1 Thursday, 10 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: Yes. Mr. Krsnik, your cross-examination, please.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours. Yes, of

12 course. But first of all, I would like to inform you that my client is

13 not present today either. I haven't received any explanation for today.

14 I don't know what the problem is. But we will continue and finish with

15 the witness and then we will see. Thank you.

16 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.

17 WITNESS: APOLONIA BOS [Resumed]

18 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:

19 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Ms. Bos.

20 A. Good morning.

21 Q. Mrs. Bos, first of all I'm going to set up my position with regard

22 to you and your position as a witness. I don't think that you are a

23 privileged witness at all and I don't think you can be such a privileged

24 witness before this Trial Chamber because this isn't provided for by the

25 Statute or by the Rules of this Tribunal. You're a witness here just like

1 anyone else and you will be cross-examined now. So because of the

2 discussions we had here yesterday, this is my position: You have come

3 here to speak the truth; is that correct?

4 A. [Microphone not activated]

5 JUDGE LIU: Ms. Bos, we did not get your answer. Will you please

6 repeat it.

7 THE WITNESS: That's correct, sir.

8 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

9 THE WITNESS: Your Honours.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

11 Q. First of all, I would like to ask you, have you spoken to the

12 Prosecution, to my colleagues from the Prosecution since yesterday?

13 A. No, sir.

14 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to specific questions. Ms. Bos, is it

15 correct to say that you don't know who wrote the diary. You have no idea

16 who the author is? You don't know who this person is at all, you

17 personally, is that correct, this alleged diary?

18 A. I only can say what I have heard, who wrote the diary. But I

19 don't know myself. I have not seen anybody writing this diary, sir.

20 Q. In your testimony you said that you made the copy correspond to

21 the alleged original; is that correct?

22 A. I'm sorry, can you repeat that question?

23 Q. Yesterday you said that you were comparing -- I don't know how the

24 interpreters will manage to translate this -- but you said that you

25 compared the copy that we had with the alleged original that the

1 Prosecutor provided yesterday.

2 A. That's correct, sir. I compared. I didn't make a copy.

3 Q. [In English] Compared. Yes. That's my word.

4 [Interpretation] You also said that you didn't find any

5 differences between the so-called original diary and the copy; is that

6 correct?

7 A. That's correct, sir.

8 Q. Ms. Bos, does that mean that the handwritten copy which was given

9 to the Prosecution and suggested as evidence here, does that mean that

10 everything in that copy is the same as in the so-called original?

11 A. The copy I have seen, as far as we have checked it, there are no

12 differences between the copy I have seen and the handwritten diary.

13 Q. Can you say how you compared the so-called original with the copy?

14 A. Together with one of the language assistants, we looked through

15 the original handwritten diary page by page and we looked through the copy

16 page by page, and we compared each page with each other.

17 Q. And you checked on the contents? You checked that the contents

18 were identical?

19 A. We did not read the diary at that moment, but we checked if the

20 beginning and the end of the pages were the same, and if there were

21 visible changes made.

22 Q. But you didn't go into the contents.

23 A. No, sir. Except for one exception, when there was -- page 42 --

24 between page 42 and between page 47 there are pages missing and we checked

25 if it was still the same story, what was continuing on page 47.

1 Q. So you can't even confirm here before the Trial Chamber that the

2 records in the diary are in chronological order, from if beginning to the

3 end. There is no chronological sequence. You can't say that there is a

4 chronological sequence, that it starts with one year and progresses to

5 other years.

6 A. I've noticed that, sir, but I have not gone into the contents of

7 the diary, but I did see that somewhere it was written "1993," somewhere

8 it was written "1992."

9 Q. And in places 87 and 88, after 1991 and 1992, did you notice this

10 -- 88.

11 A. [Previous translation continues] ... but that was not my task.

12 Q. So what was your task, then, if that wasn't your task?

13 A. To compare if the original diary, what we had received, had any

14 changes with the copy what we had received. If there were any changes

15 made in the writing between the two.

16 Q. I apologise, but I'm a little confused. How can you establish

17 such a thing if you don't read it?

18 A. You look if you can see if there have been made any changes in the

19 writing. It's -- I mean, if there has been something faded out. It could

20 be visible. So that's how I looked at it. But I said yesterday I'm not

21 an expert. So this is -- I only can say what I saw.

22 Q. Well, I agree, but I'm telling you that you can't make a

23 comparison if you don't read through all the contents and see that one

24 page corresponds to another page. I have to read it. And just a minute

25 ago you said you didn't read through the contents. So I really don't

1 understand what you are checking.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott.

3 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President. I object to asked and answered. The

4 witness has said yesterday and again today that she went through the

5 document with a language assistant looking for general comparisons if the

6 two versions looked the same, if there were any obvious changes such as

7 things that had been erased or whited out. She's now said several times

8 she has not read the entire diary word for word, so I think that's clear.

9 There's nothing unclear about that.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, maybe it is clear to you but not to

11 the Defence counsel. That's -- I'll let Mr. Krsnik go for a while, since

12 you have -- still have some time.

13 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. But I would

14 like to ask you not to let my colleague testify all the time instead of

15 objecting. But what I wanted to say is it's not important whether this is

16 clear to me. I'm just trying to clarify matters for you. But matters

17 have to be cleared for me in order for me to present this to you.

18 Q. Did you notice that the handwriting was different in the so-called

19 original?

20 A. Not really, no. I compared the original diary with the copy, if

21 there were made any changes. So I did not look at the handwritings. I

22 mean, if the handwriting, the so-called changed handwriting was the same

23 in the copy, then that was okay.

24 Q. In this original -- you call it an original -- but do you

25 personally know that it's the original? And can you say under oath here

1 before this Trial Chamber that that is the ordinal? Did you establish

2 this yourself?

3 A. I can only say what I've been told, and I have seen that in this

4 diary somebody wrote with ink, with a pen, in that diary. It didn't look

5 as a copy to me.

6 Q. You haven't answered my question though. I've noticed that you

7 call it "the original" all the time. But I'm asking you whether you can

8 claim under oath that -- you can personally claim that that booklet is an

9 original. Do you have direct knowledge of this?

10 A. To me it looks original, so it call it original, because I don't

11 see that it is copied. I can see that somebody wrote in it with pen. And

12 as far as I can see, this is not a copy of something written. So to me it

13 is an original written document. But again, I'm not an expert.

14 Q. Did you notice that parts had been written with a felt-tip, parts

15 with a pen, parts with a black felt-tip?

16 A. I've seen that there was something written with -- you call it

17 felt-tip, a felt-tip.

18 Q. Ms. Bos, I'm telling you that there are at least four to five

19 parts that were written in a different way, and some parts were printed,

20 some parts were handwritten. Haven't you noticed this? For example, what

21 was written with a black felt-tip, do you mean to say that the handwriting

22 is exactly the same as the handwriting in the other parts and that it is

23 the same person who wrote the various parts of the diary? Is that what

24 you want to say under oath?

25 A. I was not tasked to see if the whole diary was written by the same

1 person. I was tasked to compare the so-called original diary with the

2 copy what we have hand over, what we have been given, and whether it has

3 been written with different handwritings, it was not my task. And of

4 course I saw that there were some different pens used.

5 Q. Could you tell us who received that written copy of the alleged

6 diary on the 9th of December, 1998? Did you receive it?

7 A. On the 10th of September, 1993, it was my colleague Jan Van Hecke,

8 sir.

9 Q. 1993 or 1998?

10 A. Sorry, 1998. Sorry. I think there is -- I received it on the

11 10th of September -- sorry, my colleague Jan Van Hecke received it on the

12 10th of September, 1998. At least he submitted it to the Tribunal on

13 that date.

14 Q. So you weren't even the first person to have contact with it. And

15 where is Mr. Jan Van Hecke now, the chief of your investigation team?

16 A. He's not in The Hague, sorry. He has another assignment.

17 Q. He testified in open session here. He didn't mention that detail

18 at all.

19 A. I cannot give an answer on that, sir.

20 Q. [In English] Okay.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'd like to clarify the transcript.

23 The question was put to the witness the 9th of December, 1998, and then we

24 got confused about the year. You'll see at line 8. And she said the 9th

25 of September, 1993. Then we clarified the date. We went 1993 or 1998.

1 We clarified the year, but it was never clarified that counsel said the

2 9th of December. And then once it was suggested that it was the 9th of

3 September, we never got the September corrected. We only corrected the

4 year.

5 JUDGE LIU: I think it's the 10th of September, 1998. At line 13,

6 at page 8.

7 MR. SCOTT: All right. All right. I'll come back -- that's not

8 the correct date.

9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Ms. Bos, you in fact do not personally know how the Prosecution

11 obtained the diary. You know this from the conversation you had had with

12 Mr. Jan Van Hecke; isn't that correct?

13 A. I have it from the records of the ICTY, sir. I didn't have a

14 conversation with Mr. Van Hecke. And for the information, it was the 10th

15 of December, 1998, when he received a copy of the handwritten diary.

16 Q. My first question: Do you know the name of the person who handed

17 it over to your colleague Van Hecke? You don't know, because you said

18 that you didn't speak about this to him. So in fact, you don't know who

19 provided your colleague with that diary.

20 A. According to the records, he received it from the Bosnian AID.

21 But I don't know the name of the person.

22 Q. You've been working at this Tribunal since 1995 -- or rather, for

23 the Prosecution; is that correct?

24 A. That's correct, sir.

25 Q. Before that, you worked for the Dutch police.

1 A. That's correct, sir.

2 Q. Tell me please: Since 1995, up until today, has the Prosecution

3 been cooperating with the AID in a very close manner and do you know what

4 the AID is? And if you do, could you tell us what AID represents for you.

5 A. AID is the Bosnian authority who is working with or working for

6 the Tribunal on these cases.

7 Q. First of all, I want to tell you, Ms. Bos, that I am sorry to hear

8 this, because the AID is not the organ of the Bosnian authorities. It's

9 the organ of the Bosniak entity in the Federation of Bosniaks and Croats.

10 Were you aware of this fact?

11 A. That's correct, sir.

12 Q. And have you also worked with the Croatian Secret Service, as you

13 did -- or as you have with the AID? Have you worked with the Croatian

14 part of the Federation of Bosniaks and Croats?

15 A. So far there was no reason to do that, sir.

16 Q. But why was there no reason?

17 A. Because there was no reason, sir. I cannot explain that.

18 Q. Do you have direct knowledge of the whereabouts of the original

19 before it was provided to your colleague Van Hecke?

20 A. [Previous translation continues] ... so

21 Q. And under what circumstances did your colleague Van Hecke find out

22 that the so-called original existed and when did he find this out?

23 A. I never said that my colleague Van Hecke found out the original of

24 the so-called -- of the so-called original, sir, so I cannot answer that

25 question. I don't know.

1 Q. Ms. Bos, I took you to be a person with a lot of experience. As a

2 Dutch policeman in Holland, would you have faith in just one source?

3 Wouldn't you check up on this source and try to find other sources that

4 could verify something?

5 A. Sir, I only did a piece in this part of the investigation, so I

6 cannot give you an answer on that.

7 Q. But as an experienced policewoman, you must have known that the

8 AID was a secret political police of the Bosniak component, both before

9 the Federation and within the Federation. And it is only responsible to

10 the Bosniak representative and to no one else. It doesn't answer to

11 anyone else in the Federation of Bosniaks and Croats. Are you aware of

12 this fact?

13 MR. SCOTT: I object to the question, Your Honour, since --

14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

15 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated] -- it's not working.

16 There's no evidence in the record that --

17 THE INTERPRETER: Still no mike. Mr. Scott, microphone.

18 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]

19 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters cannot interpret if the mike is

20 not on. I'm sorry.

21 JUDGE LIU: [Microphone not activated] Well, you know, Mr. Scott,

22 the problem is that the interpreters cannot work if --

23 MR. SCOTT: My mike is not working, Mr. President. I'm sorry.

24 All our microphones -- perhaps to the value -- the benefit of the

25 courtroom, Your Honour, our -- our.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] God is great.

2 MR. SCOTT: I didn't know we were in the Milosevic courtroom.

3 We've been cut off.

4 JUDGE LIU: Can you try that mike, please.

5 JUDGE LIU: Okay. It's working now.

6 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I object to the question. It assumes a

7 number of facts not in evidence. Mr. Krsnik has asserted it's a political

8 organisation. There is no facts in the record to support that. He has

9 also asserted that it doesn't answer to anyone else in the Federation of

10 Bosniaks and Croats. There's no facts in the record to support that. I

11 object.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this is a claim from the Defence side.

13 But anyway, this question is out of the scope of the cross-examination.

14 Try to concentrate on the matter about that diary.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I have been

16 very focussed, very brief, and I would be grateful if the witness could

17 testify here, not the Prosecutor. My colleague and Ms. Bos have mentioned

18 the BIS [As interpreted]. These questions -- the purpose of these

19 questions are to discredit the witness. These aren't just claims that I

20 have made. This is the truth that has been established by the Dayton

21 Agreement. And why are we losing -- wasting time on things that are well

22 known and why have we wasted a year on discussing whether it's one

23 language or another since these are things that are well known and it's

24 well known that AID is answerable to the Bosniak people -- or rather, to a

25 representative of the Bosniak people alone and this is in accordance with

1 the Dayton Agreement. These are well-known facts. Why are we to waste

2 time on this just because this suits the Prosecution? All I want to do is

3 to establish and to ask Ms. Bos the following:

4 Q. Didn't you say yesterday that the original diary was received by

5 the person you call Mr. Pakenham, if it has been recorded correctly in the

6 transcript?

7 A. That's correct. [Previous translation continues] ... of that

8 so-called diary is received by my

9 colleague Brett Pakenham.

10 Q. Ms. Bos, do you know how long -- since when the so-called diary

11 has been or was in the hands of the AID? Do you know this or not?

12 A. No, sir.

13 Q. Does the AID cooperate with you in the Prosecution on a daily

14 basis and do they have an office of their own in the Prosecution?

15 A. Excuse me, sir. What do you mean do they have an office of their

16 own in the Prosecution?

17 Q. Do they have an office within the Office of the Prosecutor, within

18 the OTP at this Tribunal? Are you aware of this or not?

19 A. I don't think so.

20 Q. This is a fact which is easy to establish. Tell me, do you have

21 daily contacts with AID secret agents? Do you have a cooperation on a

22 daily basis with them?

23 A. No, sir.

24 Q. How often do you have contacts with them? How often and when do

25 you have contacts with them? Do you call them? Do they call you? What

1 does your cooperation look like?

2 A. I hardly have contact with them, sir. I only have contact with

3 them when I'm on mission.

4 Q. And then they help you bring witnesses, bring exhibits of this or

5 that kind; isn't that so?

6 A. They mainly help me with bringing the witnesses, sir.

7 Q. Why isn't it the police who would do that? Because it is their

8 job. Why don't you cooperate with the police? AID after all is the

9 Secret Service, isn't it?

10 A. Sir, that's an answer -- that's a question I cannot answer.

11 Q. Okay. Tell me please: Why did you say and how did you explain

12 when Mr. Scott asked you about FOSS? Do you know when the FOSS was

13 constituted and what is it and it was the FOSS that handed you over that

14 so-called original on the 24th of September of this year and they had it

15 in their hands since 1993, allegedly. How come that it was only this year

16 that they handed it over to you?

17 A. Sorry, sir. I have to correct you. It was not the FOSS who

18 handed it over to me. It was to my colleague. I have -- I told you

19 already, I don't know since when they have it. And I cannot answer you

20 how come it was only handed over this year to my colleague.

21 Q. Ms. Bos, why are you then testifying? You have not received the

22 copy. You have not received the original. You don't know anything. What

23 can you tell us then? Why are you here giving the testimony in front of

24 this Trial Chamber?

25 A. I've testified about that yesterday, sir. That's all I can say.

1 Q. Last question: Do you personally know -- let me put it this way:

2 How often are you in Sarajevo? If that is a secret, you don't have to

3 tell us. But give us just an approximate figure. Are you in Sarajevo

4 often; yes or no?

5 A. No, sir.

6 Q. Now, we're talking about the FOSS, the new agency which was

7 established a month or two months ago. Did they tell you that the

8 director of the AID, his first and the second deputy, are now in prison

9 because of forgery links with the Iranian secret services, that they are

10 being charged with cooperation with the terrorist organisations, and

11 that -- are you aware of that? Did you hear that in Sarajevo? Did the

12 new agency inform you about that, that they even established a terrorist

13 camp?

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

15 MR. SCOTT: Again, the witness can answer if she knows. But

16 again, I object that it assumes facts not in evidence. Mr. Krsnik

17 continually asserts things, but that doesn't make -- that isn't evidence.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I think this area is out of scope.

19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all my due

20 respect, we've been listening for a year about the AID as a very

21 respectable helper of this OTP. Today in this testimony we've heard that

22 the AID is everywhere. And now I can't ask about the director of this

23 agency Bakir Alispahic. The OTP have documents, but again they're playing

24 games with me. And the OTP have handed over those documents to other

25 Defence teams who have asked for those documents. These people have been

1 charged with atrocious crimes, as you may know. And a lady who cooperates

2 with the AID should know that. These questions go -- are about

3 discrediting the witness. But if the lady doesn't know that, then I don't

4 have any other questions. I really don't know why she is testifying here.

5 Q. Are you aware that these people are in prison, that they are being

6 tried for crimes? You are under oath. Just say yes or no, please.

7 A. No, sir. I'm not aware of that.

8 Q. Thank you, Ms. Bos.

9 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination, Mr. Scott?

10 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

11 Re-examined by Mr. Scott:

12 Q. Very briefly. I don't believe I'll have any questions about the

13 diary.

14 Concerning the wooden rifle and the Person X, as a experienced

15 Dutch police officer and an investigator at the Tribunal, when you say the

16 identification card of Person X, was there anything about that card that

17 struck you as an experienced police officer or as unusual or suspicious?

18 A. No, sir.

19 Q. Can you tell the Judges, Ms. Bos, is it unfortunately not an

20 unusual event for witnesses and persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina not to want

21 to be involved, not to want to give evidence, not to want to come to The

22 Hague? Is this situation with Person X unique in your experience?

23 A. No, sir, it's not unique. I've spoken with several -- several

24 witnesses whose testimony did -- they didn't want to testify because of

25 security reasons.

1 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Par.

2 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I object to this question,

3 Mr. President. I believe that they are speculative and they're out of

4 place.

5 JUDGE LIU: I don't think so.

6 You may proceed. You may move on, Mr. Scott.

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. When you first spoke with Witness PP about the differences -- the

9 potential differences in the rifle that was in the photograph, the first

10 time you saw him and he made those -- expressed his views, that was only

11 on the basis of the photographs; is that right?

12 A. That's correct, sir.

13 MR. SCOTT: If I can have the usher's assistance. I'm going to

14 put part of the statement of PP on the ELMO. It is -- will not show --

15 I've turned it so that it does not show his name. If you can just put

16 that on the ELMO, please. I think that would be the easiest thing.

17 Q. Ms. Bos, counsel yesterday indicated, suggested that Witness PP

18 had said that the -- this rifle was absolutely black. I would like you to

19 direct your attention to the statement about the middle of that page. Did

20 the statement -- did the Witness PP say, "Also according to my memory, the

21 colour of the rifle I was given at that time was also dark, the same as at

22 the photo. I remember that the rifle I was given had a kind of black

23 colour"?

24 A. That's correct, sir. He told me that.

25 Q. And could I also -- questions were also put to you about the

1 identification -- of when the rifle itself was shown to PP.

2 MR. SCOTT: And if I could have the usher's assistance, please.

3 This is a statement from the 24th of January of this year, 2002.

4 Q. Did Witness PP say at that time, up toward the top of the

5 statement, "Today, Thursday, 24 January 2002, you show me a piece of wood,

6 resembling a rifle. I recognise this wooden rifle fully as the one I was

7 given by the HVO on the 17th of September, 1993"? Is that what he said?

8 A. That's what he said, sir.

9 Q. At the end of the next paragraph, did he also say, "The colour was

10 the same, although I can see that during the years the colour shade

11 deteriorated a bit"?

12 A. He told me that, sir.

13 Q. Thank you, Ms. Bos. I have no further questions.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.

15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I apologise. My apologies, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE LIU: Any questions from the Judges? Judge Clark?

17 Questioned by the Court:

18 JUDGE CLARK: I was just wondering why we didn't see a copy of

19 that statement, seeing that it's -- that two different versions have been

20 given to us, Mr. Scott. The impression that we got from cross-examination

21 was quite different.

22 MR. SCOTT: Judge Clark, I think -- I think you're right. I was

23 trying to do it in a very abbreviated fashion. And I agree with you. I

24 think that the way that the statements were presented to the Chamber

25 during cross-examination were dramatically different than the statements

1 themselves. I'm happy to tender a copy of both statements to the Chamber

2 if -- when we could make a further copy.

3 JUDGE CLARK: I think we'd be much assisted by that, thank you.

4 Ms. Bos, can I ask you a question, please. In looking over my

5 notes from November when Witness PP gave evidence, I noted that he was a

6 very big man. Is that your recollection when you met him in Sarajevo?

7 A. That's correct, Your Honour.

8 JUDGE CLARK: Witness X described to you how he got the rifle from

9 a man who was bigger than the other prisoners who came over. So for the

10 moment we can draw an inference from that, for the moment. He -- Witness

11 X went on to say to you that PP, or the big man, gave him cigarettes. Did

12 you put this part of the version given to you by X to PP? And if so, did

13 he comment on it?

14 A. I asked Witness PP if he knew anything about cigarettes. That's

15 all I asked him. And then he told me the story about the cigarettes, Your

16 Honour.

17 JUDGE CLARK: And is that in the statement that we're going to

18 see?

19 A. That is in the statement you're going to see, Your Honour.

20 JUDGE CLARK: And seeing that nobody has brought up the issue of

21 the cigarettes, did he confirm or reject that aspect of X's evidence?

22 A. He confirmed that he gave cigarettes to the ABiH soldiers.

23 JUDGE CLARK: I think everybody can see why it's so important that

24 we should now see these statements. We've been acting with blinkers.

25 MR. SCOTT: Judge Clark, I -- if it was my shortcoming, I

1 apologise. I kept thinking during the cross-examination that they would

2 be shown to the witness, be put to the witness, and they never were.

3 JUDGE CLARK: Ms. Bos, seeing that you are the person who's been

4 tasked with bringing the wooden rifle to the Tribunal and you've spoken to

5 Witness X, did you ever have an opportunity to look at photographs that

6 were furnished to the Tribunal earlier this year in relation to another

7 wooden rifle?

8 A. I don't know anything about other photos, Your Honour.

9 JUDGE CLARK: That's fair enough. That's something that we have

10 to look at then. Thank you very much.

11 JUDGE LIU: Any questions?

12 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Par.

14 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Just briefly, Your Honour.

15 Further cross-examination by Mr. Par:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Ms. Bos, we're talking about the statements given

17 by PP to you personally. My question to you is as follows: Did they give

18 you personally any statements that they then signed, or are there any such

19 statements or not at all?

20 A. Witness PP gave me a signed -- actually, he gave me two signed

21 statements, sir.

22 Q. Did you compile these statements and then he signed them? Which

23 statements are you implying? The ones that have been provided to you or

24 some other statements? How were these statements compiled? Are these his

25 statements, or are those excerpts or compilations from your notes?

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

2 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, we're doing it again. You're now

3 making reference to statements that no one in the courtroom can be clear

4 or the witness can be clear. Can Mr. Par please show the statements to

5 the witness so she can make a proper response.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, I think, you know, this has to be

7 cleared up a little bit because it's very confusing. We mentioned two

8 statements, and the -- frankly speaking, we don't know what you are

9 talking about, Mr. Par. Can you be more specific?

10 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I will be more specific, Mr. President.

11 In front of me I have two statements -- we're talking about Witness PP --

12 the first one was given on the 29th November 2001. The statement which

13 was taken by Ms. Bos. And the other statement was taken on 24 January

14 2002, again by Ms. Bos. And my question to Ms. Bos is as follows:

15 Q. Are these statements given by the witness or were they compiled

16 from the notes that you made and then the witness just signed them after

17 you compiled them?

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I'm not expecting to answer this

19 question for Ms. Bos.

20 MR. SCOTT: I'm not going to ask the question, Your Honour. I

21 don't understand counsel's reluctance to put the paper in front of the

22 witness. I don't understand that. Now, I have the two copies right here.

23 I ask that they be marked for identification, please be given numbers, and

24 be put in front of the witness.

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

1 MR. SCOTT: There is one dated the 22nd of November, 2001, and

2 one -- which will be number 4, Madam Registrar. And one dated the 24th of

3 January, 2002.

4 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Meek.

5 MR. MEEK: [Microphone not activated]

6 JUDGE LIU: Your mike, please. Your mike, please.

7 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, excuse me, I am continually amazed at

8 how the rules in this Trial Chamber change. Yesterday we requested that

9 statements of AF -- Witness AF be admitted into evidence because in 1996

10 he gave an extensive statement to AID, he never mentioned Mr. Naletilic,

11 and this Trial Chamber said no, we're not admitting statements. This is

12 our rules. Today Judge Clark invites the Prosecutor to give statements

13 into evidence. I don't understand this. I don't understand this.

14 And by the way, one other thing, Your Honours: The question by

15 Mr. Par does not entail the statement having to be shown to this witness.

16 She can answer the question, did she compile it or did he write it? A

17 very simple question. Mr. Scott wants these statements into evidence.

18 Yesterday we asked to have statements of AF put into evidence and they

19 were rejected. I want -- I just want to know the rules. They keep

20 changing.

21 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Meek, I think you and I both know the difference

22 between seeing something and putting it into evidence. I want to see,

23 because I feel quite frankly that this Court has been misled. I'm not

24 putting a tooth in it. It is not open to counsel to mislead the Court.

25 We were given a certain impression of a state of affairs yesterday which

1 does not exist. I am disappointed. I now want to see those statements.

2 I think the -- the Bench wants to see those statements. There is a

3 difference between seeing statements which have frankly been mis -- the

4 contents of which have been misrepresented to this Bench and admitting

5 them into evidence. Statements do not prove anything. We just want to

6 see what the contents of those statements are which we're entitled to do

7 at any stage, and especially when the statement has been presented in such

8 a way that the kindest thing I can say is that there has been huge economy

9 with the truth of the contents. That does not mean that what is in the

10 statement proves the truth. But we are now talking about the contents as

11 presented yesterday.

12 Mr. Meek, you and I are long enough in this game to know precisely

13 what the rules are.

14 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Par, do you have an extra copy of your

15 statement? If you have it, please give it to the witness. Do we use

16 Mr. Scott's copy of that statement to show it to the witness?

17 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, I have the

18 statements here, and it makes no difference to me which of the copies are

19 going to be used.

20 And as for the remarks by Her Honour Clark, I must say that I'm

21 very surprised that -- I don't know whether I have understood you well --

22 that somebody is trying to say that the Defence has been hiding something

23 with regard to these statements. It is in our best interests for the

24 Bench to read this, and I would like everybody to read this. I would like

25 this to be interpreted very slowly, because we are basing our Defence on

1 this. We want -- we are saying that the -- in the first statement this

2 witness said that the rifle was different, and in the second statement he

3 adjusts his statement. So it is our position that you should read these

4 two integral statements because this is one of the elements of our

5 defence. So my question about the statements to the witness was as

6 follows: Whether these statements were written by the witnesses, whether

7 the Witness PP wrote these statements, or whether they were compiled from

8 the notes. I wanted to ask her whether X wrote a statement or whether his

9 words were just noted, and then the --

10 JUDGE LIU: Well --

11 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] And then the statement was compiled

12 subsequently.

13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric, shall we hear the answer from the

14 witness first? We are not going to prolong the debate of this issue.

15 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I did not want to prolong the debate.

16 This is a matter of -- a procedural matter. Change the rule and allow us

17 to tender these two exhibits into evidence. We are talking about a

18 procedural matter at this point in time.

19 JUDGE LIU: We haven't come to that stage yet.

20 Witness, will you please answer that question, please.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honour. I see one statement in front of

22 me which is taken on the 22nd of November, 2001, taken -- I will explain

23 to you how I took this statement. He was with me in the room when I kind

24 out what he told me. It was read over by the interpreter in my presence,

25 of course in his presence. And when he agreed with it, he signed it in my

1 presence and the interpreter signed it and myself, I signed it.

2 The second statement was taken on the 24th of January, 2002. He

3 was with me in the office, where I took the statement. I wrote down in

4 the computer immediately what he told me. No notes were taken, nor from

5 the other one. After I finished with it, I had it read over to him in his

6 own language by the interpreter. When he agreed upon it, he signed it,

7 the interpreter signed it, and myself signed it. And that is about the

8 two statements.

9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, with regard to

10 Judge Clark's words, I'm now asking the Honourable Chamber: Is there a

11 need for us to present the contents of these statements so as to avoid the

12 ambiguities? Do I now start discussing the contents of these statements,

13 or do you now have any suggestion as to how we can establish the exact

14 contents of these two statements? I'm kindly asking for your suggestion

15 as to how we should proceed with regard to the contents of these two

16 statements.

17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.

18 MR. SCOTT: First, I've been sitting quietly, unusually,

19 Mr. President. I don't know about the practices in Croatia. Certainly

20 Mr. Meek knows, and I'm sure Judge Clark knows, any document or item

21 that's used in the courtroom should be marked for identification purposes

22 and for purposes of the record so that the record can be clear six months

23 from now, a year from now, just what it is that's been referred to. The

24 fact that something is given a number does not mean it's admitted into

25 evidence. The rules haven't changed. I haven't offered them. All I

1 asked was that a number be given for identification purposes. The rules

2 have not changed.

3 Having said that, if counsel -- if the Defence now wants to put

4 these two statements into evidence on their initiative, and given the

5 comment that is the Chamber has made, I have no objection.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think you are right that we'll give the ID

7 number, an ID number to those two documents so that we could trace it at a

8 later stage. But as for whether they will be admitted into evidence, I

9 think we will discuss it at a later stage.

10 Mr. Par, you may ask some questions concerning the contents of

11 those two documents to this witness to see what the answer is. I'll give

12 the floor to Madam Registrar first.

13 THE REGISTRAR: The first -- the November 22nd, 2001 statement is

14 ID number 7; and the January 24th, 2002 statement will be ID number 8,

15 under seal, both of them.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.

17 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]

18 Q. Ms. Bos, would you please look at the statement taken on 22nd

19 November 2001 and can you please look at the page on which it says

20 "Witness statement."

21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

23 MR. SCOTT: Since none of us in the courtroom, including myself

24 now, since I've given up my only copy, has a copy, can it be placed on the

25 ELMO, please.

1 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes. It can be put on the ELMO. But be careful

2 of the signature of that document.

3 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I meant to ask Ms. Bos to read the

4 relevant parts from both statements, to provide us with the picture of

5 what the witness actually stated in order to avoid ambiguities. If it is

6 easier for everybody for those statements to be delivered, sent to

7 everybody, I don't have anything to ask the witness. I just wanted to

8 present the contents of these two statements to the Chamber. If it is

9 easier for everybody, if these statements were sent to the Chamber and

10 everybody else, then I will proceed in that way. That was my only

11 intention with these two statements and with the presence of Ms. Bos

12 reading them.

13 JUDGE LIU: We have it on the ELMO. If you have any questions,

14 you could ask this witness while she's still in the courtroom.

15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Ms. Bos, the statement given on the 22nd of November, 2001, the

17 witness was Witness PP. Could you please read out the statement to us.

18 A. Yes, sir. The witness stated to me:

19 "A few days ago, I testified before the Court in The Hague,

20 against the accused Naletilic, Mladen --"

21 THE INTERPRETER: Can you please slow down, because the

22 interpreters have to interpret into B/C/S. Thank you very much.

23 A. "Against the accused Naletilic, Mladen, aka Tuta and Martinovic,

24 Vinko, aka Stela. I testified about the wooden rifle incident.

25 "You just showed me photos of a rifle. I can see that the rifle

1 on the photo is made of wood. The rifle on the photo is alike the rifle I

2 was given on the 17th of September, 1993, when we had to walk in front of

3 that tank to the front line with the ABiH at the Bulevar. The rifle I was

4 given had a green-coloured belt. It was an original belt from an original

5 military rifle. The belt was attached to the wooden rifle with two nails.

6 One nail at the rifle butt and one at the barrel of the rifle. On the

7 photo I do not see the belt and the nail on the barrel.

8 "It had a cartridge box, the nail for the trigger, and the nails

9 for the visor, like on the photos. The size of the rifle on the photos

10 also resembles the one I was given at that time. According to my memory,

11 except for the missing belt and nail, the rifle on the photos resembles

12 the rifle I was given at that time."

13 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down. Thank you.

14 A. "The rifle on the photos resembles the rifle I was given at that

15 time.

16 "Also according to my memory, the colour of the rifle I was given

17 at that time was --"

18 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down.

19 A. "Also according to my memory, the colour of the rifle I was given

20 at that time was also dark, the same as at the photo. I remember that the

21 rifle I was given had a kind of black colour.

22 "I have to tell you that when I arrived at the ABiH soldiers, I

23 was wounded at one leg and left the rifle and the backpack which was full

24 of stones behind on the stairs when I was taken to a doctor. I never saw

25 the rifle any more.

1 "When we were given the rifles, I asked for cigarettes and one of

2 the KB soldiers gave me a packet of cigarettes. As far as I remember, I

3 shared the packet with the ABiH soldiers because they had a shortage of

4 cigarettes. At that time I was dressed in a full camouflage uniform. I

5 did not give away the HVO jacket. I took it home with me. We were with

6 four prisoners and from the four, I had the most of weight at that moment.

7 I was about 10 kilos lighter, as I am now. Two of us were skinny and the

8 third one was also lighter than I was. I did not know any of the ABiH

9 soldiers --"

10 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Madam Bos, we are interpreting what

11 you are saying into French, so please could you read this out slowly.

12 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

13 "Two of us were skinny and the third one was also lighter than I

14 was. I did not know any of the ABiH soldiers who were at the front line.

15 According to my knowledge, they were with four of them when we first met

16 them."

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll stop here.

18 MR. PAR: [Interpretation]

19 Q. The second statement, Ms. Bos, Witness PP, 24th of January, 2002

20 is the date. Please could you provide this statement.

21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Could I ask the usher or someone to

22 provide the interpreters with a copy.

23 A. The witness at that time stated to me:

24 "I am here on my own free will to give a statement to the

25 representatives of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International

1 Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I am doing this voluntarily.

2 No one has threatened me or forced me to do so, nor have they offered me

3 any promises.

4 "On the 20th and the 21st of November, 2002 --" but that's a

5 mistake. It should have been 2001 -- "I testified before the

6 international Court in The Hague. I was a protected witness and my

7 pseudonym was --" and that's redacted by myself. "Amongst other subjects,

8 I testified about the wooden rifle incident that happened in Mostar on the

9 17th of September, 1993. At that time I was detained by the HVO and

10 together with the other prisoners we were used as a human shield and we

11 were given a wooden rifle. Today, Thursday, the 24th of January, 2002,

12 you show me a piece of wood resembling a rifle. I recognise this wooden

13 rifle fully as the one I was given by the HVO on the 17th of September,

14 1993.

15 "I recognise the screw in the butt. The screw was used to attach

16 the green strap to the rifle. There was a nail at the barrel to attach

17 the other end of the strap to the rifle. I see this nail is also missing.

18 I recognise the shape and the size of the rifle, the other nails that were

19 used for the trigger and the sights. The colour was the same, although I

20 can see that during the years the colour shade deteriorated a bit -- the

21 colour shade deteriorated a bit. I cannot tell you who made this rifle.

22 The rifles given to the other prisoners were the same as I can remember.

23 "The rifle was given to me about one hour before we had to use it.

24 I had the opportunity to have a good look at it. We were ordered to hold

25 the wooden rifle close to our chests. I did, but the strap detached

1 itself from the screw because the screw was rotating like it is doing now.

2 I was ordered by one of the HVO soldiers to hold the rifle properly. I

3 had to attach the strap to the screw again. The strap was around my neck,

4 like you normally carry a rifle. Later when walked, we had to hold the

5 rifle in the hands, like we had it ready for discharge.

6 "On the 22nd of November, 2001, while I was still in The Hague,

7 you showed me several pictures of this rifle. I then already told you

8 that this rifle resembles the wooden rifle we had to carry in Mostar on

9 the 17th of September, 1993. Now I see the real rifle. I recognise it

10 fully as the rifle I was carrying on the 17th of September, 1993.

11 "I have to tell you that I would not recognise the ABiH soldiers

12 any more, who we met at the Bulevar on the 17th of September, 1993, when

13 we escaped to them."

14 JUDGE LIU: That's enough, Mr. Par?

15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] That's enough for me. I think that

16 we -- that both statements have been recorded in the transcript now and no

17 one can now think that we attempted to manipulate the text in some way.

18 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you, Madam Bos for coming to give your

19 evidence. When Madam Usher pulls down the blinds, she will show you out

20 of the room. We wish you a pleasant day.

21 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 [The witness withdrew]

23 JUDGE LIU: At this stage are there any documents to tender?

24 Well -- yes, Mr. Scott.

25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, we tender the wooden rifle itself,

1 which is P962. And if they weren't previously admitted -- off the top of

2 my head, I'm sorry, I'm not sure -- sorry, but the photographs which

3 collectively were P963.

4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any objections? Mr. Par.

5 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] With regard to the suggestion that the

6 wooden rifle should be tendered into evidence, we object to this and we

7 consider this to be evidence that hasn't been authenticated, at least as

8 far as its source is regarded, and it hasn't been authenticated by a

9 competent witness. We don't consider Ms. Bos to be competent to

10 authenticate the source and to say where this rifle came from. We only

11 think that Person X is competent to do such a thing, and that person is

12 not present here and that person, Person X, did not write a statement with

13 regard to this matter. But Mrs. Bos only spoke about her conversation

14 with Witness X -- with the Person X, so we don't know the sources of this

15 evidence and this evidence has been attempted to be tendered through an

16 incompetent witness. The Witness PP could perhaps authenticate this, but

17 the Witness PP is not here. I don't know why Ms. Bos would be able to

18 cover these two areas with regard to this evidence, and it is our position

19 that this evidence cannot be tendered, admitted. If this Trial Chamber

20 admits this wooden rifle into evidence, we stand by our earlier proposal

21 and the Trial Chamber has rendered a decision with regard to this, and

22 this proposal is to have the wooden rifle subjected to an expert analysis.

23 Why? Because with regard to identifying the colour of the rifle, this has

24 been in dispute -- it's not just a matter of discussing whether it was

25 black or brown but whether the rifle was painted, since witnesses PP and

1 OO, in their statements before this Trial Chamber and in particular

2 Witness OO said that this rifle was a painted one, because he saw it being

3 painted.

4 Similarly, all those four rifles were said to be identical. So I

5 suggest that the wooden rifle be subjected to an expert analysis to

6 determine whether it was painted, to determine what the colour was, to

7 determine the age of the colour, and to determine how old the rifle is, to

8 determine when the rifle was actually manufactured.

9 And furthermore, we need to establish the traces of the -- of the

10 belt, whether there were nails, et cetera. So we suggest an expert

11 analysis that concerns the colour of the rifle and if the Trial Chamber

12 admits this into evidence. But our suggestion is that this should not be

13 admitted into evidence.

14 JUDGE LIU: How about those photos?

15 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] I don't think the photographs are

16 acceptable, not at all, for a very simple reason: The photographs were

17 supposed to serve as a means of identifying the rifle at an earlier stage,

18 and the witnesses to whom the photographs were shown did not identify

19 them. And at that point we even had a situation in which the Prosecutor

20 had the photograph as evidence and he himself said that he could not

21 tender this into evidence because the witnesses hadn't identified it. So

22 that was the reason given. So the photographs cannot be admitted evidence

23 because no one has confirmed them. Witness Bos said, "I photographed

24 them." Is that all? That hasn't been identified and we object to this in

25 the strongest possible terms.

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, the two sets of the evidence, I think, you know,

2 this Chamber has to go through all the transcripts today and reread all

3 those statements made by this witness and then we'll decide it at a later

4 stage.

5 Well, there is 10 minutes or 15 minutes left in this sitting. Is

6 there anything that both parties want to mention?

7 Mr. Krsnik. Mr. Krsnik.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I just

9 wanted to say today that given the witness who is going to be a public

10 witness, Safet Idrizovic, I would like my client to be present when he

11 testifies. Since he hasn't conferred with me today and he hasn't come to

12 a decision when conferring with me with regard to your decision. So if we

13 manage to deal with the issue of this third witness, who is in a position

14 to -- I don't know whether Mr. Prelec is in a position to testify. I'll

15 try to talk to my client through the Registrar. I hope that he'll come

16 tomorrow. But I don't think that we should waste time. If the

17 Prosecution still insist that is Mr. Prelec should testify, I think that

18 he should testify. I think we can proceed with this matter without my

19 client. But we can't proceed with the testimony of Mr. Idrizovic without

20 my client.

21 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.

22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, let me respond to a couple of things,

23 please, including the objections to the evidence tendered, because I

24 didn't respond to Mr. Par.

25 The Chamber will know that by many accounts this Tribunal has a

1 rather liberal, inclusive approach to evidence. Hearsay is widely

2 accepted, certainly far more than the jurisdiction where I formerly

3 practiced. And some of us may think that's good and some of us may think

4 that's bad. But jurisprudence of this Tribunal nonetheless is that

5 hearsay is widely accepted.

6 Now, let me put this in context of the Tribunal practice. In

7 some -- if we were to follow what counsel seems to be suggesting, the

8 Prosecution in this case would have had to call a stream of witnesses. I

9 don't know how many witnesses -- to offer one piece of evidence, one piece

10 of evidence. Now, in a pre-trial proceedings, we were continually beaten

11 down. No, Mr. Scott. You can't call more than 50 witnesses. No, you

12 can't call this many witnesses. You must call fewer witnesses. We could

13 have spent 10 witnesses on any single -- whether the rifle or the diary.

14 It could have gone on and on. We think the totality of the evidence at

15 the end of the day between Ms. Bos's testimony, Mr. Idrizovic's testimony,

16 PP's testimony, the testimony that he gave when he was here, when the

17 Chamber puts that all together, there is a sufficient evidentiary basis,

18 we submit, for this evidence to be received and considered by the Chamber

19 and for weight -- for the weight to be given to it as the Chamber deems

20 fit.

21 Now, let me compare this to other cases again. There are other

22 cases, a rather prominent case currently in trial where the Prosecution

23 was told we could only call two witnesses per municipality. For the

24 entire crime base in a municipality, we could call two witnesses. And yet

25 we're being -- it's being suggested here that we're supposed to call

1 witness after witness after witness to authenticate a single exhibit.

2 Let me give another -- cite another situation about hearsay.

3 Again, Mr. President, given the Rules of the Tribunal, this Chamber has

4 received hearsay day after day after day. What if a witness comes in and

5 says, "My brother was at the engineering faculty and he heard Mr. Tuta

6 say --" that's double hearsay. It's not the -- the person who heard it is

7 not testifying. His brother is testifying. And it's directly evidence as

8 to the accused, a statement attributed to the accused, and yet evidence we

9 would receive, I submit, every day.

10 So, Your Honours, the evidence that's been received about this --

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.

12 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. I can finish, please.

13 JUDGE LIU: Let me hear what Mr. Krsnik wants.

14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. Scott.

15 Your Honours, Your Honours, why do we have to listen to this?

16 What does this mean? Mr. President, Judge Diarra, we don't come from that

17 system. But I really don't understand these speeches and how can the

18 Prosecutor allow himself to say that he would have found 50 witnesses for

19 the diary, which he showed on the 24th of September? And AID had it in

20 their hands since 1988. Just a moment. I want to finish, Mr. Scott.

21 MR. SCOTT: Why was it interrupted, Mr. President?

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Because I'm not going to tolerate

23 this any more, put up with you saying you could have found 50 witnesses.

24 If he could have found 50 witnesses, he wouldn't be doing what he is doing

25 now and he wouldn't have received the diary on the 24th of 9. I can't

1 listen to him testifying any more. I can't listen to this hearsay

2 evidence any more, representing hearsay in this manner is a disgrace for

3 the judicial system, wherever this hearsay evidence may be applied.

4 JUDGE LIU: You may continue, Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]

6 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

7 MR. SCOTT: The reason I was on my feet, Your Honours, is because

8 I thought -- I had the right to respond to counsel the arguments that were

9 made on the objections to the tendering of the evidence. I think both

10 sides get to be heard, and I was responding -- making my statement.

11 Mr. Krsnik may or may not agree with it. I'm sure that he doesn't agree

12 with it, but we're stating the Prosecution's position in response to the

13 Defence objection.

14 So we believe, Your Honour, and we respectfully submit that there

15 is sufficient and good basis on the jurisprudence of this Tribunal to

16 receive the evidence that's been tendered, including the testimony of

17 Ms. Bos, and including the hearsay aspects of that testimony. That's our

18 response on that.

19 JUDGE LIU: We will take note of your statement.

20 MR. SCOTT: Now, as to the witness matters that Mr. Krsnik has

21 raised, and I'm responding now to Mr. Krsnik. I've been invited to make a

22 response. Mr. Idrizovic, I won't put too fine a point on this. He's

23 quite unhappy about being here. He's been here all week. We thought he

24 would testify on Tuesday. I completely -- it's highly unfortunate that

25 Mr. Naletilic's health is not always good. We regret that. But

1 Mr. Idrizovic has now been here for a week. He wants to go home. We

2 thought -- honestly told him he would testify on Tuesday, and here it is

3 late morning on Thursday. So that's one consideration.

4 As to Mr. Prelec, Your Honour. I would like to address that with

5 the Chamber. I'm not sure I can -- frankly, I have been meaning for a

6 couple of days to come back to that, and I'm not sure frankly I can do it

7 in the next five minutes. But if the Chamber wishes me to address it now,

8 I try do my best in terms of responding to -- again, counsel has invited

9 me to address the question of Mr. Prelec's testimony.

10 JUDGE LIU: I think we don't have enough time on that issue. We

11 have four minutes left this sitting.

12 MR. SCOTT: I am in agreement, Mr. President, with that. I do

13 want to be -- I have been meaning for several days, but again I've placed

14 priority - I've placed priority - on hearing the witnesses who have been

15 available. I do want very much to be heard on that issue, on that matter

16 before you end our rebuttal case. Thank you.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, Mr. Par, we don't have time to debate on

18 the admission of the evidence at this stage. You know, the problem is

19 that what witnesses are we going to hear for our next siting? Are you

20 going to comment on that issue? If so, you may.

21 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like us to be

22 granted time to reply to Mr. Scott with regard to his position concerning

23 hearsay evidence. I think that this is a subject that this case depends

24 on.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, we don't have time, you know, to debate right

1 now. If you have some objections, you are welcome to submit your written

2 submissions to this Chamber. We'll consider it. But now we don't have

3 time to prolong the debate on the admission of the evidence. Right?

4 Let us make a ruling on the next witness we are going to hear.

5 Okay?

6 Well, Mr. Krsnik, I'm very sorry to hear that your client is not

7 in good health. As I said yesterday, that this Trial Chamber cared very

8 much about his health. We wish him a speedy recovery. But on the other

9 hand, we have a witness waiting to testify. Could I give you some time --

10 maybe two hours of time for you to check with your client whether he's

11 available at 2.30 this afternoon for this afternoon's hearing. I hope --

12 I hope he could be present at this afternoon's hearing or he could allow

13 us to continue without his presence for just one hour and a half.

14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, first of all, it's not

15 possible to say that this Defence counsel hasn't been cooperative and that

16 we haven't tried to interfere with the schedule. Your Honours, this is

17 the last witness who is important for my client. Once again, I want to

18 emphasise the fact that any delay damages the Defence. We haven't got

19 much time finish our closing brief, because you haven't postponed the time

20 limit. So it's in my interest to finish, as it is in yours to finish, as

21 soon as possible.

22 Your Honours, all I can do with your permission is -- I have to go

23 to the prison. I can't get back before 2.00. If we started at half past

24 2.00 and continued until 4.00, I think, we could listen to the

25 examination-in-chief from half past 2.00 to 4.00 and then he could be

1 present for the cross-examination tomorrow. He could at least be present

2 for the cross-examination, if he can't be present for the

3 examination-in-chief. This is my suggestion. I think it should be

4 acceptable to everyone. But we could listen to Mr. Prelec up until half

5 past 3.00 if the Prosecutor still insists on this witness testifying now.

6 I don't see why we're wasting time here.

7 My colleague has just suggested that we should either listen to

8 the examination-in-chief and then have the cross-examination tomorrow and

9 then I'll go to prison and speak to my client, to arrange for him to come

10 to the cross-examination tomorrow. So this is a second possibility.

11 Whichever possibility you opt for, it's all the same for me. It's more

12 important for my client to be present during the cross-examination than to

13 be present during the examination-in-chief.

14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I think, you know, we prefer to have that -- you

15 know, to hear that witness on our schedule this afternoon at 2.30. I hope

16 during the lunchtime you could get in touch with your client and at the

17 same time I also instruct the registrar to find out how serious your

18 client's illness is. But anyway, we'll start the direct examination at

19 2.30 with that witness this afternoon.

20 Having said that, we will resume at 2.30 this afternoon.

21 --- Luncheon recess taken at 11.01 a.m.

22

23

24

25

1 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.

2 JUDGE LIU: Before we start, is there anything that both parties

3 wants to address?

4 Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to inform

6 you about my contact with my client. Madam Registrar has been there as

7 well. My client has undergone various medical check-ups today, one of

8 them being an EKG. He is not feeling well. He cannot be here today, but

9 he will try to be here tomorrow at any cost, so I would kindly ask you

10 if -- whether he is here tomorrow or whether he is not here tomorrow,

11 let's wait with my cross-examination until tomorrow. If he is not feeling

12 well tomorrow, I have his consent to carry out my cross-examination. So

13 on his behalf I would kindly ask you to permit me not to start with my

14 cross-examination today and tomorrow, even if my client still feels bad,

15 tomorrow I have his consent to do my cross-examination tomorrow. So I

16 would kindly grant your permission for that. So direct examination

17 obviously can take place today without his presence.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

19 Mr. Seric.

20 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. During the

21 long break our client asked me to address the Chamber and for that I would

22 need to go into private session, please, because I have a request to put

23 to you on behalf of my client. But I have to do that in private session.

24 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll go to the private session, please.

25 [Private session]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 16269 – redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 [redacted]

2 [redacted]

3 [redacted]

4 [redacted]

5 [redacted]

6 [redacted]

7 [redacted]

8 [redacted]

9 [redacted]

10 [redacted]

11 [redacted]

12 [redacted]

13 [Open session]

14 JUDGE LIU: Any response, Mr. Scott?

15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, with all -- absolutely all due sympathy

16 for any health conditions being suffered by the two accused, I have -- I

17 find the timing of all this quite interesting. I might as well tell the

18 Chamber now that I beseech the Chamber to let this witness be finished so

19 he can go home. He's been here since last -- it's a week today, and I

20 have a sense - I have a sense - that we're moving in the direction --

21 we're not going to finish him tomorrow. He's going to be required to stay

22 over a second weekend. He will have been in The Hague for almost two

23 weeks and that is unfair to this witness, and I will -- I'm just telling

24 the Chamber now I'm going to make every effort -- ask the Chamber to make

25 every effort, please, that he can be finished so he can go home.

1 JUDGE LIU: We'll take note of what you said.

2 Mr. Seric, I hope you could file us a motion about the health

3 condition of your client as well as his complaint about visits from his

4 family so that we could, you know, send it to the Registrar, to the warden

5 of the Detention Unit, and ask them to improve it, or some possible

6 medical check-up for your client.

7 Now is the season for changing of the weather, you know. I think,

8 you know, in this building a lot of people, you know, got sick, and all

9 the people are vulnerable at this moment, especially those who have been

10 confined in the -- in the Detention Unit. So your request is permitted,

11 and Mr. Martinovic could go back to the Detention Unit to have a rest.

12 All we wish is that you have a speedy recovery from your suffering.

13 The guards will show you out of the room.

14 [The accused Martinovic withdrew]

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Madam Usher, could we have the next witness,

16 please.

17 [The witness entered court]

18 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, witness. Can you hear me?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

20 JUDGE LIU: Would you please make the solemn declaration in

21 accordance with the paper Madam Usher is showing to you.

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

23 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

24 WITNESS: SAFET IDRIZOVIC

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.

2 Yes. Shall we start direct examination? Yes, Mr. Scott.

3 Examined by Mr. Scott:

4 Q. Good afternoon, sir.

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. Can you hear me okay?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Will you please state your full name for the record.

9 A. Safet Idrizovic.

10 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, I think it only fair to say I apologise for the

11 length of time you've been in The Hague, and I also want to advise you the

12 two accused -- because you may find it curious in the courtroom -- the two

13 accused have been excused because of health problems. But nonetheless,

14 your testimony is very important to the Judges.

15 Is it correct, sir, that you are from and grew up in the region of

16 Jablanica in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And in what municipality of Bosnia and Herzegovina do you

19 currently reside?

20 A. In Jablanica.

21 Q. Mr. Idrizovic, as I have told you previously some days ago, you

22 are here even though you have a much fuller story that you could tell, for

23 a particularly specific focus. So I'm going to direct your attention

24 right away to some specific items. Directing your attention to the last

25 few months of 1992, did you hold any position or rank in the Muslim armed

1 forces?

2 A. Yes. It was the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, not the Muslim

3 armed forces. I was with the municipal staff of Territorial Defence. I

4 was an operative until 28 October 1992. Then by the order of the

5 commander of the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina I was appointed

6 the commander of the staff of the Territorial Defence in Jablanica. I

7 discharged those duties until the end of hostilities between the BH army

8 and HVO, that is, the end of January 1994. The end of 1992 or early 1993,

9 from the commander of the 4th Corps, Mr. Pasalic, who was my superior, I

10 received an order to establish a brigade in Jablanica. I did that in the

11 following manner: The majority of the members of the Territorial Defence

12 staff I deployed into that unit. At that time the majority of the units

13 of the BH army were brigades, and the staffs usually existed in those

14 municipalities which were at the time integral, which remained integral,

15 and the brigades had the task to participate in the operations, wherever

16 it was necessary. Since we were in the southern part of the republic, at

17 the time our tasks, the tasks of those brigades, were to block Sarajevo

18 and Gorazde, because these two cities were under the greatest danger,

19 under the greatest threat.

20 Very few officers remained in the municipal staff; mostly the aged

21 ones. When the brigade was established, then we mobilised some older

22 members, and the staff was tasked with guarding facilities in the

23 territory of the municipality. There were very important facilities such

24 as the war hospital, the industrial objects, the hydroelectric power plant

25 and related facilities, refugee camps, warehouses storing humanitarian

1 aid, water pipes, bridges, and all the other facilities, so that on --

2 between 21st January and the end of the conflict with the HVO, I had that

3 task -- my units were actually charged with that task.

4 After the end of hostilities --

5 Q. Sir, let me stop you. Let's take it in somewhat smaller pieces.

6 I think it's just easier for I everyone. If I can also caution you,

7 please. You probably understand that what you say is being translated --

8 it has to be translated into English and French. So -- at least it

9 appears to me that you're speaking a bit fast, so if you could slow down

10 just a bit.

11 A. All right.

12 Q. Now, sir, in terms of what you just told us, let me just pick up

13 on a couple of points. After the end of January or as of the end of

14 January 1993, did you have any role in what you've called the brigade, the

15 HVO brigade in the Jablanica area, as opposed to the municipal -- what

16 you've described as the municipal staff?

17 A. It was not an HVO brigade but the BH army brigade. I'm afraid I

18 didn't understand your question.

19 Q. You're absolutely right, sir. I've been doing this, I think, too

20 long.

21 As of the end of 1993 -- or excuse me, January of 1993, you've

22 discussed that there was a reorganization of the ABiH units. A brigade

23 was formed. And if I heard you correctly, sir -- I just want to be

24 clear -- a brigade was formed and you became responsible for something

25 called the municipal staff, which primarily guarded facilities in the town

1 of Jablanica; is that correct?

2 A. Yes. I was never a member of the 44th Mountain Brigade that was

3 established. Only younger members joined that brigade. At the time I was

4 already too old to join that brigade.

5 Q. And in connection, sir, with the 44th Mountain Brigade, the

6 commander of that brigade was a man named Enis Kavacevic; correct?

7 A. Correct.

8 Q. Was he ever your commander after February 1st, 1993?

9 A. No. He was not my commander. Until January 1993 I was his

10 commander. He was never my commander.

11 Q. And then as part of this reorganization, he went off to become the

12 commander of another unit and the two of you were separate; is that

13 correct?

14 A. That is correct.

15 Q. Was your unit, that is, the Jablanica Municipal Staff, involved in

16 any fighting in Konjic in April or May 1993?

17 A. No. The Municipality Staff only had such units which provided

18 security for various facilities. And it wasn't armed. They didn't have

19 any automatic or semi-automatic weapons. The only weapons he had were

20 just ordinary rifles because all the other weapons were given to the newly

21 established brigade.

22 Q. Was your unit, sir, the Jablanica Municipal Staff, involved in any

23 fighting around the place called Grabovica in early September 1993?

24 A. No. It never participated in any actions. These units were tied

25 exclusively with facilities and their protection.

1 Q. Now, how are you presently employed, sir?

2 A. I work -- I'm affiliated with the hydroelectric power plant on the

3 Neretva. Actually, it is a company that manages three various plants,

4 logistics. I am the head of the security and fire protection there.

5 Q. And did you also work for this company before the war, that is,

6 for example, in 1990/1991?

7 A. Yes. I worked for one part of that company, which was much larger

8 before the war. It had five power plants, and I worked in one of its

9 facilities called maintenance. And the main task of that department was

10 to maintain the equipment in the power plants, telecommunication systems,

11 and we also managed the fleet of vehicles, and I worked for that company

12 between 1998 and 1992 [As interpreted] on the tasks of security and

13 planning for defence.

14 Q. Sir, just now I believe you said between 1998 and 1992. Did you

15 mean 1988?

16 A. Sorry, it was 1988. I apologise. My mistake. 1988 and 1992.

17 Q. And then you worked there again after the war; correct?

18 A. Yes. After the war, the company has been reduced, has shrunk, two

19 electrical power plants were given to the Herceg-Bosna power management

20 board. So the number of employees went down as well.

21 Q. Can you tell the Judge, please, what's the name of this company?

22 A. Its full name is Elektroprivreda of Bosnia-Herzegovina public

23 company. And the part of the company that I work for is Hajdroelektrana

24 [phoen] on the Neretva River.

25 Q. Okay. So can the Judges understand that essentially this company,

1 or at least the part of the company that you work for, is a hydroelectric

2 generation company in the Jablanica area?

3 A. Yes, that is correct.

4 Q. Now, Mr. Idrizovic, during the time that you've been employed with

5 this company, did you ever know a man by the name of Alojz Rados?

6 A. Yes, I knew Alojz Rados. I knew him then. I knew him before then

7 as well, because we were neighbours. We lived next to each other in two

8 adjoining buildings. Jablanica is a small place. It has about three --

9 3500 inhabitants, so everybody knows everybody else. So I knew Alojz

10 before that period and during that period.

11 Q. Approximately how many years had you known Mr. Rados before the

12 two of you worked at the company?

13 A. I had known him for at least ten years.

14 Q. And did there come a time in early -- in the early 1990s, or

15 previous to that if it was, that you and Mr. Rados both worked for this

16 hydroelectric company in Jablanica?

17 A. December 1988 until April 1992. During that time we worked in the

18 general affairs department of this maintenance department.

19 Q. So you worked -- is it correct, sir, you worked in the same

20 department of the same company?

21 A. Yes, yes.

22 Q. Did you work -- two of you work in the same building?

23 A. Yes, we worked in the same building.

24 Q. Can you give the Judges, please, an idea of how often in the

25 course of your -- both of your employments at that company, how often in

1 the course of your employment would you and Mr. Rados see each other?

2 A. We saw each other every day. We worked in the same building which

3 we entered at the same time. We went to have lunch together. We would go

4 back from lunch together. We would leave work together. So we saw each

5 other every day more than once every day.

6 Q. During the time that you knew Mr. Rados at the company, did you

7 have frequent occasion to see Mr. Rados's handwriting; for example, in

8 company documents?

9 A. Yes, I saw it quite often. Rados was an officer in charge of

10 protection against fire, and I was in charge of plans -- defence plans for

11 the company.

12 Q. Can you give the Judges, please, some --

13 A. I'm sorry. I didn't finish. I wanted to say something else.

14 Q. Please.

15 A. I apologise. I thought I should slow down because of the

16 interpreters. Alojz would issue orders for protection equipment. So when

17 he needed it, protection equipment, he would issue written orders, both

18 for me and for my employees. And with these written orders, we would go

19 to the warehouse of the company, from which we would get the protection

20 clothing and equipment. So that was one of the tasks that he was charged

21 with and the tasks in which we cooperated. He would do it in his own

22 handwriting. He would fill out forms. And his other task was when I was

23 drafting my defence plans, he would send me his proposals for fire

24 protection because he was the one who was in charge of all the fire

25 extinguishers and all the other equipment that served as protection

1 against the gases in the boiler room, so all the equipment that was

2 related to fires and protection against fires. So on my request, he would

3 send me all that, so I would incorporate all that into my overall defence

4 plan.

5 Q. Is it correct, then, sir, that not only did you see documents

6 written by Mr. Rados, but in the course of your own duties you relied on

7 and used documents written by Mr. Rados?

8 A. Yes. With regard to the aspect that I have mentioned, working out

9 defence plans and working out a system of fire protection.

10 Q. All right. Now, we'll come back to those -- some of these things

11 in a few minutes, sir. But now I want to direct your attention to the

12 period of the war. During the war, in particular during 1992 and 1993,

13 did you have occasion to see or know Mr. Rados during the war?

14 A. Yes, very often.

15 Q. Was he a member of the HVO in the Jablanica area?

16 A. Yes, he was.

17 Q. Were you aware of any position or function that he held or

18 performed in the HVO at that time?

19 A. Yes, I was aware of his position. He was in charge of general

20 affairs in the HVO staff. During one period I think he was responsible

21 for information and propaganda. I think that was the field he dealt with.

22 Q. Did you ever see him in meetings or gatherings of HVO officers or,

23 in other words -- let me rephrase that, in meetings involving, say, both

24 the HVO side and the ABiH side did you see Mr. Rados?

25 A. Yes, yes, I did see him.

1 Q. Can you tell the Judge, please, whether you saw Mr. Rados

2 performing or engaging in any particular function or activity during these

3 meetings.

4 A. Well, in the course of the meetings -- well, for the most part he

5 kept a record, his own record.

6 Q. And how would he do that?

7 A. Sometimes he had official notebooks with him. Sometimes he would

8 do it on pieces of paper, double-sided pieces of paper. It depended on

9 the meeting. Sometimes they were party meetings. Sometimes they were

10 military meetings. Sometimes it was a combination of the two. Sometimes

11 it was at the War Presidency. It depended on the subject matter.

12 Q. And he did this in longhand, in handwriting, sir?

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 MR. SCOTT: If I can ask the usher to please show you Exhibit

15 258.2.

16 Mr. President, I hope there is a bundle of exhibits that have been

17 provided to the Chamber for this witness, as far as I know. I hope you

18 have them.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Defence counsel has not received any

21 copy. That's why I'm asking. We haven't received those documents.

22 Defence counsel hasn't received them.

23 MR. SCOTT: Then they should be -- I understood they had been

24 distributed. Please can they be distributed.

25 It's -- it's what you have in your hand, I think.

1 Q. Sir, if you can direct your attention, please, to Exhibit 258.2, a

2 document dated the 2nd of March, 1993 to the Presidency of the Jablanica

3 HVO. Can I direct your attention to the very last sentence of that

4 document. Does it say, sir: "For further clarification and cooperation,

5 please contact the battalion administrative officer, Mr. A. Rados"?

6 A. Yes. This confirms what I said a minute ago, that he was

7 responsible for those general tasks, for general affairs. He was in

8 charge of HVO administration.

9 Q. All right. So based on your knowledge of Mr. Rados and the

10 functions that you saw him performing during the war, including taking

11 minutes at meetings, this would be consistent with the description of

12 Exhibit 258.2; is that right?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Sir, I now want to direct your attention --

15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I hope the Chamber will recognise that

16 I'm directing the witness to very narrow and specific topics for direct

17 examination.

18 Q. I'm now directing your specific attention, Mr. Idrizovic, to the

19 end of July or the latter part of July 1993. Did you become aware at that

20 time that there was fighting between the HVO and the ABiH in the area of

21 Doljani?

22 A. Yes. Yes, I was very well aware of that fact.

23 Q. At the conclusion of that fighting, did the ABiH essentially

24 re-take or re-gain the territory around Doljani from the HVO?

25 A. Yes. Towards the end of July, units of the 44th Mountain Brigade

1 managed to take over a large part of Doljani.

2 Q. Can you tell the Judges, did it come to your attention that as

3 part of that operation or at the conclusion of the fighting that various

4 HVO documents and records were found or captured?

5 A. Yes. About two days after part of Doljani had been taken over by

6 the ABiH, I was told by a friend, a security officer in the brigade who

7 used to be in the staff with me when the units were under my command, I

8 was told that a large amount of documents had been seized and Rados

9 Alojz's diary too, and Zajko, Alojz, and I worked in the same company. We

10 were employed by the same company. He said Mr. Sihirlic told me that a

11 large number of documents had been seized, including Alojz's private

12 diary.

13 Q. Did you understand or come to know where these documents had been

14 seized, that is, sir, where were they physically located at the time they

15 were collected by the ABiH?

16 A. Yes. Mr. Sihirlic told me that they had been found in their

17 command in Doljani in Juric's house, which was next to a fish pond next to

18 the Doljanka River. And further away behind there was a Catholic church.

19 We knew that their command -- we already knew that their command was

20 located in that house.

21 Q. When you say "the command" or "their command," whose command are

22 you referring to?

23 A. I'm referring to the HVO. I apologise.

24 Q. And when you say "Juric's house," what was located at Juric's

25 house?

1 A. Well, the command was located there, the entire command. It was a

2 battalion. It wasn't a very large unit. So there probably weren't very

3 many people in that command, because in total they had about -- between

4 300 and 350 men.

5 Q. When you say, sir, there was a fish pond next to the Juric house,

6 what do you mean by a fish pond?

7 A. How should I put it? There were concrete constructions there,

8 concrete moulds, concrete beds in which -- which were supposed to contain

9 fish.

10 Q. And then at that location, according to what you know, sir, who

11 collected -- what component or element of the ABiH forces collected the

12 HVO documents that were found there?

13 A. Those documents were discovered by the military police because it

14 is common practice everywhere that when entering such buildings, commands,

15 and other important buildings, one might expect the area to be mined. So

16 the police that has professionals at its disposal checks to see whether

17 it's possible to enter such buildings safely. They checked the building.

18 They established that it hadn't been mined. They found the documents

19 there, collected the documents, and handed them over to the brigade

20 supervisor.

21 Q. Now, sir, you've already mentioned this in answering one of my

22 previous questions. But so it's clear, among the documents that were

23 found at that time, did those documents include what you've described as

24 Mr. Rados's diary?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. And can you tell the Judges, please, did you or members of your

2 municipal staff become directly involved with that diary in some --

3 sometime soon after it was captured?

4 A. Yes, we did. One evening Mr. Zajko -- I think that was on the

5 30th, and the shelling had stopped. It was in the late evening -- he came

6 to my house. We're friends. He brought that diary because Alojz was a

7 colleague of ours, and he said that there was something interesting that

8 belonged to Alojz. He also brought a copy of the document with him, and

9 he told me that in the brigade they had decided to copy the document and

10 to provide the press with a copy so that the public could be made aware of

11 its existence and so that our people and the family members of HVO

12 soldiers who were in Jablanica could be informed of what was happening and

13 be told who was attacking them.

14 Q. Around that time, sir, was a typed version of the diary prepared?

15 A. Yes. In the command they decided - and it was no longer a problem

16 then - they decided to copy it out, type it out, to make it easier for the

17 press to read and to make it easier for it to be read in general for us

18 who wanted to have copies. Our typists typed it out, and we then copied

19 this version too, so anyone could have a copy of that diary. Our

20 intention was to make this available to the largest possible number of

21 people. That was in fact the only thing we read in 1993. We didn't have

22 time for anything else.

23 Q. All right. Well, let me ask you to explain to the Judges why it

24 is that there was such interest in this diary.

25 A. Well, after the 15th of April, the contents were very interesting.

1 It was interesting because these people up there, they were all colleagues

2 of ours. They were neighbours, friends from work. So it was interesting

3 to see what our -- what these friends of ours had turned into.

4 Q. Now, after the diary was typed, what happened to the diary after

5 that?

6 A. After that, it remained in the brigade with the security organ

7 right up until the end of war or rather up until the time when the brigade

8 was disbanded, somewhere towards the end of 1996.

9 Q. And did anything happen to it -- or who had it after the brigade

10 disbanded?

11 A. Well, in the course of the war we'd formed a veteran's union and

12 our intention was to retain memories of our fallen friends and to take

13 care of their families and of their children. We wanted to try to do

14 something to prevent people from forgetting what had happened at the time.

15 In order to achieve this -- all the documents that could serve to help us

16 document that four-year period, we collected all these documents in the

17 veteran's union. And that also included the documents that we had

18 confiscated from the HVO. These documents were important ones, and then

19 there were other documents, documents from various other services, from

20 the state organ services, the military hospital, the war hospital, the

21 industrial facilities, documents relating to education, et cetera, et

22 cetera. So the documents from various -- which had to do with various

23 fields of life. We managed to do this, and the first thing that we did

24 was to publish a book in which a list of the fallen soldiers had been

25 compiled. I wanted to bring it with me, but I haven't. I'll do so

1 tomorrow if I have the opportunity.

2 In the future, if we get a sponsor, we'll also make a small book,

3 several thousand copies, which will be a book of -- a book based on

4 Alojz's diary and hand it out to people. One part of this union's

5 volunteer work is to establish the chronology of all the events in the

6 course of the war, which should be based on certain documents, which will

7 be included in the book so that we can give some generations who did not

8 participate in the war the possibility of being informed about this. We

9 can be subjective, but this isn't a task for us. We need -- some time has

10 to pass so that someone could examine this in an objective way. And in

11 order for this to be examined objectively, it is necessary for a certain

12 period of time to elapse, first of all.

13 Q. Sir, did there come a time when various of the documents that had

14 been captured, the HVO documents, including the diary, did there come a

15 time when some of those documents were turned over to somebody else?

16 A. Well, as it wasn't a secret, the fact that we had captured

17 documents, and this diary had been published. It was on cable TV. It had

18 been read out on several occasions. People had copies of this diary. It

19 wasn't a secret and we didn't try to conceal this. This wasn't our

20 intention, and there was no one we wanted to hide it from. We had no

21 reason to hide it. We had good reason to publish it. And then people of

22 ours from the AID probably discovered this through their lines. They came

23 to Zajko and to me and asked us to provide them with copies of this diary

24 and certain other documents because they needed them. As Zajko and I were

25 members of the leadership in the veteran's union, they knew that too.

1 There was no reason for us not to provide these people with the document

2 because if the document remained in our hands, it wouldn't have much

3 importance.

4 Q. When you say "Zajko," is that the first name of a man who you

5 knew?

6 A. Yes, Zajko Sihirlic. He's the security officer from the brigade,

7 a friend of mine. We continued working together in the community after

8 the war. It's a non-governmental organisation. We work there as amateurs

9 because we want to, as volunteers. We have no benefit. We don't benefit

10 from this. But this is for the sake of our friends who died and for the

11 sake of their children.

12 Q. Was it you and Mr. Sihirlic who actually turned over the diary to

13 the representative of AID?

14 A. Yes, the two of us turned the document over.

15 Q. And approximately, sir, as best you can, the year or however

16 information -- however much information you can give us. Approximately

17 when was it that this diary was turned over to AID?

18 A. 1997. But I couldn't be more precise. I can't remember. Many

19 things passed through our heads at the time -- many things have passed

20 through our heads, so it's difficult for me to remember events, to

21 remember the dates.

22 Q. Did you make a copy, sir, of the typed version of the diary before

23 these documents were turned over to AID?

24 A. Yes, I did. We did that immediately at the beginning of August

25 1993.

1 MR. SCOTT: Can I ask the witness to please be shown Exhibit 928D.

2 Now, Mr. President, at this time -- because there's going to be

3 references to certain different, if you will, copies of versions of the

4 diary, it occurred to me after this morning that it might be helpful to

5 have kind of a list to keep it straight. So I'm going to provide to the

6 Chamber, if I may, and to Defence counsel and others --

7 Madam Usher, if you could provide those, please, to -- one copy to

8 the each of the Defence teams and a copy to the Judges, please.

9 Q. Now, sir, do you have before you now what's been marked as Exhibit

10 928D?

11 A. Yes, I do.

12 Q. And is that a copy -- is that the copy of the diary that you

13 kept -- that you made and kept in 1993?

14 A. Yes, it is.

15 Q. And has that document -- that copy, your copy of the document,

16 continuously been in your possession since you first obtained it in 1993?

17 A. Yes.

18 MR. SCOTT: Could I next ask that the witness please be show 928B.

19 I thought you had the whole bundle. Maybe it's already -- maybe

20 he already has it.

21 Sorry, Mr. President.

22 Could I possibly see one of the bundles that were given to the

23 registrar, please, to see if I can help straighten things out.

24 It's a different bundle. It's not this bundle. It's the one that

25 has this graph on the front.

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think we have the P928 -- P928A, B, C,

2 under /5.

3 MR. SCOTT: That's fine. If you have -- excuse me, Mr. President.

4 If you have 928B, that's what I'm referring your attention to, sorry, and

5 to the witness. If the witness could be shown 928B, as in boy. It's not

6 in that bundle. There's two bundles. One bundle has -- it looks like a

7 graph sheet on the front.

8 Mr. President, the page -- if you have this, the binder -- the

9 separate bundle that has -- looks like a spreadsheet, if I can use that

10 term, on the front. If you have that bundle -- it should have been

11 marked, and my apology -- it should have been marked as 928B, but

12 apparently by oversight it was not. There's a handwritten -- there's a

13 typed version. You have a typed document and then you have starting on

14 the numbered -- what we call the ERN number, 00799612. It's a

15 handwritten -- it's a Xeroxed copy of a --

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, we've found it.

17 MR. SCOTT: Okay. If that could be shown to the witness, please,

18 just that item.

19 Q. Now, looking at 928B, sir, which is the document that's been

20 placed in front of you, can you tell the Judges what that is?

21 A. A bad copy. And my sight is not so good.

22 Q. Okay. It's a bad copy of what, sir?

23 A. My sight is not so good. The copy is bad.

24 Q. If you can turn to the first few pages and look at the copy. Just

25 open the first couple of pages and look at the document. Look what's in

1 there.

2 A. So this is a bad copy of the title page of Alojz's diary.

3 Q. And can you please now -- can the usher please show you -- and

4 this will be not in the bundle but it will be -- 928C, which rather than

5 use the term "original," I will currently just describe it as the blue-ink

6 diary.

7 Sir, I want you to open and look at the document -- the item

8 that's been put in front of you marked 928C. Can you please tell the

9 Judges, if you can, what that document is.

10 A. This is the diary that we're talking about.

11 Q. Is that a diary written in blue ink in a small -- what might be

12 described as a journal? Is that the diary that was found and which you

13 first saw in July 1993?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can you tell the Judges, please, so far as you know, from what

16 you've been told and what you've already told us in fact, was that

17 blue-ink diary, marked as 928C, one of the documents found at the fish

18 farm?

19 A. Yes.

20 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm just pausing because I'm just

21 trying to keep -- that's exactly the reason I created this list, was to

22 try to keep us as straight as possible.

23 Let me ask -- Mr. President, I don't know if again you were given

24 before -- and I apologise for these difficulties, but if you don't already

25 have, could you be shown -- provided with 928D. I think, Mr. President,

1 you'll told me a few moments ago that you had A, B, and C, but I'm not

2 sure whether you said you have D.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have D already, yes.

4 MR. SCOTT: Oh, very good. Thank you very much.

5 Q. Sir, if you can assist us then, please. The blue-ink document was

6 found in July 1993. Your municipal staff prepared a typed version of that

7 document, still in the Serbo-Croatian language; is that correct?

8 A. Yes. Later on this was typed all over the place, wherever there

9 was a typewriter, wherever there were people who had time. Various people

10 typed it, in the staff, in the command, wherever there were technical

11 possibilities for typing it out.

12 Q. And that's exactly, sir, why I asked you -- in terms of 928D, that

13 is the copy of the typed diary that you personally kept and have had since

14 1993; correct?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Looking at the blue-ink diary, 928C, the book. If you could just

17 open that for me, please, sir. Can you tell the Judges in looking at that

18 document whether you recognise the handwriting?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Whose handwriting is it?

21 A. There has been some confusion. I said yes and then I didn't hear

22 anything else. Did I answer your question, or did you ask me anything

23 else?

24 Q. My apologies, sir. It didn't come through on the transcript.

25 Perhaps it didn't -- wasn't picked up. Let me repeat my question. I

1 asked if you recognised the handwriting, you said yes. And my question

2 was: Whose handwriting is it?

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I've been quiet most of

5 the time, but now I have to object for principle reasons. If a question

6 like that was put, the usual answer was the witness is not an expert so

7 you cannot ask him that. Can we please adhere to the same principles.

8 The witness is not an expert, and this is not a question that he can

9 answer. I am doing it for principle matters in order to behave in the

10 same way across the board with the witnesses who are not experts on

11 people's handwritings.

12 JUDGE LIU: I notice that you kept quiet the previous 30 minutes,

13 but I hope you hear the testimony of this witness before. This witness

14 told us that he was very familiar with the handwriting of that person and

15 that they were in the same, you know, factory, and I think, you know, this

16 question is allowed.

17 Would you please repeat your question.

18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President.

19 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges whose handwriting that is.

20 A. This is Alojz Rados's handwriting.

21 Q. And have you been able, sir, to obtain any prior records of the

22 company that you both worked for that also bear Mr. Rados's handwriting?

23 A. Yes.

24 MR. SCOTT: Can the witness please be shown Exhibit 68.4. It

25 should be the top document on the bundle that looks like a spreadsheet.

1 Nothing is going to be in that rebuttal exhibit binder. If you can put

2 that aside, it might avoid confusion.

3 Q. Sir, can you describe to the Judges what kind of a document this

4 is. Are you familiar with it? And just tell them what this document is.

5 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this document. This is a record of

6 accidents and injuries that took place in 1990 in the department for

7 maintenance. So this shows you a list of five workers who were injured

8 that year, and Rados in his own handwriting filled out the form describing

9 the incident, giving the date, the name of the injured person, and so on

10 and so forth. He also signed this document, and everything is as clear as

11 a bell.

12 Q. Could I ask you -- sorry.

13 MR. SCOTT: Madam Usher, I'm going to need your assistance,

14 please. If you could put that on the ELMO, that Exhibit 64. Could you --

15 could I ask that the witness be provided a marker.

16 Q. And sir, can you find -- first of all, point out what you've just

17 described a moment ago as the signature of Mr. Rados. Can you just point

18 to that. You have to look -- I'm sorry, sir. You have to point -- can I

19 ask you not to point at the screen.

20 A. I apologise. I'm sorry.

21 Q. It's all right.

22 A. [Indicates]

23 Q. All right. If you could be provided a marker, sir. Will you

24 circle that, please.

25 A. [Marks]

1 Q. And would you just make a number "1" by that.

2 A. [Marks]

3 Q. Thank you very much. And sir, is it correct then, based on what

4 you've said, that the handwriting on this business record is the

5 handwriting of Alojz Rados?

6 A. Yes.

7 MR. SCOTT: If -- Madam Usher, I think that's fine. Thank you

8 very much.

9 Q. Sir, if you have the blue-ink document in front of you, I think

10 that's perhaps the easiest thing for you to work with, perhaps the most --

11 well, I'll leave it to you. But can I ask you to look, please, at

12 pages -- using the pages of diary itself, of the original, can you find

13 page 123.

14 MR. SCOTT: And Mr. President, counsel, in the English

15 translation, which is 928, the typed English translation, it begins on

16 page 23.

17 Q. But if you can find page 123, sir. Do you have that?

18 A. I'm sorry. I apologise. Yes.

19 Q. All right. Now, do you see an entry on that page that's dated the

20 18th of December, 1992?

21 A. Yes. This was a meeting relative to a letter written by the HDZ

22 to the SDA in which they informed them about the takeover of authorities

23 and incorporating Jablanica into Herceg-Bosna. The meeting was initiated

24 by the HDZ.

25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I -- Your Honours, I

1 thought that my learned friend will abide by your ruling, and I believe

2 that the contents of the diary are not the subject matter of the

3 examination. Just the diary itself. I don't think that the contents of

4 the diary should be the subject matter of the examination by the -- by my

5 learned friend.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, if I am not mistaken, that during this meeting

7 this witness personally participated in that meeting. We are not

8 interested in what the meeting discussed. We're only interested whether

9 this meeting is held at that time. Am I right?

10 MR. SCOTT: Yes, that's exactly right, Mr. President.

11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may proceed.

12 MR. SCOTT:

13 Q. Sir, because of the constraints of time and possible objections by

14 counsel, let me put the question to you this way: Have you had occasion

15 before -- before this moment to look at the entry -- the full entry that

16 goes on for several pages about this meeting on the 18th of December,

17 1992? Have you looked at that before?

18 A. Yes. The minutes were taken of this meeting by both parties

19 involved in it.

20 MR. SCOTT: All right. For the record, Mr. President, again, in

21 terms of the typed English translation, I just simply refer the Chamber

22 to -- and counsel to pages 23 through 31, and in the blue-ink diary pages

23 123 to 133.

24 Q. Now, my question to you, sir, is: Based on your review of that

25 entry for the 18th of December, 1992, does the information entered in

1 Mr. Rados's diary accurately reflect what happened at that meeting?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. I'm going to direct your attention to one other entry

4 specifically.

5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I think with some -- with a little bit

6 of good luck, we can hopefully finish the direct examination before -- by

7 the end of the day.

8 Q. Could you please in a similar fashion find your way to --

9 MR. SCOTT: This isn't my day, Mr. President. It could be --

10 Mr. President, can I have the usher's assistance, please. If I can look

11 at the exhibit for a moment. I think I wrote down the wrong page number.

12 Q. I think I may have it. If you could direct your attention, sir,

13 to page 147.

14 MR. SCOTT: And Mr. President, the English translation, page 42.

15 Q. Sir, I'd like you, please, to just scan your eyes down page 147.

16 And do you see another entry on that page which you believe is a reference

17 to you?

18 A. Yes. On this page, Mr. Rados says that a correct relationship is

19 possible with Commander S.I. At that time the commander, whose initials

20 were "S.I." was me.

21 Q. Safet Idrizovic?

22 A. Yes, "S.I." stands for Safet Idrizovic.

23 MR. SCOTT: Now, Mr. President, I'm come back -- I'm not going to

24 do this in front of the witness. But if you look at -- well, I'll come

25 back. There's some other information we'll come back to.

1 Well, let me do this. I take that back.

2 Q. Sir, on the page that you're looking at in the original blue-ink

3 document where it says "S.I." Is there anything in that document that

4 says "Information and Security Service"? On that page 147, where you see

5 the letters "S.I."

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Is there anything in the entry about you that talks about the

8 Information and Security Service in that entry as to you?

9 A. It says here everybody is armed in the town. They produce G's,

10 which stands for "grenades." But it seems these are being transported

11 away immediately.

12 Q. All right.

13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President -- that's fine, sir. You'll see,

14 Mr. President, that he's gone down on the English translation on page 42,

15 he's gone down and you'll see where he talks about that. I'll come back

16 to it. I think on that point it's confusing. I think the documents will

17 speak for themselves.

18 If the witness could please direct your attention -- his attention

19 to Exhibit 424.1, which is a separate document in that stack.

20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.

21 MR. MEEK: Well, Mr. President, due to the Trial Chamber's

22 overruling of Mr. Krsnik's last objection and due to the fact that the

23 Prosecution is very eagerly wanting to get this witness home, I must

24 object because this exhibit has nothing whatsoever to do with the diary

25 and it's outside the scope of what the purview of the rebuttal evidence

1 specifically -- what this witness would offer and by way of testimony by

2 your ruling. For that reason, Your Honour, I object.

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, we haven't found that document yet. Let me find

4 it first. I don't know what kind of document it is at this moment.

5 Mr. Scott, where could I find that document?

6 MR. SCOTT: In the -- I hope, Mr. President, that in the bundle

7 where you've been looking at the documents you should have 424.1.

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.

9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I -- Mr. President, I am finishing this

10 witness. And as I said, I hope to be finished before 4.00. But among the

11 documents, some of which are already admitted, and one or two that were

12 not, this witness is in a position, because of his testimony -- the

13 testimony he's already given, to identify documents that were found and

14 some of the documents that he in fact initialled. And I simply want to

15 take him through five documents and then my direct examination is

16 finished.

17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.

18 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, this witness wasn't here to identify

19 other documents other than this alleged Rados diary. Why are you allowing

20 the Prosecution to introduce -- you know, have this witness to talk about

21 documents that have nothing to do with the diary? That's what the

22 rebuttal evidence was for. That's what this witness was going to testify

23 to, Judge.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, I haven't read this document yet. I just --

25 minutes, something like this. I think this document has been admitted

1 into the evidence on the 4th of October of this year. But we'll see, you

2 know, where -- how the Prosecution is going to use this document.

3 MR. SCOTT:

4 Q. Sir, if you have 424.1 -- not in the documents, not in the diary.

5 You have the 424.1 document. Do you recognise the handwriting on that

6 document, sir?

7 A. Yes. This is obviously Alojz Rados's handwriting. His signature

8 is so distinct that it is not easily mistaken for anybody else's, and he

9 also has a very distinct handwriting, very precise, very clear.

10 Q. And if I could have the usher's assistance, I'm going to direct

11 your attention -- I'm going to attempt to direct your attention very

12 quickly to 318.1, 368, 389, and 418.

13 MR. MEEK: Just for clarification, have these been admitted? All

14 four or any of these four that Mr. Scott just mentioned, if he can tell me

15 if they've been admitted, I'd appreciate it.

16 MR. SCOTT: Sure. Just let me -- give me a minute. 318 -- excuse

17 me, 318.1 has not yet been admitted. 368 is admitted. 389 is admitted.

18 And 418 I'm told is also admitted.

19 Mr. President, if they're admitted, I won't go into them. I think

20 the witness could assist the Chamber, but I won't go into them if the

21 Court doesn't want me to. I will ask him -- I would like to ask him about

22 318.1.

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I have to advise you that at most we

24 could sit at quarter past 4.00.

25 MR. SCOTT: This is my last question. If he can look at 318.1.

1 Q. Sir, can you tell the Chamber whether that was one of the

2 documents found at the fish farm in July 1993. And I'll ask you -- I'll

3 ask you in a moment how you know that, but can you -- first of all, can

4 you tell the Judges whether that was a document found at the fish farm.

5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.

6 MR. MEEK: I'm not objecting because it's his last question. I'm

7 objecting because this has nothing whatsoever to do with the diary. This

8 witness was here to testify about the alleged diary. We've gone beyond

9 that, and now he wants to talk about documents that were purportedly

10 found -- this witness wasn't even there by the way -- in Doljani in July

11 of 1993. It's well outside the scope, Your Honours. Please, I object.

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, as for the last document, you know, at first I

13 think it has nothing to do with the diary, but it turned out to be a

14 minute written by Mr. Rados. But I'm not sure, you know -- at this moment

15 I don't know what's the relationship of this document with the diary.

16 Maybe Mr. Scott could show us about that so we could have a clear idea.

17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I've always tried to be extremely --

18 completely transparent with the Chamber. This document is not related to

19 the diary, but the -- this witness was simply in a position to be able to

20 testify -- it has his signature and date on it, and it was turned over,

21 and that he could authenticate it as one of the documents found at the

22 fish farm. I thought it would assist the Chamber. If we're playing by

23 these hypertechnical rules, I'll certainly abide by the Chamber's ruling.

24 MR. MEEK: Then again, Mr. President, if it please the Trial

25 Chamber, my objection stands. The Prosecutor has agreed that this is

1 outside the scope of what this Trial Chamber ordered on rebuttal evidence.

2 But we're in your hands, Your Honour. If the rules want to change once

3 again, then so be it. Thank you.

4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I still do not see your point.

5 MR. SCOTT: The point is simply to authenticate it as a document

6 the Prosecution was previously offered, and this witness is in a position

7 to provide further authentication for it, and we would like to tender it,

8 Mr. President, as a document that came -- it's an HVO record captured at

9 the fish farm, the HVO headquarters in Doljani at the end of July 1993.

10 And clearly -- very clearly saying to Mico, Slavko, and Tuta, the European

11 monitors and the Spanish Battalion are on their way. Now, we can argue

12 about what that document means later. But the witness is in a position to

13 say this is one of the documents that were found. And I don't know how it

14 could have been any more transparent -- it does not relate to the diary.

15 I've said that now several times.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, after consultations with my

18 colleagues, we believe that this document is relevant -- is irrelevant to

19 the testimony of this witness, so you should not use this document for

20 this witness.

21 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour. Thank you very much. I'll

22 remember that for the rejoinder case as well.

23 Thank you, witness. I have no further questions.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness, I'm afraid that you have to stay in The

25 Hague for another day, hopefully not over the weekend. And during your

1 stay in The Hague, you are still under oath, so please do not talk to

2 anybody about your testimony and do not let anybody talk to you about it.

3 Do you understand that?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Have a good rest. And we'll see

6 you tomorrow morning at 9.30 in this courtroom.

7 We are adjourned.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.04 p.m., to

10 be reconvened on Friday, the 11th day of October,

11 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25