1 Wednesday, 9 October 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Naletilic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.
7 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
10 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, witness. Can you hear me?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE LIU: [Previous translation continues] ...
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I am.
14 JUDGE LIU: We won't keep you long today.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can hear you.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Stringer. Please continue with your
18 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
19 WITNESS: WITNESS AF [Resumed]
20 [Witness answered through interpreter]
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. I would
23 just like to inform the Chamber of the following: My client cannot attend
24 today's hearing because he hasn't been feeling too well since yesterday.
25 That's the only thing I wanted to inform you about. But we shall continue
1 to -- with the proceedings in order not to disturb the schedule.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation. I think we
3 care very much about your client's health. We wish him a speedy
5 And I was told that he was seen by a doctor yesterday afternoon.
6 I hope we could get some kind of report or review from that doctor to see
7 how the condition is of your client. We'll do everything possible to take
8 care of him.
9 Yes, Mr. Stringer.
10 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Re-examined by Mr. Stringer: [Continued]
12 Q. Witness, good morning.
13 A. Good morning.
14 Q. I'd like to go to two exhibits, the first of which is Exhibit
15 P4.14. It's been assigned a new number. It's the one that was marked
16 by the witness during his cross-examination yesterday.
17 And also, witness, I'm going to ask the usher to show you a
18 different exhibit which you haven't seen yet, which is a document marked
19 P557. 557.
20 Witness, 557 is not a document you've seen before, although you
21 looked at two very similar ones yesterday during your cross-examination by
22 my learned friend Mr. Seric. This one is dated the 3rd of August, 1993,
23 and it's a report on the military situation in Mostar.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
25 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. My
1 learned friend Stringer himself said that this document was not used in
2 cross-examination yesterday, so I think it's only logical for me to object
3 about the question being asked completely out of the scope of the
4 cross-examination and relating purportedly to this document.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, you have to know that the
6 re-examination should be strictly within the scope of the
7 cross-examination and the -- and the -- of course some new documents will
8 be allowed to use so long as it's directly related to the point mentioned
9 in the cross-examination.
10 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I believe it is well within the
11 scope of the cross-examination. I'm referring to two documents that
12 Mr. Seric used yesterday during the cross in which he asked the witness
13 questions about the presence or deployment of the HVO military police in
14 the area that has been marked on the photograph. This document relates to
15 the very same issue, and in fact I think it's more pertinent because it
16 relates specifically to the period of time that we're talking about here,
17 which is early August 1993. So I think if I'm allowed to ask just a few
18 questions about it, it will be evident that this is within the scope of
19 the cross-examination.
20 JUDGE LIU: You may try that.
21 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Witness, I want to direct your attention to page 3 of my version.
23 I'm not sure where this is found on the original language version that you
24 have. I'm looking at a section of this report that falls under the
25 heading of "Second sector." It may be on the second page of that
1 document. Do you see the section called "Second sector"?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. And then the second paragraph there starts with the words "On the
4 positions." Do you see that? "On the positions --"
5 A. Yes, I can see that.
6 Q. "In the old grammar school up to the health centre, 168 military
7 policemen have been deployed."
8 And then moving down to the next paragraph, it says: "On the
9 position of the health centre, 58 soldiers of ATG Mrmak were deployed."
10 Do you see that also?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, just a couple questions on this and then we'll move on to the
13 next topic. First of all, the old grammar school that is referred to in
14 this document, is the old grammar school found on the photograph that you
15 have with you there, 14.4? Do you see the location of the old grammar
16 school in this photograph?
17 A. Well, actually, I'm not sure which school they're referring to as
18 the old grammar school, but this whole series of buildings were schools,
19 several schools, adjacent buildings.
20 Q. During the time that you worked in this area, did you see members
21 of the HVO military police deployed or manning any part of this section of
22 the Bulevar?
23 A. Well, yes, there were all sorts of soldiers there. I'm not sure
24 who was a member of the police. In fact, the police had special insignia
25 on their shoulder straps, but there were other soldiers there too.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I must object to this
3 question, although it has been asked already, because when the Prosecutor
4 says "this part of the Bulevar," and the witness has drawn a very wide
5 circle, then I don't think the question is very accurate as to which part
6 of the Bulevar exactly the Prosecutor was referring to, because what comes
7 across this way is that soldiers were manning the whole length of the
8 Bulevar, the way the question has been asked, which is quite
9 in contradiction with the document that the witness has before him.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think Mr. Stringer is trying to know the
11 deployment of the troops of various kinds of uniforms. Maybe your
12 question is not that pertinent, Mr. Stringer. You may rephrase it in such
13 a way so that to have your idea come across more clear.
14 MR. STRINGER:
15 Q. Witness, I'm talking about the area that falls inside the circle
16 that you drew on that photograph. Okay? At any location within that
17 circle, did you see military policemen deployed or manning positions in
18 that area during the time that you were working in this area?
19 A. No, I didn't really see any MP's in that particular part of the
20 Bulevar. They were just regular soldiers. Only during the operation on
21 the 17th of September, yes, there were some. But I was standings outside
22 the Ero Hotel, actually.
23 Q. You were asked about this gentleman, the military policeman,
24 Mr. Stojanovski. How many times did he bring you to work in this area
25 that you've circled?
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] We have heard in direct examination
3 already and again in cross-examination, so I'm not sure why my learned
4 colleague Stringer should like to repeat the examination-in-chief. This
5 has been said before this court already that every single time Luka
6 Stojanovski was the one to drive him. We've heard that already.
7 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I'm trying to do a very brief
8 redirect. We discussed Mr. Stojanovski a great deal on the
9 cross-examination. The witness was taken to the logbooks, in which he was
10 signed out by Mr. Stojanovski as well as any number of other units. I'm
11 simply trying to -- I think it's an issue that is legitimate for redirect,
12 and it's a question simple, how many times did Stojanovski take him to
13 this area. I -- I think it's a legitimate question for redirect in view
14 of what was raised in cross.
15 JUDGE LIU: The witness has answered that question during the
16 cross-examination. The Defence counsel claims that, you know, the -- the
17 witness answered that question, you know.
18 MR. STRINGER: I disagree, Mr. President. Again, this goes back
19 to some of the difficulties that I experienced yesterday in terms of the
20 scope of the cross-examination. The scope of the direct examination was
21 very limited to the specific issue regarding the burial, quite frankly,
22 Mr. President. I deliberately did not elicit testimony from the witness
23 about other times that he was brought to these locations, other work that
24 was performed for the Vinko Skrobo unit. This is an area among a number
25 of others that was opened up wide in the cross-examination and I think I
1 ought to be entitled to pursue briefly a few of those areas. Mr. Seric
2 opened the door more generally to the issue of forced labour that this
3 witness was required to perform, and this question falls squarely within
4 the scope of that cross-examination.
5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.
6 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, would it please be
7 possible for the witness to leave the courtroom so then we can discuss a
8 number of issues that is Mr. Stringer has just brought up, and they just
9 aren't true. And again, in his questions this morning, he keeps repeating
10 to the witness something that I don't think is quite correct. So may the
11 witness please be permitted to leave the courtroom so I could bring up a
12 number of points.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, of course that's in the
14 cross-examination Mr. Seric brought up many more wider scope of the issues
15 in the cross-examination, but we have made a decision that in the rebuttal
16 proceedings we are only interested in the four areas - that is, the burial
17 of Mr. Harmandzic and other three matters - so even if the question of
18 forced labour was mentioned in the direct or in the cross-examination,
19 this Trial Chamber will not take those testimony into evidence.
20 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, this issue does relate to
21 Mr. Harmandzic. I can explain that to the Trial Chamber. I think it
22 would -- it should take place outside the presence of the Trial Chamber,
23 but this is an issue that relates to Mr. Harmandzic.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, if you believe so, you may proceed.
25 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
1 Q. Witness, it's really just one or two questions on this. Again,
2 Mr. Stojanovski, how many times did he bring you to the area that you've
3 circled on the photograph?
4 A. I don't know the exact number of time, but quite often.
5 Q. And among those times that he brought you to this area, did you
6 work for Stela's soldiers?
7 A. We worked along the whole length of the line that I've marked from
8 the medical centre all the way up to the school building.
9 Q. Were there ever times when prisoners were shared between different
10 units, that is, prisoners who had been brought to work for different units
11 might be tasked to work for another unit?
12 A. Well, actually, every time we were taken to this area, they would
13 split us up into groups and then assign five, seven, or eight people to
14 each of the groups, and then we would be assigned tasks to perform in each
15 of the groups.
16 Q. Okay. My question was a little bit different though. Were there
17 times when prisoners came into your group, say, who had been signed out of
18 the Heliodrom by another part of the HVO, a different unit?
19 A. Yes.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric. What's the problem?
21 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] The problem is that the Prosecutor is
22 leading the witness, and that, we know, is not the right way to question a
24 JUDGE LIU: The witness has answered the question.
25 MR. STRINGER:
1 Q. Witness, you were shown the logbook for the 17th of September.
2 And just a few brief questions about that. Where did you work on the 17th
3 of September?
4 A. We worked just a way down from the Ero Hotel, near Santiceva
5 Street and down onto the Neretva River.
6 Q. During your cross-examination by Mr. Seric, you said you were
7 involved in burying bodies then on the following day, the 18th of
8 September; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. How many bodies were you involved in burying on that day?
11 A. About 72, 73 bodies, I think.
12 Q. Do you know who those people were, generally speaking?
13 A. Most of them were prisoners, people from the camp.
14 Q. Do you know under what circumstances those persons had been
16 A. Well, mostly they were killed during combat operations along the
17 line of separation, because we had been taken there to perform labour and
18 that's where people got killed.
19 Q. Do you know when they were killed?
20 A. The same day that we were taken there, the 17th of September.
21 Q. Did you bury any of your relatives on that day, the 18th?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. Without mentioning any names, can you tell us who that was?
24 A. My close neighbours, my brother.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please. Your Honours,
2 as you can see, and I have been observing this for quite a while now.
3 Yes, you can issue an order but the order is modified the way the
4 Prosecutor sees fit, and then we're supposed to be the ones to introduce
5 new topics and justify them. This topic being discussed now is absolutely
6 outside the scope of this testimony and this is not a subject that the
7 Prosecutor can legitimately go into. Now, it was not mentioned in the
8 cross-examination or in the direct examination, and now a new subject is
9 being introduced, and this keeps happening all the time. Well, in that
10 case, I was thinking perhaps tomorrow I may try to reopen an entirely new
11 discussion and a new hearing and maybe that would indeed be necessary the
12 way things are going right now.
13 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I can say, first of all I finished
14 with that subject. Secondly, that issue was raised on the
15 cross-examination over my objection. But the Trial Chamber allowed it,
16 and in any event, I've finished with that and I intend now to move into
17 redirect in response to Mr. Krsnik's cross-examination.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Stringer, the Trial Chamber allowed the
19 Defence counsel to cross-examine the witness on this subject only because
20 we believed this matter related to the credibility of this witness in the
21 cross-examination. We have already made a ruling that we will only hear
22 the testimonies of the witnesses in the four areas, and we will only take
23 those areas into consideration.
24 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President.
25 Q. Witness, I want to now refer you to the cross-examination that was
1 conducted by my learned friend Mr. Krsnik yesterday, who's the lawyer for
2 Mr. Naletilic. First of all, I want to give you the statement that you
3 made in 1996 and then just to ask you a few questions about that. I don't
4 know that it's been marked or given a number. It is the statement of 11
5 January, 1996.
6 Witness, just a few questions about the circumstances of your
7 giving this statement. What was the format that was used in the interview
8 in which you gave this information? Did they ask you questions, or did
9 you just share with them information that you thought should be shared?
10 How -- what was the format?
11 A. Well, actually, I told them my story, things that had happened to
12 me. The questions were not really very specific. There were a number of
13 questions, but mainly I told them my story, most of what I'd been through,
14 so that's how this statement was made and I later signed it.
15 Q. Did they ask you about Tuta?
16 A. Yes, they did.
17 Q. On page 2 of the -- of the English version, you refer to a -- at
18 the bottom of the English version, page 2, you say there were members of
19 Tuta's unit stationed at the Heliodrom. You knew them by sight. I wanted
20 to ask you: How did you know them by sight?
21 A. Well, we knew them from the days of the events in Sovici, and then
22 they would take us to perform forced labour, to clean their toilets up
23 there and to make their beds, and anything that was necessary, the work
24 to be done for the institution where they were staying. They took us to
25 all the battalions that were stationed there and we performed work there
1 too, the Busicis [phoen] and the others.
2 Q. In your cross-examination, you also described a training exercise
3 in which your task was to construct a field privy or a field water
4 closet. Do you recall that?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. What period of time did that training exercise take place?
7 A. I can't tell you exactly the date, but it was, I think, in March.
8 It was springtime. It may have been March, but springtime at any rate.
9 Q. You were asked about this document or this part of a document
10 that's been marked Exhibit 928/5.
11 MR. STRINGER: Perhaps we should show that to the witness, 928/5.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just know exactly
13 which document we're talk about, because I didn't use a single document in
14 my cross-examination for this witness. No, I surely wasn't using this
15 document in my cross-examination. I'm sure about that.
16 MR. STRINGER: Well, just because he didn't use a document in the
17 cross doesn't mean it's not within -- it's not an issue that can be raised
18 in direct -- in redirect. I'm asking, Mr. President -- I'm asking a
19 question to clarify the issue that was raised during the
20 cross-examination. I think the document may assist. It may not.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been receiving
22 warnings from you for a year, and you have been cautioning me. We know
23 that if the question wasn't asked in cross-examination, it couldn't be
24 used in redirect. You, Your Honours, have told me that at least 20
25 times. And thirdly, I merely asked what document we were talking about.
1 There must be some set of rules. This is beginning to give me a good
2 laugh. This is supposed to be a serious court. I mean, my apologies, but
3 I really no longer know how to react to these things.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, according to my remarks, I think this document
5 was used in the direct examination. It was there already.
6 MR. STRINGER: It's a marked exhibit, Mr. President. It's been
7 provided to the Defence. I don't know what more I can do if he doesn't
8 have the documents at hand, it's his own failing, not that of the
9 Prosecutor or the Trial Chamber.
10 JUDGE LIU: But you have to inform the Defence counsel what kind
11 of document it is.
12 MR. STRINGER: It's the excerpt from the diary related to --
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am going to be
14 objecting all the time. Obviously I don't have the document, I don't have
15 400 people waiting in front of the courtroom that I can summon at any
16 moment and ask them to bring me the document. But if I didn't use the
17 document in my cross-examination, I am sure my learned friend cannot use
18 it in the redirect. Maybe we could refer back to the Statute. Maybe we
19 should have used it all the time during the proceedings in order to make
20 things clear.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, it depends on what kind of subject
22 that the Prosecution is going to ask. It doesn't matter what kind of
23 document the Prosecution is going to use. We will see whether the subject
24 matter is related in the cross-examination or not.
25 You may proceed.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Witness, you looked at part of this document during your direct
3 examination. Do you recall that?
4 A. Actually, I do not understand your question. What was your
5 question about?
6 Q. If you turn to the fourth page of this exhibit, you're going to
7 see some text in your language. Do you recall looking this over during a
8 part of your direct?
9 A. Yes, the other day when you were showing it to me, a day or two
10 days ago.
11 Q. Yes. Now, this is my question: During the cross-examination by
12 Mr. Krsnik, you testified about the construction of a field privy on a
13 training exercise. My question is whether that testimony relates to this
14 document -- this training exercise, or did you build that privy at a
15 different time?
16 MR. MEEK: Mr. President.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
18 MR. MEEK: I object. He has asked that question -- it has been
19 asked and answered. Now, Mr. Stringer is absolutely suggesting a
20 different answer to this witness based on the written document in front of
21 him, and that is wholly improper and I object.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, it is true that this question has been asked in
23 cross-examination, but so we need some -- some points to be clarified.
24 MR. MEEK: Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: I don't -- I don't think -- I don't think he is --
1 it's abnormal, you know, for the Prosecution to ask that question again.
2 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, it was asked on cross-examination but it
3 was just asked two or three minutes ago on redirect examination, and the
4 witness answered specifically, "It was springtime, March or April." He
5 didn't like the answer, now he's going to put the document in front of him
6 and get the answer he wants with a suggestive and leading question.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, if --
8 MR. MEEK: That's improper.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, if the witness is going to tell the truth, he
10 will stick to his answer; right? Because in this stage of the
11 re-examination, I don't think any witness could be led.
12 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Judge.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes. String well, I can ask it perhaps a different
14 way, Mr. President.
15 Q. Witness, looking at this document, the training exercise that's
16 referred to in this document, what was your task on this training -- this
17 training exercise?
18 A. The only task I got was that, and after that I did not get any
19 other special tasks or orders to carry out.
20 Q. Okay. And just so we're clear, what is the task that you refer
21 to? What was the task?
22 A. My task was to build this field toilet or privy, and then we also
23 brought something to protect the command in Jablanica, and that was all
24 during my work. I stayed there only one day. I came one evening and then
25 left the following evening. I just spent one night there, and that was
2 Q. On your cross-examination you were asked about -- to estimate the
3 height of the man you called Tuta. Do you recall that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You were not asked whether you could identify other
6 characteristics of this person. Looking at page 4 of the OTP witness
7 statement --
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I remember well, I
10 did not ask for the height of Mr. Tuta here in the courtroom. I asked the
11 witness to estimate my height, my height. And then I asked him how tall
12 was the guy that he called Tuta, and then he told me and I asked him
13 whether this man that he called Tuta was taller than me or about the same
14 height. I didn't ask the witness to estimate Tuta's height at the
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] And I did not ask for any other
18 characteristics because the gentleman knows Tuta from TV. He watched him
19 on several shows. Maybe I should have asked him is that the man that you
20 saw on TV, and he watched those shows before he travelled to The Hague
21 according to his own statement.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. It is true you did not ask the height of
23 Mr. Tuta. You just asked how tall is the man who was called Tuta. That's
25 MR. STRINGER: That was my question. That was what I referred to,
1 the testimony in which he was asked to estimate the height of the person
2 he called Tuta. You can read it on the screen.
3 Q. Now, witness, I want to direct your attention or ask you to keep
4 in mind your interview with the OTP investigator from six months ago,
5 April of this year. Okay? Do you recall -- do you recall telling the
6 investigator what the colour of the man's hair was?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What was the colour of the hair that you described for the
10 A. It was grey, just the way it is now, greyish, turning grey.
11 Q. Are there any other features that you described to the
12 investigator that you can recall now?
13 A. He had a beard when he came up there.
14 Q. What was the colour of the beard?
15 A. A grey beard. The colour of the beard was the same as the colour
16 of the hair.
17 Q. Now, just a moment ago you said that the colour of the hair is
18 just the way it is now. Did you see that person here, that is, the person
19 you've described as Tuta?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Do you have any doubts about whether that person that you saw here
22 is the person that you saw in Sovici on that day?
23 A. It is. It was the same person.
24 MR. STRINGER: No further questions, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE LIU: Any questions from the Judges? Judge Clark.
1 Questioned by the Court:
2 JUDGE CLARK: Yes. I have a few questions. I'll try to confine
3 my questions to the areas which we have directed the counsel towards.
4 I wasn't clear about something yesterday from the questions that
5 were put to you by the Prosecution and then by Mr. Krsnik. Were you a
6 member of both organisations, HVO and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE CLARK: When you were in Sovici on the days of the 17th and
9 18th of April, in 1993, an you described here a man who you've just been
10 describing now as Mr. Tuta, I got the impression that -- well, maybe I
11 shouldn't say that. Did you think that he was playing any role in the
12 events that happened on the 17th and 18th of April in Sovici?
13 A. Yes.
14 JUDGE CLARK: From your point of view, who was more important that
15 day in Sovici outside the school, Mr. Tuta or Mr. Rogic?
16 A. Actually, they were together. Mr. Tuta was in the school office.
17 I was being chased round all the time. They would bring me to the school
18 and then take me back, and every time I came to the school I saw a number
19 of them sitting with Mr. Tuta in that office and I saw a number of men
20 leaning against the wall facing the wall with their arms up in the air.
21 JUDGE CLARK: That's not quite the question I asked. I think you
22 told us that Mr. Rogic was a magistrate, and obviously you knew him as a
23 person of importance in your community. As far as you were concerned-
24 now - we'll just talk about you now - who was the more important person
25 who had more to do with you that day in Sovici?
1 A. Mr. Rogic was in charge of everything. He made all the
2 initiatives. He gave all the instructions as to what had to be done, so
3 it was Mr. Rogic.
4 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Rogic would have known every one of you quite
5 well, is that the situation, being a local?
8 JUDGE CLARK: Now, this may be a difficult question. If you don't
9 know, say so. It just helps me to form a view. Would Mr. Rogic have
10 played a part in identifying to the soldiers from outside the area who was
11 an important player, who was a member of ABiH, who might have been a
12 soldier carrying arms, and who would have been a civilian? Do you
13 understand what I'm saying?
14 A. Yes, I understand you very well. I don't know how to answer your
15 question though. I really don't know anything about that.
16 JUDGE CLARK: Did you get the impression that Mr. Rogic was
17 furnishing information to any of the other outside soldiers about who was
18 who in the village of Sovici?
19 A. Yes. He had information. He had his own deployment, and he
20 furnished those to the local commanders who obeyed his orders. That was
21 until the moment we left. Later on how things were then, I don't know.
22 JUDGE CLARK: I think Mr. Seric asked you were you a smoker, and I
23 think he elicited from you that you had to surrender your cigarettes, your
24 lighter, your personal possessions. Did you ever in the period from the
25 time you were first taken in the bus until you were released ever get your
1 personal belongings back?
2 A. No.
3 JUDGE CLARK: When you were in the Heliodrom, were you allowed to
5 A. Those who had cigarettes in the cells, they could smoke. There
6 was no specific ban. But since we didn't have the money to buy
7 cigarettes, the majority of us didn't smoke.
8 JUDGE CLARK: If you did have access to cigarettes, how would you
9 light them?
10 A. There was always somebody who managed to hide something in their
11 pockets during the search, so there would always be something handy, some
12 sort of a gadget that we could use.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Were you treated when you were a prisoner as a
14 civilian or a soldier?
15 A. We were all treated as soldiers regardless of how old we were
16 because there were people aged 82 or older with canes, and they were also
17 in the camp.
18 JUDGE CLARK: Now, if I can bring you to the burial of the first
19 body in Liska Park. Did you mark that particular grave - that would have
20 been your first burial - in any way? Was there anything to indicate that
21 a body was there and the dates that it was buried?
22 A. There were no markings whatsoever on the grave.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Can I ask you when you first -- I'm not asking you
24 the date, but in around what time did you make contact with anybody in
25 authority in relation to the location of this grave in Liska Park?
1 A. The first contacts with the authority I had when I left the camp,
2 somewhat later. I can't remember the date. That was upon issuing the
3 statement. Everybody who was in the camp issued their statements. When
4 we issued a statement, we were summoned, and that's what happened later
6 JUDGE CLARK: When you talked about what had happened to you
7 during the period that you were incarcerated, how did -- I'm trying to
8 find out or to establish the link between the burial in Liska Park and the
9 contact with the alleged son of the victim that you buried. You didn't
10 know who it was. There were just the people in the Heliodrom -- were
11 guessing. But at what stage did you make contact with the authorities
12 which led to the exhumation of the body which you had buried?
13 A. The contact was established in 1994, when I was released from the
14 Heliodrom, and the body was exhumed much later than that initial contact.
15 JUDGE CLARK: I think that you said that you made the statement
16 that has been referred to here in January 1996 in Jablanica, and
17 Mr. Krsnik thinks you made it in Konjic, but there was a debate about
18 that or a discussion. Did you at any stage meet anyone in relation to the
19 body or the burial, or was it before that?
20 A. I had a meeting before I gave the statement. The statement was
21 issued subsequently, not in Konjic but in Jablanica. Before I issued the
22 statement, I had contacts regarding the body.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Yesterday you made reference to a piece of paper
24 that you had. It wasn't clear to me what you were saying. A piece of
25 paper which appeared to say that you had a little map of where the body
1 would be found and you mentioned something about the Red Cross. I wasn't
2 at all clear about this piece of paper. Could you help me on that.
3 A. Yes, Your Honour. I did not have a piece of paper, but I kept the
4 messages that I received from my folks from Vakuf and I just happened to
5 have those messages in my pocket, and everything that I experienced, all
6 the burials that I attended, I made notes of -- I made the note of
7 location, how the person was dressed. I would also make the note of the
8 row or the number of the grave. And of the 70-something people which were
9 buried in Miljkovici, I had the note of that, how many of them, in what
10 row -- in which row. And if I knew the name, I would make a note of
11 that. If I didn't know, obviously I couldn't make a note of their names.
12 So I made a record of all that.
13 JUDGE CLARK: And when you say you didn't have the notes any more,
14 did you give them to the investigating police who were exhuming the
15 bodies? Is that how you lost the notes?
16 A. Yes. That message remained with the Mostar police. It was never
17 returned to me, and it so happened that they have misplaced it.
18 JUDGE CLARK: My final question, then: From what you said, I
19 understood you to mean that you remembered where this body was buried
20 because it was your first burial and it was the only burial in Liska
21 Park. Am I correct in that interpretation of your evidence?
22 A. Yes. As far as I can remember, I buried just one body there and
23 nobody else in that area.
24 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you for your assistance.
25 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judge's questions? Yes,
1 Mr. Stringer.
2 MR. STRINGER: Just one question, Mr. President.
3 Further examination by Mr. Stringer:
4 Q. Witness, your testimony about Mr. Rogic in Sovici -- Judge Clark
5 asked you about his position -- was he acting as a civilian, a judge, or a
6 military man on that day?
7 A. He acted as a civilian, as a judge. He was also the president of
8 the HDZ, and he was a civilian, he had a very nice suit on. He acted as a
10 Q. So was he not wearing a uniform?
11 A. No.
12 MR. STRINGER: Thank you.
13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.
14 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Seric:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Witness, please listen carefully to my question.
17 The body that you buried in Liska Park, was it exhumed from the same hole
18 where you put it?
19 A. Sir, I wasn't present where the body was exhumed. I came to the
20 police and handed over the piece of paper indicating the row and the
21 number. There were people from the exhumation team there and there was
22 security there, and I did not attend the exhumation. I did not come to
23 the grave to point to the grave.
24 Q. Did they tell you anything about that, what was -- what hole was
25 the body taken out from?
1 A. Nobody told me anything. They left. I remained waiting there for
2 an hour or so. I can't remember exactly. But when they returned, they
3 said everything was okay, that the man's son identified the body, that the
4 body was the one that they suspected it was, and then they let me go.
5 They took me to Jablanica, and I don't know what else happened. I heard
6 that there was another body there, but I told them immediately that as far
7 as I could remember, there was just one body buried there.
8 Q. Thank you very much.
9 A. Thank you.
10 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, no questions? Thank you.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, thank you.
12 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
13 Well, witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to help
14 us. We appreciate that very much. When the usher pulls down the blinds,
15 he will show you out of the room. We all wish you a pleasant journey back
16 home and a good future.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you for listening to me
18 carefully. I apologise for not choosing my words very carefully. I
19 apologise for that. And if need may be, I will come back for as many
20 times as necessary to give my evidence.
21 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
22 [The witness withdrew]
23 JUDGE LIU: At this stage are there any documents to tender?
24 Mr. Stringer.
25 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I apologise. You've caught me off
1 guard. I had forgotten about that issue, which you always ask. If I can
2 just reach for my outline.
3 JUDGE LIU: I think there are several maps and photographs used
4 during the -- yes, during the direct examination.
5 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I know --
6 JUDGE LIU: Maybe Madam Registrar could help us in this aspect.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, I can assist. On the 7th of
8 October, P6.7/3 was tendered, P6.8/2, P14.4/5, 12 -- excuse me, P12/2,
9 P928/5. And that was all for the Prosecution, Your Honour.
10 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. That's consistent with my
11 notes, and I thank the registrar for assistance on that.
12 JUDGE LIU: Any objections? Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Exhibit 928/5, we absolutely object
14 to that exhibit. The witness is so far -- and this witness today
15 particularly, he'd never seen the document, he's never heard of the man.
16 The content of the document did not corresponded with what the witness was
17 talking about. I no longer know what to say, how to show my disapproval.
18 I'm not sure what the translation was.
19 I would like to use this opportunity to tender two documents we've
20 used into evidence. That's -- oh, excuse me, please.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, we'll have to do it one by one.
22 Mr. Seric, any objection to those documents tendered by the
24 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm only speaking about
25 documents relating to my client, so I'm not talking about documents
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 relating to Mr. Mladen Naletilic. No, no objections.
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So the four documents, P6.8/2,
3 P6.7/3, P14.4/5, and P12/2 are admitted into the evidence. As for the
4 document P928/5, this Trial Chamber will make a decision at a later
6 Mr. Krsnik, do you have any documents to tender?
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. The documents I've
8 used, statement dated 16th of January, Konjic or Jablanica; and then
9 D1/415 and 414. That was a statement that was given to the investigators
10 of the Prosecution. These are the two documents that we would like to
11 please have tendered into evidence.
12 JUDGE LIU: Any objections, Mr. Stringer?
13 MR. STRINGER: We object to the statement in evidence,
14 Mr. President. I do recall an earlier decision in this case at the
15 beginning of this trial in which the Trial Chamber indicated we would only
16 accept witness statements as going to credibility, as opposed to
17 substantive evidence. But in any case, we object to the admission of the
18 witness statements.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, why do we ask to tender
21 these exhibits into evidence? In order to confirm the credibility of the
22 witness. And also I would like to draw your attention to the judgement
23 and the final decision in the Kupreskic case, what the Judge wrote there
24 about the final decision concerning the statement given to the AID and
25 their investigators. I would not like to go any further into that now. I
1 would like to remind you of the use of such statements and of the way such
2 statements were used. But I would no longer like to tire you with that.
3 But it's all there in that final decision.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
5 Mr. Seric.
6 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I fully support my colleague Krsnik's
7 proposal as if it were our own, concerning these two documents, and
8 additionally I would like to tender into evidence photograph number 14.4.
9 I think the number would be D2/80. And map number D2 -- number 11.18, I
10 think that would be D2/81. So our Defence has four documents to tender
11 into evidence, the four we have just enumerated. Thank you.
12 JUDGE LIU: As for the photos and the maps, do you have any
13 objections, Mr. Stringer?
14 MR. STRINGER: No objection, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. So the D2/80 and D2/81 are
16 admitted into the evidence.
17 As for the previous statement of the witness, Mr. Krsnik, and
18 Mr. Seric, I believe that this Trial Chamber has made a decision that all
19 the previous statements and any written documents written by the witness
20 are not admitted into the evidence. This is a Rule from the very
21 beginning of this trial until now, almost last day of this trial.
22 Secondly, Mr. Krsnik, I believe that during your cross-examination
23 you used very extensively that document. I must say almost all the
24 important matters in those two documents are mentioned in the transcript.
25 We believe that's enough to support your case to attack the credibility of
1 that witness, so we decided that these two documents are not admitted into
2 evidence. It is so decided.
3 Well, I would like to know whether the next witness is ready and
4 any protective measures for the next witness.
5 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the witness
7 enters the courtroom, I would please ask you to help me with this and my
8 colleagues from the Prosecution too. I have a proposal to make. First I
9 would like to ask the Prosecutor the following question: Is it their
10 intention to use this witness who is about to testify to tender into
11 evidence 65 documents listed here and purportedly given by -- provided by
12 the Prosecutor? If so, if they're preparing to tender into evidence those
13 documents, in that case the Defence is not yet ready to cross-examine
14 because we were only given these documents on the 4th of October this
16 Another thing I want to emphasise: On the 4th of October this
17 year, the documents we received, we found something there that we think is
18 a very serious issue. We have found a number of exculpatory elements such
19 as General Petkovic's order to release all civilians from Sovici on the
20 4th of May. Can there possibly be anything more exculpatory as a document
21 than that? And the Prosecution received that document in June of the year
22 2000, and they failed to hand it over to us until the 4th of October this
23 year. Your Honours, I can keep on enumerating individual statements. I
24 can talk about statements given by witnesses to the AID but not forwarded
25 to us because we've only just received them. I could talk on about this
1 for a very long time, the ways in which the Defence has been prejudiced by
2 such behaviour, but we're preparing a very comprehensive motion in which
3 we will list individual cases of witnesses who is testified here who had
4 given statements to the AID but those statements were not forwarded to us
5 and we could not use it in our cross-examination. Let's learn [As
6 interpreted] all this exculpatory documents and evidence.
7 Your Honours, what would have been if prior to our motion for
8 acquittal we'd had the document that they were supposed to forward to us,
9 because they had received it in the year of 2000, this order by General
10 Petkovic. And you know what my own client is being charged with, with
11 respect to the civilian population. So this is a proposal I wish to make,
12 since my client is not present here today, and this is supposed to be --
13 the following witness is supposed to be the last witness concerning my
14 client. We have ready to accept Apolonia Bos from the Office of the
15 Prosecutor today and if my client gets better today, perhaps he may be
16 able to attend tomorrow.
17 Also concerning my colleague Bos from the investigation unit, her
18 statement, Your Honours, only related to the so-called rifles. But when
19 the Prosecution asked to have her questioned, they said suddenly she will
20 talk about the diary too. I have a right to know whether she will, and
21 indeed I must prepare for that case. So these are the two proposals I
22 wish to make. Thank you.
23 JUDGE LIU: Any response? Mr. Scott.
24 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, the response is that it's very obvious,
25 starting on Monday morning, that the Defence has very clearly embarked on
1 a course this week to be as difficult and obstreperous as possible at
2 every turn, and that continues just in the last few minutes.
3 All the disclosure that we believe that was required and proper to
4 make has been made all along. The very fact, the very fact that we turned
5 over certain documents next -- last week related to the testimony --
6 potentially the testimony of witnesses to be called this week, is indeed
7 evidence that we have met and continue to meet our disclosure
9 As to the next witness and the diary, the Chamber will hear very
10 shortly the witness is going to give only the most basic information to
11 answer various questions the Chamber has had in terms of when the Office
12 of the Prosecutor received certain documents, certain versions, either the
13 B/C/S version or the typed version or whatever of the diary. Certainly
14 simply as a matter of record. I'm looking right now, Your Honour, at my
15 outline, and on the Rados diary for this witness, I think there's six or
16 seven questions. And it's simply as to when was this received, and that's
17 the nature of it.
18 I also would say, Your Honour, that Ms. Bos, because the -- I hope
19 the Chamber will understand -- travels frequently in the region, she's not
20 requesting a pseudonym, she is requesting that her facial image be
21 distorted, again, because she travels frequently in that region.
22 JUDGE LIU: I see. So the next witness will be Ms. Bos.
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Ms. Bos, Your Honour. And she's not asking for a
24 pseudonym. We can refer to her as we already have, by name, but she wants
25 her face to be protected, please.
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric. Mr. Seric.
2 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this assertion by
3 Mr. Scott, I find I have to react to it. The Defence isn't employing any
4 sort of strategy. We only have a heart and a desire to do -- to perform
5 our task as well as we can. At least give us an illusion that our work is
6 not in vain, please. We are not lawyers from the United States. We are
7 not from Great Britain, we are not from any of those really big and
8 important states. But believe me, our law faculty in Zagreb is a lot
9 older than many cities in the United States.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I see no objections from Defence counsel
11 concerning with the protective measures of Ms. Bos.
12 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. No objection concerning that.
14 But even so, Your Honour, I must appeal to justice. I cannot have a
15 witness by the Prosecution without having received a statement
16 previously. I have only just found out that this witness was going to
17 give testimony about the Rados diary three days ago. Please, these are
18 the very last witnesses. Does not the Defence team have the right to know
19 that the Rados diary was going to be discussed? Well, then I really don't
20 know what to say. Let her then give testimony about this part of the
21 statement that we do have and that we have read, and please may I have a
22 statement prepared concerning the testimony about the Rados diary.
23 Please, Your Honours, allow us to have that at least, because we have to
24 defend our client. There's a witness appearing now, and I have no idea
25 what she's going to talk about. She hasn't been announced and we don't
1 even have here statement. And they call it obstacles. Just because we
2 are seeking justice and equality. The Prosecutor seems to think that
3 that's not obstacle. Well, maybe he really does find that it's an
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I think this Trial Chamber made a
6 decision on the 20th of September concerning of the areas in the rebuttal
7 proceedings. We specifically identified three or four areas that the
8 witness testimony in those four fields are allowed; that is, the events
9 related to Sovici and Doljani, the burial of Mr. Harmandzic, the
10 identification of the wooden rifle, as well as the Rados diary. We know
11 the position of that witness. She is an investigator in the OTP. She was
12 not the writer of that diary. Many events -- most of the events in the --
13 mentioned in that diary, she'll know next to nothing. She's just going to
14 tell us how the OTP got that diary. It's very simple. And Mr. Scott
15 promised us he'll only have five or six questions concerning the Rados
16 diary. This Trial Chamber has made a decision today, allowed Ms. Bos to
17 be called to testify in the rebuttal, and her testimony shall be limited
18 to the two matters. One is identification of the wooden rifle; and the
19 other is the Rados diary. I see no objections against the protective
20 measures asked by the Prosecution, so that protective measure is granted.
21 Could we have the witness, please.
22 And by the way, Mr. Par, we looked into the jurisdiction about the
23 submission of the final briefs. We found that on a certain date all the
24 final briefs should be submitted in the language used -- officially used
25 by this Tribunal. That is English or French. We made the decision for
1 the deadline almost a month ago. I think both parties have enough time to
2 draft it and have it translated into the official language of this
4 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have understood your
5 decision, but our intention is to appeal against this decision because we
6 believe that the quality of arms of the sides has been -- has not been
7 just. We believe that the Prosecution has had more time for the final
8 brief than we were given, and I would just like to reiterate this view on
9 our part.
10 [The witness entered court]
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, we will take note of your remarks.
12 Good morning, witness.
13 THE WITNESS: Good morning, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration, please.
15 A. I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,
16 and nothing but the truth.
17 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
18 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
19 WITNESS: APOLONIA BOS
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.
21 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
22 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
24 Examined by Mr. Scott:
25 Q. Ms. Bos, will you state your full name for the record, please.
1 A. Apolonia Adriana Bos.
2 Q. And Ms. Bos as you may know, I'm not sure how the monitor
3 might be arranged. But in any event, your request to have your facial
4 image protected has been granted and is being protected.
5 A. Thank you.
6 Q. Now, very, very briefly, Ms. Bos. You are an investigator with
7 the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal; is that correct?
8 A. Yes, that's correct, sir.
9 Q. And how long have you been a -- excuse me, an investigator with
10 the Office of the Prosecutor here?
11 A. Since June 1995, sir.
12 Q. And were you a police officer or investigator with a Dutch police
13 force for a number of years before that?
14 A. That's correct, sir.
15 Q. And finally by way of background, just so the record is clear, is
16 it correct, Ms. Bos, that your native language is Dutch but you feel
17 comfortable to give your testimony in English? Is that correct?
18 A. That's correct, sir.
19 Q. Now, the first topic I want to direct your attention to, Ms. Bos,
20 and I'm hoping we can move rather quickly, is a document that has become
21 known -- and I'll simply use the terminology -- the Rados diary. Can you
22 advice the Chamber if you've had a chance to determine when a typed, what
23 we call B/C/S, version of that diary was received by the Office of the
25 A. According to the records of the Tribunal, that was submitted to
1 the Tribunal on the 16th of March, 1998.
2 Q. And have you also been able to determine when the Office of the
3 Prosecutor first received a copy of the handwritten, now distinguishing,
4 the handwritten version of that diary?
5 A. A copy of the handwritten version was received on the 10th of
6 September -- sorry, 10th of December, 1998.
7 Q. And since that time and in recent days has the Office of the
8 Prosecutor been able to obtain the original of that diary?
9 A. That's correct. Since recently we have been able to obtain the
10 original diary. That was on the 24th of September when it was given to my
11 colleague Brett Pakenham. He brought it into the Tribunal when he
12 travelled back, which was on the 25th, 26th of September, this year.
13 Q. I'm going to ask the usher's assistance to provide what's been
14 marked as Exhibit 928C to the witness.
15 MR. MEEK: Mr. President.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
17 MR. MEEK: At line 12 the witness mentioned my colleague, but the
18 record does not show the name. Could possibly she repeat that. Thank
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, it's -- if I can assist. It's Brett
22 Pakenham. B-R-E-T-T. Excuse me for the mispronunciation,
24 JUDGE LIU: Is that true, witness?
25 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
1 JUDGE LIU: Because it's your answer.
2 THE WITNESS: That was my answer, Your Honour.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. Ms. Bos, I'd like you to look at what's been put in front of you,
5 marked as Exhibit 928C. Can you tell the Judges what that is.
6 A. This is an envelope that contains a handwritten booklet, and that
7 is the booklet that -- and the envelope that was given to me by my
8 colleague Brett Pakenham.
9 Q. Since this is the first time that document has been in Court,
10 could you just momentarily hold that up so the Judges are able to see the
11 nature of the documented you're talk about. Could you open the cover,
12 please, and just show what the pages look like.
13 A. It looks like a normal diary.
14 Q. It doesn't matter. If you can just hold it up. Obviously the
15 Chamber -- I know it's some distance, and the Chamber will of course have
16 a chance to examine it.
17 Now, let me -- my final question on the Rados diary, Ms. Bos, is:
18 Were you able -- were you and a language assistant, a person who speak it
19 is Bosnian Croat language -- excuse me, the Bosnian/Croat/Serb language
20 that we refer to as B/C/S, were you able to review the original diary,
21 that you have just shown to us, and handwritten copy, which was previously
22 marked as, I believe, 928B, were you able to review those -- look at those
23 documents in the last few days?
24 A. We did. We looked at -- sorry, we looked at every page to see if
25 there were differences between the pages in the original diary and the
1 copy, what had been provided to us and what has been put into evidence.
2 We checked it, if there had been something changed, and we couldn't find
3 any changes. I also checked it, if there were pages lost, out, because
4 it's numbered. I noticed there were five or six pages out, but the story
5 continued from one page to the other page, so according to me and the
6 language assistant, those pages were torn out before the diary was
7 written, because it's a continuous story.
8 Q. And other than that, were you able to as an investigator, did you
9 find any other indications with the use of white-out, with the use of an
10 eraser, scissors, did you see anything that indicated there had been any
11 alteration made to the document?
12 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I object to that. There's been no
13 foundation that this witness is an expert in documents or anything else.
14 She's an investigator/police officer. She's no -- has no expertise for
15 this question. There's lack of foundation, and I object. There's also
16 been a lack of chain of custody on this document, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this witness is an investigator. She's
18 the first person to get hold of that document. Let us hear the impression
19 of this witness. We know that the witness is not an expert in that
20 specific field, but let's hear the impression of this witness.
21 If you have some doubts, you may ask some questions in
23 Witness, you may answer that question, please.
24 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I just wanted to say that I'm not an
25 expert, but the diary has lines. And if you look at it, if there has been
1 something wiped out, you should be able to see that. We didn't see that,
2 and we looked at the pages, all of them, Your Honour.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. Now, in terms of the follow-up on the objection just made by
5 counsel, you said that another investigate named Mr. Pakenham brought the
6 original diary back to The Hague from Bosnia, from the Mostar region, on
7 approximately the 25th and 26th of September this year. Can you tell the
8 Chamber whether that original diary has then been kept, secured from that
9 time until the time that it has been produced in the courtroom.
10 A. Your Honour, we kept a record where the diary went as soon as it
11 started to come into the -- into our building, and we have that on paper,
12 where it was. So it hasn't gone anywhere else than amongst the
13 investigators and the trial team.
14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, that concludes my questions on the
15 diary. And I see it's 11.00. I could move to my next topic after the
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
18 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we now finally
20 please have a look at this diary, since we weren't given an opportunity to
21 review it before. My learned colleague did have this diary, but he kept
22 silent about this both to the Chamber and to me, and he provided no
23 copies. And now we heard when the diary came in, and you, Your Honours,
24 ordered him to disclose anything related to that to us. Can we at least
25 now have a look during the break.
1 JUDGE LIU: Let me be clear on what your question is. You want to
2 see the contents of the diary, or you want to see the diary itself?
3 That's two different things. I think the Prosecution gave us kind of a
4 photocopy on the contents of the diary rather than the diary itself. So
5 you want to have a look at the diary itself or on the contents of the
6 diary? You have to make it clear.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [In English] Diary itself and contents, both.
8 [Interpretation] We want to see that. And had we been given an
9 opportunity in a timely fashion, maybe we could have studied the ink, the
10 handwriting. Your Honours, please, this is the point we've reached. I
11 have no further requests to make.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, we have no objections, of course, as
14 long as Ms. Bos and a member of the registry staff could be present as
15 long as the book is being examined.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think that the diary should be examined by
17 Defence counsel with the presence of somebody from the OTP as well as from
18 the registrar.
19 Well, we'll resume at 11.30.
20 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 11.34 a.m.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Scott, please continue.
23 MR. SCOTT:
24 Q. Ms. Bos, before we turn to the next topic, let me go back to the
25 Office of the Prosecutor receiving the diary on approximately the 24th of
1 September of this year. Can you tell the Judges, please, who did
2 Mr. Pakenham receive the diary from.
3 A. He received the diary from a FOSS official in Mostar.
4 Q. And is it correct, Ms. Bos, that FOSS, is a new combined, if you
5 will, Croat/Muslim police or intelligence service formed in the last
6 several months?
7 A. That's correct, sir. At least that's what I have been told.
8 Q. And was what was previously called AID, or the Agency for
9 Information and Documentation, was that agency, if you will, incorporated
10 into and made part of the new Federation agency called FOSS?
11 A. That's what I have been told, sir.
12 Q. And is it also correct that what had previously been the Bosnian
13 Croat counterpart or similar police/intelligence agency, called SIS or
14 sometimes SNS, that was also combined or incorporated into combined into
16 A. That's what I have been told, sir.
17 Q. Now, directing your attention forward to a different topic,
18 Ms. Bos, focussing very specifically on the matter at hand. Is it correct
19 that you were on mission in the Mostar region on approximately the 19th of
20 November, 2001, when you received the request from the Office of the
21 Prosecutor in The Hague to make efforts to locate a wooden rifle that
22 might be related to this case?
23 A. That's correct, sir. I was on mission at that time in Mostar.
24 Q. Now, can you just spend a moment or two telling the Judges in your
25 own words the efforts that you made to locate such a rifle leading up
1 to -- well, I'll let you go for some time, and then we'll take it then a
2 step at a time further.
3 A. On the 19th of November, while I was on mission in Mostar, I got a
4 phone call from one of my colleagues with a request to look for one of the
5 wooden rifles because one of the witnesses had testified about that. I
6 made inquiries with -- as well as the local authorities in Mostar as some
7 other people there. I had been told that the rifle had been seen in
8 Jablanica some years ago.
9 Q. Was this in -- in Jablanica. Was this in connection with
10 something called "the museum"?
11 A. Yes, it was in Jablanica in a museum there. When I made
12 inquiries, I had been told that it was not in Jablanica any more -- it was
13 not in Jablanica there, and they would look around if they could find one
14 for me. I myself went to the Mostar museum to see if it could have been
15 there. I also went to the association for former camp prisoners in
16 Mostar. I couldn't find it there.
17 Q. All right. Let me just -- sorry to interrupt you, but just to
18 prevent possibly naming the names of protected witnesses. Is it fair to
19 say that you contacted a number of individuals in your efforts to locate a
20 wooden rifle?
21 A. That's correct, sir.
22 Q. All right. Please continue on.
23 A. So on the 20th of November, I was produced a wooden rifle and a
24 person. I met that person. I saw the rifle. And the person told me how
25 he had gotten the wooden rifle in 1993, on 17th of September, while he had
1 been serving along the front line defending East Mostar.
2 Q. Now, when you say you -- a rifle was produced to you on the 20th
3 of November, 2001, can you tell the Judges, please, who introduced the
4 rifle, to use your word -- to introduced the rifle to you.
5 A. The witness and the rifle were introduced to me by the local
6 authorities at that time.
7 Q. And did those local authorities include what we've referred to in
8 the courtroom as AID?
9 A. That's correct, sir.
10 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, can we go into private session, for, I
11 think, one question and answer.
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
13 [Private session]
1 [Open session]
2 MR. SCOTT:
3 Q. Ms. Bos, you said a moment ago that when you met this man with the
4 rifle he told you that he had received it or initially obtained the rifle
5 on the 17th of September, 1993. Could you just continue on with your
6 answer about that.
7 A. That's correct, sir. He told me that he had been defending the
8 front line there, as I just said. He served along that front line from
9 the health centre till the Santiceva Street. And on the 17th of September
10 he was on duty between 11.00 and 14.00 in the afternoon. Around noon he
11 saw a tank coming from the direction of Liska Street. Then after a while
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
14 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. I would object to this testimony. I
15 believe it's outside the purview of this Trial Chamber's order. This
16 witness was to testify and this witness has already testified that she
17 received on rifle on the date previously given. This testimony is outside
18 the scope and the purview of this Trial Chamber's order. It's unfortunate
19 that the Prosecutor couldn't get this alleged soldier, individual who I
20 won't name, to come to testify. I think it's highly improper to let this
21 sort of testimony come in this Trial Chamber through this witness. This
22 witness was to come and testify how she received this wooden rifle. She's
23 already done that, and I think it's finished.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, first of all, we believe that the
25 testimony of this witness is within the scope of the rebuttal proceedings,
1 because she's going to tell us how she got that wooden rifle. Of course -
2 of course - what she said was not her first-hand knowledge of how the
3 wooden rifle fell into the hands of that person, but we all understand
4 that the hearsay evidence is also allowed in the proceedings. When we
5 evaluate this evidence, we will bear your objections in mind.
6 You may proceed.
7 MR. SCOTT:
8 Q. Ms. Bos, will you just continue on then with your answer. This
9 man was stationed at the front line between approximately 11.00 in the
10 morning and 2.00 in the afternoon on the 17th of September. You had
11 started to talk about a tank. Can you please continue your testimony from
13 A. At that time he was located opposite the health centre there. He
14 saw the tank coming. And at that moment he didn't see soldiers there.
15 But sometime later, shortly after, he all of a sudden saw four men, as
16 I recall, four men already near the place where he was defending his part,
17 and they were in HVO uniform -- at least the jackets were HVO uniform.
18 They had a rifle with him. Just about when he was going to shoot, he
19 noticed that the rifles were fake. As I remember, he only saw two rifles.
20 Q. Now -- I'm sorry, no, please go ahead.
21 A. So the -- then one of the prisoners said, "Don't shoot, because we
22 are from your side." So they came in the building where he was defending
23 and he remembered that from the four there were -- there was one prisoner
24 what was a bit more heavy weight than the others. The others were
25 thinner. He also remembers that he received cigarettes from one of them.
1 And as he said, from that one, the one that was more heavy weight. And he
2 remembers that he asked if he could get that wooden rifle from that man
3 and he received that and he kept it. He took the rifle home with him and
4 never gave it to someone else or modified it.
5 Q. Now, on that day - we're now talk again -- we're still on the 20th
6 of November, 2001 -- did you actually obtain possession of the rifle at
7 that time, that is, obtain the rifle and bring it back to The Hague?
8 A. No, I didn't, because when I asked him if I could take the rifle
9 with me, he said, "No -- yes, you can but you have to pay me 300
10 Deutschmarks for that, because I need the money. One of my children is
11 sick and he needs an operation." I told him that the Tribunal was not
12 going to pay for such a thing, but he insisted, and I agreed with him that
13 he should come back the next morning. I would discussion this with my
14 chiefs and would go back to him the next morning, the following morning.
15 He agreed on that. He left the rifle behind. I discussed it with
16 the chief of investigations in the Tribunal, and it was confirmed that we
17 are not paying for that. So I made photos that evening, that late
18 afternoon, and the next morning I was --
19 Q. Let me stop you there. Forgive me.
20 MR. SCOTT: Could the witness please be shown what's been marked
21 as Exhibit P963.
22 Mr. President, Your Honours, copies of these -- colour copies of
23 those -- those are the photographs, nine photos of the wooden rifle,
24 colour copies are provided in the binders that have been distributed to
25 the Chamber. Perhaps the usher could -- the assistant -- we could use one
1 of the binders, if it's easier -- one of the bundles that have been
2 prepared for witnesses and simply put those on the ELMO, if there is one.
3 Actually, if I might assist. Madam Registrar, I don't think it's
4 necessary. I think the -- I think that the Judges have those.
5 Q. Do you recall, Ms. Bos, taking photographs as you just said on the
6 evening or approximately the evening of the 20th of November, 2001?
7 A. I made those photos, and I took those photos with me back to The
8 Hague. And as far as I know, those photos have been submitted to the
9 Court and the Defence.
10 Q. All right. Ms. Bos, we've now located a copy of those for
11 purposes of the witness stand. If those could -- if you could just
12 briefly look at those just so you can verify that those are the
13 photographs that you took at that time.
14 A. I took that photo.
15 Q. All right. Now, we're not going to go -- can you just look
16 physically, just leaf through the photographs and confirm that those are
17 the photographs you took. We're not going to go through each one.
18 A. I can confirm they took all these photos and I also made the
19 measure, sir.
20 Q. Yes. That's the one other photo that I was going to ask you
21 about. Is there one other photo in that bundle that has measurements?
22 A. There is one photo amongst them.
23 Q. Could that please be placed on the ELMO.
24 A. That's this one.
25 Q. And can you just confirm, Ms. Bos, that you're the one who made
1 the measurements that have been placed on that photograph.
2 A. I can confirm that, sir. I made those measures and I wrote them
3 down there.
4 Q. All right. That's the -- I have no more questions about the
6 You said that you had made arrangements with this man to meet him
7 again the next day. Did you?
8 A. I did, sir. And -- but he didn't turn up the next morning. And I
9 was told that he -- they couldn't find him. And as I had arranged that I
10 would travel back to Sarajevo that day, I had to leave and couldn't wait
11 for him. So actually, I proposed that I would take the rifle, because it
12 was obvious the man was not coming and most probably didn't care about it
13 any more. But that was strongly rejected by the official of at that time
14 AID. The man had asked money for it and wanted to be paid for it and I
15 hadn't paid him. So I left the rifle behind to have it given back to the
16 man and I left Sarajevo -- left Mostar for Sarajevo.
17 Q. All right. Did you continue after that -- after the completion of
18 that mission and your return to The Hague, did you engage in further
19 efforts between the end of November and January of this year, 2002, to
20 locate -- either to locate a rifle or indeed to deal with this man again
21 about that rifle?
22 A. Yes, I did. About Jablanica museum, I had heard that it was not
23 open and I had also spoken to someone who had spoken with a caretaker
24 there who hadn't heard about it or who didn't know about it. On my next
25 mission in January, I planned to see the man from the wooden rifle again
1 to make another effort to bring the rifle with me without paying, which I
3 Q. And what was the result of your meeting with this man, the same
4 man that you'd met on the 20th of November? What was the outcome of that
5 meeting on that day?
6 A. I met him on the 19th of January on the street, which was
7 accidentally. I asked if he -- if he could speak again. He agreed on
8 that, but it was a bit later that day. I went to his house, and I asked
9 him again if I could get the rifle without paying and told him that we
10 need it. He wanted to think about it and told me to come back two days
11 later, which I did. So on the 21st of January, I returned to his house
12 and there was no -- I have to tell that there was no interference of any
13 other official in this, also not on the 19th of January, when I met him.
14 So I went back to his house and he was prepared to hand me over the rifle
15 but he told me that if we had used it, if he could have it back because it
16 had some emotional value to him. I told him that I would discuss that.
17 He didn't want to give a signed statement or testify because of security
18 reasons, and he didn't want to be involved in that because he had gone
19 through a lot of -- a lot of bad things during the war and he didn't want
20 to go over that any more.
21 Q. Let me ask -- I'm sorry. Let me just ask you: The rifle, then,
22 that you saw, that he produced to you on approximately the 21st of
23 January, did you confirm to the Judges, was that the same rifle that you
24 had seen on the 20th of November?
25 A. When he handed over to me the rifle on the 21st of November, I
1 looked at it and I saw it was the same rifle I had seen on the 20th of
2 November and which I had photographed.
3 Q. All right. Ms. Bos, I think you may have just misspoke. But you
4 say when he handed the rifle to you -- if you look at the transcript -- on
5 the 21st of November. Did you mean to say the 21st of January?
6 A. Sorry. It must have been the 21st of January. He handed it over
7 to me, yes.
8 Q. All right. Let me just clarify the record. When you received the
9 rifle from the man on the 21st of January, was it the same rifle that you
10 had seen in November?
11 A. It was the same rifle I had seen in November, yes, sir.
12 MR. SCOTT: With the usher's assistance, can we show this, please,
13 to -- what's been marked as Exhibit 962 to the witness, please.
14 Q. Ms. Bos, examining before you what's been marked as Exhibit 962,
15 can you tell the Judges what that is.
16 A. This is the so-called wooden rifle, what I received from that
17 witness on the 21st of January.
18 Q. Now, I only have, I believe, two remaining questions for you. The
19 photographs -- directing your attention back to the photographs. You need
20 not have the photographs. But when you retained these photographs
21 earlier, did you have occasion to show these -- those photographs to a man
22 who is identified -- and I will ask you not to use any names. But did you
23 show the photographs to a man known in this courtroom as Witness PP?
24 A. Yes. I was able to do so, because that witness was still here.
25 Q. Here in The Hague.
1 A. In The Hague, yes, sir.
2 Q. And was that man able to give you any information about the rifle
3 shown in those photographs that have been marked as Exhibit 963?
4 A. I showed him the photos, and he identified the rifle as the rifle
5 he had been carrying -- a very, very similar rifle as he had been carrying
6 on the 17th of September.
7 Q. After you obtained -- physically obtained the rifle that you have
8 in front of you now on the witness stand, were you able to physically show
9 that rifle to the man known as Witness PP?
10 A. When I returned back in Sarajevo and I had the rifle with me, I
11 called the witness, I showed him the rifle, and he identified the rifle as
12 the rifle he had been carrying on the 17th of September, 1993.
13 Q. Did you personally, Ms. Bos, carry that rifle back to The Hague?
14 A. Yes, sir. I personally took it with me and brought it in The
16 Q. And can you tell the Judges where that rifle, other than having it
17 in the courtroom -- where that rifle has been since brining it back to The
19 A. When I brought it back -- I brought it to our evidence unit, where
20 it was stored.
21 Q. And my final question is: Is it correct that on -- I believe it
22 was Friday last week that you met with Mr. Par, Mr. Seric, and showed
23 them -- and had a chance to meet with them concerning that rifle.
24 A. That's correct. I showed the rifle to them here in the office.
25 Q. Thank you, Ms. Bos. I have no further questions.
1 JUDGE LIU: Any cross-examination? Yes, Mr. Par.
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] We have agreed that we will be the first
3 ones to carry out our cross-examination, but Mr. Krsnik will explain.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] In the break that we are headed for,
5 we would like to see this concoction that we have received today. And if
6 nothing else, we would like to compare the original with the copies in
7 order to be able to carry out -- to conduct my cross-examination. That's
8 why I asked my colleague Par to start cross-examining and allow me to
9 prepare myself. If I can't do that during the lunch break, I will ask you
10 to give me the permission to continue with my cross-examination tomorrow,
11 because I really do need the time to compare the original with the copies
12 of the document.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I hope you could do it during the
14 lunch break, because, you know, we are really racing against the time.
15 Mr. Par, are you ready to do your cross-examination?
16 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I'm ready.
17 [Defence counsel confer]
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, I saw that first row is always empty.
19 Why don't you take that one. Yes.
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Par:
21 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Ms. Bos. I am Zelimir Par.
22 We've had opportunity to meet, and I represent Vinko Martinovic before
23 this Tribunal.
24 Before we start the cross-examination, I would like to tell you
25 that there are two statements the Defence wishes to make in relation to
1 your testimony. The first one being: We believe that the wooden rifle
2 that you have testified about today is an important -- is a false piece of
3 evidence and that it was planted. Our second statement is: We believe
4 your testimony related to this wooden rifle is aimed at convincing the
5 Chamber that it is indeed an authentic piece of evidence and not a false
6 piece of evidence. It is on the basis of these two statements by the
7 Defence that I will ask you several questions.
8 Mrs. Bos, do you believe that this wooden rifle that you have
9 testified about was planted, to you to lead you to believe that it was a
10 rifle that was used in some sort of military operation on the 17th of
11 September, 1993 in Mostar?
12 A. Your Honours, I have no reason to believe that.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness, would you please repeat your answer. I
14 don't think --
15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I have understood, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Before the response of the witness,
17 I would like to say that I haven't understood Mr. Par's question. Can
18 Mr. Par please repeat the question. Thank you.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Very well. My question was the
20 following: Does the witness believe that this rifle was planted?
21 A. I have no reason to believe this, Your Honours.
22 Q. Mrs. Bos, do you rule out the possibility that this rifle was
24 MR. SCOTT: I object to that, Your Honour. Ruling out all
25 possibilities I think is an unfair question.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, you have to -- you have to rephrase
2 your question.
3 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I also think that it's
4 inappropriate for the Prosecution to offer answers that the witness is
5 supposed to provide. I will return to this matter through some other
7 Q. Mrs. Bos, your testimony before this court, is the aim of this
8 testimony to prove to us that this is indeed an authentic piece of
10 A. Your Honour, the aim, as far as I believe, is to present the Court
11 with evidence on the incident, what happened on the 17th of September,
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
14 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I would like to take my place just
15 next to my learned colleague Par, Mr. President, if I may.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] So that I should be able to
18 participate should the need arise.
19 MR. MEEK: While Mr. Seric is doing that, Your Honour, that last
20 answer this witness made went directly to the objection I made ten minutes
21 ago which you overruled. This witness is only here to testify how she
22 received this piece of evidence. And now she's answered she believes her
23 aim is to present evidence on the incident of the 17th of September, which
24 is not within the scope of the rebuttal. I want to make the record clear.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, you know, Mr. Meek, the witness is not as
2 trained a legal professional as us. She does not know the exact areas
3 that she is going to testify. Judging from her answer, I think it's
4 within the scope of the rebuttal proceedings.
5 Anyway, Mr. Par, you may proceed.
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Let us start with the following, Mrs. Bos, our thesis that this
8 piece of evidence was planted. Could you please tell us, what was the
9 first time that you saw this rifle? Can you repeat the date, please.
10 A. The first time I saw the rifle was on the 20th of November, 2001,
12 Q. Could you please tell us again, who was the person who showed you
13 the rifle for the first time.
14 A. The rifle was --
15 JUDGE LIU: Well --
16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: If you are going to mention some names, we have to go
18 to the private session.
19 MR. SCOTT: We would request that, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
21 [Private session]
13 Page 16170 – redacted – private session
13 Page 16171 – redacted – private session
8 [Open session]
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
10 Q. How, then, did this member of the AID happen to be in your
11 office? Did you have an appointment? Did he let you know before about
12 being in possession of this rifle? How did the meeting between the two of
13 you in that office come about?
14 A. As I've already said before, when I got the request to look for
15 that rifle, I discussed it with local authorities, with this member of the
16 AID and some other people. And when I discussed it, he said well, he
17 would look around if he could find such a rifle, if it was still in
18 Mostar. I was working in that office anyway, so he came up during the
19 morning. I think it was end of the morning with that rifle. He knew I
20 was in that office.
21 Q. Can you please clarify this term for us "local authorities." You
22 say, "I worked with local authorities." Are we talking about the police
23 forces? Are we talk about the AID or some other local authorities?
24 A. I'm talking about the AID, sir.
25 Q. The point we're about to reach is the point where we should name
1 the person the rifle belonged to;, however one wishes to refer to him.
2 How did he get there to your meeting point, this office? Was he brought
3 there by this member of the AID?
4 A. He was brought by a member of the AID, sir.
5 Q. Just another question concerning this meeting: Were you too --
6 did you too -- did you invite them to this meeting, or did they just say
7 themselves, "We'll be there with the rifle tomorrow at some point"? Who
8 initiated this meeting?
9 A. Well, we didn't initiate a meeting. I am working in that office
10 anyway. So if they bring something or there is something, they come to
11 that office. They know where they can find me. So we did not arrange
12 anything to say well, as far as I remember, I'm going to bring you a
13 rifle. It was just brought to me there.
14 Q. Okay. Now, this witness - let's call him Witness AK, for
15 example, is here. What did he tell you? Did you ask him who the rifle
16 belonged to? Who was the person who interviewed him, you, the AID
18 A. To clarify, sir, when I interview witnesses there's never someone
19 from the AID present. So as soon as he came in the office, the AID
20 official left and I was the one who asked the witness the questions.
21 Q. So did you ask him about who the rifle belonged to?
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Did you obtain an answer?
25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, my apology to counsel. I appreciate
1 that counsel is trying to protect the identity of this man. This is not a
2 complaint. However, we should probably not use AK, because that's a
3 pseudonym that's been assigned to another witness. Perhaps we can assign
4 a new pseudonym to this person, if that's the easiest thing to do.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. What's your suggestion?
6 MR. SCOTT: Or the man. I mean, I think we're only talking --
7 we're only talking about the man who came to the office on that day. But
8 however the Chamber wishes.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] My learned colleague has just informed
12 me that man is not a witness, has refused to be a witness, and there are
13 no protective measures involved. He only asked not to have his name
14 mentioned, and we'll respect that. We'll comply with that. We can call
15 him "Person X," or whichever way you like. I really don't want to hurt
16 his priorities.
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. I thought this matter has been
18 settled by both parties.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. No. I'm confused
20 here. I am not an expert on procedure. That's why I always closely
21 observe the way the Statute is applied. But I have familiarised myself
22 with it. But can someone please tell me, why should there be any
23 protective measures for a person who is not at all a witness before this
24 Court. Why should this person be protected in that way? Is this in any
25 of the regulations and provisions of the Statute? Why do we approve this
1 course of action? We don't know who the person is and he's never likely
2 to appear before this court. So how do we get to protect him and on the
3 basis of what?
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I think you are talking about a
5 theoretical matter. And in this case, both parties agreed we call this
6 person "Person X," and the parties -- and this Trial Chamber has no
7 objections about it. If you want to know some theoretical issues, we
8 could discuss it at another time. Now we have a witness here doing her
9 testimony. Let us move on because we are really behind the schedule.
10 Mr. Par, please proceed.
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. So did this Person X tell you that the rifle belonged to him in
13 the interview you had?
14 A. That's correct, sir.
15 Q. Did he say that this rifle had once been in a museum somewhere?
16 A. No, sir. As I already said, he told me that he had taken it home
17 after he had obtained it from the Muslim prisoner on the 17th of
18 September, took it home, and it didn't go anywhere.
19 Q. This is the information you obtained from that person during that
20 interview. My question is: You as an investigator - that's based on the
21 information you obtained from Person X - did you really ascertain that
22 this was indeed a rifle that was used during that operation? Was this the
23 information you used to ascertain that this rifle was related to the
24 events that transpired on the 17th of September, 1993?
25 A. He told me how he had received the rifle, and that's the
1 information I gave you.
2 Q. My question is: Is this the information that you used as an
3 investigator and then forwarded your conclusions to your superior that
4 this rifle was related to events on the 17th of September, 1993; is that
6 A. It was this information and the information from the Witness PP
7 which had recognised the rifle on the photos.
8 Q. But back then you were not in a position to discuss any
9 photographs or to know anything about Witness PP. So let us please just
10 follow the chronology of events. The answer you have just provided
11 creates a nexus between two different things, a nexus which back at that
12 point had not existed, so please let us just try to follow the
14 However, let us return to the same information in the light of
15 those witnesses who claimed they'd seen the rifle. You have stated that
16 the first time you saw the rifle was on the 20th of November, 2001.
17 Immediately before that Witness OO testified that such a rifle indeed
18 existed but refused to give away its precise location. Were you aware of
19 this, that this was actually stated in this courtroom just prior to the
20 time you found the rifle?
21 A. I was informed that Witness OO had given a statement and had said
22 that he had -- as I recall, that he had seen it in the museum in
24 Q. And it was immediately before the time you were to see this rifle
25 for the first time. That was just before.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. Mrs. Bos, is it correct that prior to that you had spent years
3 investigating this case and you'd never heard of the existence of such a
4 rifle, although you had talked to a large number of witnesses connected
5 with the possible existence of this rifle. But am I correct in saying in
6 you'd never heard of the existence of this rifle before?
7 A. I'd never heard of the existence of the rifle before, that it
8 still existed. And I only started this investigation in June 2001.
9 Q. Were you surprised that information on this rifle should emerge at
10 such a late date, even if -- given that you had studied and investigated
11 the case for quite some time by that point? Were you surprised?
12 A. In a way I was surprised. I had not expected it, actually. And I
13 think I have to correct me [sic]. I started this investigation in 2000,
14 to work on this investigation. I think it was in June 2000.
15 Q. Can you please tell us, were you surprised how it came about that
16 only several days after this information was obtained suddenly the rifle
17 is there in the possession of a man we referred to as Person X? You had
18 been investigating the case for quite some time. Suddenly this
19 information comes up in court and in several days the rifle emerges.
20 Didn't that seem surprising since you had spent some time investigating
21 the case and the possibility was never spoken of that the rifle could be
22 found? Now, weren't you surprised to suddenly find this very rifle in the
23 possession of Person X?
24 A. Well, given the fact that Person X kept it at home, it might not
25 be known to everybody that the rifle still existed. And I have to admit
1 that I do not know exactly how much effort we have put in to see if the
2 rifle still existed. I think we were of the impression that the rifles
3 were not there any more, after such a long time.
4 Q. Let us please go back to the issue that my learned colleague Scott
5 had objected, but in a different way now. Can you completely rule out the
6 possibility that under all these circumstances someone may have - and I am
7 referring here most of all to the AID, who followed closely witness
8 testimonies and who cooperated with you and they did have information
9 regarding the type of rifle you were looking for - so can you completely
10 rule out the possibility that within that very short space of time the AID
11 made sure that just such a rifle was made, manufactured, and forwarded to
12 you in order to corroborate evidence given by previous witnesses? Can you
13 completely rule out such a possibility?
14 A. I can only say that I saw the rifle for the first time on the 20th
15 of November. I was not there when Mr. X received it. I was not there all
16 the time when he kept it in his house. But as you are referring to this,
17 if this was a plan from the AID, why didn't they produce it earlier and
18 why didn't they produce another witness with it, a witness who was willing
19 to testify about it?
20 Q. I can tell you what we believe: That they did it at just the
21 point when it was necessary for them, because no witness had ever referred
22 to such a wooden rifle before. But sudden through as soon as a witness
23 came up with a wooden rival, they did it, just at the right time and on
24 the first occasion they needed to. However, let us proceed.
25 Let's stick to this hypothesis that the wooden rifle had been
1 planted by AID members. But let's try to see the situation through the
2 eyes of our Person X. Can you please tell us without saying the person's
3 name or relating any information that might give away the person's
4 identity, but still can you tell us something about that man, what you
5 know about him, without disclosing his identity. And should that occur,
6 we'll ask the Court to please go into private session.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 MR. SCOTT: That's what I -- Mr. President, that's what I'm
9 asking, that we go into private session, then.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.
11 [Private session]
13 Page 16180 – redacted – private session
13 Page 16181 – redacted – private session
13 Page 16182 – redacted – private session
19 [Open session]
20 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I saw his identity card.
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Tell us then: When was it that you saw the ID card? When?
23 A. On the 20th of November.
24 Q. Can you please describe to us the way you identified that person.
25 A. I saw his identity card. He gave me his name. And the name on
1 that identity card was the same as the name he gave me. And of course,
2 there was a photo.
3 Q. Ms. Bos, I am not letting you off the hook that easily. I don't
4 believe that you saw the ID card, and that's why I am going to insist on
5 every detail, on what occasion did you see the ID card? Tell me when,
6 what exchange of information passed between the two of you, who said what
7 to whom. Exact details I want.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott.
9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I -- this has been answered now several
10 times. I don't think there's any anything unequivocal at all. An
11 investigator has testified that she saw the ID card on the 20th of
12 November. She saw it, she gave the information, his citizenship, name,
13 the photo. I object. It's already been answered, clearly.
14 JUDGE CLARK: Also Mr. Par is actually accusing this witness of
15 giving perjury. And as far as I can see, all the questions are directed
16 at the identification or bona fides of the person furnishing the rifle
17 rather than addressing any questions at all to the rifle.
18 MR. SCOTT: I -- Judge Clark, you're absolutely correct.
19 JUDGE CLARK: I honestly don't know where you're going, Mr. Par.
20 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, could I also say the same. I didn't --
21 I share that. I think if counsel -- I understand his desire to create --
22 to conduct a full cross-examination, but I would just caution counsel. If
23 he's attacking the bona fides of this witness, a professional
24 investigator, then I hope he has some specific basis to do so.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned friend, I'm
1 asking the witness about the identification of a person who is the key
2 witness, key person to present the piece of evidence on which the witness
3 that is now before us is testifying. My allegation, although I respect
4 the witness as a professional investigator, my allegation is that the
5 piece of evidence has been passed on her, that the person was -- is
6 false. This Person X, whose name we are not allowed to pronounce in this
7 courtroom, may be a false person. Maybe that person doesn't exist. Maybe
8 that is another official of the AID. Maybe it was just a local criminal
9 who was brought in to show the rifle, and I believe it is my right to
10 establish the identity of that person. That's number one.
11 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, you're perfectly entitled to do that. But
12 what you are not entitled to do, unless you have very good grounds for
13 doing so, is to accuse a witness of lying to this Court. And not an
14 ordinary witness. This is a professional member of the OTP. You have
15 accused this witness of lying. Now, lay the foundation for that. I can
16 understand, Mr. Par, if you say that you don't accept the bona fides of
17 the witness who introduced the so-called gun. You're perfectly entitled
18 to do that. But to say to this witness who has told you, "I saw the ID,"
19 to say, "I don't believe you saw it and I'm not going to let you off the
20 hook," now, I have to have grounds for saying that. She may have seen a
21 false ID, did you she says that she saw an ID? It had the man's name on it
22 and a photograph. Now, do you have any foundation for saying this witness
23 has told the Court an untruth? This is between Mr. Par and the Court, Mr.
25 MR. MEEK: I'll wait until you are finished then, Your Honour.
1 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour Clark, this is exactly what
2 I was going to say as my second remark. This witness here has not given
3 us the adequate information to be able -- for us to be able to identify
4 this person. So this is the information that could not corroborate the
5 identity of that person.
6 Secondly, in none of the statements by this witness there are
7 identification information for that person.
8 Thirdly, I asked the witness whether she identified the person,
9 whether she inspected any identification documents. After a long time she
10 decided to say that she did see the ID and she insists on that.
11 Why do I dare say that I doubt, that I have my reservations about
12 that, and that I want to verify that information? I believe that the
13 veracity of the testimony before this and any other tribunal is proven by
14 the circumstances of the event. I cannot take it for granted when a
15 witness said, "I saw an ID card." It is my right to establish the
16 circumstances of the event, when that took place. So when she saw it, how
17 she saw it, and based on that it is my right to establish whether the
18 witness is telling the truth. I believe that this is the way all the
19 courts all over the world work. Whether my --
20 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, can I -- forgive -- you're missing my
21 point. You're entitled to cross-examine on credibility and relevance.
22 That is absolutely your right and indeed it's your duty. But what you are
23 not allowed to do is to say to a witness that you are telling lies unless
24 you have foundation for that. Now, it was translated on the monitor in
25 front of me as you saying "I do not believe that you, Ms. Bos, saw the ID
1 card." Ms. Bos said she saw the ID card. Now, you tell this Court why
2 you said to this witness that you do not believe she's telling the truth.
3 Now, address your remarks to that. Do you want to withdraw that remark,
4 or do you want to now furnish us with the foundation for why you said it?
5 [Defence counsel confer]
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you will allow me, I
7 will continue cross-examining about the circumstances. I already put it
8 to our colleague from the Prosecutor's Office, and I told you why I did
9 not believe it and I repeat why I don't believe it and why I put it to the
10 witness that I didn't believe it. I respect the witness as a professional
11 affiliated with the Prosecutor's Office, as a person with a certain
12 experience in investigations and who will understand why I am asking
13 certain questions. But if you want me to withdraw this question, I
14 believe I shouldn't skip any further questions about the circumstances of
15 the identification and I hope you will allow me to proceed questioning
16 this witness along these lines.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Par, I want you to be absolutely clear. You are
18 well within your rights to cross-examine this witness as efficiently and
19 as harshly as you want. You're certainly entitled to do that. But what
20 I'm saying is you are not entitled to say that what she says she did was a
21 lie. Now, if you want to withdraw -- there may be, and it's happened
22 before, a problem about translation. This witness says she saw an ID. It
23 may well be that you believe it was a false ID. But you questioned the
24 integrity of this witness when she said, "I saw the ID," and you said you
25 don't believe you saw it. Do you want to withdraw that remark and then we
1 can move on?
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I would like to continue, and therefore
3 I would like -- I can withdraw that remark, but I would like to continue
4 asking the questions along this same line. But if the witness is offended
5 by my line of questioning, then I will withdraw my thoughts entirely and I
6 will rephrase all of my future questions.
7 Q. So Ms. Bos, let's forget my allegation and let's move on to talk
8 about the identification of this person whom we've referred to as Citizen
9 X. Can you please tell us, when did he show you his ID card? How did
10 that happen? How did that come about?
11 A. He showed me the ID card on the 20th of November, when I saw him.
12 And I asked his ID card, so he gave it to me. And I looked at it. It was
13 the same name he gave me. Date of birth, I can't recall that now. Photo
14 on it. That was a normal Bosnian-Herzegovinan ID card.
15 Q. Based on that ID card, did you make a note of any of the data from
16 that ID card? Did you copy any of the information anywhere?
17 A. No, I didn't. I didn't make any notes of that identity card, and
18 I also didn't copy it.
19 Q. When you conduct an interview with other witnesses, is that your
20 normal practice when you try to establish their identity?
21 A. The normal practice, that you look at the identity card, check,
22 and then you give it back to the witness. We are not in a position to
23 make quickly a copy of an identity card.
24 Q. Term us please once again if you can remember, what did that ID
25 card look like? Was it old, worn out? Was it new? What was the photo
1 like? Was it a black-and-white photo? Was it a colour photo? Can you
2 remember what the ID card looked like?
3 A. The ID card was plastified [sic]. I didn't have the impression
4 that it was worn out, but I just have to recall my memory. It was not
5 worn out, as I can remember, and it was visible to me who he was. The
6 photo was visible to me. As I already said, it was yellowish-coloured.
7 That's all I can say.
8 Q. And you didn't make a note of any of the information that you
9 found on the ID card. There's no trace, a written trace of any of that
10 information, so you did not make a note of the fact that you identified
11 the person based on the ID furnished to you.
12 A. No, sir, I didn't.
13 Q. Let's move on. The Citizen X produced his ID card. He talks to
14 you. He provides you with certain information. My question to you is the
15 following: Do you know, Ms. Bos, whether that Person X, during 1993, was
16 a member of the BH Army? Are you aware of that?
17 A. Yes, sir. He told me that.
18 Q. Were you in any way in the position to check that information;
19 namely, that he was a member of the BH Army? Did you check his military
20 ID by any chance?
21 A. I didn't check his military identity card. But I was also told by
22 the AID official that he was a former ABiH soldier.
23 Q. When I asked you whether the AID official told you anything about
24 that person, you told me that he didn't say anything about that he was a
25 member of the BH Army. Okay. So can we agree that the information that I
1 have presented before this Chamber today - and that is that the Person X
2 was a member of the BH Army - was the information that you obtained only
3 from the official of the AID and from that person himself, and that is
4 that this is your only basis for your allegation that he was a member of
5 the BH Army?
6 A. Yes, sir, that's correct. I got to know he was in the army from
7 the AID person later.
8 Q. Do you perhaps know, Ms. Bos, where this Person X was on the 17th
9 of September, 1993? Do you know that? And if you do, how do you know
11 A. As I told before, Mr. X told me that on the 17th of September he
12 was on duty between 11.00 and 2.00, as I recall, and he was doing his duty
13 in the building opposite the health centre, the ruins, and he was
14 actually, as I remember, in the basement defending East Mostar.
15 Q. And my question was asked in order to find out whether you have
16 any other information as to his whereabouts on the 17th of September, 1993
17 but his own statement; in other words, whether you checked the credibility
18 of the story told to you by that person X, as to his whereabouts on that
19 particular day.
20 A. I didn't check that, sir. He was not willing to testify. He was
21 not willing to give a signed statement. And there was not information to
22 check it at that time.
23 Q. Ms. Bos, was that the reason perhaps -- wasn't that a good enough
24 reason for you to check the information? Wasn't the fact that he didn't
25 want to issue an official statement, that he didn't want to have his name
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 ever mentioned, that he didn't want to tell you the names of his comrades,
2 that he didn't know who gave him the rifle, weren't these good enough
3 reasons for you as an investigator to verify all that information before
4 you told your colleagues in the Prosecutor's Office that this was the
5 person who was holding that rifle on the Bulevar on that day? Weren't
6 these good enough reasons for you to verify all that, to double-check the
8 A. At that moment I didn't check it. I have interviewed more
9 witnesses than this witness, and it happened before that witnesses are
10 hesitant to say certain things because of security reasons or reasons that
11 they want to go -- they don't want us to bother people. And for this
12 witness I didn't -- before I went back to The Hague, I didn't check. Only
13 I liaised with an AID official who confirmed to me that he was a former
14 ABiH soldier.
15 Q. Did it ever happen to you that other witnesses ever told you, I'm
16 going to give you this piece of evidence but I want 300 German marks in
17 return? Is that something that often happened, and wouldn't that be a
18 good enough reason for an investigator to check the information and to see
19 how come that person all of a sudden appears out of the blue skies, asks
20 for money without giving any information in return? So as an
21 investigator, did you have any reasons to verify the circumstances of the
22 appearance of that witness? So wasn't that something that made you think
23 twice in the presence of such evidence?
24 A. First of all, sir, I never -- it never happened to me that a
25 witness was asking money. Secondly, I know that the economic
1 circumstances in this country are very bad. Not that I agree that people
2 should ask money for certain things, but he asked me for money, and I
3 couldn't give it to me.
4 Q. But finally you did give him the money. Am I right in thinking
5 that? Did I understand that well, that the Prosecutor's Office eventually
6 did pay? If not, then I made a mistake. How -- since none of us are
7 clear on that, can you please tell me whether the payment was subsequently
8 approved by this Tribunal by the Prosecutor's Office. Was that Person X
9 ever paid the money that he asked for?
10 A. As I remember, I think I just told sometime ago that I obtained
11 the rifle without paying for it, because when I went back to him in
12 January I told him I couldn't pay.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, it's time for the break.
14 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I need another minute, another question,
15 please, and I will wind up before the break, if you will allow.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
17 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Just one more question. Thank you.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
20 Q. With regard to this subject, I would like to come to some
21 conclusions. You told me you didn't verify -- my repeated question was
22 whether you had any reasons to verify. Now, my question to you is: Was
23 the only thing important to you at the time, Ms. Bos, was to bring to the
24 Prosecutor's Office a wooden rifle of any kind so as to make sure that the
25 Prosecutor's witness didn't give a false testimony? Wasn't maybe that the
1 reason why you didn't spend too much time to verify the identity of the
2 person? Maybe it was more important for you to bring any sort of evidence
3 to your colleagues. And was that the reason why you didn't do all the
4 checking and double-checking of the identity of the person?
5 A. Sir, it was important for me that with the rifle I would also get
6 the witness. But if the witness says, "I do not want to give a
7 statement. I do not want to testify," I can only bring the rifle.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I have finished, and we can now have the
9 break if --
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, when and how can we get
12 hold of this diary, the so-called diary? Where and how can we see, read,
13 peruse the diary? Can you please instruct me as to where I should go to
14 peruse the so-called diary? Thank you.
15 JUDGE LIU: I think, first of all, I have to go to
16 Madam Registrar, because that diary is in her possession. And we also
17 want the presence of the -- somebody from the OTP. I hope you could do
18 that during the lunch break. I understand that you all know the contents
19 already. You just want to know the diary itself, the typing, the -- the
20 paper, you know, the cover, you know, all those matters.
21 Well, we'll resume at 2.30 this afternoon.
22 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1 1.03 p.m.
23 --- On resuming at 2.33 p.m.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, did you finish your cross-examination
25 or no?
1 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I would like to turn to a
2 different area now. In the first part of my cross-examination, I was
3 talking about the source. And now I would like to turn to the issue of
4 the identification of this rifle. I don't think that should take too
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, please.
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mrs. Bos, as I have just told the Court, I would like us to talk a
9 little about how this unverified story told by Person X and the wooden
10 rifle tried to be somehow fitted into the needs of the Prosecution
11 concerning their evidence. So my first question will be: Is it true that
12 you showed photographs of this rifle to Witnesses OO and PP who testified
13 before this Court that they had held just such a rifle in their own
14 hands? Were you the one who had shown them the photographs?
15 A. That's correct, sir. I showed the photographs to Witness PP,
16 and my colleague shows the photographs to Witness OO, but I was also
17 present when that happened.
18 Q. Could you please tell me, is it true that on that particular
19 occasion, judging by looking at the photographs, Witness OO said in a very
20 decided manner that that was not the rifle he had and that he gave all the
21 differences between the rifle in the photograph and the rifle that he had
22 purportedly held in his own hands? Isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct, sir. He mentioned the differences, but he
24 also mentions that one particular thing was the same as this rifle. That
25 was the thick -- it was as thin as the same rifle he saw on the photo.
1 Q. Did he -- was he really in a position to judge about how thick the
2 rifle was on the basis of a two-dimensional photograph?
3 A. I made a photo standing up showing how thin it was with a person
4 next to it, so a little bit of that -- I mean, if you would take that in
5 consideration, I think you can a bit measure how thin it was or how thick
6 it is.
7 Q. My question, Mrs. Bos, was more specifically: On that occasion,
8 did the witness not say, very decidedly, "This is not the rifle that I
10 A. That's correct, sir.
11 Q. Mrs. Bos, isn't it true that on that same occasion Witness PP was
12 not able to confirm that that wooden rifle shown in the photograph was
13 indeed the same rifle that he had purportedly held in his hands? Isn't it
14 true that he also enumerated a number of differences between the two
15 rifles and that he merely stated that the rifle in the photograph merely
16 looked very much like the one that he had had? Isn't that correct?
17 A. That is correct, sir.
18 Q. Is it not correct that both witnesses, Witness OO and Witness PP,
19 claimed that their wooden rifle was black?
20 A. I do remember that Witness PP said that. But from a photo it was
21 difficult to judge for him. But he indeed said it was black.
22 Q. I'm just trying to be as accurate as I can. I'm not asking about
23 the colour of the rifle in the photograph but whether the two witnesses in
24 their testimony, after enumerating the differences, both confirmed that
25 the rifle they were talking about was indeed painted black. Is that
2 A. At this moment I can only remember that Witness PP said that,
4 Q. May I please remind you on the basis of the statements that you
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I don't think it's fair for this to be
8 a memory test. It's obvious now that for some minutes counsel is
9 questioning the witness based on prior statements and I think it's only
10 fair to put the statements in front of her so she can consult them.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Now, Mr. Par, if you want to use that previous
12 statement, you'd better furnish that statement to the witness.
13 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed, Your Honour. I was just
14 about to show the witness her statement to remind her of the
15 circumstances. I think that is a widely accepted method and one permitted
16 by this Court.
17 Could the usher please help me with this and give the English
18 version of the statement of Witness OO, dated the 22nd of November, 2001.
19 And here I can see that the witness was interviewed by Mr. Romeau Ventura.
20 So may the witness please have a look to verify this issue of the colour
21 of the wooden rifle.
22 Q. It's in the last part of the statement, where the witness says
23 that he has looked carefully at the photographs and then goes on to
24 enumerate the differences. So I think the first sentence of that
25 particular passage is "I am able to point out the differences that I have
1 ascertained exist between the two rifles, the one that I used was painted
2 black. The one I can see in the photograph is not painted black.
3 Probably the image is dark, but it doesn't look like real colour to me."
4 So can you please look through the statement and find that sentence.
5 That's what I will base my question on. I'm going to ask you whether you
6 are aware of the fact that Witness OO also said that the wooden rifle was
7 painted black.
8 A. I'm look at the statement, sir. And as I already said, I only
9 interviewed Witness PP, not Witness OO, although I was present when he
10 looked at the photo. I see it's in the statement, so yeah, I'm aware of
11 it. I didn't know it any more on top of my head because I didn't take
12 that statement.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, Mr. Par. We were wondering if we could have
14 a copy of that statement so we could look at it while you're referring to
15 it. Would it be possible? Without delaying the proceedings.
16 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I didn't really expect that the witness
17 would challenge this quote, so I don't have any extra copies. But my
18 proposal is -- this is the last page of the statement, so may it please be
19 put on the ELMO, displayed there. It's only about a couple of sentences.
20 So we can put it on the ELMO for everyone to see.
21 Could the usher please put the statement, the last page of the
22 statement on the ELMO.
23 JUDGE CLARK: The statement, I hope, doesn't identify Witness X,
24 does it, or Mr. X?
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] The page that I'd like to have on the
1 ELMO does not, I think, contain the person's name. I'm checking the
2 Croatian version now. There is no name on that particular page.
3 So may the witness please have a look and see if there is a name
4 on that page of the English version.
5 THE WITNESS: There is the name of the witness, the protected
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] There is none here.
8 THE WITNESS: No, because there is no signature on it.
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] If we put only this half of the page on
10 the ELMO without the signature, we won't be able to see the signature.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] We can't see it on our screens.
13 Q. On the basis of this first sentence in the second passage, where
14 it reads "I can tell the differences found on the two of them. The one
15 that I used was painted black." So can we agree that Witness OO indeed
16 also claimed that it was a rifle, a black rifle, a rifle painted black?
17 Can you please answer that question?
18 A. That is correct, sir.
19 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Thank you. We shall no longer require
20 this document now.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, no objection. But I think it's
23 very clear. And I assume counsel is not going back and force
24 intentionally. But when Witness OO says it's not -- it wasn't his rifle,
25 he's not talking about -- he's talking about the rifle he carried. We
1 have to be very clear which rifle these witnesses are talking about.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, yes, we all understand that.
3 MR. SCOTT: Well, it was confusing to me until just now with all
4 these statements, which -- the statement of which witness, about whose
5 rifle we were talking about. If -- sorry, if everyone understands that,
6 fine, thank you.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
8 JUDGE CLARK: Can I clarify that. Are we talking now about
9 Witness OO? Are we going to hear what Witness PP said?
10 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- and if the witness could
11 just please follow what I'm talking about so she can react if I have
12 misinterpreted anything. My question to the witness was: "Is it true
13 that both Witness OO and Witness PP, when photographs of these rifles were
14 shown to them, claimed that the rifle which they had allegedly held in
15 their own hands was black?" The witness's answer was that she remembers
16 that Witness PP had indeed said that the rifle he had allegedly held in
17 his own hands was black. However, the witness added that she couldn't
18 remember whether Witness OO claimed the same thing.
19 Following that, I showed our witness here the statement taken from
20 the Witness OO after the photograph had been shown to him in order to
21 ascertain what exactly the witness said about the rifle on that occasion.
22 Now the witness has agreed that Witness OO also claimed that the rifle he
23 had allegedly had on the 17th of September, 1993, was indeed painted
24 black. So that, I think, explains it.
25 Q. Mrs. Bos, is it true that the rifle we saw today, the way you
1 stated it, is brown and you, too, have ascertained this fact in your own
3 A. The rifle at the moment is brownish. But if you have a good look
4 at it, you can see there are some black faded on it.
5 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Counsel, I apologise for interrupting
6 you. But I think it's only fair that the rifle -- that the witness should
7 have the rifle.
8 JUDGE LIU: Sure. Sure.
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please, I am not sure
10 who's the one who decides what should be done or what should not be done
11 during my cross-examination. My learned friend Scott with no permission
12 from the Chamber presents evidence to the witness who is currently being
13 cross-examined by me, while I think in that case I should just leave the
14 floor to him and allow him to finish my cross-examination, because this
15 seems quite pointless.
16 JUDGE LIU: The witness has answered the question. She said that
17 "The rifle at the moment is brownish. But if you have a good look at it,
18 you can see there are some black faded on it." The witness has already
19 answered that question already. Then the Prosecutor asked to show this
20 rifle to the witness.
21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
23 MR. SCOTT: I apologise. Counsel -- excuse me.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, counsel is partly right. And I
1 apologise. When we left the -- when we left before the break, the rifle
2 was on the witness stand but for the break, if this testimony had
3 continued, the rifle would have remained on the witness stand. And I just
4 assumed that it was still available to the witness. And if I acted too
5 quickly, I apologise for that.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes. That's true. You may proceed, Mr. Par.
7 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I cannot by any means
8 accept this argument, this case by the Prosecutor. Rifle or no rifle we
9 started the examination the way we did, and no one here was authorised by
10 the Chamber to have the rifle presented to the witness. I don't mind. Of
11 course, we can show the witness the rifle. And the Prosecutor too can
12 show the rifle to the witness in their additional questions. I was just
13 talk about what exactly the witness had stated in her own report, because
14 her words were that the rifle was brown. I wanted to draw attention again
15 to her own report and then that's what our common sense tells us. Here is
16 the rifle. Here is the colour. We all have healthy eyes and we can all
17 judge for ourselves concerning the colour of the rifle.
18 Q. So please, witness, answer any way which you like, what is the
19 colour of this rifle? You can have a careful look now and tell us what
20 you think. After that, I would like the usher, please, to show the rifle
21 around the courtroom so that everyone can see for themselves, both the
22 brown colour and the black spots. So please, witness, can you have a look
23 at the rifle and tell us what colour you think it is.
24 A. At the moment, as I see it now, the colour is brownish and has
25 some black spots.
1 Q. Where do you see these black spots? Which part of the rifle?
2 A. In here and in here, in here. Here it is more dark, blackish.
3 Q. Do you believe that this is a painted rifle, or do you think
4 that's just the natural colour of old wood?
5 A. I don't think I can answer that question. I'm not an expert on
6 this, and I wouldn't like to give the wrong answer on that, so I'll leave
7 that to others.
8 Q. Very well.
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Could the usher please show the rifle
10 around, first of all to the Chamber and then also to the other interested
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Usher, Mr. Par, does your client want to
13 have a look at it?
14 MR. PAR: [Microphone not activated]
15 JUDGE LIU: Your microphone, please.
16 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] My client does not have a particular
17 wish to look at this rifle, because he thinks this is planted evidence.
18 That's what he told me.
19 As we were looking at the rifle, my learned colleague Meek told me
20 that the answer by the witness was not recorded in the transcript. The
21 question was whether Witness OO, after inspecting the photograph, said "I
22 can say in a decided manner that the rifle shown in the photograph is not
23 the rifle that I had had on the 17th of September," whereupon the witness
24 replied that "that was indeed the conclusion of the witness." I'm only
25 repeating this for the sake of the transcript.
1 Q. Very well. Let us please now return to the issues we discussed
2 before my learned friend Scott gave us the rifle. We were talking about
3 the following: Witness OO stated decidedly that it was not the rifle he
4 had used. Witness PP said that it only resembled the other rifle. And
5 both of the witnesses actually claimed with certainty that the rifle
6 they'd used was black. Now, my question to you is: After this photo
7 identification of the rifle, the Prosecution was not really happy with the
8 reliability of that piece of evidence. And then a new task was assigned
9 to you. You were to continue your work on trying to prove that this rifle
10 really went back to the events on the 17th of September, 1993. Is that
11 true, that you really were assigned such a task, that is, to connect this
12 rifle to the events of the 17th of September, 1993?
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I understand that counsel has the right
15 to put his case. But when it's continually put in the -- of challenging
16 the integrity and ethics of the Prosecution team, I have a serious problem
17 with that. He is suggesting that it was the deliberate plan of the
18 Prosecution team to find evidence and only evidence that supported its
19 case and that an investigator was put in the field specifically for that
20 purpose. Now, again, I understand that he can put the case -- we
21 understand that they think this is a fabricated rifle. We all understand
22 that. But I object to the way the questions are being put.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, you may rephrase your question.
24 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Mrs. Bos, please, what sort of assignment were you given after the
1 inspection of the photographs? Why did you have to return to Mostar?
2 A. To be very precise, sir, it was my own proposal to go back and try
3 again with the witness to get the rifle, because I knew that -- I mean, I
4 could go back and convince him that I could get it, I would do that.
5 Although, the witness had already said that he didn't want to give it,
6 only for money, and he didn't want to give a statement, I wanted to give
7 it another try and so it was assigned to me.
8 Q. Why if it was never confirmed in the first place that the rifle
9 had anything to do with the witnesses, at least not up to that moment, was
10 that one of your plans to work on that? What did you need the rifle for
11 if there had never been any confirmation in the first place that that
12 indeed was the rifle everyone was talking about?
13 A. Witness PP said when he saw the photos that this could very well
14 be the rifle. So if I was able to obtain the rifle, I could show it to
15 him, the rifle. So he might be -- have a better chance to recognise it or
17 Q. Ms. Bos, so we have to be precise here and go back to PP's
18 statement, who didn't say that it was exactly that rifle but that it was
19 similar to the one he had. So I don't want to show you the statement
20 again, but this is what he said, isn't it?
21 A. That is correct. But I saw him watching the photo, and I saw that
22 it was not so very easy to judge the rifle from the photo. And he also
23 said that. But in the end, he said that it was very much like the rifle
24 he had been carrying.
25 Q. In your statement it says it was "similar," not "very similar," so
1 that was the reason why you went back to Mostar in order to try and talk
2 again with PP about the rifle. Was that the underlying cause about your
3 return to Mostar? Is it fair for me to understand it that way?
4 A. No, sir. I didn't go back to Mostar for that only assignment. I
5 had other assignments. And I took this assignment with me also. I didn't
6 go for this only.
7 Q. All right. Then you are again in contact with our X, you
8 received the rifle from him, and is it true that he again refused to
9 testify before the Court about the way he had obtained the rifle? Is it
10 true that you then decided not to question him about that again?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. When you informed the Prosecutor's Office about that, was it then
13 that a decision was made that you would be the one to testify before this
14 Trial Chamber instead of this X and that you would say to the Trial
15 Chamber what he had said to you? Was it at that point that the decision
16 was made?
17 A. The decision was made. But at what point exactly, I can't say any
19 Q. Did X authorise you to speak on his behalf before this Trial
20 Chamber and testify as to how he had obtained this rifle? Did he
21 authorise you?
22 A. Not with so many words. But he told me that -- I told him that it
23 would be presented in the court most likely, and he asked me not to
24 mention his name in public when it was represented.
25 Q. That was precisely my question. Did he authorise you to speak on
1 his behalf and tell this story, or did he forbid you to mention his name
2 in front of this Trial Chamber? So what did he do: Did he forbid you to
3 mention his name, or did he authorise to tell the story on his behalf?
4 Which was it?
5 A. He did not forbid me to mention his name. He kindly requested not
6 to use his name in public. I did not discuss the matter with him, whether
7 I was allowed for him to tell the story in the courtroom or not. But he
8 must have understood that it was going to be used, especially -- and you
9 can have read it in my declaration, because I went through what he told me
10 about the rifle so I would be sure that these were his words, what he said
11 to me; I would not be mistaken.
12 Q. Does he now know that you are testifying before this Trial
13 Chamber? Have you had contacts with him recently? Have you informed him
14 about that recently?
15 A. I have not spoken with him recently, sir.
16 Q. When you were considering this issue and the issue of your
17 testimony, and when the decision was made that you would tell the story
18 instead of Mr. X, was it then also considered -- why was it that X refused
19 to testify? Was it maybe mentioned that he might be held responsible for
20 perhaps giving a false testimony before this Trial Chamber? Was that also
21 one of the considerations when the decision was being made about you
22 testifying before this Trial Chamber instead of the -- of Mr. X?
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
24 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President. But I'm required to say the
25 decisions about what evidence to lead in the courtroom are made by the
1 attorneys, and the decision that was ultimately made by me. So I'm afraid
2 that if Mr. Par at some point would like to have a discussion with me, we
3 can do that. But this witness did not make the decision and cannot give
4 the reasons for the decision, because that was made by the attorneys on
5 the trial team.
6 JUDGE LIU: Okay. Well, Mr. Par, maybe you did not express your
7 ideas very clearly, your question. You may put it another way.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Ms. Bos, did you have any reasons to believe that Mr. X didn't
10 want to testify because he didn't want to utter a lie that would have
11 exposed him to criminal proceedings? Did you maybe -- did that maybe
12 occur to you? Did you maybe say that to somebody?
13 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President. Isn't this --
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: Is the question what she thinks the witness might
16 have thought? Isn't this speculation as to what the witness might have
17 thought? Objection.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. It's kind of speculation. Just ask very plainly
19 how do you know or why did Mr. X refuse to testify in this courtroom.
20 Just a neutral one.
21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Can you please answer the question that His Honour helped me to
23 rephrase. According to you, do you have any opinion as to why Mr. X
24 refused to testify before this Trial Chamber?
25 A. He told me in November and in January that he was not up to
1 testifying. He didn't feel well. And as I remember, he also mentioned
2 something about security for his children. But there was another occasion
3 when he was asked to testify, and that was done by my colleague, who went
4 on mission before I went the last time, and I think he went on mission in
5 August -- last August. He was also assigned to see the witness and ask
6 him to testify. He met the witness, and the witness refused again.
7 [Defence counsel confer]
8 A. The witness refused again and stressed to my colleague that again
9 for security reasons, he had children and he didn't want to testify.
10 Q. Was he at that point given an option to have protection measures
11 granted to him, the customary protection measures before this Trial
13 A. When I spoke with him in January, in the end he said, "Okay. I
14 will testify only if I can be relocated to the Netherlands." I told him
15 that that probably is not going to be the case, the Tribunal is not
16 relocated so many people. So that is it. He otherwise would not
17 testify. That's what he said at that moment.
18 Q. I didn't quite understand this part of your answer. You said that
19 the Tribunal cannot relocate so many people. What exactly did you mean by
21 A. The Tribunal is very careful and only relocates, as far as I know,
22 relocate as few number -- a few people, a small number of people if
24 Q. In these proceedings, do you perhaps know how many people have
25 been given this possibility of relocation by the Tribunal?
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, this question is out of the scope.
2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we are discussing the
3 conversation between Mr. X and our witness. They were talking about the
4 conditions under which he would testify. What I would like to know here
5 is whether this person blackmailed prosecutors, did he want to gain
6 something by giving evidence, and this was just a normal conversation
7 between the investigator and the person -- a potential witness. So this
8 is a method that I didn't know anything about, and this is something I
9 would really like to know more about.
10 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well -- yes. Yes, Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I respectfully submit we have now gone
13 beyond the scope of full cross-examination, to what counsel is entitled to
14 what's classically known as a fishing expedition. If we need to talk --
15 if someone -- about various options afforded to people since 1993 by this
16 institution, some of whom had been located to third -- relocated to third
17 countries, that is not, respectfully, a question for this witness. That
18 decision is made by the head of the victim and witness section, by the
19 head of security, and by the chief of inspection of the OTP, not this
20 witness, not this witness at all. She's not in a position nor should she
21 be, to talk about the policy of relocating a very small number of very
22 sensitive people.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, you may put your question another way,
24 but your previous question sounds like you are doing an investigation on
25 the practice of the Tribunal.
1 MR. PAR: [No interpretation]
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm sorry, we are not getting translation.
3 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Ms. Bos, in very short line, can you tell us about your
5 conversation between Mr. X and yourself regarding his possible relocation
6 to a third country, if he decided to give his testimony in The Hague.
7 A. Sir, it was very short. He had already been refusing to give a
8 signed statement, already refusing to testify. He then in the end say,
9 "Okay, I will testify if I can be relocated to the Netherlands." And I
10 said, "Sir, that's highly unlikely to happen."
11 Q. Did you convey his request to the authorised persons in the
12 Tribunal? Did you tell them about his conditions? Was that discussed at
13 any time?
14 A. I remember I conveyed it to the trial team, but I cannot recall
15 the discussion about it. As I remember, I think we all knew that that was
16 most likely not going to happen, relocation for the witness.
17 Q. Is he -- today is he in a third country, or is he in his own
18 country? You are the witness here. Maybe you are aware of his
19 whereabouts at this moment. Do you know where he is?
20 A. As far as I know, he is still in his own country.
21 Q. And have you ever heard, have you checked whether the 300 marks
22 that he wanted was paid to him by the AID, or maybe you have never again
23 discussed that issue with anybody?
24 A. There's for me no reason to discuss this subject, so I did not
25 discuss this.
1 Q. Let me be more precise. He never again asked for money in order
2 for him to give you the rifle but that first time; is that correct?
3 A. When I saw him again in January, as I told you already, he wanted
4 to think about it because I told him I was not going to pay, and he told
5 me to return after two days. That's all I can say about it.
6 Q. Let's put Mr. X aside. Let's go back to Witness PP. You have
7 obtained the rifle. You then went to Sarajevo to show him the rifle, to
8 see whether maybe he would recognise it. Where did this take place in
9 Sarajevo? Where did you show him the rifle? Where exactly?
10 A. This happened in our Sarajevo field office in Sarajevo, as I
12 Q. How did you find him in Sarajevo? Did you find him through the
13 AID, through the local authorities? How did he get into your office?
14 A. As I remember, I phoned him myself through my interpreter and made
15 an appointment for him to come to the office, which he did.
16 Q. Where did you call him? Do you remember? Did you call him at
17 home, or did you call him at his workplace?
18 A. I called him at home.
19 Q. Do you know where he works?
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, first, you know, we know that Witness
21 PP is a protected witness, so -- so I think you have to refrain from
22 asking some questions which concern his personal data.
23 The other matter is that is that a relevant question, Mr. Par?
24 Your cross-examination has gone for quite a long time.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I thought it would be shorter.
1 Unfortunately it hasn't been -- first, about the relevance of this
2 question: I believe that this question is relevant for the following
3 reason: The witness, who originally didn't identify the rifle was given
4 the rifle for subsequent identification. I believe that that person may
5 have been put under a lot of pressure in order to change his original
6 testimony. I'm trying to establish whether he also was brought by the AID
7 or whether his institution, the institution where he worked, may have also
8 put pressure on him. And this, I believe, was the relevance of that
9 question that I've just put to the witness.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that this is all of your speculation,
11 Mr. Par. Do you have any evidence to prove that? You said you believe
12 that, you believe that. But you have -- you should have, you know, some
13 evidence, you know, so that you could pursue it on this way, otherwise
14 it's just a speculation that will get us nowhere.
15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Certainly, Your Honours. I do have
16 evidence, and this is what I'm trying to establish through the witness.
17 This witness said that he had carried a black rifle, and then he
18 recognised the rifle which was shown to him. The colour didn't matter any
19 more. For me there is a lot of room for concern. How come that one thing
20 that was said originally can subsequently be changed? I believe that
21 somebody must have put pressure on the witness.
22 Secondly, the witness eventually didn't come here to confirm what
23 he said. If a witness decides to act in that way, I believe that this is
24 because he was pressurised in order to change his original testimony. I
25 am not speculating. I am just basing my opinion on indisputable facts, on
1 fact 1 and fact 2. Can I please proceed so that we don't -- that I don't
2 waste any more time.
3 Q. So you went to PP's place, and then he recognised this rifle as
4 being his. About the colour: When we're talking about the colour,
5 whether the colour was brown or black, did that appear as a sticking
6 point? Did that make him reconsider him previous statement? Was the
7 colour a points of dispute during the second identification of the rifle?
8 A. Sir, we talked about that, and then he made a comment, "Well, it
9 could have been that it was painted with some shoe polish," but he was not
10 sure about it, but he said -- made a comment -- well, he also saw some
11 black spottings on it. And he said, "During the time, maybe the colour
12 has been fading away," which maybe is possible. But he did not tell me
13 that it was painted with clear paint, what -- a clear paint normally
14 sticks for a longer time. He couldn't tell me that.
15 Q. Ms. Bos, why didn't you go to Witness OO, who said that it was
16 painted and who was the first one to mention the existence of the rifle
17 and who said that it was not the same rifle? Why didn't you go to OO?
18 Why did you only go to PP? My question is: Why didn't you go to show the
19 rifle to Witness OO as well as to Witness PP?
20 A. Witness OO had stressed that it didn't have a cartridge box, it
21 was shorter, it was certainly not this rifle, so for me there was not a
22 reason to go to Witness OO.
23 Q. So your mission was completed. You found the rifle. You brought
24 it to the Prosecutor's Office. Did that bring your investigation work to
25 an end, that is, when you came here with the Witness PP's statement and
1 with the rifle? So did that constitute the end of your work as an
2 investigator in this particular case?
3 A. For me, I was not directed to do any other investigations on this,
5 Q. Once again, can you remind us of the date when this rifle arrived
6 here and when the Court was seized with the statements about the
7 identification of this rifle. Can you remind us of the exact date when
8 the rifle arrived and when the statements arrived.
9 A. The rifle arrived when I came back with my mission. That must
10 have been the 24th of January. I then -- a few days later I made my
11 declaration, which I handed over -- I made my declaration, which was put
12 into our system. And what -- when it was handed over to the Court, I
13 don't know.
14 Q. Was it then when the decision was made that you would be
15 testifying about those circumstances? Can you remember it now?
16 A. I remember you -- you asked me if it was decided in January that I
17 would testify about it. No, sir, because we tried to get at least
18 Witness -- Mr. X in later, as I told you, because my colleague approached
19 him. Then we also tried to get Mr. PP in, but he couldn't come for health
20 reasons, and that was very recently. So it was not decided in January
21 that I would testify. But of course I made my declaration.
22 Q. Ms. Bos, are you aware that ever since then we have never been
23 told that the rifle is here, that we have never been in the position to
24 read the declaration about the identification of this rifle? Are you
25 aware of the fact that this very important piece of evidence for the
1 Prosecutor's Office, for which the Court ordered an investigation to be
2 carried out, has been sitting here for months and that none of us knew
3 anything about that? Were you the one who was guarding this rifle all
4 this time? Where was it?
5 A. I can tell you for sure that I brought it immediately to the
6 evidence unit and it was put there. And what happened with it later and
7 my declaration, I cannot give you an answer on that, sir.
8 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] May I just have a minute, please, to
9 reorganise my questions.
10 [Defence counsel confer]
11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Very briefly, Mrs. Bos, were you ever personally -- have you ever
13 personally gone to the Bulevar, what is known as the Bulevar in the town
14 of Mostar?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Were you ever -- have you ever gone to the medical centre?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Have you ever been to Santiceva Street?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Have you ever talked to a witness who told you that in Santiceva
21 Street on the 17th of September, 1993, prisoners carried wooden rifles?
22 From your personal experience, have you ever talked to witness who would
23 have told you that precisely?
24 A. I've talked to witnesses who told me about other occasions with a
25 wooden rifle, but I cannot recall that, if that was the 17th of September,
2 Q. Have you ever perhaps seen yesterday's testimony by yesterday's
3 witness, Witness AF? You were the one who interviewed that witness, and
4 he claimed that he had seen prisoners carry wooden rifles in Santiceva
5 Street on the 17th of September, 1993. Do you know which witness exactly
6 I'm talking about? He gave his testimony here before the Trial Chamber
7 just yesterday.
8 A. I know which witness you're talking about, sir.
9 Q. Do you remember that he personally told you about having seen
10 wooden rifles in Santiceva Street on the 17th of September, 1993?
11 A. I remember that, sir.
12 Q. Can you rule out the possibility that this wooden rifle, too, came
13 from Santiceva Street, or can you not decide?
14 A. I go what I've been told by Witness -- or Mr. X, who told me
15 spontaneously about the 17th of September, who told me that he had been at
16 the Bulevar, who told me that he had been opposite Dom Zdravlja, who also
17 told me about other incidents he had seen there on other occasions. So
18 for me it was clear that he was talking about the 17th of September,
20 Q. I'm not sure. Let me get this clear. Witness X apparently also
21 told you that he was at that moment somewhere along the Bulevar, between
22 the medical centre and Santiceva Street. Is that what you said today?
23 A. He said to me that he was on the very corner building at the
24 Bulevar opposite the Dom Zdravlja. He also said to me, which is in my
25 declaration, that there were four witnesses and one of the witnesses was
1 heavy build and he also got cigarettes, matches, Witness PP is actually
3 Q. Yes, that's what we've heard too. However, you also said today
4 that Witness X told you that he had been somewhere on the Bulevar on that
5 day, somewhere on the stretch between the medical centre and Santiceva
6 Street. So you did say that today. I'm just wanting to make sure?
7 A. I told you that he told me that he served quite a while along the
8 Bulevar -- sorry, along the front line during the war. And place where is
9 he had to serve was between the Bulevar and Santiceva Street. But on that
10 particular day, he was on the Bulevar, opposite the Dom Zdravlja.
11 Q. Very well. Ms. Bos, can we therefore agree on the following: All
12 you really know about this rifle is what Witness X told you in relation to
13 the rifle's origin, and that all you can tell us about the identification
14 of that rifle is just to relate the testimony by Witness PP, who
15 unfortunately refused to confirm his testimony before this Trial Chamber.
16 Is that really all the information you have?
17 A. About the wooden rifle. Yes, the information I received about it
18 is from Mr. X and Witness PP, although I have to say that Witness PP did
19 not refuse to come. He had serious health problems. And as I remember,
20 in June 2001, when I contacted him to testify, a day before I contacted
21 him in 2001, June, he had been in the hospital for check-ups also. He
22 told me, and I was told by the AID at that time. When I contacted him
23 again for this testifying, he agreed to testify. But then he got health
24 problems. That's what I want to clarify.
25 Q. Well, if you insist on clarifying this point, please tell us how
1 it came about that it was the AID who told you about his illness. Did you
2 not contact him in person? You had to go through the AID to obtain
3 information on his health.
4 A. I didn't. I contacted him personally with an interpreter through
5 the phone from The Hague to where he lives, and he told me personally that
6 he had to go to the hospital to make an x-ray. There was no AID involved
7 in that.
8 Q. Well, you've referred to that just now. That's why I brought it
9 up. Can you then please agree with me that between January last year and
10 now we've had plenty of time to have this evidence disclosed, to wait for
11 these potential witnesses to get better, to wait to hear you testify, to
12 see the wooden rifle. So do you agree that between January and now this
13 Court has not been given a chance really to discuss the problems you may
14 have had apparently with this witness?
15 A. Sorry, sir, that's not for me to answer this.
16 Q. I accept your view. Thank you very much, witness.
17 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this concludes my
19 JUDGE LIU: Cross-examination, Mr. Krsnik.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have a number of
21 problems here. During the break my colleague and I tried to resolve what
22 problems we could, but only the most general points. This manufacture
23 here, this concoction, compare it to what we had already seen, we realised
24 that there were pages missing, that there were pages missing from this
25 manufactured evidence. We ascertain that there were part which is didn't
1 really correspond in the two versions but half an hour was too little time
2 unfortunately for us to deal with this. There are, as we have realised, a
3 number of differences that need to be studied in detail.
4 For example, on one page you have the date "92," and the page
5 facing this page bears the date the year of 1998. Now, all these things
6 need to be compared.
7 As our investigator here, today's witness, said, she did have a
8 chance to compare the two versions -- the diary and the copy, so I would
9 like to have a chance to question her on that. And in the typewritten
10 pages again are different from the handwritten pages, and then those two
11 again are different from the copies that we have in our possession. So
12 yes, I can indeed begin my cross-examination, at least as far as the
13 general points are concerned. But let me not take up too much time today,
14 because tomorrow I will be able to be more focussed, because in the
15 meantime Madam Registrar promised to have the diary scanned for me, all of
16 it. She said she would try in as far as it was possible to do it today,
17 so that we could have a copy before us, because I can't take this diary
18 home, obviously, so that we could prepare really our cross-examination
20 JUDGE LIU: Any objections, Mr. Scott?
21 MR. SCOTT: Only this, Your Honour. The Chamber will recall I
22 think my direct examination on the diary, as opposed to the wooden rifle,
23 took a matter of literally two or three minutes. The only things that --
24 the only questions I put to this witness were: When did the OTP receive
25 the typed version? When did the OTP receive the handwritten version?
1 When did the OTP receive the original diary through investigator
2 Pakenham? It was carried back to The Hague. And she looked at it, and
3 there were no obvious changes. That was the full extent of the direct
4 examination on this witness. That's only the reason she was tendered,
5 frankly, Your Honour, for that purpose, was to provide the Chamber a
6 record as to when the OTP received and how we received these particular
8 Now, I submit, respectfully that, Mr. Krsnik should be able to
9 conduct his cross-examination on those four/five questions. This
10 witness -- he can show -- he can attempt to show differences, alleged
11 differences, to this witness all -- for weeks and we'll all still be
12 sitting here. So we object to the anticipated scope of
14 JUDGE LIU: Do you not object to have that document copied or
15 scanned and furnished to the Defence counsel?
16 MR. SCOTT: Of course not. No objection.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, I'm speaking on my own behalf now. If
18 this diary has indicia of reliability, we will consider whether it should
19 be admitted or not. We haven't made that decision yet. And obviously the
20 "original," inverted commas, because Mr. Krsnik calls it a concoction,
21 you present it to us as a genuine diary, the author is not here -- so as
22 far as I'm concerned -- I've read the transcript and translation twice --
23 it's an important document for all people in this Court and any assistance
24 that we can get from Mr. Krsnik, for my part, will be very readily
1 May I make a suggestion in relation to one part of the diary: It
2 was treated with ill-concealed contempt by Mr. Krsnik when it first raised
3 its head in this Court, and if my memory serves me right, Mr. Krsnik
4 describes it as having been written in a Serbian dialect, which no
5 self-respecting Croat would use. Now, sure for a start we could have
6 the translators have a look at it and assist us at least on that.
7 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
9 MR. SCOTT: My apology. I certainly agree. I point out again
10 that this diary first -- this document, that version, to use a more
11 neutral term, only reached The Hague on either the 26th or 27th of
12 September. And I agree that that's perfectly fine for the translators --
13 one of the translators to look at that. My only question at the moment
14 was the conclusion of the testimony of this -- this particular witness.
15 And again, I submit, Mr. President, Judge Clark, Judge Diarra, that in any
16 event, whatever those questions may turn out to be, they're not going to
17 be questions for this particular witness. It came from the -- it came
18 from Bosnia. It arrived in The Hague on the 27th of September. End of
19 story. So whatever questions that Mr. Krsnik wants to ask somebody, I
20 don't see why we weren't able to finish this witness's testimony today.
21 Thank you.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, well, can't we have
24 this one translated then, the one we've looked at today. Why is the
25 Prosecutor saying that this is an original? What is it then that we were
1 given if it was the 25th of September? And I know why the Prosecutor
2 cares so much about this. They want it to be the FOSS and not the AID.
3 But we'll clarify both of these points. But then why weren't we giving
4 the translation? Why wasn't it disclosed to us? And who worked on this
5 translation and who had copies made of the original? Who were those
6 people? This is certainly no computer being used here. This is an
7 electric-type writer. I consulted expert witnesses back in Zagreb and
8 everybody agreed the same thing. This is an old typewriter. This is not
9 a computer being used here to print this. This is the Ekavica not the
10 Ijekavica dialect. In many of the document's parts. If you'll just
11 please allow me, Your Honour, to start something.
12 This text, purportedly part of the same original does not at all
13 correspond with this document here. I can't say perhaps but there are
14 many parts that don't correspond. They're not consistent, the two
15 copies. Parts of it are different. So what translated this and who had
16 copies made of this purported original? This is the International
17 Criminal Tribunal and war criminals are tried here. Half an hour before I
18 begin my cross-examination is the first time I'm actually shown the
19 original of this document. Have had a look at it. I can't have an
20 expert witness on it. I don't even know it exists. And I'm given
21 something which the Prosecutor tells me is what they claim it is. And now
22 we see there are pages missing. And this, they claim is a photocopy
23 of the original. We don't have the whole thing. I have no right to judge
24 on the basis of what I have here. And this is an International Criminal
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you may conduct your
2 cross-examination to this witness tomorrow morning. And I'm afraid that
3 you cannot get all the answers that you need, because this witness is just
4 an investigator. She could only testify about how the OTP got this copy.
5 As for the specific issues concerning with the language, the
6 typewriter, as well as the style, the missing pages, I'm afraid we have to
7 find some other experts to verify this issue. So my suggestion is -- my
8 suggestion is you could ask any question as you like to this witness
9 concerning with how the OTP got this diary into their possession. And
10 then if you have some problems, other problems, you may file a motion and
11 raise it and bring it to our attention. We'll see what we'll do
12 concerning with this diary. Is that fair enough?
13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, yes, Your Honours, by all
14 means. I'm perfectly clear about this. I know what the role of this
15 witness is, and I know the extent of the testimony she can provide, and I
16 am sure it's the same in the enemy's camp. Even today, even if she was
17 here today just as a witness, she watched very closely, as my colleague
18 and I were looking at this diary she remained here and she was sort of
19 monitoring us, because that's what she was put in charge of. So my
20 feelings were complex, because a witness who was supposed to be neutral
21 remained -- stayed back here to monitor us, to watch us closely as we were
22 studying the diary. We are, however, fully aware of the fact of what this
23 investigator can give us, but I have many questions, Your Honours. I
24 don't want it to just go by like that, because this is my last chance
25 concerning this testimony. I'll never again have it like this. I want to
1 question her on all the details, and I hope that Mrs. Bos will be well
2 disposed to tell us everything she knows, like she told the Prosecution.
3 I think it's high time this Court got familiarised with these issues
4 relating to this diary, this alleged "diary," and these issues were issue
5 that is our -- today's witness took part in. I have ten more minutes to
6 go. Yes, I can take off with my cross-examination, and I promise that I
7 will only stick to the points ordered and requested by you and to the
8 points raised by the Prosecutor's Office. But I will certainly request
9 and challenge the credibility not of the witness personally but the
10 credibility of this entire thing, the AID-related issues.
11 I think today's witness must know this very well, because she's
12 been working with these people for seven years. So I can start now, if
13 you'd like me to. We have ten more minutes to go.
14 The only thing I want to know is when I will be given copies of
15 this alleged diary as well as the translation, if that's what it takes, of
16 the original copy, so I can start work on it.
17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.
18 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, before we get too far further afield --
19 and I would have welcomed to finish this witness today and believe that we
20 should have on a proper scope of examination. We should have and could
21 have -- I want to point out though a couple of items that is I think in
22 light of what Mr. Krsnik said. On the 3rd of October, last week, it was
23 provided to counsel, Apolonia Bos will give evidence concerning the
24 rifle, of how the Prosecutor came into possession of the rifle, and the
25 original -- I emphasise the word, "the original" -- Rados diary, which
1 will be presented in Court. Estimated time of direct examination, one
2 hour. In fact, I did it in 34 minutes.
3 Now, since October 3rd, there was never a request from the Defence
4 to inspect the diary, never a call, never a telephone call, never coming
5 across the courtroom, never a request to examine the diary, and I submit
6 to you, Mr. President, that's more because Mr. Krsnik would rather
7 complain about it than in fact have access to it. That's one point.
8 The second point is this: On the 19th of September - on the 19th
9 of September - the entire statements of Mr. Idrizovic were turned over.
10 Counsel has had that for some weeks. In that, counsel will know, if he's
11 read them that, it's Mr. Idrizovic, not this witness, who will talk about
12 finding the diary in Doljani, in July 1993, and how that witness provided
13 it to AID later sometime in 1996 or 1997, and that witness will be shown
14 the original -- the blue-ink diary that I've shown to the Chamber today
15 and Mr. Idrizovic will say that is the same diary I saw in 1993. Now,
16 that for Mr. Idrizovic to say, not for Ms. Bos to say. It came to The
17 Hague on the 27th of --
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, please, you must request private
19 session. It's for your sake, I'm saying this, because you have disclosed
20 a number of name, because he's a protected witness. So we should have
21 this redacted from the transcript.
22 MR. SCOTT: No, he's not. Mr. Idrizovic wants to testify
24 MR. KRSNIK: Finally.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me that we don't have time for you
1 cross-examination this afternoon, so you may continue your
2 cross-examination tomorrow morning. But Mr. Krsnik, this Trial Chamber
3 has already informed you that you cannot get all the answers from this
4 witness tomorrow. So I believe that your cross-examination will be
5 limited to the area how the OTP got in the possession of this diary. You
6 have other opportunities to rebuttal everything. You could file a motion
7 concerning all those language issues, the typing issues, as well as others
8 in your motion. You could call your witnesses in rebuttal, and there is
9 another witness who will testify about this diary in the rebuttal
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 JUDGE LIU: So tomorrow morning I believe you have 30 minutes to
13 conduct your cross-examination.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No. Your Honours, I need more than
15 that, and I'd like to tell you that immediately I do have the right to
16 question the credibility and the circumstances surrounding this
18 The Prosecution's case questioning was three to four times longer
19 than ours, and I'm telling you right now I can't have only 30 minutes,
20 because that's not enough time and please apply the same yardstick as you
21 did to the Prosecution case. I know that we are again severely prejudiced
22 in this here because we are the ones cutting our own time short. We have
23 the adjoinder on Monday. How much time shall we have left to draft our
24 final brief? This is only prejudicial to us, the Defence team. We are
25 aware of that. We are perfectly aware of that. But we want to finish
1 this cross-examination and conduct it in the proper way.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, you know the Prosecution used time in the
3 direction examination for 5 or 6 minutes. I'll give you 30 minutes, it's
4 5 times more than the time spent by that of the Prosecution. You have to
5 organise your cross-examination in a good way tonight, and I will
6 guarantee you that a copy of that diary will be furnished you before 5.30
8 We will rise until 9.30 tomorrow morning.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
10 at 3.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,
11 the 10th day of October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.