1 Tuesday, 11 January 2005
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 [The accused entered court]
6 JUDGE AGIUS: So, registrar, could you call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Case number IT-03-68-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Naser Oric.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
10 Mr. Oric, can you follow the proceedings in a language you can
12 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour, and
13 esteemed gentlemen. I can, thank you.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. I understand there are no preliminaries,
15 which means we can start with the witness. We had a short re-examination,
17 MR. WUBBEN: Let me introduce myself for the record.
18 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sorry. Appearances for the Prosecution.
19 MR. WUBBEN: Good morning, Your Honours, and good morning to my
20 learned friends of the Defence team. My name is Jan Wubben, lead counsel
21 for the Prosecution, together with co-counsel, Gramsci Di Fazio, and our
22 case manager, Ms. Donnica Henry-Frijlink.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. And good morning to you. Appearances
24 for the Defence.
25 MS. VIDOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour. I am
1 Vasvija Vidovic, together with Mr. John Jones. I am Defence counsel for
2 Mr. Oric. Our legal assistants, Jasmina Cosic, and our case manager,
3 Mr. Geoff Roberts, are with us today.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Madam Vidovic, and good morning to you
5 and your team.
6 So, Mr. Di Fazio, please.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours. I will be brief.
8 WITNESS: RACINE MANAS [Resumed]
9 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
10 Q. Yesterday you said you would like to state that you didn't come
11 into this case until the 1st of September and that what transpired during
12 the Oric investigation is a matter that you can only comment on as from
13 that date. Now, is that a correct understanding?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You don't know what consultations occurred between investigators
16 and counsel prior to the 1st of September?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You were not directly involved in any such consultations?
19 A. No.
20 Q. You were not directly involved in issues that might arise from
21 statements arising in statements, in receiving instructions from counsel
22 on those issues?
23 A. No.
24 Q. During the course of yesterday's proceedings, there was an
25 exchange between the President, His Honour Judge Agius, and Defence
1 counsel. And in the course of that exchange, His Honour said this,
2 talking about you: "What is important is whether the Prosecution still
3 continues to receive and accept information from Republika Srpska, whether
4 it continues to attach importance or weight to the information from
5 Republika Srpska and whether it continues to make use of that information
6 in trials. Because saying this in response is one thing, in operating
7 then and translating your beliefs into practice is another. I mean, and I
8 don't think you can get the information or the right answer from
9 Ms. Manas. I mean, you can probably get it from Mr. Wubben or
10 Mr. Di Fazio or Ms. Sellers, or from Ms. Del Ponte herself, not Ms. Manas.
11 I think Ms. Manas would end up in serious trouble if she comes across
12 pieces of information that are supplied from Republika --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Would you please read slowly.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry. "I think Ms. Manas would end in serious
15 trouble if she came across pieces of information that are supplied from
16 Republika Srpska and decides on her own esteem" - I think that must be
17 under her own steam - "that she will not even accept those and she will
18 not even introduce them into the dossier and then have others -- and then
19 others have to evaluate for the purposes of investigation and
20 prosecution." Mr. Jones: "Yes, Your Honour." Judge Agius: She will
21 have to do as she is told."
22 Q. Are His Honour's comments correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Henceforth my comments will be referred to as words
25 of wisdom, Mr. Di Fazio.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I just needed to get that into the record
2 rather than it simply being an exchange between Your Honour and the
3 Defence counsel.
4 Q. You were also shown Exhibit D145.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps the witness can just be shown D145.
6 Q. Now, that you can see at a glance is a decision from the Office of
7 the High Representative, a document of Mr. Paddy Ashdown dated April 2004,
8 dealing with the failure of Mr. Miletic to cooperate with the commission
9 investigating events in Srebrenica in 1995. That is what it is. And
10 Mr. Jones took you to comments at the end -- at the third and fourth
11 pages, towards the end of the document, where there's a complaint that the
12 secretariat over which Mr. Miletic presided engaged in these words. Now,
13 listen to these words carefully. Obfuscation and obstruction, hindering
14 the commission's ability to discharge its mandate effectively. It goes on
15 to comment on the failure to produce significant amounts of documents,
16 comments on the ICTY providing a large amount of material in comparison
17 and comments that the secretariat was actively engaged in document
18 concealment. The complaint in this document, the complaint in this
19 document is that the secretariat was withholding, not producing, material.
20 As an investigator, is that any reason not to look at, examine, consider
21 material coming out of the Republika Srpska if it is in fact provided and
22 handed over?
23 A. Of course it's our duty to look at material that is provided to
24 the Office of the Prosecutor.
25 Q. Okay. Let me put the question in this way: In such
1 circumstances, the circumstances that are outlined in this report, D145,
2 would it make sense from an investigator's point of view, to continue to
3 receive, consider, and evaluate documentation provided by such a source?
4 A. I don't see why not. Documents are provided to us almost every
5 other day. As investigators, we check the authenticity of the documents
6 and -- well, yesterday, in regards to some documents that were produced by
7 Defence, I had an opportunity to check through the system and to discover
8 that investigators did go and check the authenticity of these documents,
9 and the results are still outstanding and the investigation is still
11 So when we receive documents, it's not that -- we still continue
12 to check the authenticity, the chain of custody, et cetera. So it's an
13 ongoing process.
14 Q. And in the course of undertaking that, will you receive,
15 especially when a matter is now under way in trial, or in the period of
16 time leading up to trial, will investigators receive directions from
17 counsel involved in the case as to what inquiries they should pursue and
18 those which should not be pursued?
19 A. Yes, definitely.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 A. And that was the case in this --
22 Q. Thank you. You were shown Exhibit -- I've finished with that
23 exhibit. You were shown D147. I'll just very briefly -- if you could be
24 shown that particular document.
25 Now, this document arose in this way: Counsel for the Defence,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 Mr. Jones, produced D147, and also a statement of a man named Avdo
2 Hasanovic, and essentially, this exercise was conducted. Mr. Jones took
3 you to the last page of D147. Do you have that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. The last page. And it seems -- it's apparently on the face of it
6 signed by Dr. Avdo Hasanovic. Okay? And he then took you to Dr. Avdo
7 Hasanovic's statement, in which Dr. Avdo Hasanovic denied making this
8 particular document. The statement of Avdo Hasanovic, you can take from
9 me, was obtained in March of last year, March of 2004. At that stage,
10 were you actively involved in the Oric investigation?
11 A. No.
12 Q. You said that you didn't become involved in it until your
13 appointment as acting team leader in August of last year; correct?
14 A. Yes. Well, that's when I took active interest in the case.
15 Q. Right. Okay. As a result of your being made acting team leader?
16 A. Exactly.
17 Q. Between March and August of 2004, were you privy to any
18 discussions between investigators and counsel regarding the issue that
19 might or might not have arisen, any issue at all that might or might not
20 have arisen out of what Dr. Avdo Hasanovic said in his statement?
21 A. No.
22 Q. A similar exercise was conducted by Defence counsel in relation to
23 P68, which is another -- perhaps if the witness could be shown P68. And
24 could I just have a brief look at it myself before it's handed over.
25 The same exercise was conducted with this document. Again, you
1 were shown it. Again, you were taken to Avdo Hasanovic's statement.
2 Again, he said: No, not my signature. Is what you said previously, just
3 a few moments ago, also apply to this document; in other words, you can't
4 comment on anything that might have transpired between investigators,
5 Defence counsel, from between March and August of last year?
6 A. Between investigators --
7 MR. JONES: I don't know why Defence counsel is being referred to
9 MR. DI FAZIO: That's my mistake. That's a mistake, yeah. My
10 question was --
11 JUDGE AGIUS: I take it it is a mistake. I hope it is a mistake.
12 MR. JONES: -- privy to any of these discussions.
13 MR. DI FAZIO:
14 Q. So the question is clear. You weren't privy in relation to any
15 discussions between the Prosecution counsel and investigators relating to
16 the veracity or otherwise of this document and any issues arising from
17 Avdo Hasanovic's statement?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Thanks.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: I've finished with that document.
21 I think I can deal with the next question without showing you any
23 Q. A very similar exercise was conducted in relation to Exhibit D150,
24 and again you were taken to certain documents or portions of that document
25 and you were then produced -- and you were then shown the statement of
1 a Mr. Kasim Suljic, which is now Exhibit D151. And again, he said that he
2 had never seen parts of D150. You can take it from me that his statement
3 was taken in 2002. Now, between 2002, early 2002, and August of this
4 year, were you privy to any discussions between investigators and Defence
5 counsel --
6 A. No.
7 Q. -- relating to any issues that might arise from what Kasim Suljic
8 said in his statement?
9 A. No.
10 MR. JONES: I think Mr. Di Fazio said Defence counsel again.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm sorry.
12 MR. JONES: I'm very confused here.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I do apologise. Perhaps --
14 JUDGE AGIUS: It's a question of obsession. It seems you are
15 doing your work well, and he's becoming obsessed with you.
16 MR. JONES: Yes.
17 MR. DI FAZIO:
18 Q. Between early 2002 and August of last year, were you privy to any
19 discussions between investigators and prosecuting counsel regarding
20 anything that might arise from Suljic's statement?
21 A. No.
22 Q. You were also shown a number of exhibits which consisted of three
23 pages held together, D154 and D152.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps they can be shown to the witness.
25 Q. When these documents were shown to you, produced to you, Defence
1 counsel repeatedly referred to them as one document. Take D152, please,
2 and have a look at it. And in fact, before you do that, I'll just remind
3 you of an exchange that occurred between His Honour Judge Eser and
4 Mr. Jones, talking about these documents. Judge Eser: "So your position
5 is if you turn in document 737, you should also turn in 735 and 736, even
6 if there is no connection between them. That's our submission." Answer,
7 Mr. Jones: "That's our submission. That's how the Prosecution should
8 proceed. We've passed up the exhibit which is all three pages together,
9 all three pages together."
10 Now, look at document D152, please. Unfortunately, there are no
11 translations. Just purposes of my re-examination, assume that the last
12 page there, 02075706, are medical notes of some sort. Okay? All right?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Make that assumption. And assume that the other documents relate
15 to interrogations?
16 MR. JONES: May I -- I really think this is going to be argument.
17 I don't see that there's anything which Mr. Di Fazio is actually seeking
18 from this witness. He's seeking to make a point about whether this is one
19 document or not. And the point is we received these pages as documents,
20 as single documents, and that's clear from the CD, the Sokolac CD. This
21 is one document. Mr. Di Fazio is trying to make an argument through
22 Ms. Manas that it's not one document because there are different
23 signatures or they concern different matters. Firstly it's not something
24 she can really help, with and secondly it's contradicted by the index we
25 received to the collection.
1 JUDGE AGIUS: Point taken, Mr. Jones. On the other hand, I
2 haven't heard the question as yet.
3 MR. JONES: I'm anticipating.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: And don't forget, of course, what the Defence
5 position is that was put to this witness, not in discussion, it was
6 actually put to this witness on two occasions, two separate occasions.
7 The point I was putting to Ms. Manas is the last page has simply been torn
8 off and discarded, while relying on the other two pages as reliable
9 documentary evidence. You see, the last page, the last page of D152 is
10 Ilijaz Pilav's document and the Defence are saying: Well, look, that's
11 the one that Ilijaz Pilav says is unreliable. What the Defence is going
12 to selectively take that one out of this one document and use the other
13 two. Now, if this is not one document, then that argument falls flat on
14 its face.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: In other words, he's saying you are two of a kind,
16 the Prosecution and Defence.
17 MR. JONES: I think there again there was a mistake when he
18 said -- we weren't saying that the Defence have torn off the last page, we
19 were saying that the Prosecution have torn --
20 JUDGE AGIUS: This is why I'm saying that Mr. Di Fazio is pointing
21 out that you are two of a kind.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: It's a bad morning for me. I apologise. But I
23 think my point is clear and that's the reason why I want to ask this
25 JUDGE AGIUS: It was clear before you even said it, Mr. Di Fazio.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure the pagination between the English and
13 French transcripts correspond
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
2 Q. So you've heard the exchange now, Ms. Manas. Assuming that
3 documents were authored at different times by different people under
4 different circumstances and for different purposes, is there any reason to
5 treat these as one document, simply because they have sequential ERN
7 A. No.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. We choose the one that is relevant to the particular investigation
10 that follows.
11 Q. Fine. Thank you. I've finished with those documents. Now, if
12 the witness could be shown the last document that I want to ask about,
13 which is D156.
14 This was a document also produced to you by the Defence. Can you
15 turn to the last page. Have you got the last page? Number of signatures
16 there, and you can see in two columns. You were asked about whether or
17 not there was an investigation into -- no. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase
19 You were shown this document and it was compared to another
20 similar document, very, very similar document, the same form, type of
21 form, in fact, that has been produced in evidence by the Prosecution. And
22 you were then taken to the statement of a Mr. Ramo Hodzic, who says his
23 signature is not on this document, on D156. Okay? And in essence, you
24 were asked: If Mr. Ramo Hodzic says that's not my signature on D156, and
25 this is exactly the same type of document as the other Prosecution
1 exhibit, shouldn't that have resulted in an investigation? That's
2 essentially the point, I think in fairness, that the Defence were making.
3 Look at the signatures. Look at them, the handwritten signatures. Do
4 they appear to be similar to you?
5 A. Yeah. They look similar to me.
6 Q. Speaking as an investigator, if this is an attempt at forgery,
7 would you describe it as a fairly brazen, fairly obvious attempt?
8 A. It's blatantly obvious, it looks very similar to me.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further questions.
10 JUDGE AGIUS: No questions from you, I hope, which basically means
11 that Ms. Manas's evidence comes to an end here.
12 Mr. Jones, you will be telling us which documents you will be
14 MR. JONES: Yes.
15 JUDGE AGIUS: When Ms. Manas leaves.
16 MR. JONES: Yes.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Yes. Judge Brydensholt, do you have any
18 questions? Judge Eser, do you have any questions?
19 Questioned by the Court:
20 JUDGE ESER: Ms. Manas, I would like to bring you back to the
21 question with regard to instructions given by the Prosecution counsels.
22 Now, at the beginning of this morning, you have been asked by Mr. Di Fazio
23 in the course of undertaking that, will you receive, especially when a
24 matter is now under way in trial, or in the period of time leading up to
25 the trial, will investigators - that was the question - "will
1 investigators receive directions from counsel involved in the case as to
2 what inquiries they should pursue and those which should not be pursued?"
3 And you answered: "Yes, definitely."
4 Now, what did you mean by this? Did you get instructions to take
5 inquiries, instructions by the Prosecution to take inquiries in a certain
6 direction and not to pursue other directions?
7 A. Your Honour, usually the investigator makes proposal to the
8 Prosecutor and the Prosecutor will decide whether there's a need to pursue
9 the direction or not, under the Prosecutor's guidance, the investigator
10 continues with the investigation or inquiries.
11 JUDGE ESER: And if you get instructions in this or that
12 direction, are you given a reason either to pursue this direction and not
13 the other one?
14 A. Your Honour, I wasn't there during those meetings, so I don't know
15 what the Prosecutor informed the investigator concerned or investigators
16 concerned then.
17 JUDGE ESER: Thank you. Another question with regard to the
18 character of documents. You have been shown document D154 or 152. Now,
19 you had a discussion between the Prosecutor and the Defence with regard to
20 the character of documents. Now, judging from my own German experience,
21 we would distinguish between single document and so-called compiled
22 documents, and each page can be one document. And we would talk of a
23 compiled document only if there is some inner cohesion between different
24 pages. Now, if you take this document 152, where you had a medical test
25 by Dr. Pilav and some other documents, would you consider them as a
1 coherent document, a compiled document, which has some cohesion in itself,
2 or would you think these are different single documents?
3 A. Your Honour, during the time of the investigation if those
4 documents came into my possession which is relevant to the statement I
5 have taken came maybe in that case, it would have been the medical
6 certificate. So that's the one I will take into evidence immediately, and
7 maybe later on if other things come to my attention, then I will use the
8 other documents.
9 JUDGE ESER: Now, my question is: Would you consider it as one
10 document? So if you number certain pages, let's say lever pages, is there
11 some sort of investigation whether these pages belong together by some
12 reason, or is it more accidental, the sequence in which pages are put
13 together, given one number or sequence of numbers.
14 MR. JONES: Your Honour, may I, just before the witness answers, I
15 just think in fairness to the witness and in order to get a clear answer,
16 her attention has been drawn to the fact that there are differences in
17 that Dr. Pilav assigned one page, one is a medical report, the other
18 document is dealing with something else. They all concern Kostadin
19 Popovic. I think if her attention isn't drawn to the fact that these
20 documents have the inner cohesion, that they concern the same person, then
21 she may give an answer which overlooks that fact. So in answering that
22 question, I'd ask her to pay attention to that.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Ms. Manas.
24 THE WITNESS: As Defence counsel pointed of course if I know the
25 exact contents of all those documents and if it involves -- if it's
1 related to this investigation, I would include all the documents and later
2 on decide which documents I want to use or not.
3 JUDGE ESER: Okay.
4 JUDGE AGIUS: All right. That's it. Ms. Manas, I thank you. I
5 strongly suspect that we will see you again. And I wish to thank you for
6 having given a lot of attention to the information that we needed from
7 you. You will be escorted now and should we need -- we require you any
8 further later on, as we probably will, we will ask you again to attend and
9 proceed with fresh evidence.
10 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours.
11 [The witness withdrew]
12 JUDGE AGIUS: So now I think the ball is in your hands, Mr. Jones.
13 Just give us a little bit of time to get -- Mr. Siller, the statement of
14 Ms. Racine Manas and the spreadsheet, we gave it a number yesterday.
15 Somehow I do not have it.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, it's P466.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.
18 Mr. Jones, will you be doing this orally or have you prepared --
19 MR. JONES: I will do it orally for the moment. I think I can
20 take it quite shortly in that exhibits from P271 onwards have been
21 tendered by Ms. Manas. I can state which ones we don't object to and then
22 we are objecting for the time being to all the others. I proposed
23 yesterday to perhaps explain as for the first set of documents or exhibits
24 which were tendered on the last occasion, how my cross-examination of
25 Ms. Manas provided the basis for a number of our objections. Having
1 looked again at that yesterday, I don't know if that's really a fruitful
2 exercise because then there still would be other documents which we object
3 to for other reasons and it seems that actually in the fullness of time a
4 written submission on document and on our position for each one would be
5 more thorough and much more helpful. So that's why I propose just to say
6 which ones we don't object to.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: That's why I put the question in the first place.
8 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. Let's proceed.
10 MR. JONES: Okay. We do not object to P271 to P290. These are
11 all-inclusive, obviously. We don't object to P296.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. In the first batch between 271 and 290,
13 there is also a P25. That's bottom of page 2 of the list.
14 MR. JONES: Yes. Our position on P25 remains what it was on the
15 last -- actually, my apologies. Let me just check. Yes. We aren't
16 objecting to P25.
17 JUDGE AGIUS: Right. Okay. So we have arrived at P290.
18 MR. JONES: Yes. We don't object to P296. We don't object to
19 P298, P299, sorry, and P300. We do not object to P298, P299, or P300. We
20 do not object to P316 to P329.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: To 3 --? 316 to 329.
22 MR. JONES: That's right.
23 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. Uh-huh.
24 MR. JONES: We do not object to P354, P355, P356, and P360. We do
25 not object to P418 either. I see that's the next in the -- slightly out
1 of sequence. We don't object to P367, P374 --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: P367 has not been tendered by the Prosecution,
3 because it was already admitted during the testimony of Mr. Gow.
4 MR. JONES: That's correct. My apologies. And in fact -- sorry.
5 Let me withdraw that for P374. We do object to that for the time being.
6 JUDGE AGIUS: 374 you don't object to; no?
7 MR. JONES: In fact, it was a question of whether the map has
8 words on it, as with the map of the Jezestica attack. That's something we
9 need to check. If it doesn't have the words on it, then we don't object.
10 If it does, then we do.
11 P380 to P381 we don't object to.
12 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment. They are 380 and 381.
13 MR. JONES: Yes. We don't object to.
14 JUDGE AGIUS: They are on page 17, Judge. Page 17.
15 MR. JONES: And also P382, we accept.
16 And for the time being, our position is that we do object to the
17 rest of the exhibits. So in due course, as I say, that is subject to a
18 written submission, our position on the various exhibits.
19 JUDGE AGIUS: All right.
20 MR. JONES: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Is there anything else? Mr. Wubben?
22 MR. WUBBEN: Yes, Your Honour. A different issue is that we
23 announced the filing of a motion regarding expert statements.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.
25 MR. WUBBEN: 94 bis, and I have here the Court's copies for the
1 Trial Chamber and Defence counsel. May I ask --
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Thank you.
3 Mr. Jones or Ms. Vidovic, since you were more or less alerted in
4 this advance to this, did you have a position? He will be coming -- he
5 will be produced in any case, as I understand it; no?
6 MR. WUBBEN: Yes.
7 JUDGE AGIUS: So he is coming over in any case.
8 MR. JONES: We do need some time to review --
9 JUDGE AGIUS: No, no. I was just inquiring whether you are in a
10 position here and now to get -- it's okay.
11 MR. JONES: In that regard, can I just mention that we haven't --
12 we still haven't received the Zvornik court file relating to the autopsy
13 of Kostadin Popovic carried out by Dr. Stankovic. We received the
14 photographs and the minutes of the autopsy, and in fact we're a bit
15 displeased that we didn't receive the photographs in time for our
16 cross-examination of Nikola Popovic who gave evidence identifying his
17 father, and we certainly would have found it helpful to show him the
18 photographs to show what we say was a doubtful identification. But be
19 that as it may, we still await the Zvornik file. That's relevant to
20 Dr. Stankovic.
21 JUDGE AGIUS: As I see it, he is not amongst the witnesses that
22 will be called between now and the end of the month.
23 MR. WUBBEN: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE AGIUS: Yeah. But if in the meantime you can speed up your
25 reply, I think you will make our life easier.
1 MR. JONES: Certainly, Your Honour, yes. We'll do our best.
2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thanks. So as I said yesterday, we will not be
3 sitting tomorrow because of our visit to the palace in Amsterdam to
4 exchange greetings with Her Majesty, the Queen of the Netherlands, and we
5 will start with the testimony of the next witness, Mr. Radic, on Thursday
6 morning at 9.00. I think Courtroom I or in this courtroom. I do not -- I
7 can't remember. All right? Thank you.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 9.46 a.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 13th day of
10 January, 2005, at 9.00 a.m.