found out a bit later.
1 Q. Did Stela's unit have any specific name?
2 A. Vinko Skrobo.
3 Q. Did you get any document confirming your membership within the
5 A. Yes. We had that, in about one or two weeks, and the deal here is
6 that they didn't trust us, I guess, in the beginning, because a lot of
7 foreigners went to the Croatian front line and ran over to the Muslim, and
8 if you didn't have this letter, you couldn't just go in and out.
9 Q. Do you remember what was in that letter?
10 A. We didn't read it because we didn't spoke Croatian, but we guessed
11 that it was like a piece of paper that could get you through the
12 checkpoints, in and out.
13 Q. Who signed this -- that letter?
14 A. Stela Martinovic.
15 Q. Did he sign that letter in your presence?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. PORIOUVAEV: I would like the witness to be shown Exhibit
18 number 594. I would like the witness to be shown the original version of
19 the document.
20 Q. Mr. Knudsen, did you see this document before?
21 A. Yes. This is my document.
22 Q. Was this document signed by Martinovic, Stela?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Did you give it to the investigator during the interview?
25 A. Yes, I did that.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Thank you very much. You may take it away.
2 Q. Witness Knudsen, what was your first impression when you were
3 taken to the confrontation line?
4 A. My first impression was that not anybody really in command. You
5 would sit tight in buildings with sandbags inside, people shooting
6 frequently, like -- like they wanted. It's not much shelling. It was not
7 any heavy fighting, you know. Nobody really in control. An example could
8 be that we had ammunition stacks in boxes. If you wanted to shoot, you
9 could just go outside and shoot all you wanted. Nobody really cared, you
10 know. So that was my impression.
11 Q. And what was your task on the confrontation line? I mean the
12 period when you were already involved in making your service there.
13 A. I would say defend, defend your own line. I would say in a sense
14 that you didn't move around. We didn't attack. And just to hold the
15 line, surround East Mostar.
16 Q. And who gave you that task?
17 A. Stela did. But I would have to say that he didn't say exactly,
18 "You're going to defend this area. You're going to" -- we were just told
19 to sit tight, take hold of these positions here, and it worked on a
20 shiftly -- shift basis.
21 Q. Were there any specific orders in respect of your actions on the
22 confrontation line?
23 A. The only specific order we had was if something or somebody came
24 at you, you would shoot it, and if something came from behind and tried to
25 cross the line without any permission, you should shoot as well.
1 Q. Who gave you that order?
2 A. Stela did, through Alan.
3 Q. Were you supposed to warn somehow people who were trying to cross
4 the confrontation line, or were you allowed to just to shoot without
6 A. Without any specific order, we were allowed to shoot without
8 Q. And did any soldiers who were guarding the confrontation line
9 shoot in certain situations?
10 A. Everybody shot all the time. There was a lot of shooting, mostly
11 from our side. If you thereby mean that I see somebody getting killed in
12 the first place, no, we didn't. There was a few corpses lying out there.
13 And you would take the shift, and these guys who was there before you
14 would tell you what had happened here. And like the first day, some guy
15 told us that the day before, somebody tried to cross the line and got
16 shot, you know, so that was basically it.
17 Q. And who removed the bodies from the confrontation line?
18 A. Prisoners did. We had prisoners working on the line. If there
19 wasn't dragging any wounded or people in, which of course they didn't do
20 that all the time, they would make coffee, something like that, building
21 sand sacks, removing sandbags. Basically these things, either the things
22 that was too dangerous for the Croats to do or the things that the Croats
23 didn't want to do.
24 Q. Did you see any prisoners working on the confrontation line when
25 there was firing along the confrontation line?
1 A. I have to ask, what do you mean exactly by "firing"?
2 Q. Shelling, any sort of firing along the confrontation line.
3 A. You mean like on a regular day?
4 Q. On a regular day.
5 A. Yes, prisoners working all the time. I mean, they had these, like
6 we had, you know, when you move from point to point, they were all just in
7 the sandbags like we did. If you wanted a cup of coffee and you were
8 sitting in a position, you just yell at these guys and somebody came up
9 with coffee or anything.
10 Q. Did they explain to you what exactly the area of your
11 responsibility was? I mean, not your personal responsibility, but your
12 unit -- area of responsibility?
13 A. You mean, like the -- our responsibility, I guess, was to hold the
14 line, and we were supposed to let no one in, no one out.
15 Q. No, I mean just a little bit different. I mean the area, the
16 location that was under your -- under your unit's responsibility.
17 A. I mean, we had the area explained. What I mean is we had
18 positions, one, two, three, four, five.
19 Q. Could you show those positions on the map, if I show it to you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. No, no, no. Exhibit P14.4.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Perhaps I should give a new number to it. That
23 was an annoted one.
24 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Are you going to annote it as well?
1 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Yes, the witness is supposed to mark some areas
2 on the map.
3 JUDGE LIU: There are several maps and photos which are frequently
4 used in this courtroom. So maybe the registrar would like to have more
5 copies, I mean clean copies, for each witness in the future. Thank you.
6 THE REGISTRAR: For the -- so perhaps I can, by the way, assign a
7 new number to the previous one. It should be P18/4. For this one, I'm
8 going to give the number later.
9 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, I'm not sure that the --
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the previous map is P11.18.
11 THE REGISTRAR: It should be P11.14/4.
12 JUDGE LIU: No.
13 MR. PORIOUVAEV: Your Honour, I'm not sure that the witness will
14 complete the task in the remaining time today.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we'll resume at 9.30 tomorrow morning.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
17 3.58 p.m., to be reconvened on
18 Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 2001,
19 at 9.30 a.m.